• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The New Internation Version (NIV) Bible completely removes the word "Godhead"

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by Proverb2717, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    The one verse I cited Ezekiel 13:20 the NIV uses the term birds , hello the manuscripts say nothing about birds it is completely made up to change the text and therefore Gods warning . If you think that is not a problem that the word of God is changed specifically a dire warning then you might as well take the mark f the beast now .

    The only place the bible tells you to study in 2Timothy 2:15 the NIV omits it . I provided a link to show the changes , but if you are fine with that and other changes and want to listen to the Kenite Tares doing Satans work good luck with that.

    I Have done all God has asked of me by blowing the trumpet and warning you all , your blood will be on yor own heads if you do not heed the warning .
     
  2. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    That sentence alone discredits anything you have to say.
     
  3. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    Really so you say repeating Gods word and doing as God asks discredits me , the fact your to blind to see the discrepancies means one of two things . You are either stiff necked or You have been sent strong delusion that you will believe a lie because you recieve not the love of the truth.
     
  4. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    +1,745
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Your KJV doesn't. That doesn't mean it is correct and the rest are wrong. In fact, the NASB, ESV, ASV and Holman, among others -- all very good literal translations -- use the English word "birds" for the Hebrew parach. It means "fly" in its normal usage. However, in the phrase tsood nephesh sham parach, it takes on the meaning of ensnarement just as the bird takes flight. That comes from the meaning of parach as a bud, or sprout, springing up from the ground. It was an ancient Hebrew idiom, and for it to make sense in English, some license had to be taken with the phrase. Otherwise it would have been talking about snare a sprout or a bud from a plant. No way anyone could decipher that. The KJV translators didn't know anything about idioms so as to make the necessary changes.
     
  5. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    Yes it does take on the term ensnarement as in a trap by Satan to ensnare the souls of good Christians with the lie of the rapture doctrine , this is Gods warning and if you don't see this I don't know what else I can do to show you the truth .
     
  6. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    It is you who has been sent a strong delusion if you believe you have been ordained God's prophet sent to warn us that if we use anything but the KJV we will be punished.
     
  7. lamikin

    lamikin Newbie

    144
    +0
    Baptist
    Married
    The Introduction to Nestle's Greek New Testament, Novum Testamentum Graece, cites the use of Aleph & B as the basis for its text saying"....the precedence of the Vaticanus will be justified."
    (Religious Thought in the West., pp. 2, 7, 12.)

    There are critics that don't agree with this. Dean John Burgon was more than able to comment on the subject since he had done extensive hand collation of major uncials, Aleph and B. included. This is what he had to say:

    "What does astonish us, however is to find learned men...freely resuscitating these long-since forgotten critics [Aleph & B] and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and careless age, as so many new revelations...t is sometimes entertaining to trace the history of a mistake which, dating from the second or third century, has remained without patron all down the subsequent ages until at last it has been taken up in our own times...palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the genuine work of the Holy Ghost. What...of those blind guides...who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the church had already purged herself." (The Revision Revised, pp. 94, 151, 334-335)

    Dr. Wilber Pickering says about Aleph & B:

    "To judge by the circumstances that codices like Aleph and B were not copied, to speak of, that the church by and large rejected their form of text, it seems they were not respected in their day...If readings...died out in the fourth or fifth century we have the verdict of history against it...They [Aleph & B] are remnants of the abnormal transmission of the text reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is dependecny upon such forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the NT...Their respectability quotient hovers near zero...In particular, I fail to see how anyone can read Hoskier's Codex B and its Allies with attention and still retain respect for Aleph & B as witnesses to the New Testament...The modern critical and eclectic texts are based precisely on B and Aleph and other early manuscripts...They have been found wanting...The result will be the complete overthrow of the type of text currently in vogue. (Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text [Nashville; Thomas Nelson Publishing Co., 1980], pp. 120, 136, 145, and back cover)

    Dr. Herman C. Hoskier's extensive collation of Vaticanus (B), unsurpassed to this day, leads him to conclude that the new version editors are guilty of an "...incomplete examination of documentary evidence...[working] without due regard to scientific foundation. He says:

    "My thesis is then that B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) and their forerunners, with Origen who revised the Anitoch text [KJV], are Egyptian revisions current between A.D. 200-400 and abandoned between 500 and 1881, merely revived in our day... (Which Bible, pp. 134-143)

    Harvard and Princeton textual scholar, Dr. Edward Hill says:

    "Old corrupt manuscripts, which had been discarded by the God-guided usage of the believing church were brought out of their hiding place and re-instated...and today thousands of Bible-believing Christians are falling into this devils trap through their use of modern speech versions." (Edwrad Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines Iowa: The Christian Research Press, 1973).

    "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used. They did not endure the repetitious unrolling and rolling back up, the assault of sweaty hands and humid breath, the violence of tears and bends that come from constant use. Simply put, these exemplar manuscripts may have simply sat upon a shelf for most of their long lifetime. The next question becomes then: "Why?" The answer, logically, is that they were probably rejected from use by early Christians who understood them to be flawed, and refrained from relying upon them. Exactly this argument is presented by textual scholars including Van Bruggen.(See J. Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, pp. 26-27).


    It may surprise you to know that B differs with Sinaiticus Aleph according to the 500 page study by Hoskier which detailed and discussed the errors in Codex B and another 400 on the idiosyncrasies of Codex Aleph, Sinaiticus Aleph and Vaticanus B were found to differ from each other in the Gospels alone 3,036 times-not including minor errors such as spelling or synonym departures. (Which Version Is The Bible: Copyright 1989-1999, Floyd Nolen Jones, Floyd Nolen Jones Ministires, Inc.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2012
  8. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    Where did I ever claim to be a prophet ? Citing bible verses and pointing out the bad translations purposely placed in newer bibles to mislead the children of God is only being a good Christian . The fact you persist to see no problem with this, with all the posts going back and forth where I have only spoken the truth showing thru scripture what happens when one changes the word of God ,I would think one would be able to make an informed view that the newer bibles are in direct conflict with Gods warning in revelation 22.
     
  9. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    So you are a KJVer, is that correct?

    Oz

     
  10. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    So which Greek text did John Wycliffe and Augustine of Hippo use?

    Oz
     
  11. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    This is where you come off trying to sound like a prophet telling us we will be punished (perhaps even doomed) for reading anything but the KJV. Again, the warning you refer to in Revelation is referring to Revelation NOT the entire Bible as the entire Bible is not prophesy.
     
  12. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    +1,745
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    I see. Thank you for revealing yourself to me so I can make intelligent decisions regarding responding to your posts. God bless, and may the Lord reveal His truth to you.
     
  13. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    Again you are putting words in my mouth, where did I ever say you were doomed ? Really did you not read my post earlier ? Jehokim had his name removed from the book of life for cutting up the prophecy of Jerimiah and this is why in Mathew 1:11 Josias is listed as the father of Jeconnias when in reality His father was the last King of Judah , Jehoiakim . He changed Gods word and for this his name was taken away from the bible just as God promised in revelation 22:19

    If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear understands this .
     
  14. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    Your welcome and may God bless and keep you safe in these troubling times ahead . God has very much sent his holy spirit to guide me in his word and discernment of the times we are in , prophecy is unfolding at brake neck speed in the middle east .
     
  15. cow451

    cow451 Individual-2 Supporter

    +10,882
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    My Holy Ghost can whip your Holy Ghost.:liturgy:
     
  16. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Revelation 22:18-19 states:
    It speaks of “the book of this prophecy”. Which prophecy? The Book of Revelation.

    We know this because the Book of Revelation was a prophecy given by “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4). What was to be done with this prophetic Book of Revelation when it was first written?

    So this Book of Revelation (not the entire NT) – only this one book – was sent to the 7 churches of Asia [we now know that these churches are in what we call Asia Minor]. So, what was written in Rev. 22:19, if it were to have any meaning to the people in the 7 churches of Asia Minor COULD NOT have been referring to the entire Bible as it is one book, the Book of Revelation, that was in “the words of the prophecy of this book” and “in a book” and this one book was sent to these churches.

    It would have been strange to have the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 to apply to the whole of the OT and the NT for the “seven churches” of Asia Minor when only one book was sent to them to hear.

    Therefore, the only meaning of this warning is to the prophecy of the Book of Revelation. The seven churches of Asia would know that, but you in the 21st century want to change that to give it a meaning that was not possible for the churches of Asia Minor to have understood. The warning was to anyone who took away from the prophecy of this one book, the Book of Revelation. It was only one book that was sent to the 7 churches - and that was NOT the entire Bible or the entire NT.

    Why don’t you understand the intent of the writing of this book that had only one meaning to the people who first read it in Asia – they had only one book, the Book of Revelation, and the warning against adding to the prophecy of this book could have only one meaning to them? It referred ONLY to the one book they heard or read in Asia – the Book of Revelation.

    Oz
     
  17. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    You're right Oz. But give it up. He's so firmly implanted in the KJVO movement that he can't hear the truth.
     
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    I agree that my exposition will have no impact on this KJV-only supporter who wants Rev. 22:19 to apply to the entire Bible. However, there are people who read this who need the biblical evidence to oppose such teaching.

    There is a person in this thread from Kazakhstan.What meaning has this KJV-only position to him? I have SIL translator friends who are translating the Bible into the Buru language of East Timor. What on earth would a KJV-only position mean to them?

    Some people don't seem to understand that the Bible was written one book at a time. The other writers did not have the entire NT before them as they wrote. It is only rational to understand that what was written in this one Book of Revelation in Rev. 22:18-19 could only apply to that one book. But is that being unbiblical for me, an evangelical, to talk of a rational understanding of a book of the Bible?

    Thanks so much for exposing the errors of some of these views. I sincerely appreciate your posts on this forum. You are a breath of fresh air in biblical content on this forum.

    Oz
     
  19. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    Matthew 1:11
    King James Version (KJV)
    11[bless and do not curse]And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

    1 Chronicles 3:15
    King James Version (KJV)
    15[bless and do not curse]And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.

    1 Chronicles 3:16
    King James Version (KJV)
    16[bless and do not curse]And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

    Jeremiah 36:23
    King James Version (KJV)
    23[bless and do not curse]And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
    "he cut is Jehoiakim "
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2012
  20. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Do you notice what you did? You did not refute the content of what I wrote. You go off at your unrelated tangent to what you want to say and you DID NOT deal with the content of my post to you.

    Oz
     
Loading...