God is not the author of confusion. New bible versions are not from God.

[BelCantoBaptist]

Sorry.
God is Almighty and that is irrefutable proof that the KJB is without error.

You first 2 attempts were completely refuted.

So what you're saying is that you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and say that you win.

A

cts 12:4 is correct in the KJB.

Since it was the days of unleavened bread, Passover had already passed so Herod would have to have waited almost a whole year until the next Passover.
So it could not have been Passover in Acts 12:4

Easter is correct and all other bibles have an error.

Acts 12:3-4
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

No. Easter is not correct. The word in the manuscript is not Easter. Shall I prove this to you or will you still ignore it and claim you win?

Printer errors and spelling changes can hardly count.

It's far more than printer errors and spelling changes.

And the OP is about answering simple questions about scripture.

Don't you know what the word of God says?

Yup. and I love the Bible enough to not want an Uthamanic-style Bible.

Or are you confused as the supposed scholars?

You are the one confused brother

Can you answer the 31 simple questions about scripture in the root post of this thread?

If you answer with the KJB, you prove my point.
If you answer without the KJB, you prove my point.
And if you do not answer, you prove my point.

Sure why not!
ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπε δὲ αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

ἡ δὲ εἶπεν· Οὐδείς, Κύριε. εἶπε δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

ἡ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐδείς κύριε εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε


εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ.


εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ


Can you read that and give me possible variants please?

 

[Tomyris]

Can you answer the 31 simple questions about scripture in the OP?

Yes I can, and I have.

But I am not going to tell YOU any more.

 

[Hentenza]

I will propose that the verses listed in the OP are in the KJV in error simply because Erasmus did not consult any MSS earlier than the 12th century, consequently, the writers of the KJV, which used the 1598 version of the TR, could not have known that some verses that they included in the KJV were not present in the earlier extant MSS. If Erasmus would have consulted earlier MSS then some of the verses in the OP would not have been included in the KJV.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

So what you're saying is that you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and say that you win.

A


No. Easter is not correct. The word in the manuscript is not Easter. Shall I prove this to you or will you still ignore it and claim you win?




It's far more than printer errors and spelling changes.



Yup. and I love the Bible enough to not want an Uthamanic-style Bible.



You are the one confused brother




Sure why not!
ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπε δὲ αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

ἡ δὲ εἶπεν· Οὐδείς, Κύριε. εἶπε δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

ἡ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐδείς κύριε εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε


εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ.


εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ


Can you read that and give me possible variants please?

You do not have the originals so how can you prove in Easter is wrong in the KJB for Acts 12:4

Please acknowledge that you do not have the originals

God produced His word in English


And it must be Easter in Acts 12:4
Passover had already passed as seen from verse 3


So you cannot even answer simple questions about scripture

You are in confusion like the so called scholars

You have proven my statements in the OP

 

[Tomyris]

I will propose that the verses listed in the OP are in the KJV in error simply because Erasmus did not consult any MSS earlier than the 12th century, consequently, the writers of the KJV, which used the 1598 version of the TR, could not have known that some verses that they included in the KJV were not present in the earlier extant MSS. If Erasmus would have consulted earlier MSS then some of the verses in the OP would not have been included in the KJV.

No, the situation is more complex than that.

 

[Hentenza]

No, the situation is more complex than that.

How so?

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

You do not have the originals so how can you prove in Easter is wrong in the KJB for Acts 12:4

Please acknowledge that you do not have the originals

God produced His word in English

"originials"? What on Earth are you talking about? We have over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. God inspired the Bible in Koine Greek and Hebrew.

And it must be Easter in Acts 12:4
Passover had already passed as seen from verse 3

&#960;&#940;&#963;&#967;&#945; <- That's the word used. Pascha means Passover. Not Easter.

So you cannot even answer simple questions about scripture

You are in confusion like the so called scholars

You have proven my statements in the OP

[


I can actually you're just preferring to be obstinate in an untenable position lacking in history, scholarship, and even the Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

You do not have the originals so how can you prove in Easter is wrong in the KJB for Acts 12:4

Please acknowledge that you do not have the originals

God produced His word in English


And it must be Easter in Acts 12:4
Passover had already passed as seen from verse 3


So you cannot even answer simple questions about scripture

You are in confusion like the so called scholars

You have proven my statements in the OP

No he hasn't. You have disproven your own theory because you say we don't have the originals.

What we have is what the KJV translators used. So either sit down, shut up, and acknowledge something that you are wrong, or PROVE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T PROVE IF THE SKY IS BLUE WITH THAT KIND OF LOGIC!

 

[sculleywr]

It is hardly a straw man at all.
It is an irrefutable argument.

God is Almighty.

And I just made the observation that you reason as if God is not Almighty.

So you are going to have to prove an actual error. And I will always remind you you that God is Almighty when you falter. Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God, who is Almighty, then scripture can be without error even in a translation. See Acts 2 for the ability of the Holy Spirit to translate.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your attempt to waive aside that God is Almighty has been refuted.

Now you did try for 2 gnats against the camel of many serious errors in almost all new versions.

But do you have even a gnat?

There is no grammatical error in Isaiah 6:2. Here it is in the KJB and no grammar error there.

Isaiah 6:2
Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

As to Jeremiah 34:16, so Oxford's KJV has an error.

But the Authorized King James Bible is at Cambridge and they have it with our error. That hardly counts as an error for the Authorized King James Bible.


So 2 tries at a gnat and nothing.


Since you seem to have some knowledge of scripture, can you answer the 31 simple questions about scripture in the root post of this thread?

If you answer with the KJB, you prove my point.
If you answer without the KJB, you prove my point.
And if you do not answer, you prove my point.

You don't believe God is Almighty. You believe God is limited to the KJV in the English speaking world. No almighty God is limited to a single translation of His word.

You go ahead and try to shove God in a box. It won't work.

Here's a little song shamelessly ripped and edited from the Veggietales:

God is bigger than the KJV!
He's bigger than the English in an old outdated book!
Oh God is bigger than the KJV!
And He's watching out for you and me!

My God, however, is One Who Works wonders! My God is the God Who can inspire and work in ANY translation He wishes because He isn't limited to mankind's translating abilities.

 

[Tomyris]

How so?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7816206/

 

[Hentenza]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7816206/

In the post that you cited you are speaking mainly about differences in translation from the Greek. This is common simply because word meaning can vary based on the historical context. Veryly, verily translated as amen, amen or I'm telling you the truth is not problematic.

However, what I am referring in my post is the actual verse selection based on the extant mss. There are variations between them and only in the last century or two have new discoveries been made that have expanded the selection considerably. In Erasmus case, he only worked with five and primarily only used two, none of which was dated before the 12th century. There is no way that he would have known about the verses that did not appear in manuscripts dated earlier than the 12th century so the case is much simpler. The KJV does contains verses that were not present in the earlier extant mss.

 

[Shocker]

What about Bibles that are translated in German? Spanish?

Are they not the word of God because they aren't the KJV?

 

[sculleywr]

What about Bibles that are translated in German? Spanish? Are they not the word of God because they aren't the KJV?

If they don't use the KJV, according to him, they aren't scripture. Which means that no scripture is scripture.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

If they don't use the KJV, according to him, they aren't scripture. Which means that no scripture is scripture.

I never said that at all.

In fact, I have addressed this in other posts.

The originals were without error.
All faithful copies were without error.
All faithful translations are without error.

The King James Bible is the word of God in English.
The new versions have a significant number of significant errors because they made the mistake of relying in some manner on a few corrupt manuscripts, especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

What about Bibles that are translated in German? Spanish?

Are they not the word of God because they aren't the KJV?

I never said that at all.

In fact, I have addressed this in other posts.

The originals were without error.
All faithful copies were without error.
All faithful translations are without error.

The King James Bible is the word of God in English.
The new versions have a significant number of significant errors because they made the mistake of relying in some manner on a few corrupt manuscripts, especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

I only know English and therefore can not speak about any particular translations.

But if a translation relies on any of the few corrupt manuscripts, especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then it has errors.

 

[Shocker]

I never said that at all.

In fact, I have addressed this in other posts.

The originals were without error.
All faithful copies were without error.
All faithful translations are without error.

The King James Bible is the word of God in English.
The new versions have a significant number of significant errors because they made the mistake of relying in some manner on a few corrupt manuscripts, especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

I only know English and therefore can not speak about any particular translations.

But if a translation relies on any of the few corrupt manuscripts, especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then it has errors.

Which critical apparatus do you contrast with the KJV?

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

"originials"? What on Earth are you talking about? We have over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. God inspired the Bible in Koine Greek and Hebrew.







&#960;&#940;&#963;&#967;&#945; <- That's the word used. Pascha means Passover. Not Easter.


[


I can actually you're just preferring to be obstinate in an untenable position lacking in history, scholarship, and even the Bible.

You do not have the originals.
Please acknowledge that simple and undeniable fact.



From the passage itself, it cannot be Passover as Passpver had already passed and Herod would have had to wait almost a whole year to kill Peter. The KJB is correct with Easter in verse 4. All new versions are in error.

Acts 12:3-4
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Can you answer the 31 simple questions about scripture that are the topic of this thread?

So you are as confused as your so called scholars. And new versions are not from God. You have proven my point for this OP.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

So you have not even found a gnat yet in the King James Bible. But you are a promotor of the many new versions which confuse God's word and have many significant errors due to the mistake of relying in some way on a few corrupt manuscripts, especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These errors obscure the deity of Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation.

Here are just some of these changes. Note how the NWT changes the KJB wording and many new versions agree with the NWT against the KJB.

1.
John 6:47 KJB
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

The NWT removes "on me" as do many new versions.

2.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJB
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The NWT removes "God" as do many new versions.

3.
1 Corinthians 15:47 KJB
The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The NWT removes "the Lord" as do many new versions.

4.
Romans 1:16 KJB
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The NWT removes "of Christ" as do many new versions.

5.
Colossians 1:14 KJB
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

The NWT removes "through his blood" as do many new versions.

6.
Revelation 14:6 KJB
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

In the post that you cited you are speaking mainly about differences in translation from the Greek. This is common simply because word meaning can vary based on the historical context. Veryly, verily translated as amen, amen or I'm telling you the truth is not problematic.

However, what I am referring in my post is the actual verse selection based on the extant mss. There are variations between them and only in the last century or two have new discoveries been made that have expanded the selection considerably. In Erasmus case, he only worked with five and primarily only used two, none of which was dated before the 12th century. There is no way that he would have known about the verses that did not appear in manuscripts dated earlier than the 12th century so the case is much simpler. The KJV does contains verses that were not present in the earlier extant mss.

But you do not possess the originals nor even the first copies of the originals.

So your theory and false logic has been refuted forever.

 

[Shocker]

The New World translation is not a translation at all, its a paraphrase from the KJV.


That is a Jehovahs witness bible, why would a Christian use that??

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The New World translation is not a translation at all, its a paraphrase from the KJV.


That is a Jehovahs witness bible, why would a Christian use that??

The NWT comes from the few corrupt manuscripts such as Vaticanus and Sinaitaicus just as almost all the new versions do.

The NWT is from a false cult.

But then why do the new versions agree with the New World Translation is these errors and against the King James Bible?