Take the NIV Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Jephunneh
I do not worship the KJV; we worship the Lord God. Nonetheless, I do have a high regard for the word of the Lord even as the Lord Himself does. In Psalm 138:2 the Bible says: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." I do not think one could draw from this that God worships His word, but He does honor it above His own name. Even modern versions, such as the RSV, which change this passage recognize that the Hebrew reads just as it is translated in the KJV (see RSV footnote). Again, because of the honor and respect the Lord gives to His word, this is an issue of preservation.

You keep leaping from high regard for God's word to some idea of utterly perfect preservation of every nuance; there is no support for this. It's a man-made doctrine found nowhere in the Bible, and which I have found no evidence for predating the 1700's or so; certainly, when the KJV was produced, no one believed this.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusong

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,593
99
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟2,328.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Hi Jep,

          I want to clarify your previous statements.

But we must have the preserved word of God without error TODAY if we are to believe in Biblical preservation.

You believe that the KJV is the currently preserved word of God today?

"Where was it before 1611?" That I do not know.

 Out of all of the Bibles that were in circulation before the KJV, you don't know which one was the preserved word of God? If you can't tell, then how were the people living at that time able to tell? And, when the KJV came out, how were the people to know that the mantle of preservation fell on that Bible version, and if the mantle of preservation did fall on the KJV, did that nullify the status of preservation that was on whatever Bible version that was currently used at the time?
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Jephunneh
Why are you so "worried" about where the Bible "was"?

God is interested in YOU and me NOW and what we do with His words.

Because I want to know what His words are, not what words well-meaning translators have added and changed.
 
Upvote 0

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Traditional Text Line of the KJV

5210MSS. +-

Antioch

Apostles

Original N. T. MSS. 30-90AD

Syrian MSS. (Pe****ta) 100-200AD

Old Latin & Syriac of Originals 100-200AD

Papyri MSS. (85%=Trad. Text) 150-400AD

Uncial & Cursive MSS. (99% Trad Text) 150-1500AD

Latin Bibles (Waldensians Ect) 1100AD-1300AD

Erasmus Greek N.T. 1522AD

Martin Luther Bible 1522AD-1534AD (German)

Tyndales N.T. 1525AD
Coverdale Bible 1535AD
Matthews Bible 1537AD
Great Bible1539AD
(English)

Stephens Greek N.T. 1550AD

Geneva Bible 1560AD
Bishops Bible 1568AD
(English)

Bezas Greek N.T. 1598AD

KING JAMES BIBLE 1611 AD
 
Upvote 0

Jesusong

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,593
99
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟2,328.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Tyndales N.T. 1525AD
Coverdale Bible 1535AD
Matthews Bible 1537AD
Great Bible1539AD

Geneva Bible 1560AD
Bishops Bible 1568AD

So from the list that you gave me, am I supposed to believe that all these English Bibles were the perfectly preserved word of God?

Erasmus Greek N.T. 1522AD

Stephens Greek N.T. 1550AD

Bezas Greek N.T. 1598AD

From these Greek texts, which are various editions of the Textus Receptus, which one was the perfectly preserved word of God, seeing that they were all different? And remember what you always say, "Things that are different are not the same."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Jephunneh
These are examples of verses added by fallible humans to the KJV.

KJV ADDED VERSES (P = partially added).

Matt. 6:13 (p); 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28;
Luke 4:4 (p); 4:8 (p); 17:36; 23:17;
John 5:4;
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;
Rom. 8:1 (p); 16:24;
1 Jn. 5:7

Wow, it only takes a couple of edits to make your statement true!
 
Upvote 0

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Look in the NIV and it says that there was no Calvary!




If you read and believe in the NIV, you must call Calvary a mythical place. Calvary has been DELETED from the NIV. It is found once in the King James Bible:

KJV- Luke 23:33, And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

What doth the NIV say?

NIV-Luke 23:33 When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left.


Every word of God is important.
 
Upvote 0

kern

Miserere Nobis
Apr 14, 2002
2,171
7
43
Florida, USA
Visit site
✟3,249.00
Faith
Catholic
OK, your posts are descending into complete absurdity.

Calvary is derived from "calvaria", which was a translation of the Hebrew word transliterated as "Golgotha", which means Skull.

Nothing was "deleted" here. There actually is no place called "Calvary" (how could there be? "Calvary" is an English adaptation of a Latin word! You think a place in B.C. Israel was named after a Latin word?)

Are you ever going to address anything posted in response, or are you just going to keep copying and pasting?

-Chris
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
I believe that in your zeal to defend the modern versions, you are not interested in the facts of the matter, at least not at this point. Perhaps one day a brother or sister will show you something that will blow your mind like how the NIV calls Satan Jesus in Isaiah or how Mark 1:2-3 in the NIV is wrong or how the NIV strips away some of the most important verses concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ . But then again, that would require that you listen.
 
Upvote 0

kern

Miserere Nobis
Apr 14, 2002
2,171
7
43
Florida, USA
Visit site
✟3,249.00
Faith
Catholic
So go ahead, Jep, find any Greek manuscript that has "Calvary" instead of "Golgotha".

But wait, they're both the same thing! One is a translation of the other! So why does this matter at all?

Gee, I suppose the KJV is flawed because they DELETED "apocalypsos" and replaced it with "revelation"?

-Chris
 
Upvote 0

kern

Miserere Nobis
Apr 14, 2002
2,171
7
43
Florida, USA
Visit site
✟3,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Originally posted by Jephunneh
Perhaps one day a brother or sister will show you something that will blow your mind like how the NIV calls Satan Jesus in Isaiah

Already been addressed. "Lucifer" means "Morning Star", and the KJV translators themselves put a footnote in that said "or daystarre".


NIV strips away some of the most important verses concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ . But then again, that would require that you listen.

Rather, the KJV used manuscripts which had added these verses to the original texts.

I listen just fine, thank you, but I don't believe in unsupported claims by fringe Christian groups.

You still haven't answered the basic question I've posed numerous times on both threads -- how do you know the KJV (only) was inspired by God? Did men teach you this?

-Chris
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Why is it that the word "sodomite" is not in the NIV?

THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

THE NIV
Deuteronomy 23:17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.



THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

THE NIV
1 Kings 14:24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.


THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION

1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

THE NIV
1 Kings 15:12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.


THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION

1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

THE NIV
1 Kings 22:46 He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.




THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

THE NIV
2 Kings 23:7 He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.


Is every word of God important, to God, to YOU?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.