Can We Trust The NIV ? you judge...

[soulw...@vvm.com]

umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they
used the wrong Greek text. From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek
text used in the work of
translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so
much manuscript support as
does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make
their choice of reading in
accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles
of textual criticism"
should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank
the "unsound textual
critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today. It is clear
that the translators have slavishly
followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all
their claims, this theory elevates the
Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two
manuscripts are among the most
corrupt manuscripts in existence today. They did not rely on the Textus
Receptus which the KJV was
translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in
essential agreement with this text.

To prove the above statement we have checked on 151 key corruptions found in
the Westcott-Hort text
and we have found that NIV either in the text or in the footnotes have
agreed 138 times or over
91% of the time. Out of 162 scriptures often corrupted by the new versions
we find Westcott-Hort in
agreement 93% of the time, and NIV in agreement 92% of the time. On the same
basis the New English
Version rates 92% and the Revised Standard Version 97%. Some highly
recommend the New American
Standard Version, but it also rates over 90% in agreement with these corrupt
versions. The King James
Version and the Textus Receptus rate 0%. The lower the percentage the
better.

We do not doubt that some of the translators labored hard and long to
produce a good version but they
could not do it. Why? They followed modern textual criticism, and we are
convinced that even the most
fundamental scholars cannot come up with a good version of the Bible if they
follow the modern textual
theories. The best carpenter will fail if his lumber is rotten and decayed.
Skill in any trade will go just so
far, but if the craftsman is deceived into working with inferior material he
will fail in the end. No where is
this more evident than in Bible translation.

2. The second reason for NIV's poor quality may be found in the translators
themselves. The
Preface to NIV says, "Certain convictions and aims have guided the
translators. They are all committed to
the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which
they believe to be God's Word in
written form." There is at least two things wrong with this statement. (1)
While it sounds good on the
surface, it is entirely too ambiguous to suit us. It is open to a number of
interpretations, and this we
believe they had to make it that way, in order to make up their 100 member
committee. How much
simpler to have said that all the translators believed in verbal (word for
word) inspiration. I am sure that
part of the committee does believe in verbal inspiration but until they say
so in writing, we are going to
doubt that they all do. (2) Frankly we are not impressed with the long list
of names and the schools that
they are associated with. It is very evident that the "New Evangelical"
schools are heavily represented on
the translation committee. Among others, we find that this committee
contains 6 men from Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, and several from Fuller Wheaton, Dallas, and
even Oral Roberts University.
Why does Oral Roberts University need to be represented? How sad to see
Clyde T. Francisco of
Southern Baptist Theological Seminar represented. In the early 60's Dr.
Ralph Elliott stirred a furor in the
Southern Baptist Convention with his book, "The Message of Genesis." Dr.
Elliott's book denied the
historical accuracy of the first 12 chapters of Genesis. Adam meant mankind
and Moses did not write the
Pentateuch, the tower of Babel is a parable, Enoch was not translated, and
the age of men before the
flood is doubtful, these as well as other heresies are contained in
Elliott's book. And where did Elliott
get his ideas? In his introduction he said, "Though the material in this
book is mine and I do not wish
anyone else to be charged with its deficiencies, I do wish to express my
appreciation to Dr. Clyde T.
Francisco, my teacher and later a colleague on the faculty of Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary,
Louisville, Kentucky. It was in an elective course in the Pentateuch under
his guidance that I first gained
inspiration and purpose to attempt a serious study of the Book of Genesis.
Thus, I am sure that many
of the insights which culminated in my own mind were placed there in
seed-bed fashion by him."
To this date we have never heard of Dr. Francisco denying this. Even the
Revised Standard Version
sponsors chose a better man from among Southern Baptist, when they chose
Kyle M. Yates for the
translation committee of the RSV. (3) The translators that even believe in
verbal inspiration must not
believe in the Divine preservation of the word of God, since they are
searching for it among the
manuscripts. What a mess! Surely God is not the author of such confusion.

3. We question this version on the basis of some of its enthusiastic
supporters. Dr. Billy Graham
wrote, "The New York Bible Society is rendering a distinct service to the
English-speaking world by
sponsoring a major new translation of the Bible by the leading evangelical
scholars of America." That
sounds good, but Billy Graham has endorsed the Revised Standard Version,
Good News For Modern
Man, and the Living Bible. So his endorsement is not reassuring. The
National Association of Evangelicals
has been in sympathy with the production of NIV, and many of the translators
are members of this group.
The NAE is shot through and through with new evangelicalism.

One church leader quoted in a NIV promotional brochure said, "I have read
the New International
Version and found that it preserves the dignity of the K.J.V. and the
accuracy of the R.S.V. and
the New American Standard Bible along with the free-flowing readability of
the Living Bible." We
believe he put NIV in the right class. Need we say more?

[Rev. Steve Winter]

<soulw...@vvm.com> spake thusly and wrote:

>umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they
>used the wrong Greek text. From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek
>text used in the work of
>translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so
>much manuscript support as
>does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make
>their choice of reading in
>accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles
>of textual criticism"
>should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank
>the "unsound textual
>critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today. It is clear
>that the translators have slavishly
>followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all
>their claims, this theory elevates the
>Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two
>manuscripts are among the most
>corrupt manuscripts in existence today. They did not rely on the Textus
>Receptus which the KJV was
>translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in
>essential agreement with this text.

I threw my NIVs in the trash years ago. Are you a real Acts 2:38 Christian?

Rev. Steve Winter
--
-={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace sub canine morals.

[Todd]

"Rev. Steve Winter" wrote:
>
> <soulw...@vvm.com> spake thusly and wrote:
>

> >umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they
> >used the wrong Greek text. From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek
> >text used in the work of
> >translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so
> >much manuscript support as
> >does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make
> >their choice of reading in
> >accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles
> >of textual criticism"
> >should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank
> >the "unsound textual
> >critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today. It is clear
> >that the translators have slavishly
> >followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all
> >their claims, this theory elevates the
> >Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two
> >manuscripts are among the most
> >corrupt manuscripts in existence today. They did not rely on the Textus
> >Receptus which the KJV was
> >translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in
> >essential agreement with this text.
>

> I threw my NIVs in the trash years ago. Are you a real Acts 2:38 Christian?
>

I only use the KJV and have for years.

--
Todd--Only a sinner, saved by grace

Proverbs 3:

5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not
unto thine own understanding.

6: In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct
thy paths.

[The DataRat]

"NIV is such a poor translation is because...
'The Greek text used in the work of translation
was an eclectic one.'..."

You got it backwards. The NIV is an excellent
translation ~because~ it is eclectic.

All that means is they compared discrepancies
in the various manuscripts, and -comparing other
factors such as date of origin- weeded out errors.
THIS is why the Bible we have today can be
considered a reliable record of the original writings
( autographa ) ...there are so many diverse
manuscripts extant that we may compare one with
another !

ALL major translations of the Bible have done
this -including the King James.

"Their 'sound principles of textual criticism'
should be labeled 'unsound principles of textual

criticism.'..."

A hollow assertion without basis in fact or
argument.

"They did not rely on the Textus Receptus

which the KJV was translated from..."

The translators of the KJV had limited
manuscripts to work from. They did an
admirable job of translating the Bible
~despite~ that ! They made some notable
mistakes, however, like mistranslating
murder in the Sixth Commandment as
"kill". Nevertheless, the meaning of 99%
of the KJV is exactly the same as the NIV,
NASB, and NKJ.

"...151 key corruptions found in the
Westcott-Hort text..."

You START with the presumption of
"corruptions" then proceed to denounce them.
In actuality, your ~premise~ is flawed. Do
a side-by-side comparison between the
same verse in the NIV and the KJV, and
we'll see what the difference -if any- REALLY
is.

Dare you ! Give us your one, best proof
text.

"We question this version on the basis of some

of its enthusiastic supporters. Dr. Billy Graham..."

Billy Graham supports the NIV ! Didn't know THAT.
Billy Graham is a leading Satanist, member of the
Trilateral Commission, secret head of the Illuminati,
director of a national child kidnapping network, and
conducts animal sacrifices in his basement !

Folks, this KJV-Only proponents are wacko, right-
wing nut cases !

The DataRat

[soulw...@vvm.com]

Lets go over this...then we can talk...
Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by th NIV.
You should note that most
of these omissions are found in the other new versions also, if you want to
compare. The NIV even
refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God.
Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in
a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver
refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep
us safe and
protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely corrupted by this supposed
improved "Bible". Dear friend, God has a warning to anyone who would dare
change His
Word.

Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall
take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out
of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV) I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him
the plagues
described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of
prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in
the holy city,
which are described in this book.

You will note, they change book of life to tree of life (what part would we
even have in the tree of life?), then they confuse the last part of the
verse, by dropping
"and" and running the verse together, it is weakened. The warning is
weakened. This is what the NIV is all about. It corrupts, omits, weakens and
changes God's
inspired word. I pray that this study will be used of God to give you a
conviction concerning the Word of God. I don't know where anything is
improved or fortified in
the NIV. Here is a good question. Why would you want to use a single shot
22, when the enemy is using a M-16? Not me! Give me a real rifle and the
right ammo
for the battle. A. The Deity of Christ is Clearly Attacked.

1. By changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God. This is
done in the NASV also.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) 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.
1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was
preached
among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

2. By changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set
at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ.
Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to
God.
Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you
look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to
God.

3. They change "Son of God" to "Son of Man", who gave them the right to call
Jesus a liar?

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had
found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found
him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

4. In Matthew 9:18, Matthew 20:20, and Mark 5:6 "Worshipped" and
"Worshipping" is changed to "knelt down". This removes the due respect of
our
Saviour.

5. Jesus is eternal, He did not have an origin.

Micah 5:2 (KJV) But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is
to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah 5:2 (NIV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among
the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over
Israel,
whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

6. Again, Jesus is eternal, He is the beginning and ending.

Revelation 1:8 (KJV) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:8 (NIV) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who
is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

7. The NIV omits the first part of the verse, and leaves out the name Jesus,
who is called the Son of God by these devils.

Matthew 8:29 (KJV) And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do
with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before
the
time?
Matthew 8:29 (NIV) "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted.
"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

8. NIV leaves out Jesus.

Matthew 16:20 (KJV) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no
man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Matthew 16:20 (NIV) Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he
was the Christ.

9. They omit Christ and add man - this is wrong!

John 4:42 (KJV) And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy
saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the
Christ,
the Saviour of the world.
John 4:42 (NIV) They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because
of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man
really
is the Savior of the world."

10. Where did this name for God come from "One" - this is the New Age
universal god - "the One".

John 6:69 (KJV) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the
Son of the living God.
John 6:69 (NIV) We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

11. NIV Omits Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 16:22 (KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him
be Anathema Maranatha.
1 Corinthians 16:22 (NIV) If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on
him. Come, O Lord !

12. NIV omits by Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the
mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who
created all
things by Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 3:9 (NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this
mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

13. When did God cease to be wise?

1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the
only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:17 (NIV) Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

14. Omits by himself.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when
he had by
himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
After he had
provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
in heaven.

15. The NIV attacks the priestly order of Jesus!

Hebrews 7:21 (KJV) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this
with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent,
Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) Hebrews 7:21 (NIV) but he
became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and
will not
change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'"

16. The NIV changes Lucifer's name to "morning star."

This shows how insidious the NIV corruption is. Remember that this is one of
the blessed titles given to our Lord Jesus in (Revelation 22:16). Here they
provide
confusion between who Satan is and who Jesus is. One thing is for sure,
Satan is not the bright and morning star, but the wicked evil deceptive one,
who was called
before his fall, "Lucifer".

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! Isaiah
14:15 (KJV) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of
the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the
nations!
Isaiah 14:15 (NIV) But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of
the pit.

Note: At least 70 times, the NIV omits GOD! * Jesus - 15; Christ - 25;
Lord - 16; God - 13.

*Somebody must not like Jesus, Christ, Lord, and God.

B. The Virgin Birth.

1. The NIV removes "firstborn" - questions the virgin birth!

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew 1:25 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a
son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

2. The NIV changes "Joseph" to "the child's father" - questioning the virgin
birth!

Luke 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which
were spoken of him.
Luke 2:33 (NIV) The child's father and mother marveled at what was said
about him.

3. The NIV changes "Joseph and his mother" to "his parents" which attacks
the virgin birth.

Luke 2:43 (KJV) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the
child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not
of it.
Luke 2:43 (NIV) After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning
home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

4. The NIV changes "only begotten of the Father" to "One and Only" which is
a New Age title for some cosmic god.

John 1:14 (KJV) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of
grace and
truth.
John 1:14 (NIV) The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We
have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the
Father, full
of grace and truth.

5. Notice the NIV omits "Christ" and "is come in the flesh". This is
important to us who are saved.

1 John 4:3 (KJV) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3 (NIV) but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is
coming and even now
is already in the world.

C. The Atoning Death of Christ.

1. The NIV Omits over half of the verse.

Matthew 27:35 (KJV) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting
lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They
parted my
garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
Matthew 27:35 (NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes
by casting lots.

2. The NIV removes the verse (even the Catholic Bible has this verse).

Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was
numbered with the transgressors.
Mark 15:28 (NIV)

3. They omit "they struck him on the face", this weakens the fulfillment of
Isaiah 50:6 "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
plucked off
the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting".

Luke 22:64 (KJV) And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the
face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
Luke 22:64 (NIV) They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"

4. The NIV omits the BLOOD and question the Deity of Christ in these verses.

Colossians 1:14-15 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even
the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of
every creature:
Colossians 1:14-15 (NIV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of
sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation.

D. The Resurrection of Christ.

1. This Omission attacks both the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of our Lord.
Without the resurrection, we have not hope of eternal life.

Acts 2:30 (KJV) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
he would raise
up Christ to sit on his throne;
Acts 2:30 (NIV) But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on
oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.

2. The NIV omits "of the dead".

This brings in question the power of God in resurrection. Many cultists
teach that Jesus was not raised in a physical body. The "New Bibles" give
these false
doctrines aid and comfort.

Acts 24:15 (KJV) And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow,
that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Acts 24:15 (NIV) and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there
will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

3. The NIV omits "him that liveth for ever and ever". Jesus said "I am he
that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and
have
the keys of hell and of death." Revelation 1:18

Revelation 5:14 (KJV) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and
twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
Revelation 5:14 (NIV) The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders
fell down and worshiped.

Satan hates the resurrection of Christ, and will do anything he can to fight
it.

4. They delete the truth that our Lord has a body; this is taught by the
modernist, and cults of our day. When Jesus is seen as not having a BODY, He
is seen
without a resurrection.

Ephesians 5:30 (KJV) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of
his bones.
Ephesians 5:30 (NIV) for we are members of his body.

E. The Ascension of Christ.

1. They leave out "I go to the Father" this attacks the all important
doctrine of the ascension of Christ. If Jesus did not resurrect and if He
did not ascend
back to the Father, then we have no hope of salvation and we have no hope of
the second coming.

John 16:16 (KJV) A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a
little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
John 16:16 (NIV) "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after
a little while you will see me."

2. They leave out "is the Lord", Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the
Father.

1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJV) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second
man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:47 (NIV) The first man was of the dust of the earth, the
second man from heaven.

F. The Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Devil hates all three of the Godhead. Many references to names of God
are attacked.

1. Who gave the translators the authority to change God's name? Jeremiah
spoke about so called "Prophets", "which think to cause my people to forget
my
name" (Jeremiah 23:27).

Exodus 6:3 (KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by
the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Exodus 6:3 (NIV) I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God
Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

Genesis 22:14 (KJV) And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh:
as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Genesis 22:14 (NIV) So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And
to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

2. It is apparent that the NIV does not like to use the blessed name
Jehovah, why? Is this to accommodate the New Age crowd?

For anyone to alter the name of our God is ungodly and out of Hell. (Of
course they don't like HELL either, study on).

Exodus 17:15 (KJV) And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it
Jehovahnissi:
Exodus 17:15 (NIV) Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner.

3. In the NIV study bible I am using, I cannot find one time they use the
name Jehovah, why? What is wrong with the blessed name of God? It is the
Hebrew.

Isaiah 12:2 (KJV) Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be
afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become
my salvation.
Isaiah 12:2 (NIV) Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be
afraid. The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has become my
salvation."

4. These verses teaching the Trinity.

Exodus 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14 (NIV) God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to
say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

5. The NIV removes the word Godhead which is a direct reference to the
Trinity.

Most every cult I know of hates the Trinity, can a person be saved and deny
this great doctrine? in 1 John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that
Jesus is the
Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." We have
already seen how that the deity of Christ is attacked, the Fatherhood of
God, and we will see
how the person of the Holy Spirit is attacked.

Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.
Colossians 2:9 (NIV) For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in
bodily form,

Acts 17:29 (KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not
to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by
art and
man's device.
Acts 17:29 (NIV) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not
think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made
by man's design
and skill.

6. They put part of verse 8 and call it verse 7. This is corrupt and evil.

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there
are three that
bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these
three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8 (NIV) For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water
and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

There is no greater verse in all the Bible to teach the doctrine of the
Trinity than (I John 5:7), yet the modern versions omit them, and textual
criticism have a
heyday with this verse. Yet this verse if found in "The old Syriac A.D. 170,
old Latin A.D. 200, Vulgate: 4th and 5th century, Italian 4th and 5th
century". Also many
church fathers quoted this and it is found in "Liber Apologetic A.D. 350,
Council of Carthiage A.D. 415." The idea that the True Word of God was lost
for 1800
years, and then found by our Catholic friends, is an insult to God Almighty
and His ability to preserve His Word.

7. The Holy Ghost changed ...

Acts 8:18 (KJV) And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles'
hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Acts 8:18 (NIV) When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of
the apostles' hands, he offered them money

Romans 15:19 (KJV) Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the
Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I
have fully
preached the gospel of Christ.
Romans 15:19 (NIV) by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of
the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully
proclaimed
the gospel of Christ.

John 7:39 (KJV) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on
him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus
was not
yet glorified.)
John 7:39 (NIV) By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him
were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since
Jesus had
not yet been glorified.

We can see that they don't like "Spirit of God" or "Holy Ghost", why?
Because Satan wants to weaken the Trinity.

8. Looks like they could at least translate this Holy Spirit, but this
unholy day hates the Holy things of God.

Acts 6:3 (KJV) Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over
this
business.
Acts 6:3 (NIV) Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be
full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them

1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV) Which things also we speak, not in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing
spiritual things
with spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2:13 (NIV) This is what we speak, not in words taught us by
human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths
in spiritual
words.

9. Again it's meaning is changed.

Romans 8:15 (KJV) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to
fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father.
Romans 8:15 (NIV) For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave
again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry,
"Abba, Father."

10. The truth is questioned !?!

Acts 11:17 (KJV) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did
unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could
withstand God?
Acts 11:17 (NIV) So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose
God?"

11. There is a great deal of difference between weakness and infirmity.
Infirmity happens because of outside influences, but weakness speaks of
one's
character. Our Lord was entirely without sin.

Hebrews 5:2 (KJV) Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that
are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
Hebrews 5:2 (NIV) He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and
are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.

12. Questions Deity !!

Revelation 1:13 (KJV) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like
unto the Son of man, ...
Revelation 1:13 (NIV) and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of
man," ...

Revelation 14:14 (KJV) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the
cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, ...
Revelation 14:14 (NIV) I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and
seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" ...

Daniel 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in
the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is
like the Son
of God.
Daniel 3:25 (NIV) He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire,
unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

G. The Doctrine of Salvation by Faith. The NIV attacks this most important
doctrine. Satan surely doesn't want anybody saved by grace.

1. The Word of God is our authority for salvation and to defeat Satan.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 (NIV) Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread
alone.'"

2. They omit repentance, Satan hates real heart felt, Holy Ghost inspired
repentance.

Matthew 9:13 (KJV) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy,
and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance.
Matthew 9:13 (NIV) But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not
sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

3. They remove the need for the heart to be converted by simply removing the
heart.

Matthew 12:35 (KJV) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart
bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure
bringeth forth evil t.
Matthew 12:35 (NIV) The good man brings good things out of the good stored
up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in
him.

4. In John 3, the great chapter on the New Birth, the NIV does much damage
tot he doctrine of salvation by faith in the Son of God.

a. They leave out "which is in heaven" which takes from the Lord's deity.

John 3:13 (KJV) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 (NIV) No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came
from heaven--the Son of Man.

b. They leave out "should not perish" the reference to hell.

John 3:15 (KJV) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
eternal life.
John 3:15 (NIV) that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

c. They remove the sonship of the believer - John 1:12.

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, ...
John 3:16 (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only
Son, ...

d. They just keep on changing, and changing, and changing.

John 3:36 (KJV) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth
on him.
John 3:36 (NIV) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever
rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

5. The new birth is changed to a process where you are nurtured into the
kingdom. The question, What Kingdom?

John 1:12 (KJV) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
John 1:12 (NIV) Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his
name, he gave the right to become children of God--

6. The doctrine of Salvation by grace through faith could never be clearer
than in Romans. Look what the NIV does:

Romans 11:6 (KJV) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace:
otherwise work is no
more work.

Romans 11:6 (NIV) And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it
were, grace would no longer be grace.

7. The NIV does not stand on the great doctrine of salvation by grace
through faith.

The translators were out of "works" backgrounds. The NIV staff was quoted as
saying, "A Christian never 'IS' but always 'IS BECOMING'". Notice how they
take God's
grace out of your heart.

Colossians 3:16 (KJV) ... with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Colossians 3:16 (NIV) ... with gratitude in your hearts to God.

8. Salvation is not a sure thing in the NIV, but rather a process. Notice
the change in this verse.

2 Corinthians 7:10 (KJV) For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation
not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2 Corinthians 7:10 (NIV) Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to
salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

9. This omission reveals the blatant design of Satan through the new bibles.
No where can you find a more blessed verse than Acts 8:37, that teaches
salvation is without baptism or works, and the NIV omits it altogether.

Acts 8:36-37 (KJV) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain
water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be
baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And
he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 8:36-37 (NIV) As they traveled along the road, they came to some water
and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 37

10. Another shocking omission is found in Mark 6:11, this verse teaches the
serious result of rejecting Christ.

Mark 6:11 (KJV) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye
depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against
them. Verily
I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day
of judgment, than for that city.
Mark 6:11 (NIV) And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you,
shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

11. You will find in the NIV that salvation is a matter of obeying and not
believing.

Romans 11:32 (KJV) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he
might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:32 (NIV) For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he
may have mercy on them all.

Hebrews 3:18 (KJV) And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his
rest, but to them that believed not?
Hebrews 3:18 (NIV) And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his
rest if not to those who disobeyed ?

Hebrews 4:6 (KJV) Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter
therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of
unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 (NIV) It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those
who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their
disobedience.

12. The NIV also teaches a plan of salvation that not only depends on works
to "be saved", but it depends on works to "stay saved".

2 Timothy 2:12 (KJV) If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny
him, he also will deny us:
2 Timothy 2:12 (NIV) if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown
him, he will also disown us;

13. The NIV reduces our sure confidence to a hope. This sure fits most
people who say, "Well, I hope I am saved."

Hebrews 10:23 (KJV) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without
wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Hebrews 10:23 (NIV) Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he
who promised is faithful.

14. In the salvation of Saul, the NIV omits much from the all important text
concerning his conversion.

Acts 9:5-6 (KJV) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he
trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the
Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee
what thou
must do.
Acts 9:5-6 (NIV) "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are
persecuting," he replied. 6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will
be told
what you must do."

They omit "and the Lord said". This deletes the authority of the one
speaking. The other omission is the statement "it is hard for thee to kick
against the pricks". This
is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. My How Satan hates the convicting
work of the Holy Ghost, but without this no one can be saved. In the NIV
Saul doesn't
call Jesus Lord, why? Because they teach a plan of salvation that consists
of a process of good works. When Saul called Jesus Lord, he was saved.
That's why
Ananias called him, "Brother Saul" in Acts 9:17.

15. The NIV doesn't think much of repentance.

Mark 2:17 (KJV) When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole
have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call
the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17 (NIV) On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy
who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but
sinners."

What did Jesus call these sinners? Modern man rejects the idea of old
fashioned Bible repentance, yet it still gets the job done. Repentance is
not some separate
act done in a procession of steps, but rather it is the turning from a life
of rejecting Jesus and turning to God by faith.

16. The cross is also deleted from the corrupt version.

Mark 10:21 (KJV) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One
thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the
poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and
follow me.
Mark 10:21 (NIV) Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he
said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure
in heaven. Then come, follow me."

H. The Doctrine of the Second Coming is abused in the NIV.

The NIV attacks the kingdom of God and the coming reign of Jesus. This is
done because of the New Age, Satanic doctrine, that the Anti-Christ will win
the battle
of Armageddon and will rule in place of Christ.

1. Let's consider the model prayer in Luke 11:2-4.

a. You will notice that the NIV changes "Our Father" to "Father", why?
Because we live in an age that believes in the universal fatherhood of God,
that is
"everyone is a child of God". This Devil crowd uses the prayer given in the
NIV as a prayer to their father, Satan. They also omit, "which art in
Heaven,". We must
ask, "Who is this father in the NIV?" They also omit, "Thy will be done, as
in heaven, so in earth". What is the will of God for this earth? It is for
the Lord Jesus to
return and put all of His enemies under His footstool and for Him to reign
in power and glory.

Luke 11:2 (KJV) And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which
art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as
in
heaven, so in earth.
Luke 11:2 (NIV) He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be
your name, your kingdom come.

b. "My" to "the".

John 14:28 (NIV) "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to
you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for
the
Father is greater than I.

c. They also change 2 Thessalonians 1:2 from "God our Father" to "God the
Father" in the NIV.

d. This is true in 1 Timothy 1:2, Philemon 1:25; and in Revelation 22:21.
The devil hates for us to preach that God can be our own Father, of whom we
can cry,
"Abba, Father."

e. "but deliver us from evil" deleted.

Luke 11:4 (KJV) And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that
is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from
evil.
Luke 11:4 (NIV) Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins
against us. And lead us not into temptation.'"

2. The NIV continues to eliminate God's Kingdom.

Matthew 6:13 (KJV) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
Matthew 6:13 (NIV) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the
evil one.'

They change "evil" to "evil one", and omit the kingdom, power and glory of
God for ever. Why would anyone put confidence in this corrupt NIV.

3. They omit the second coming.

The devil hates the second coming because he knows his time will be over.

Matthew 25:13 (KJV) Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the
hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Matthew 25:13 (NIV) "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day
or the hour.

4. Look how the NIV attacks the rapture of the church. The whole verse is
omitted.

Luke 17:36 (KJV) Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and
the other left.
Luke 17:36 (NIV)

5. One other not, in the NIV, they change "son of perdition" to "the man
doomed to destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and John 17:12.

This causes confusion in the identifying of the beast. Also in 2
Thessalonians 2:3 the "man of sin" is changed to "the man of lawlessness".
In verse 8, they change
"spirit of his mouth" to "the breath of his mouth". Do you think that they
are saying Jesus has bad breath? How could the Rose of Sharon and the lily
of the valley
be anything but sweet?

I. The Doctrine of Hell - how does the NIV treat this all important truth?

Quote NIV editor, R. Laird Harris, "Hell may stand FOR ETERNAL DEATH,". He
goes on to say, "It refers to death, not to any punishment." Of course these
modernist line up with all the - No Hell cults of our day.

1. Verse 44 and 46 are omitted in the NIV.

Mark 9:44 (KJV) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:44 (NIV)

Mark 9:46 (KJV) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 (NIV)

2. The NIV plays into the hands of those cults who teach the annihilation of
the wicked.

The idea that sinners will just be burned up and that will be it. If I were
Satan, I wouldn't want people to believe in a real hell.

Mark 9:49 (KJV) For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice
shall be salted with salt.
Mark 9:49 (NIV) Everyone will be salted with fire.

At least 36 times in the NIV - Hell is changed.

3. The NIV changes "Hell" to death in these verses ( 6 times ).

Deuteronomy 32:22 Job 26:6 Proverbs 23:14; 27:20 Isaiah 28:18; 57:9

4. They change Hell to "the grave" in these verses ( 22 Times).

Job 11:8 Psalm 9:17; 16:10; 18:5; 55:15; 86:13; 116:3 Proverbs 7:27; 15:24
Isaiah 5:14; 14:15 Ezekiel 31:16, 17; 32:21, 27 Jonah 2:2 Habakuk 2:5 Acts
2:21, 31

5. The NIV changes "Hell" to "the depts." - ( 3 times ).

Psalm 139:8 Matthew 11:23 Luke 10:15

6. They change "hell" to "hades" in these verses - ( 5 times).

Matthew 16:18 Revelation 1:17; 6:8; 20:13, 14

J. The Area of Sexual Sin is Distorted by this NIV version.

We may conclude that many today who are HIV positive are a result of many
being NIV positive!

1. We are to receive those weak in the faith, without receiving doubtful
life styles. In the NIV, they completely reverse this truth.

Romans 14:1 (KJV) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations.
Romans 14:1 (NIV) Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment
on disputable matters.

The world says, "Don't Judge", anything goes in our day, is it any wonder?

2. The NIV omits "fornication" from this list.

Why? The chapter is dealing with the homosexual crowd, isn't what they do
considered sexual sin? Did you know that some of the women on the NIV
committee
are lesbians?

Romans 1:29 (KJV) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity;
whisperers,
Romans 1:29 (NIV) They have become filled with every kind of wickedness,
evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and
malice. They
are gossips,

3. "Without natural affection" and "unmerciful" are both omitted by this
corrupt version. This would describe this perverted life.

Romans 1:31 (KJV) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful: Romans 1:31 (NIV) they are senseless,
faithless,
heartless, ruthless.

4. Notice the changes made: "fornicators" changed to, "sexually immoral",
"effeminate" changed to "male prostitutes", and "abusers of themselves with
mankind" to "homosexual offenders."

The idea here is, nothing wrong with being a homosexual, as long as you
don't break any laws, such as being a homosexual prostitute or a homosexual
offender.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

5. Here is a total changing of the text, why? Because the NIV encourages the
gay life-style.

Deuteronomy 23:17 (KJV) There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel,
nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deuteronomy 23:17 (NIV) No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine
prostitute.

1 Kings 14:24 (KJV) 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.
1 Kings 14:24 (NIV) 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.

6. This is true in ( 1 Kings 15:12 ), ( 1 Kings 22:46 ), and(2 Kings 23:7 ).

They change "sodomite" to shrine male prostitutes. How would you really know
what these "prostitutes" really are, if you depended on the corrupt NIV
translation.
This so called bible tries to work both sides of the fence!

7. You find they also change the word "whoremonger" to "immoral person".

Ephesians 5:5 (KJV) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean
person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the
kingdom of
Christ and of God.
Ephesians 5:5 (NIV) For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or
greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom
of Christ and
of God.

1 Timothy 1:10 (KJV) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with
mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be
any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Timothy 1:10 (NIV) for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and
liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

K. Prosperity, Health and Wealth Doctrine.

Matthew 6:1 (KJV) Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, ...
Matthew 6:1 (NIV) "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before
men, ...

Proverbs 8:18 (KJV) Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and
righteousness.
Proverbs 8:18 (NIV) With me are riches and honor, enduring wealth and
prosperity.

Proverbs 21:21 (KJV) He that followeth after righteousness and mercy findeth
life, righteousness, and honour.
Proverbs 21:21 (NIV) He who pursues righteousness and love finds life,
prosperity and honor.

Jeremiah 29:11 (KJV) For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith
the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV) For I know the plans I have for you," declares the
LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and
a future.

Who gave these people authority to completely change God's Word?

Do you still feel the same way now?

I hope that this post has enlightened you!

May god bless you!

The DataRat wrote in message ...

>
>
>"NIV is such a poor translation is because...
>'The Greek text used in the work of translation
> was an eclectic one.'..."
>
>
>You got it backwards. The NIV is an excellent
>translation ~because~ it is eclectic.
>
>All that means is they compared discrepancies
>in the various manuscripts, and -comparing other
>factors such as date of origin- weeded out errors.
>THIS is why the Bible we have today can be
>considered a reliable record of the original writings
>( autographa ) ...there are so many diverse
>manuscripts extant that we may compare one with
>another !
>
>ALL major translations of the Bible have done
>this -including the King James.
>
>
>

>"Their 'sound principles of textual criticism'
> should be labeled 'unsound principles of textual

> criticism.'..."
>
>
>A hollow assertion without basis in fact or
>argument.
>
>
>
>

>"They did not rely on the Textus Receptus

> which the KJV was translated from..."
>
>
>The translators of the KJV had limited
>manuscripts to work from. They did an
>admirable job of translating the Bible
>~despite~ that ! They made some notable
>mistakes, however, like mistranslating
>murder in the Sixth Commandment as
>"kill". Nevertheless, the meaning of 99%
>of the KJV is exactly the same as the NIV,
>NASB, and NKJ.
>
>
>
>"...151 key corruptions found in the
> Westcott-Hort text..."
>
>
>You START with the presumption of
> "corruptions" then proceed to denounce them.
>In actuality, your ~premise~ is flawed. Do
>a side-by-side comparison between the
>same verse in the NIV and the KJV, and
>we'll see what the difference -if any- REALLY
>is.
>
>Dare you ! Give us your one, best proof
>text.
>
>
>
>

>"We question this version on the basis of some

[The DataRat]

"The NIV even refutes the idea that the Bible
is the preserved, inspired, Word of God."

A very serious assertion. You are going to
have to substantiate this !

"Psalms 12:6-7 ...Can you see how the

meaning is completely corrupted by this

supposed improved 'Bible'..."

No. Where's the "corruption ? The KJV
says that God's words are "pure", the NIV
"flawless". So ? Pure things ~are~ flawless !
Flawless things are pure !

As for v. 7: The KJV says "preserve them"
and the NIV "keep us safe and protect us".
The keyword being translated is the Hebrew
natsar. Strong's defines it as:

to guard, watch, watch over, keep

It would seem BOTH the KJV ~and~ the NIV
correctly translate it.

The last clause of v. 7 looks a lot different,
but appears to agree between the two versions.
The KJV has God's people being preserved
from an evil "generation" of people. The NIV
has God's people being kept "safe" from
"such people".

Just NOT seeing any real differences here
between the KJV and the NIV -except the two
translations phrase the same concepts somewhat
differently.

"Dear friend, God has a warning to anyone who
would dare change His Word."

Got bad news for you. The KJV is not the
autographa (original Bible writings). It is a
TRANSLATION just like the NIV, NASB, NKJ,
et. al. God didn't write the Bible in English.
When a version of Scripture differs from the
KJV, it's NOT differing from God's Word -it's
differing from another translation.

But ...so far... you've utterly failed to show
any substantial differences between the KJV
and the NIV !

"Revelation 22:18-19 ...You will note, they
change book of life to tree of life..."

Indeed. The NIV and NASB use "tree of life".
The KJV and the NKJ use "book of life".

But, even the KJV refers to the "tree of life"
in v. 2 of this ~same~ chapter. So the NIV
isn't introducing something totally foreign to
the context of the passage.

Probably is a legitimate difference between
manuscripts. You're ASSUMING that the
KJV is correct and any variation from it is wrong.
That's a ~big~ presumption !

The NASB is generally considered to be the
most literal of the English translations. It
agrees with the NIV !

Anyway, don't see where any important
Christian doctrines stand or fall on "tree of
life" vs. "book of life". Doubt anyone fully
understand ~either~ concept.

"By changing 'God' to 'He' they remove the
fact that Jesus is God."

C'mon ! This is ~so~ thin ! Everyone knows
who the "he" being referred to is.

Besides, the NIV uses the word "God" plenty
of times.

"By changing 'Christ' to 'God' they deny that
Jesus is God."

The proof texts you cite are Romans 14
verses 10 and 12. Only v. 10 differs between
the two translations. The NIV saying "God's
judgment seat", the KJV saying "the judgment
seat of Christ".

First, the Reformed Rodent doesn't see this
difference as denying that Jesus is God. There
are plenty of other passages in the NIV where
Jesus' deity is affirmed. The real issue being
whether the best manuscripts say "Christ" or
"God" in this verse.

Second, even the KJV in v. 12 says "shall give
account of himself to God" and does NOT
mention Christ. Does ~that~ mean the KJV
is trying to deny Christ's deity ?

"They change 'Son of God' to 'Son of Man',
who gave them the right to call Jesus a liar?"

Again, your PRESUMPTION is that the KJV
is correct, and any variation from it is
automatically wrong.

About "Son of Man", Berkhof wrote:

"It was the most common self-description of
Jesus. He applied the name to Himself on
more than forty occasions" ( L. Berkhof,
Systematic Theology, 1979 ed., pg. 313 ).

The misconception that many have about
the title "Son of Man" is that it references
only Jesus' human nature and ~not~ His
Messianic role.

People in His own time on earth DIDN'T
see it that way. A reading of John 12:34
clearly indicates that the common understanding
of "Son of Man" was that it pertained to
Christhood.

But, once again, the issue is one of
accurately translating the Greek NT manuscripts,
and NOT picking which title for Jesus we like
best !

"Matthew 9:18, Matthew 20:20, and Mark 5:6
'Worshipped' and 'Worshipping' is changed
to 'knelt down'. This removes the due respect
of our Saviour."

Give us a break ! What a nit-picking
objection !

Kneeling down before someone ~is~
showing them respect !

"Jesus is eternal, He did not have an origin

...Micah 5:2 (KJV)"

The footnote in The DataRat's NIV ( Quest
Study Bible ) says "Or from days of eternity".
So, it's NOT like the NIV is trying to conceal
something ! Or, trying to deny a doctrine !

Yeah, Bro. Rat prefers "everlasting" (KJV) or
"eternity" (NASB). That's why he uses
several different translations.

The NIV flubbed Micah 5:2. The KJV flubbed
"kill" in the Sixth Commandment. That's why
the Calvinist Rodent uses several different
translations !

"Revelation 1:8"

There is NO meaningful difference between
the NIV and KJV renderings of this verse.
The phraseology is just slightly different.

"The NIV omits the first part of the verse, and
leaves out the name Jesus, who is called the
Son of God by these devils."

This is a trivial objection: The NIV omitted that
"they cried out" ! It's perfectly clear from the
context that they cried out.

The NIV does omit the word "Jesus". So what ?
It's absolutely obvious they're speaking to Jesus !
And the NIV has them refer to Him as "Son of God" !
Sheesh ! You're nit-picking.

"NIV leaves out Jesus... Matthew 16:20"

The NIV has Him affirming that He is "Christ".
THAT is the important part. Sure, the NIV
uses "he" rather than "Jesus". But anyone
reading this verse in the NIV would know that
Jesus is the one saying this ( unless they
were retarded or something ! ).

"They omit Christ and add man - this is wrong!

...John 4:42"

The NIV has them saying:

"this man really is the Savior of the world."

What more do you want ? The KJV only adds
"Christ". The NIV clearly felt that "Savior of
the World" and "Christ" were redundancies.
( Which they are ! )

A lot of the later manuscripts were embellished
with added titles. The NIV obviously used
earlier manuscripts not interjecting "Christ".
But Jesus' deity is well taken care of with
"Savior of the World" !

"Where did this name for God come from
'One' - this is the New Age universal god -

'the One'.... John 6:69"

That's silly ! The NIV...

"We believe and know that you are the
Holy One of God."

...clearly uses "One" in this verse as a
noun and not an adjective !

If the NIV wanted to employ a New Age
meaning, they would have used something
like "you are One with God".

Ok, that's your first Ten Objections to the
NIV refuted. Ain't going to answer all 5,000
of your objections because:

1.) The first ten weren't all ~that~ impressive,

2.) You were starting to get redundant even
in your initial ten.

3.) Probably nobody in the newsgroups have
read more than the first five hundred of
your objections, anyway !

The Genevan Rodent has not altered his opinion
that the KJV-Only advocates are extremists and
loonies.

The DataRat

[soulw...@vvm.com]

Make no mistake about it, we believe that the Bible is the verbally and
plenarily inspired word of God,
and that it is infallible and inerrant in all matters of which it speaks. Of
course we believe that the original
autographs were the inspired word of God. Since no one in the past ever had
all of the autographs at one
time, and since no one in the present even has one fragment of any of the
autographs, we must approach
this subject from a different angle.

If God has not preserved His word, as He promised, then we do not have the
infallible word of God
today. And if we do not have it today, we might as well fold our tents and
steal away, for we never will
have it. We firmly believe that God preserved His word through the Masoretic
Hebrew text of the Old
Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek text of the New Testament. We firmly
believe that the King
James Version of the English Bible is a true and faithful translation of
these two providentially preserved
texts.

The charge is often made that we believe in double inspiration. They mean by
this, that we are teaching
that the King James translators were inspired of God. Nothing could be
further from the truth. It is God's
word that is inspired. There is no scripture that teaches that even the
prophets or apostles were inspired. It
was the words that they wrote which are contained in the Bible, that are
inspired of God. God never
promised to make any men inspired, or to keep them inspired. It is His word
which is inspired, and which
He promised to keep.

To put it simply, we believe that the King James Version is the inspired
word of God, and that is has been
preserved for the English speaking people, in the very form that God has
purposed. We do not believe
that it needs any correction or changes. It simply needs to be read,
preached, explained, and believed.

The old confessions of faith testified to the preservation of the word of
God. The Baptists issued the
Second London Confession of Faith in 1677 and it said: "The Old Testament in
Hebrew and the New
Testament in Greek...being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular
care and Providence kept
pure in all Ages...."
Use The Bible God Uses
King James A.V. 1611

We say "Use The Bible God Uses" the "King James A.V. 1611," for the
following reasons.

1. God used the message of the KJV to save my soul. If you are saved, it is
very likely that He used it
in the salvation of your soul also. Most of the saved critics of the KJV
were saved by hearing its message.
If they will be honest, they will have to admit this. "Being born again, not
of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I
Peter 1:23) The next two verses
also clearly contains the promise that God will preserve His word. For over
300 years God has been using
the KJV to save multitudes of lost souls in the English speaking world.

In fact we make bold to say, that if you removed all the people in the
English speaking world that had
been saved through the preaching and teaching of the KJV, you would have
very little evidence of
Christianity left.

2. God has used the KJV for the growth and maturing of the saints. The
strongest and most mature
Christians that I have met, are the ones that were nourished and fed from
the KJV. Even many who have
been misled into becoming critics of the KJV, would have to admit that they
learned their doctrine and
obtained their spiritual growth through the study of the KJV. In over 35
years in the ministry, I have yet
to meet one person who was a strong Bible student, who learned his doctrine
from any other version.

It is the Bible that can be and is memorized. The multiplying of versions
has greatly hindered the
memorizing of the word of God. No other Bible has been, nor will there ever
be a Bible that will be
memorized, as has been the KJV.

3. God has used the KJV to build the strongest and best Bible believing
Baptist churches for over
300 years. I am personally acquainted with hundreds and hundreds of
independent fundamental Baptist
churches, and I do not know even one of them that was built by preaching
some other version. Look at
the largest Baptist churches in America, and you will find that they were
all built under the leadership of
men who preached the KJV. Look at the best, and most conservative of
Southern Baptist churches and
you will find that they were built under the preaching of the KJV.

Some of the great churches of America may now be pastored by men who correct
and criticize the KJV,
but they were not built by such preaching. These preachers went off to a
preacher factory, where they
were told that the ASV, NASV, NIV, or some other corrupt translation was
better, and they foolishly
believed what they were told.

4. God has used the KJV to bring all the great revivals among English
speaking people for over
300 years. I do not know of a single great revival, during this period, that
came under the preaching of
any other version. Of course I have seen the false revivals that have come
under such men as Billy
Graham, as he sometimes preached from other versions. A careful study might
well reveal that the
downfall of Graham came about when he began to recommend the Revised
Standard Version and other
corrupted Bibles.

5. God has used the KJV to challenge and call vast numbers of missionaries
coring this time. I
know of no other period in church history when as many missionaries have
been called and sent as has
taken place during the reign of the KJV. Even now, there are thousands of
missionaries who were
challenged and called under the preaching of the KJV. At home and abroad,
they are faithfully trying to
preach the word of God and establish churches. As the use of the KJV is
diminished, so will be the
number of sound missionaries who are called.

6. God has used the KJV, because it exalts His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
All other versions tend to
play down His absolute deity. Whether we look at the Jehovah's Witnesses'
corrupt New World
Translation, or the RSV, ASV, NASV, TEV, or NIV, we find that they all
diminish in some way Christ's
standing in the Godhead. Their mutilation of I Tim. 3:16 alone, should cause
the Bible believer to
completely reject them. There is a world of difference in the KJV's "God was
manifest in the flesh," and
the NASV's "He who was revealed in the flesh. " The deletion of "Lord" and
"Christ" from so many
places in the modern versions should be sufficient for every Bible believer
to totally reject them. There is
no other English version that exalts the Lord Jesus Christ, as does the KJV.

7. God has used the KJV because it is His Word, which He has providentially
watched over. Even
though the KJV only goes back to 1611, nevertheless it is based upon the
text and versions which
preceded it. These texts and manuscripts are the ones that Bible believers
have used down through the
ages. It is a known fact that 85% to 95% of all ancient manuscripts are in
basic agreement with the KJV,
but not with the modern versions.

Consider God's promises to preserve His word. (1) God's Word is settled
forever. (Psa. 119:89) (2)
Every word of God is pure. (Prov. 30:5,6; Psa. 19:7-11) (3) The word of God
shall stand forever. (Isa.
40:8) (4) Not one letter to pass away. (Matt. 5:17-18) (5) The scripture
cannot be broken. (John 10:35)
(6) The word of God is incorruptible. (I Pet. 1:23-25) (7) The words will
not pass away. (Matt. 24:35;
Luke 4:4; 16:17; 21:33)

Those who would trace the text of the KJV only back to Erasmus make a
serious mistake. While it is true
that Martin Luther chose the text of Erasmus to translate his German Bible,
it is not true that this was the
first Bible with the same readings. The Waldensians who first mistook Luther
for a friend, came down out
of their mountain strongholds to compare their Bible with Luther's. They
found them to be the same. This
is documented in "Which Bible" by David Otis Fuller, and "Our Authorized
Bible Vindicated" by
Benjamin G. Wilkinson.

There are only two streams of texts and Bibles coming down through the
centuries. (1) There is the pure
stream that the KJV is based on, which is the text of the Bible believers
for the past 1900 years. It is the
text of the Waldensians, Anabaptists, and the other ancestors of true
Baptists. It was the text of Luther
and the Reformation. (2) There is the polluted stream that all the modern
versions are based upon. It is
the text of Origen, Constantine, Eusebius, the Roman Catholic Church, of
Westcott & Hort, and all of the
apostates today. I have never met a modernist that said that the KJV was the
best or the most accurate.
They all prefer something else.

None of the popular new versions are translated from the Textus Receptus,
and this includes the New
King James Version. A careful reading of the Preface will reveal that it is
not based entirely on the same
texts that underlie the King James Version. We do not recommend the New King
James Version.

The pure stream has produced and preserved Christianity down through the
ages. Why? Because the
Bible says, "for thou has magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psa.
138:2) The polluted stream has
produced Roman Catholicism and apostate Christendom today. The polluted
stream of Bibles never has
produced anything that God would ever claim, and they never will. While some
who prefer them, still
profess to believe the fundamentals of the faith, be sure that in the end
they will produce apostasy. The
devil does not want anyone to be able to say, "thus saith the Lord." He
wants people to say, "Yea, hath
God said?" And that is just about what he has the modern religious world
saying. Many are constantly
correcting the Bible, and people are so confused that they do not know what
the Lord did say.

We have the Bible today and we are not looking for it. It needs no
correcting, revising, or criticism, it only
needs to be read, believed, taught, preached, and practiced until Jesus
comes.

That is the reason why we say,
Use The Bible God Uses
King James A.V. 1611

[V O J]

Remember a couple things when arguing about translations or arguing against
context or paraphrase versions.

Jesus, Paul and John used context and paraphrase in quoting scripture.
(according to KJV). All three used the Septuagint for quotes, which neither
the KJV or NIV used, not Masoretic or NU texts.

If you want to go by the scripture used by Jesus, Paul and John, you had
better find an English Bible based on the Septuagint. There is one.

soulw...@vvm.com wrote in message <7689u9$esf$1...@remarQ.com>...

[Gary]

soulw...@vvm.com<SOULW...@VVM.COM wrote in message
<767bhn$gf7$1...@remarQ.com>...>Lets go over this...then we can talk...

>Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by th NIV.

clipped a lot of good stuff, (and some not as good)

Lets compare some other verses, OK?

John 1: 18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 (NIV) 18 No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who
is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Here we have the NIV specifically calling the LORD Jesus Christ GOD! Whereas
the KJV
says "son of God."

Tit 2: 13 (KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of
the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Tit 2:13 (NIV) while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of
our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

The NIV is more emphatic that Our Great God and Savior is Jesus Christ, the
KJV can be twisted more easily by the cults to separate the Christ and God.

Col 1:19 (KJV) For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness
dwell;

Col 1:19 (NIV) For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

The NIV is much clearer that the fullness of God was in our LORD Jesus
Christ

John 1:3 (KJV) All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.

John 1:3 (ASV) All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing
came into being that has come into being.

The NAS makes it clearer that all things were CREATED (from nothing) by the
LORD Jesus Christ

2 Pet 1:1 (KJV) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to
them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the
righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Pet 1:1 (NIV) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those
who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have
received a faith as precious as ours:

The NIV makes it much clearer that both God and Savior refer to the LORD
Jesus Christ.

These are a few examples I have come up with which seem to indicate that
the translators of the NIV (and NAS) were not trying to subvert the deity of
our LORD Jesus Christ

Sincerely, Gary

g...@iag.net See Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
"In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things,
charity." --Augustine of Hippo

[soulw...@vvm.com]

Then can you explain the omission of these versus from the "NIV bible"?

Omission's of scriptures in the New Internation Version "Bible"

The purpose of this paper is not to tell ANYONE that they own the wrong
bible, but it is an effort
to educate you in what your "bible" has and has not....because you can only
learn/understand
what is in the bible...if it is IN THE BIBLE YOU ARE READING....

Matthew 23:14, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye
shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 11:26, "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in
heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:29, "And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and
saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,"

Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
other left."

Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast"

John 5:4, "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and
troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water
stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou

mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God."

Acts 15:34, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:7, "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great
violence took him away out of our hands,"

Romans 16:24, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the

Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Mark 9:44, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:48, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Matthew 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 17:21, "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Now read this...

Revelation 22:19, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book

of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

The NIV removes the verse (even the Catholic Bible has this verse).

Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was
numbered with the transgressors.
Mark 15:28 (NIV)

The NIV omits the BLOOD and question the Deity of Christ in these verses.

Colossians 1:14-15 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even
the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of
every creature:
Colossians 1:14-15 (NIV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of
sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation.

The NIV omits "of the dead".

This brings in question the power of God in resurrection. Many cultists
teach that Jesus was not raised in a physical body. The "New Bibles" give
these false doctrines aid and comfort.

Acts 24:15 (KJV) And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow,
that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Acts 24:15 (NIV) and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there
will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked

.They delete the truth that our Lord has a body; this is taught by the

modernist, and cults of our day. When Jesus is seen as not having a BODY, He
is seen without a resurrection.

Ephesians 5:30 (KJV) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of
his bones.
Ephesians 5:30 (NIV) for we are members of his body.

They omit repentance, Satan hates real heart felt, Holy Ghost inspired
repentance.

Matthew 9:13 (KJV) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy,
and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance.
Matthew 9:13 (NIV) But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not
sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

You will find in the NIV that salvation is a matter of obeying and not
believing.

Romans 11:32 (KJV) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he
might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:32 (NIV) For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he
may have mercy on them all.

Hebrews 3:18 (KJV) And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his
rest, but to them that believed not?
Hebrews 3:18 (NIV) And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his
rest if not to those who disobeyed ?

Hebrews 4:6 (KJV) Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter
therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of
unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 (NIV) It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those
who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their
disobedience.

The cross is also deleted from the corrupt version.

Mark 10:21 (KJV) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One
thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross,
and follow me.
Mark 10:21 (NIV) Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he
said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

The devil hates the second coming because he knows his time will be over.

Matthew 25:13 (KJV) Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the
hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Matthew 25:13 (NIV) "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day
or the hour.

Verse 44 and 46 are omitted in the NIV.

Mark 9:44 (KJV) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:44 (NIV)

Mark 9:46 (KJV) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 (NIV

We are to receive those weak in the faith, without receiving doubtful life

styles. In the NIV, they completely reverse this truth.

Romans 14:1 (KJV) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations.
Romans 14:1 (NIV) Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment
on disputable matters.

And here are all the OMITTED VERSUS...tell me these dont make a
difference.....

)

Gary wrote in message <768lbv$9bt$1...@news.iag.net>...

>soulw...@vvm.com<SOULW...@VVM.COM wrote in message

><767bhn$gf7$1...@remarQ.com>...>Lets go over this...then we can talk...

>>Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by th
NIV.
>

[Gary]

Dear Soulwinner:

You did not address the verses I posted. Did you even read what
I wrote? I agree with much of your posts. I was just pointing out
that the translators of the NIV and NAS "possibly," did not have
an agenda.

I have an interesting book you may even know of, entitled, "The
Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism" by
Harry A. Sturz. He gives reasons why the we should carefully consider
the "later," readings of the "textus receptus," as being authentic
as opposed to "older" texts. He raises some very good arguments
in favor of your position.
One basic argument is that the texts which were considered to be
the "best," i.e. most correct, were used by the Churches the most,
hence wore out the quickest, and needed to be copied more. Hence
just because a Greek text fragment is "older," does not necessarily
mean that it is better or more correct.

Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net See Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
"In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things,
charity." --Augustine of Hippo

soulw...@vvm.com<SOULW...@VVM.COM wrote in message

<768p5p$27f$1...@remarQ.com>...>Then can you explain the omission of these

[AJ]

Compare the different translations yourself and decide. You will deffinitely
be shocked.

Let me know what you think at and...@mweb.co.za

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

[The DataRat]

"...we find that it is not that 'old' original'
1611 at all, but an updated 'edition'..."

Good point, Ruth ! The KJV these folks
are reading today is ~not~ the KJV of
three-and-a-half centuries ago.

DR

[The DataRat]

"We firmly believe that the King
James Version of the English Bible
is a true and faithful translation of
these two providentially preserved
texts."

ANY translation is a human endeavor
and prone to error. Your beloved KJV
is NOT exempted from that, either !

KJV errors are of several kinds: Like
the famous KJV "Sinners Bible" that left
out the word "not" in the Seventh
Commandment ! Or, today's KJV with
the unfortunate mistranslation of murder
as "kill" in the Sixth Commandment.

The former example above being a mere
printer's error, while the latter is plain bad
linguistics. Yet -the point is- the KJV, like
all other English translations of the Bible,
is NOT an act of God's Special Revelation !

"They mean by this, that we are teaching
that the King James translators were inspired
of God. Nothing could be further from the
truth. It is God's word that is inspired."

Just the autographa. Outside the autographa,
Scripture is a "reliable record" of that inspired
Word of God.

"There is no scripture that teaches that even
the prophets or apostles were inspired."

At least NOT constantly inspired. Please
tell the Romanists that !

"We do not believe that it needs any
correction or changes."

Sorry, but the KJV has a couple serious
errors !

"Use The Bible God Uses
King James A.V. 1611"

This is presumptuous almost to the
point of blasphemy ! It's NOT much
different than saying: "God's native
language is English".

"God used the message of the KJV to save
my soul. If you are saved, it is very likely that

He used it..."

Bro. Rat was "saved by" (sic) the NASB.
Does DR have a Second-Rate Salvation ?

Most people in the U.S. were "saved by"
the NIV. Does this mean God prefers the
NIV over the KJV ? By your logic: Yes !

"Most of the saved critics of the KJV
were saved by hearing its message."

A dubious presumption. The NIV has
been more popular than the KJV in the U.S.
for decades.

Aside from THAT, your presupposition is
just damn poor logic !

"...if you removed all the people in the

English speaking world that had been
saved through the preaching and teaching
of the KJV, you would have very little
evidence of Christianity left."

First of all, God -and NOT books- saves
people.

Secondly, you're over 30 years out-of-date
with your Best Seller list.

"The strongest and most mature Christians
that I have met, are the ones that were
nourished and fed from the KJV."

That's funny, the strongest and most
mature Christians that the Genevan Rodent
has met are the ones that were nourished
and fed from the NASB !

"In over 35 years in the ministry, I have yet
to meet one person who was a strong Bible
student, who learned his doctrine from any
other version."

So, THAT explains why Bro. Rat don't
know nuth'in about the Bible !

"The multiplying of versions
has greatly hindered the
memorizing of the word of God."

Maybe. But it has greatly increased
understanding of Scripture !

"God has used the KJV to build the strongest

and best Bible believing Baptist churches..."

So, ~that's~ the problem with the Baptists !

"Look at the largest Baptist churches in
America, and you will find that they were
all built under the leadership of men who
preached the KJV."

Size may only mean more hypocrites.
You have some faulty presumptions here.

We have two or three "mega-churches"
here in Phoenix, Arizona. The Reformed
Rodent knows that at least one was built
under the leadership of a man who preaches
the NASB. Does this make the NASB more
God's Word than other translations ? By
YOUR logic: Yes !

Billy Graham has converted hundreds of
thousands of people. He has endorsed the
NIV, and used to hand out the Living Bible (LB)
to new converts. Does THAT make the LB
a great Bible version ? By ~your~ logic: Yes !

"God has used the KJV to bring all the great
revivals among English speaking people for
over 300 years."

Revivalism is of dubious value. We need
reformation far more than revivals !

Anyway, Graham did more sustained
revivalism than most of these events, and he
used the Living Bible !

"I have seen the false revivals that have come

under such men as Billy Graham..."

Oh, Bro. Rat gets it NOW: Any revival not
using the KJV is a "false revival" ! You probably
think Finney was great 'cause he used the KJV.

Your logic is appalling: Sure, for 300 years
more revivals utilized the KJV. But only because
alternatives like the RSV and ASV weren't in
existence for 200 years of those 300 !

"God has used the KJV to challenge and call
vast numbers of missionaries coring this time."

Funny how God didn't use the NIV until after
it was written !

But you got a good point. America was
founded by men with horses. It was settled
by men using horses. Therefore: Let's get
rid of our cars, and ride horses !

"All other versions tend to play down His
absolute deity."

We've already proven here in this newsgroup
that THAT is a figment of your imagination.

The DataRat

[Simcha Streltsov]

The DataRat (dat...@home.com) wrote:

: Commandment ! Or, today's KJV with

: the unfortunate mistranslation of murder

: as "kill" in the Sixth Commandment.

FWIW, sometimes the language problems go beyond
ability to translate the texts. AFAIU, the Hebrew word
"ratzah" does not directly correspond to any of these
words. you probably mean that only unlawful killings
are meant, but OTOH, murder seems to mean malicious, brutal,
but obviously "accidental" killings are also not a
good thing (can you say "accidental murder"?)

Simcha

[Me]

Instead of sitting around arguing over bible versions, why dont you go out
and win someone to Christ!!! Personally, i love the NIV.
Mike

soulw...@vvm.com wrote in article <765i82$2mc$1...@remarQ.com>...

> umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they

<snip>

[anthser]

peace be with you

lets keep in mind that even KJV has so called "flaws".

example: The word "TAWM" is used 14 times in the Old Testament.
13 times it is translated as upright, perfect, and undefiled.
One time it is translated as plain.
Genesis 25:27 " And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of
the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents."
Most bible dictionaries define Jacob as"cheater or supplanter"
Jacob actually means "heel grabber" ref: Gen 25:26
Now as you know Jacob was and is beloved by the jewish people. He is an
important part of jewish history. Yet why is the hebrew word "tawm" used as
"plain" only for Jacob. Why did the British go to such trouble to make Jacob
appear bad by lying about the meaning of his name?
For the answer we need to go back to British history in the early 17th
century. England was bankrupt through wars. The monarchy had borrowed
thousands of pounds(money) from Jewish money lenders. The rulers wanted to
borrow more money but Jewish money lenders refused to give bankrupt leaders
any more credit. So England declared the Jews to be Christ killers and
traitors to the crown, confiscating all their land and possessions and the
British cancelled their own debt. Now if Jacob and his descendants were in
any way "upright, perfect, or undefiled"; then it would be wrong to rob the
Jews: but if Jacob meant "supplanter or cheater" then the Jews were again
supplanting, taking things that belonged to Englsh people. England then
shipped these Jews to Holland, a country who opened their doors to these
pitiful.
Yet I would consider KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc. all very good
translations. I think overall the NIV is a great Translation. With the
reading skills of many people not to mention young adults an easier to read
translation is necessary for spreading the Word. I prefer the NASB myself
yet my church like many use the NIV version. I like reading the Psalms in
KJV. I have to put my faith in God that translations are accurate in
meaning, not necessarily word for word. Reading the Gospels you clearly see
that we don't get word for word quotes of what Jesus said but the ideas and
meanings do come out.
I am quite sure that you as well as i am glad to see people reading
the Word even if it is a different translation. Let us all pray for
understanding and wisdom and help our fellow mean grasp the meanings of what
God wants of us.

May the Lord be with you
Just a servant of the Lord
AJ wrote in message <3687c...@news1.mweb.co.za>...

[V O J]

No matter the version, reading it through a few dozen times gives one the
necessary information to "defend one's faith" as Peter tells us.

Better yet read the NIV COMPLETELY
Then the NASV
Then the Living
Then the NKJV
Then the Message
Then the RSV
Then the NRSV
Then the KJV
Then re-read which ever one a person likes.

After this, all version controversy will seem trite.

Me wrote in message <01be3508$0a8436c0$3a9486d0@default>...

>Instead of sitting around arguing over bible versions, why dont you go out
>and win someone to Christ!!! Personally, i love the NIV.
>Mike
>
>soulw...@vvm.com wrote in article <765i82$2mc$1...@remarQ.com>...

>> umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they

><snip>

[roger martin]

The DataRat wrote:

> These are the same old, tired arguments
> used to try to discredit all Bible versions
> ( except the KJV ) which have been refuted
> here previously !
>
> DataRat

Yep. Probably in many ways similar to those the Church used to attack
Tyndale and others who wanted something better than the Vulgate, or even
before when the lovers of the Septuagint were affronted.
Maybe we should go back to square one and just hand out the ancient
Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Would that be "pure" enough?

Now of course if they were attacking the NRSV, then I'd probably have to
go along....

[The DataRat]

[Stephen A. Bayzik]

roger martin<TNMA...@EARTHLINK.NET wrote in message
<368EE48F...@earthlink.net>...

>Yep. Probably in many ways similar to those the Church used to attack
>Tyndale and others who wanted something better than the Vulgate, or even
>before when the lovers of the Septuagint were affronted.
>Maybe we should go back to square one and just hand out the ancient
>Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Would that be "pure" enough?

There are no "original/pure" manuscripts. Though many Biblical
publications/translations exist and can be read; but for the closest
"standard" texts of Scripture we have only the Vulgate for the Western/Roman
portion of the Historical Church and the Lucinian Septuagint for the Eastern
Orthodox portion of the Historical Church.

The other "Bibles" provide a good source of revenue in meeting the desire
within the common masses to attempt to play amateur theologian.

[textman]

+
> roger martin wrote: <snip>

> Maybe we should go back to square one and just hand out the ancient
> Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Would that be "pure" enough?

.
You bettcha! There is absolutely no substitute for the Greek text of
the New Testament. It holds many 'secrets' that are unavoidably lost
in any translation. Alas, that is the nature of the translating beast.
.

> Now of course if they were attacking the NRSV, then I'd probably have
> to go along....

.
Me too. I rather think that the NRSV is a big step down from the
good ol Revised Standard Version; which remains my favorite English
translation, and is still the best for all serious bible study.
.
the great grandson of William Tyndale: textman ;>
x

[bobe]

Stephen A. Bayzik wrote:
>
> roger martin<TNMA...@EARTHLINK.NET wrote in message
> <368EE48F...@earthlink.net>...
>
> >Yep. Probably in many ways similar to those the Church used to attack
> >Tyndale and others who wanted something better than the Vulgate, or even
> >before when the lovers of the Septuagint were affronted.

> >Maybe we should go back to square one and just hand out the ancient
> >Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Would that be "pure" enough?
>

> There are no "original/pure" manuscripts. Though many Biblical
> publications/translations exist and can be read; but for the closest
> "standard" texts of Scripture we have only the Vulgate for the Western/Roman
> portion of the Historical Church and the Lucinian Septuagint for the Eastern
> Orthodox portion of the Historical Church.
>
> The other "Bibles" provide a good source of revenue in meeting the desire
> within the common masses to attempt to play amateur theologian.

I'll take the Holy Bible in the form of the Authorized Version of the
King James Bible written in English for English speaking members of the
"common masses".

As far as attempting to play amateur theologian, I am not interested in
doing that.

I am more interested in reading and mediating on what God is telling me
through His Holy Word. I have faith in that same Bible that has been
with us for 387 years and just like Jesus, the Word of God, the same
yesterday, today and tomorrow.

I don't read or write Hebrew or Greek and God does not expect me to
become a linquistics scholar in order to understand His Word, He expects
me to have faith in His Word and to study His Word for it is written:

"Every word of God is pure, he is a shield to them that put their faith
in him." Proverbs 30:5

Here is an excerpt from a story about the King James Bible:

"William Tyndale was born in 1483. At Cambridge University he saw a copy
of the Greek New Testament which Erasmus had just completed. To see a
New Testament in those days was a rarity. He had intended to read this
New Testament as a scholarly exercise, but the words soon ovepowered
him. A priest said to him contemptuously one day, "We had better be
without God's laws than those of the Pope." Whereupon Tyndale threw him
this hot coal, "I defy the Pope and all his laws; and if God spare me, I
will one day make the plough-boys of England know more Scripture than
the Pope."

After many narrow escapes from the vigilant priests, who knew the
trouble that
Wycliffe's handwritten New Testaments had caused, Tyndale succeeded in
printing thousands of copies of the New Testament -- the first copies
printed in English, at Worms, Germany. He hid them in bales of cloth and
sacks of flour, and used every other secret means ingenuity could
contrive to ship them into England. Some of
them were intercepted. These were piled in a great heap and at St.
Paul's cross in the midst of the city of London, they were set afire as
a "burnt offering most pleasing to Almighty God."

Tyndale was finally trapped by the wiley priests, and after two
miserable years in prison was strangled and burned. His last prayer is
classified in our files as bringing the mightiest answer to prayer ever
recorded from the days of Paul to the present time. He cried out to God,
"Lord, open the King of England's eyes." The Lord heard -- and did
exactly that, causing James 1 of England to sponsor -- for no
known reason, except that God answered Tyndale's prayer -- the
magnificent and inestimably influential King James Translation of the
Bible." - [Trinitarian Bible Society Canada]

bobe
(one of the common masses who believes the word of God)

--

"Not only does God take you out of Egypt,
He also takes Egypt out of you!"

[Simcha Streltsov]

anthser (ant...@gte.net) wrote:
: example: The word "TAWM" is used 14 times in the Old Testament.

: 13 times it is translated as upright, perfect, and undefiled.
: One time it is translated as plain.

: "plain" only for Jacob. Why did the British go to such trouble to make Jacob

: appear bad by lying about the meaning of his name?

Your historical explanation of the [mis-?]translation may be correct
but actually "Tam" does mean both "perfect" and "plain" -
words are connected - in a sense of simplicity that does
not run after false sophistication - in the case of Jacob,
he is against Esav who is involved in the world, who hunts, fights,
etc.

thus, it is hard, almost impossible, to translate Biblical verses
one-to-one. the best possible translation would actually be a running
commentary that translates the words literally plus adds possible explanations
and commentaries. By clinging to one "best" translation you will
inevitably loose the depth of the text

--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:

[soulw...@vvm.com]

Tabernacle Baptist Church
E. L. Bynum, Pastor
1911 34th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79411

USE THE BIBLE GOD USES
King James A.V. 1611
By E. L. Bynum

For some time we have printed stickers with the same wording as the title
for this article. Apparently
some do not understand what it means, therefore they oppose the statement.
Others who are critics of the
KJV will naturally be offended by the printed message on the stickers. We
shall make no attempt to
appease these opponents, but we do want our readers to know and understand
what we believe about the
KJV.

Make no mistake about it, we believe that the Bible is the verbally and
plenarily inspired word of God,
and that it is infallible and inerrant in all matters of which it speaks. Of
course we believe that the original
autographs were the inspired word of God. Since no one in the past ever had
all of the autographs at one
time, and since no one in the present even has one fragment of any of the
autographs, we must approach
this subject from a different angle.

If God has not preserved His word, as He promised, then we do not have the
infallible word of God
today. And if we do not have it today, we might as well fold our tents and
steal away, for we never will
have it. We firmly believe that God preserved His word through the Masoretic
Hebrew text of the Old

Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek text of the New Testament. We firmly

believe that the King
James Version of the English Bible is a true and faithful translation of
these two providentially preserved
texts.

The charge is often made that we believe in double inspiration. They mean by

this, that we are teaching
that the King James translators were inspired of God. Nothing could be
further from the truth. It is God's

word that is inspired. There is no scripture that teaches that even the
prophets or apostles were inspired. It
was the words that they wrote which are contained in the Bible, that are
inspired of God. God never
promised to make any men inspired, or to keep them inspired. It is His word
which is inspired, and which
He promised to keep.

To put it simply, we believe that the King James Version is the inspired
word of God, and that is has been
preserved for the English speaking people, in the very form that God has
purposed. We do not believe
that it needs any correction or changes. It simply needs to be read,
preached, explained, and believed.

The old confessions of faith testified to the preservation of the word of
God. The Baptists issued the
Second London Confession of Faith in 1677 and it said: "The Old Testament in
Hebrew and the New
Testament in Greek...being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular
care and Providence kept
pure in all Ages...."

Use The Bible God Uses
King James A.V. 1611

We say "Use The Bible God Uses" the "King James A.V. 1611," for the
following reasons.

1. God used the message of the KJV to save my soul. If you are saved, it is
very likely that He used it

in the salvation of your soul also. Most of the saved critics of the KJV

were saved by hearing its message.

If they will be honest, they will have to admit this. "Being born again, not
of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I
Peter 1:23) The next two verses
also clearly contains the promise that God will preserve His word. For over
300 years God has been using
the KJV to save multitudes of lost souls in the English speaking world.

In fact we make bold to say, that if you removed all the people in the

English speaking world that had
been saved through the preaching and teaching of the KJV, you would have
very little evidence of
Christianity left.

2. God has used the KJV for the growth and maturing of the saints. The

strongest and most mature
Christians that I have met, are the ones that were nourished and fed from

the KJV. Even many who have
been misled into becoming critics of the KJV, would have to admit that they
learned their doctrine and

obtained their spiritual growth through the study of the KJV. In over 35

years in the ministry, I have yet
to meet one person who was a strong Bible student, who learned his doctrine
from any other version.

It is the Bible that can be and is memorized. The multiplying of versions
has greatly hindered the

memorizing of the word of God. No other Bible has been, nor will there ever
be a Bible that will be
memorized, as has been the KJV.

3. God has used the KJV to build the strongest and best Bible believing
Baptist churches for over
300 years. I am personally acquainted with hundreds and hundreds of
independent fundamental Baptist
churches, and I do not know even one of them that was built by preaching

some other version. Look at

the largest Baptist churches in America, and you will find that they were
all built under the leadership of

men who preached the KJV. Look at the best, and most conservative of
Southern Baptist churches and
you will find that they were built under the preaching of the KJV.

Some of the great churches of America may now be pastored by men who correct
and criticize the KJV,
but they were not built by such preaching. These preachers went off to a
preacher factory, where they
were told that the ASV, NASV, NIV, or some other corrupt translation was
better, and they foolishly
believed what they were told.

4. God has used the KJV to bring all the great revivals among English
speaking people for over

300 years. I do not know of a single great revival, during this period, that
came under the preaching of

any other version. Of course I have seen the false revivals that have come

under such men as Billy

Graham, as he sometimes preached from other versions. A careful study might
well reveal that the
downfall of Graham came about when he began to recommend the Revised
Standard Version and other
corrupted Bibles.

5. God has used the KJV to challenge and call vast numbers of missionaries
coring this time. I
know of no other period in church history when as many missionaries have
been called and sent as has
taken place during the reign of the KJV. Even now, there are thousands of
missionaries who were
challenged and called under the preaching of the KJV. At home and abroad,
they are faithfully trying to
preach the word of God and establish churches. As the use of the KJV is
diminished, so will be the
number of sound missionaries who are called.

6. God has used the KJV, because it exalts His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

All other versions tend to

[anthser]

peace be with you

i'm sorry i guess i didn't explain it well. tam(i write tawm as i don't have
special keyboard here) can be both perfect and plain and blameless yet the
idea is why write plain and not perfect. as far as the history goes it is
well documented as more persecution against the jews.
i am not endorsing any translation rather i would encourage reading more
than one translation.
thank you for your comments and i hope i explained the topic better.
god bless you

just a servant of the Lord
Simcha Streltsov wrote in message <76r1hd$n3e$2...@news1.bu.edu>...

[The DataRat]

Some will tell you that the King James Version (KJV)
-also known as the Authorized Version (AV)- is the
"inspired word of God". Sorry, but it's only a translation
of the Greek and Hebrew texts.

If you study the translating of the KJV, it is obvious that
the translator's themselves didn't view their work as
"inspired" in that sense ( a re-inspired Scripture, so to
speak ).

The KJV was translated by a committee, divided into
six working groups and assigned various portions of
the Old and New Testaments. In this respect, it was
compiled the same way as the NIV, NASB, or NLT.

The KJV was not written by special revelation, but by
comparison to earlier translations. In the preface to
the original 1611 KJV, the translators stated that their
work was "upon their foundation that went before us".

Indeed, the same preface by the KJV translators
states that a "variety of Translations is profitable for
finding out the sense of the Scriptures" !

Only the original manuscripts of the Bible ( the
autographa ) were inspired, and these are no longer
extant. Everything else is either a copy of the
autographa in Greek or Hebrew, or a translation into
other languages from those copies.

The KJV translators never considered the KJV as
re-inspired Scripture. Nor has anyone else until
just the past few decades ( and, mostly, the last few
years ! ).

In fact, the KJV has several deficiencies. Most
notably:

1.) It's deplorable use of "kill" rather than "murder"
in the Sixth Commandment.

2.) Translation of the Greek "hades" in the NT, and
the Hebrew "sheol" in the OT, as "hell".

3.) Translation using "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 instead of
the more appropriate "calamity" or "disaster".

4.) The unfortunate usage of "Holy Ghost" rather
than "Holy Spirit".

5.) The inappropriate use of "with" in Luke 17:21
instead of "in your midst".

The KJV was good for it's time ( almost 500 years
ago ). But it has been superceded by more
accurate and intelligible translations.

The Genevan Rodent suggests you take the advice
of the KJV translators, and profit from studying a
variety of translations.

DataRat

[V O J]

The DataRat wrote in message ...
>

>Some will tell you that the King James Version (KJV)
>-also known as the Authorized Version (AV)- is the
>"inspired word of God". Sorry, but it's only a translation
>of the Greek and Hebrew texts.
>
>If you study the translating of the KJV, it is obvious that
>the translator's themselves didn't view their work as
>"inspired" in that sense ( a re-inspired Scripture, so to
>speak ).

Neither did the original writers of the books or chapters in the Bible
AND?

>
>The KJV was translated by a committee, divided into
>six working groups and assigned various portions of
>the Old and New Testaments. In this respect, it was
>compiled the same way as the NIV, NASB, or NLT.

AND?

>
>The KJV was not written by special revelation, but by
>comparison to earlier translations. In the preface to
>the original 1611 KJV, the translators stated that their
>work was "upon their foundation that went before us".

Much the same as Peter wrote, huh?

>
>Indeed, the same preface by the KJV translators
>states that a "variety of Translations is profitable for
>finding out the sense of the Scriptures" !
>
>Only the original manuscripts of the Bible ( the
>autographa ) were inspired, and these are no longer
>extant. Everything else is either a copy of the
>autographa in Greek or Hebrew, or a translation into
>other languages from those copies.

Well that is a theology well publicized but not biblical in itself. We do
not know how many "adjustments" God made in the first few recopies of the
books.

>
>The KJV translators never considered the KJV as
>re-inspired Scripture. Nor has anyone else until
>just the past few decades ( and, mostly, the last few
>years ! ).

Past few years meaning past 100 plus.

>
>In fact, the KJV has several deficiencies. Most
>notably:
>
>1.) It's deplorable use of "kill" rather than "murder"
> in the Sixth Commandment.

True in 1999 but not the original difference in meaning.

>
>2.) Translation of the Greek "hades" in the NT, and
> the Hebrew "sheol" in the OT, as "hell".

Only important if you make it that way or your pastor preaches it.

>
>3.) Translation using "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 instead of
> the more appropriate "calamity" or "disaster".

Just because we (or you) do not know the real meaning of the word evil does
not make KJV wrong. We also have bastardized "confess" and "charity"

>
>4.) The unfortunate usage of "Holy Ghost" rather
> than "Holy Spirit".

Spirit and Ghost mean something different to you. That is your problem.

>
>5.) The inappropriate use of "with" in Luke 17:21
> instead of "in your midst".

"With" and "in your midst" apparently mean something different to you.
That is your problem.

>
>The KJV was good for it's time ( almost 500 years
>ago ). But it has been superceded by more
>accurate and intelligible translations.

You overstate the case. Accurate is strictly your opinion. Intelligible is
relative to what command one might have of the English language. Using
older manuscripts does not necessarily mean more accurate. All of the
supposed new translations continue to use archaic words and phrases and thus
incorrect in 1999. These were first penned in the KJV but public reaction
would kill a translation. Other words are also used which are ambiguous
such as love.

Yes, the KJV is written in another language than that which most understand,
including the proponents of KJV. There is no other translation which is
more readily understood or more accurate.

>
>The Genevan Rodent suggests you take the advice
>of the KJV translators, and profit from studying a
>variety of translations.

If a person has not done as you suggest here, they have no right to speak on
the subject and are, in all probability, ignorant of much of the Bible.
People will read a commentary before they pick up another translation. No
commentary is as good as the Bible and of course prayer for enlightenment.

>
>
>DataRat
>
>
>
>
>

[gary]

V O J wrote in message <76t92c$9sv$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...

>
>The DataRat wrote in message ...
>>
>>Some will tell you that the King James Version (KJV)
>>-also known as the Authorized Version (AV)- is the
>>"inspired word of God". Sorry, but it's only a translation
>>of the Greek and Hebrew texts.
>>
>>If you study the translating of the KJV, it is obvious that
>>the translator's themselves didn't view their work as
>>"inspired" in that sense ( a re-inspired Scripture, so to
>>speak ).
>
>
>Neither did the original writers of the books or chapters in the Bible
>AND?

Ah yes, but they did!

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction.

Read and understand!

[V O J]

Peter was talking of Paul's writing, not his own. Don't omit part of a
verse to try to prove an unprovable point.

gary wrote in message <77050u$e0$1...@news.iag.net>...

[gary]

V O J wrote in message <7705he$eh$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...

>Peter was talking of Paul's writing, not his own. Don't omit part of a
>verse to try to prove an unprovable point.

So now you are trying to say that the writing of the Apostle Paul
WERE SCRITPURE, but that the Apostle Peter's were not! What
about James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, etc.

Such lunacy!

Gary

[V O J]

Well it's obvious that you have trouble with English so I wont bother trying
to explain.
Sorry.
gary wrote in message <77070d$mm$1...@news.iag.net>...

[The DataRat]

Gary's point was that the NT as
we have it was thought to be
inspired of God prior to the canon
being closed. He provided 2 Peter
3:16 as a proof text.

Gary is correct on this issue.

The DataRat

[V O J]

The DataRat wrote in message
>
>

Yes, I had stated such with regard to Peter talking of Paul's writing and it
seemed to be taken as my stating ALL NT was called scripture in that verse.
Yes, there was a fairly common agreement by the year 300, or before, of what
was reliable and what was not. Some seem to think that there was only one
church at the time but there were at least 7 other than the Empire of Rome
which sponsored a church of their own.

The primary difference in attitudes toward "canon" is that the general bible
(I.E. KJV, NIV, etc.) is based on sifting out the questionable books. Our
"only church" friends keep questionable books and teachings plus actually
adding to the base rather than try to base theology on as clean and
unencumbered a set as possible.

I have often thought that a compilation of the then contemporary and
non-heretical books in a separate binding would do many a great service.
The Apocrypha would definitely be part of it. The fake Gospel of Thomas
would not. Of course, when most "Christians" have never read the basic
bible in its entirety, maybe it is inconsequential.

Because they base almost all theology on tradition it is not important to
them whether some books need special explanation by "the Chosen".

The dumb question of where in the bible is there a list of the Canon books
never seems to be answered by "It is a list in itself".

[dke...@integrityonline4.com]

Hello, Whoever you are,

On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 09:05:17 -0800, <soulw...@vvm.com> wrote:

>:umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they
>:used the wrong Greek text.

You are an expert on Greek texts?

Although I prefer the New American Standard Version of the Bible, I
consider the NIV to be a useful tool for many people. I know folks
who will read the NIV, but no other translation, merely because it is
a very easy-to-read text that flows smoothly and reads in the manner
of language that most folks think. That has value too.

>From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek
>:text used in the work of
>:translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so
>:much manuscript support as
>:does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make
>:their choice of reading in
>:accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles
>:of textual criticism"
>:should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank
>:the "unsound textual
>:critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today.

Since the word eclectic means, "seeking what appears to be the best in
various doctrines, methods, or styles," (Websters 10th New Collegiate
Dictionary, pg 364-365), that is EXACTLY what they should have chosen
to translate from. Why would anyone want to translate from any
inferior text?

And just because you don't like their text does not make their choice
"unsound." It merely means you disagree with their choice.
Considering that they translated the Bible and you probably cannot, I
would probably trust their judgement better than yours; they probably
know more than you do.

>It is clear
>:that the translators have slavishly
>:followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all
>:their claims, this theory elevates the
>:Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two
>:manuscripts are among the most
>:corrupt manuscripts in existence today.

First off, the wild claims that the "vatican and sinatic manuscripts"
are corrupt is a completely unsubstianted claim of folks who are
trying desparately to justify their KJV only position. Since there is
no evidence whatever that these manuscripts were "corrupted," your
argument is completely fallacious.

>They did not rely on the Textus
>:Receptus which the KJV was
>:translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in
>:essential agreement with this text.

Since Textus Receptus was not published as Textus Receptus until 50
years AFTER the KJV was published, it is obvious you don't know the
history of the translations of the English Bible. The Greek texts
used for the translation of the KJV were the third and fourth
revisions of the Erasmus texts, published by the Beza brothers.
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic monk who collected a collection of 11th
and 12th century Greek manuscripts together to publish a complete New
Testament compilation of Greek. Your source here IS Roman Catholic,
bub! :-)

Erasmus published a fifth text which was modified two more times by
other people before it was published in the form "textus receptus,"
which BTW was not what it was called, but was part of a comment in the
forward.
>:
>:To prove the above statement we have checked on 151 key corruptions found in
>:the Westcott-Hort text
>:and we have found that NIV either in the text or in the footnotes have
>:agreed 138 times or over
>:91% of the time.

I have seen several of these "key corruption" type charts. In every
one of them, the author of the charts pretends that the KJV is the
"perfect translation" by which all others should be measured. Since
the KJV never claims to be a "perfect translation," and indeed has had
over 75,000 words changed from its original printing to today, that is
a logical fallacy, and the "corruption charts" are worthless junk.

>Out of 162 scriptures often corrupted by the new versions
>:we find Westcott-Hort in
>:agreement 93% of the time, and NIV in agreement 92% of the time. On the same
>:basis the New English
>:Version rates 92% and the Revised Standard Version 97%. Some highly
>:recommend the New American
>:Standard Version, but it also rates over 90% in agreement with these corrupt
>:versions. The King James
>:Version and the Textus Receptus rate 0%. The lower the percentage the
>:better.

Again, the Textus Receptus did not exist until 50 years after the KJV
had already been published. Check Zondervan's Pictorial Dictionary of
the Bible out. It gives a good timeline for the various different
texts, and it is very accurate.

Also, why don't you demand we use the Apocrypha as well? King James
said that if anyone published the KJV without the Apocrypha, they were
to be put to death. The translation of the KJV INCLUDED THE APOCRYPHA
because they considered it part of the Bible. Why don't you? Or do
you just PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE?
>:
>:We do not doubt that some of the translators labored hard and long to
>:produce a good version but they
>:could not do it. Why? They followed modern textual criticism, and we are
>:convinced that even the most
>:fundamental scholars cannot come up with a good version of the Bible if they
>:follow the modern textual
>:theories.

Only the folks who believe in the KJV only would ALL labor hard and
long, huh?

>The best carpenter will fail if his lumber is rotten and decayed.
>:Skill in any trade will go just so
>:far, but if the craftsman is deceived into working with inferior material he
>:will fail in the end. No where is
>:this more evident than in Bible translation.

And you think that the best translators are going to pick rotten
"lumber" to work with? Sheer nonsense! Nobody in their right mind
would do such a thing!

Some inferior translators, those who would "translate" with the
purpose of promoting a particular religious agenda (such as the JW's)
might intentionally translate one way or another to reach their
dishonest goals. But honest translators with the purpose of serving
God would NEVER pick less than the best sources to work from.
>:
>:2. The second reason for NIV's poor quality may be found in the translators
>:themselves. The
>:Preface to NIV says, "Certain convictions and aims have guided the
>:translators. They are all committed to
>:the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which
>:they believe to be God's Word in
>:written form." There is at least two things wrong with this statement. (1)
>:While it sounds good on the
>:surface, it is entirely too ambiguous to suit us. It is open to a number of
>:interpretations, and this we
>:believe they had to make it that way, in order to make up their 100 member
>:committee.

You are making ASSUMPTIONS without any basis in fact. The statement
is in the Preface, not intended to be a technically precise and
detailed statement, but a general introduction to the book.

>How much
>:simpler to have said that all the translators believed in verbal (word for
>:word) inspiration. I am sure that
>:part of the committee does believe in verbal inspiration but until they say
>:so in writing, we are going to
>:doubt that they all do.

Typical problem with most KJV onliers. Someone didn't chose the words
YOU would have used, so they must be wrong. A very egotistical
position, and very wrong.

>(2) Frankly we are not impressed with the long list
>:of names and the schools that
>:they are associated with. It is very evident that the "New Evangelical"
<snipped the list of names>
>:searching for it among the
>:manuscripts. What a mess! Surely God is not the author of such confusion.

Oh? You would rather it just be 3 schools and 54 translators. The
schools would be, of course, Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford
Universities, Church of England, along with ALL of the translators
being members of that church?

You seem to be claiming that nobody but those who think like you can
be competent linguists. You do not have to be spiritual to be a
competent linguist, a good translator, or honest.
>:
>:3. We question this version on the basis of some of its enthusiastic
>:supporters. Dr. Billy Graham
>:wrote, "The New York Bible Society is rendering a distinct service to the
>:English-speaking world by
>:sponsoring a major new translation of the Bible by the leading evangelical
>:scholars of America."

You don't like Billy Graham? I would bet he has done more for the
Lord than you and a hundred more like you put together, wouldn't you?
How many people have YOU led to Jesus Christ?

>That
>:sounds good, but Billy Graham has endorsed the Revised Standard Version,
>:Good News For Modern
>:Man, and the Living Bible. So his endorsement is not reassuring. The
>:National Association of Evangelicals
>:has been in sympathy with the production of NIV, and many of the translators
>:are members of this group.
>:The NAE is shot through and through with new evangelicalism.

Now you don't like the the NAE, the RSV, Good News for Modern Man, or
the Living Bible. While the Good News for Modern Man is an
intentionally corrupt translation, translated for The Way
International to match their specific doctrines, and the Living Bible
Paraphrased is not a translation at all, and doesn't claim to be, you
still seem to be "anti-everything-anti-everyone." I am sorry for you
that you seem so anti that you seem to forget Who you are for.
>:
>:One church leader quoted in a NIV promotional brochure said, "I have read
>:the New International
>:Version and found that it preserves the dignity of the K.J.V. and the
>:accuracy of the R.S.V. and
>:the New American Standard Bible along with the free-flowing readability of
>:the Living Bible." We
>:believe he put NIV in the right class. Need we say more?

Are you claiming that the KJV is NOT dignified?
Are you claiming that the RSV is NOT sound?
Are you claiming that the Living Bible is NOT easy to read?

Perhaps you should consider what you say more carefully.

The NIV is a fine Bible for the purpose of reading, enjoying, and
getting to know God from. It was not translated to be a study source,
and it is not one. The texts it was taken from are fine.

And the KJV only position does not hold water at all. King James
didn't translate it. Those who did were not godly men. The texts
they used were not "perfect texts" but were merely what they had
available at the time. The Erasmus text IS a Roman Catholic text as
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic monk, sworn under oath to allegience to
the Pope at Rome.

I would suggest you quit attacking all Bibles that aren't KJV and
instead serve the Lord. HE never attacked the Greek Septuagint of the
OT. HE QUOTED IT!

in Christ Jesus,
dennis

[ro...@my-dejanews.com]

Organization:
http://web.a-znet.com/roby/

dke...@integrityonline4.com wrote:
>
> Hello, Whoever you are,
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 09:05:17 -0800, <soulw...@vvm.com> wrote:
>
> >:umber one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they
> >:used the wrong Greek text.
>
> You are an expert on Greek texts?

Dennis has made a valid point here. How does soulwhiner know which
Greek texts are "good?"

> >From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek
> >:text used in the work of
> >:translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so
> >:much manuscript support as
> >:does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make
> >:their choice of reading in
> >:accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles
> >:of textual criticism"
> >:should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank
> >:the "unsound textual
> >:critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today.

Unfortunately fundamentalism (from which pentecostalism was birthed)
tends to be so anti-intellectual that it rejects "textual criticism" out
of hand without a clear understanding of what it is trying to
accomplish.

> Since the word eclectic means, "seeking what appears to be the best in
> various doctrines, methods, or styles," (Websters 10th New Collegiate
> Dictionary, pg 364-365), that is EXACTLY what they should have chosen
> to translate from. Why would anyone want to translate from any
> inferior text?
>
> And just because you don't like their text does not make their choice
> "unsound." It merely means you disagree with their choice.

Another good point, Dennis. There is much room for disagreement.
Claiming ultimate authority to proclaim a particular translation as
"good" or "bad" is elitism.

> You seem to be claiming that nobody but those who think like you can
> be competent linguists. You do not have to be spiritual to be a
> competent linguist, a good translator, or honest.

In fact, God's word is able to take honest evaluation.

> >:
> >:3. We question this version on the basis of some of its enthusiastic
> >:supporters. Dr. Billy Graham
> >:wrote, "The New York Bible Society is rendering a distinct service to the
> >:English-speaking world by
> >:sponsoring a major new translation of the Bible by the leading evangelical
> >:scholars of America."
>
> You don't like Billy Graham? I would bet he has done more for the
> Lord than you and a hundred more like you put together, wouldn't you?
> How many people have YOU led to Jesus Christ?
>
> >That
> >:sounds good, but Billy Graham has endorsed the Revised Standard Version,
> >:Good News For Modern
> >:Man, and the Living Bible. So his endorsement is not reassuring. The
> >:National Association of Evangelicals
> >:has been in sympathy with the production of NIV, and many of the translators
> >:are members of this group.
> >:The NAE is shot through and through with new evangelicalism.
>
> Now you don't like the the NAE, the RSV, Good News for Modern Man, or
> the Living Bible. While the Good News for Modern Man is an
> intentionally corrupt translation, translated for The Way
> International to match their specific doctrines, and the Living Bible
> Paraphrased is not a translation at all, and doesn't claim to be, you
> still seem to be "anti-everything-anti-everyone." I am sorry for you
> that you seem so anti that you seem to forget Who you are for.

I have never seen soulwhiner like/endorse anyone but him/herself.

robys

http://web.a-znet.com/roby/

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[Jim Volk]

The KJV is the inspired English Bible.  A simple proof is the application of Isaiah's revelation for understanding scripture, "line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little..."   Does the KJV unequivocally present a coherent composite of each and every Christian doctrine, when dissected by concordance, and reassembled according to proper subject context?  Sure it does.  Rightly dividing the word of truth is an impossibility with any other english Bible.  No other translation or paraphrase so naturally lends itself to the discriminating logic of the concordance!  Concordances based on other bibles are like chop suey, and not nearly as palatable.  If indeed "every word of God is pure," and "forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven," and "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away," and "add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar," and "the words of the LORD are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," and "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book," and "the word of the LORD is tried," and "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fuflfilled," and if God himself says, "I am the LORD, I change not," and if Jesus Christ is "the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever," who in their right mind would ascribe legitimacy to over 50 english bibles which differ markedly from one another, and from the KJV?  The proof of the KJV is also in the pudding:  this Bible can convict a man of sin, lead a man to repentence, inspire him to works of faith, instruct him in the fear of the Lord and wisdom, and provide him with a worthy sword with which to resist the adversary.  "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"  Surely, only one Bible can lay claim to this boast!

[Peter M.]

Jim Volk wrote:

 The KJV is the inspired English Bible.

How amusing. In the kjv, Deut. 14: 11, 18 lists a bat among birds. Now arguing that people were not experts has nothing to do with this, the passage is attributed to God. To trust the kjv, is to believe that God cannot make a distinction between a bird and a mammal.

Even more proof of the kjv nonsense is Lev. 11: 20-21, which clearly states that some fowls are four-footed. Sounds like the kind of stuff Herodtus wrote. God knows that birds do not crawl around on four feet.

The best is Deut. 33: 17; Psalm 22: 21, 29:6; Job 39: 9-10; all these passages has God talking about unicorns, a mythical creature. This is proof positive, except to those willing to believe any rubbish, that the kjv is very questionable. God would not talk about unicorns as if they existed.

For those who defend the kjv, the above forces them to accept just plain nonsense, and confess it. If they fail to confess it, they are by their deeds denying it. Apologetics will not cut it, that is a xian cop out. If the kjv is the best English translation on the market, than one better be ready to believe that unicorns exist, bats are birds,  and some birds are four-footed.

peace

Peter

[Ann Hovsepian]

I don't believe it..... I actually agree with the Rat for once! :o)

The DataRat wrote in message ...

 

 

More wacko KJV-Only heresies !

 

 

                    The DataRat

 

 

                                                            .

[sa...@aba.net]

Take a look at this site Peter.......it might answer some of your
curiousities....?

http://web2.airmail.net/dsh440

[Peter M.]

sa...@aba.net wrote:

I have, it is nothing more than apologetics, and proof that anyone can
make a web page. God never made a fraction of the statements attributed
to Him in the bible, and no amount of making excuses for the text can
change that fact, which is as I mentioned in the previous post. Here is
a site that I do not completely agree with, but at least takes the kjv
literally:

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld

peace

Peter

[Alvin]

niv leaves out scripture that are about doctrine1john 5;7 and a 144 more

Peter M. wrote in message <36980D80...@istar.ca>...

[Peter M.]

Hello Alvin,

would you explain what you mean by the NIV leaves out doctrine in I John
5: 7? Both the kjv and nasb in front of me agree, and I do not have a
NIV available at the moment.

peace

Peter

[vernon o]

 

Now we know someone other than God defined what a bird is.

[Greg Hartman]

Jim Volk wrote:

> The KJV is the inspired English Bible.  A simple proof is the application of Isaiah's revelation for understanding
> scripture, "line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little..."  

You sure picked a bad text to prooftext from! Not only is this verse not
about God's pattern for understanding scripture, its subject is the
exact opposite--it's about God taking knowledge AWAY from His own
unfaithful priests. Furthermore, it's a great example of how our
knowledge of Hebrew--and therefore our English Bibles--have only
improved since 1611.

Here's the verse in question:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand
doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the
breasts. For precept must be upon precept, line upon line, line upon
line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:9-10, King James
Version).

Here's the common interpretation:

"God says here that His teaching brings us into maturity a little at a
time, just like a baby growing up and eating solid food. God teaches us
a little at a time -- line upon line, precept upon precept."

Point by point, these are all true statements. But is that what this
passage is really saying?

Here's the NIV's rendition -- in context:

"And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and
prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from
beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering
decisions. All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot
without filth.

"Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?
For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule ; a little
here, a little there.

"Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to
this people, to whom he said, 'This is the resting place, let the weary
rest'; and, 'This is the place of repose' -- but they would not listen.

"So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do and do, do and
do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there -- so that
they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured"
(Isaiah 28:7-13).

Why is this so different from the King James?

This was a tough passage for the King James translators to handle; it
probably needs to be understood idiomatically, and their knowledge of
the finer points of Hebrew was lacking.

In Hebrew, "Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule" sounds
like this: "Sav lasav sav lasav; kav lakav kav lakav." These are not
real words; they are a simple little rhyme of nonsense syllables.

There are two basic schools of thought here:

1. The nonsense syllables were once a children's rhyme; the Hebrew
equivalent of "Hickory dickory dock."

2. The nonsense syllables represent the drunken priests mocking Isaiah's
words; the equivalent of "Blah blah blah; yadda yadda yadda."

So what's this passage really saying? Keep in mind that Isaiah is
talking to a bunch of priests who are such sorry excuses for spiritual
leaders that they're getting drunk and puking all over the Temple (!),
and warning them that God will not tolerate their apostasy -- in fact,
Jerusalem will fall someday, thanks to them.

So Isaiah's rebuking the priests here, not commending the people. "Who
is he trying to teach?" does not refer to the congregation at large; it
refers to the priesthood, who are educated in the Word, not a bunch of
babies. Yet these priests (depending on which school of thought you
adhere to) either:

1. Mock Isaiah, a true prophet of the Lord, or

2. Make a mockery of God's Word by teaching nursery-school-level
nonsense to their parishioners.

Either school of thought leads to the same result. "Very well," Isaiah
says to the priests, "you asked for it, you got it. If you won't
tolerate or provide sound teaching, God will take away your knowledge,
line upon line, rule upon rule. His Word will become meaningless
babbling to you until you stumble and are captured!"

This passage is not at all about how God teaches His children. The
opposite is true: It's about how God disciplines disobedient leaders by
stealing their wisdom until they are destroyed.

--
Greg Hartman -- Take the "x" and "z" out of my address to mail me.
Christian Humor ! <http://christianhumor.miningco.com>
"Very funny, Scotty -- now beam down my clothes."

[Greg Hartman]

Peter M. wrote:

> How amusing. In the kjv, Deut. 14: 11, 18 lists a bat among birds. Now arguing that people were not experts has nothing
> to do with this, the passage is attributed to God. To trust the kjv, is to believe that God cannot make a distinction between a
> bird and a mammal.

This sounds contradictory to my last post, but I'm afraid you're quite
wrong. This is an interpretive error on YOUR part called "illegitimate
totality transfer."

What the Bible does in this verse is group certain animals by
appearance, viz., they all have wings. You, on the other hand, are not
only grouping animals along Western taxonomic lines, you're assuming
that's the only possible way of doing it.

If I said a dog and an alligator were similar because they both have
four legs, I'd be right, wouldn't I? I'd simply be arranging my data at
right angles to Western taxonomy. Seems those inconsiderate ancient
Hebrews were too rude to do things our way! (Prove to me that birds and
bats don't all have wings, on the other hand, and I'll concede your
point.)

For more info, see:

http://christianhumor.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa011098.htm

> Even more proof of the kjv nonsense is Lev. 11: 20-21, which clearly states that some fowls are four-footed. Sounds like
> the kind of stuff Herodtus wrote. God knows that birds do not crawl around on four feet.

Not only are you wrong about this error, you apparently can't tell the
difference between birds and insects yourself. You even misspelled
Herodotus. Oh, the humanity!

This verse refers to insects, not birds; KJV-era English uses "fowls" to
refer to both. Read on a verse or two to see what I mean (unless you
think locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are birds!). I guess reading
something in context or looking up the definition of words is too much
trouble when you're mounting a polemic, eh?

Once again, arrogant Western thinking rears its ugly head. Ancient
Hebrews made a distinction betwen the four back legs of an insect and
the two front legs. Note that even in verse 21, which you (ostensibly)
have read, it says "...flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four,
WHICH HAVE LEGS ABOVE THEIR FEET" (emphasis mine). The word "all" here
was added by the KJV translators, which is why it's italicized in most
versions; in this case it adds confusion rather than clarity.

This verse clearly says that insects have six, not four, legs, but in a
way that sounds odd to us. Surprise! Once again, our way of arranging
data is not the only one there is.

> The best is Deut. 33: 17; Psalm 22: 21, 29:6; Job 39: 9-10; all these passages has God talking about unicorns, a mythical
> creature. This is proof positive, except to those willing to believe any rubbish, that the kjv is very questionable. God would
> not talk about unicorns as if they existed.

The word "unicorn" is the Hebrew word re'eym. In 1611, the translators
working on the KJV did not know what animal this word referred to, so
they took a stab at translating it based on its etymology (lit., "horned
beast").

They did indeed believe in unicorns in 1611. Those idiots! Try not to
think about how until recently we believed the atom was the smallest
unit of matter, or that Venus was covered with oceans, or that there
were just eight planets in the Solar System, or... Well, never mind.

In the intervening years, Bible scholars have learned that re'eym refers
to the auerochs (L. Bos primigenius ), a now-extinct species of wild ox.
Look up all the KJV references to the unicorn in the NIV and you'll see
(surprise!) re'eym rendered as "wild ox."

The auerochs was already extinct in 1611, and its prior existence was
not known at that time (given that the science of paleontology did not
exist yet).

But the auerochs WAS still alive in Bible times. Julius Caesar saw it
and wrote about it (see Coes., Bell. Gall., iv. 29). He described it as
immense in size, of great strength (cf. Num.23:22; 24:8), speed (Ps.
29:6), and ferocity, and that it was untamable (Job 39:9-10). It became
extinct in Europe in the Middle Ages; somewhat earlier in
Syria-Palestine, and its name transrferred to the common ox (which still
exists; the Arab cognate is r'im ).

This is a great example of an assertion I've made for years: that the
Bible and science have nothing to fear from one another. In this case,
philology (the Akkadian cognate, rimu, describes the auerochs) and
paleontology (Tristram independently corrorborated its existence in the
Lebanon Mountains) helped solve a translation problem.

> For those who defend the kjv, the above forces them to accept just plain nonsense, and confess it.

What's nonsense is a cursory skimming filtered through an arrogant
Eurocentric mindset masquerading as scholarship when perpetrated by a
cynical skeptic who has no intention of giving the text in front of him
a fair hearing.

If they fail to confess it,
> they are by their deeds denying it.

Rubbish. These "contradictions" merely reveal that you've accepted
incompetent third-generation scholarship from people you already agree
with as the truth and are too lazy to check it out yourself. All these
"contradictions" you've listed (one of which you didn't even reproduce
accurately) are as old as the hills and have been refuted long ago.

> Apologetics will not cut it, that is a xian cop out.

Apparently you don't even know what the word means. You yourself just
mounted an apologetic in defense of your belief that the KJV is a lousy
Bible. Admittedly it's a crummy apologetic; your presentation is so
sloppy I can't even figure out if you're attacking the Bible in general
or the KJV in specific, given that all your "errors" except the last
appear in every English Bible there is. Nonetheless, it was an
apologetic. Don't try to play guilt by association when you don't even
know what a word means. To paraphrase Heinlein: Words have sharp
edges--juggle them and you'll hurt yourself.

The KJV is a terrific Bible. It's not perfect and it's not the "best"
anymore, but it has not survived for almost 400 years because it's not
any good. Here's a challenge, O wise one--name any six of the three or
four dozen English Bibles translated before the King James, only one of
which ever approached its preeminence, and I'll salute you.

[Greg Hartman]

Peter, my apolgies. My browser listed you in its "reply to" field and I
didn't notice the real respondent was Alvin until after I sent it.
Sorry!

[Hunter Int.]

Peter-Troll,

It'd be funny, Pete, if weren't so sad. Honestly...

Last we heard, you were saying (Regarding the KJV)...

>How amusing.

Peter, I ask you, why, WHY, would a comment like this coming from you
matter, at all?

Since you and I have been badgering each other, I've taken time to read your
other posts as well. There's this very eerie trend I've seen coming from
you. It's down right scary, and makes me wonder who you really are.

You never support Truth. You never support THE faith. You never support
your brothers & sisters (if they truly are your brothers & sisters). You
absolutely deny the Salvation of many, Myself included, even though they/we
openly confess Christ as their Saviour. You deny the Scriptures, in fact,
you mock them quite often. You mock believers who express faith in the
Scriptures, as if they are morons or something.

But you love Alan. Oh yeah, you sure like him. The man who openly
confessed to being a dual identity here, the guy who denies God, Christ, the
Bible and Christians, the guy who lies like a rug. The biggest trouble
maker around here. Him you support. In fact, not only do you support him,
but somehow have seen fit to judge him more 'honest' than your brethren!!
Now, why is that?

Furthermore, you told me you keep ALL the 'commandments', yet you openly
lied to Alan when you told him that 'many' (I must have been on that list),
"condemned you to the pit for saying you SHOULD keep the commandments."
That's a LIE. Totally.

You know damn well I never said that, not even close. Yet you had no
compunction about lying to Alan as if it was truth. You sure seem like a
biiiiig help to him, Pete.

See, you are a liar, but you can't admit it. As if there'd be something
wrong with that. You can't 'keep all the commandments', and furthermore,
they aren't 'easy' to keep as you'd have said here often.

Peter, you're just another poor cultic deluded troll in need of a Saviour,
and by God I pray you find Him soon.

Dave Steiger...

[Walksalone]

On or about Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:39:21 +0000 Greg Hartman <ecc...@pcisys.net>
having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered the
following:

Temporary observation, the conversation by & large is not that interesting to
me, however:

>Peter M. wrote:

>> How amusing. In the kjv, Deut. 14: 11, 18 lists a bat among birds. Now arguing that people were not experts has nothing
>> to do with this, the passage is attributed to God. To trust the kjv, is to believe that God cannot make a distinction between a
>> bird and a mammal.

That is what is stated/implied when one reads a supposedly infallible work,
yes.

>This sounds contradictory to my last post, but I'm afraid you're quite
>wrong. This is an interpretive error on YOUR part called "illegitimate
>totality transfer."

Then the xian writ does not associate bats with birds?

>What the Bible does in this verse is group certain animals by
>appearance, viz., they all have wings. You, on the other hand, are not
>only grouping animals along Western taxonomic lines, you're assuming
>that's the only possible way of doing it.

If you are as sharp as a god, one could hold you to the standard of correct
observation, absolutely. If on the other hand, your goal in life was to be a
sheep herder, then an error wouldn't be a shock.

>If I said a dog and an alligator were similar because they both have

If you said similar, yes, but that is Not the word used in the OT.

>four legs, I'd be right, wouldn't I? I'd simply be arranging my data at
>right angles to Western taxonomy. Seems those inconsiderate ancient
>Hebrews were too rude to do things our way! (Prove to me that birds and
>bats don't all have wings, on the other hand, and I'll concede your
>point.)

Go you one better, prove bats are birds & I'll accept your position, for that
was the first assertion, made by the local DIC & so recorded in it's holy
writ.

>For more info, see:

>http://christianhumor.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa011098.htm

>> Even more proof of the kjv nonsense is Lev. 11: 20-21, which clearly states that some fowls are four-footed. Sounds like
>> the kind of stuff Herodtus wrote. God knows that birds do not crawl around on four feet.

>Not only are you wrong about this error, you apparently can't tell the
>difference between birds and insects yourself. You even misspelled
>Herodotus. Oh, the humanity!

Just proves some days are diamonds & some days are brick walls. Which 4
legged birds & insects are you aware of that apparently the students of
biology have missed?

>This verse refers to insects, not birds; KJV-era English uses "fowls" to
>refer to both. Read on a verse or two to see what I mean (unless you
>think locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are birds!). I guess reading

I've read the passage many times myself, it says fowls for birds 7 does not
presume to call bugs anything like birds. Nice thing [not really] about the
xian writ [suspect others as well], you don't like what it says, you can
always re-interpret. Little less than honest that way, but who can prove
otherwise. Well, no that you mention it, many people, especially those that
don't accept get out of jail cards.

>something in context or looking up the definition of words is too much
>trouble when you're mounting a polemic, eh?

rather, reading the passages before & after leads to the context that what was
said was exactly what was meant. Out of context, not really. Can it be so
claimed? Every time, & usually is.

>Once again, arrogant Western thinking rears its ugly head. Ancient
>Hebrews made a distinction betwen the four back legs of an insect and

Not really, they knew which were locust & which were scarab beetles. Try
again, please don't, it's a waste of band width.

>the two front legs. Note that even in verse 21, which you (ostensibly)
>have read, it says "...flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four,
>WHICH HAVE LEGS ABOVE THEIR FEET" (emphasis mine). The word "all" here
>was added by the KJV translators, which is why it's italicized in most

Ah, the olde translation/copyist error is called forth to do battle again.
One of these years in a universe far away & far in the future it may not be
so, but here & now, the claim is rejected, as it should be. It says what it
says, no more, no less.

>versions; in this case it adds confusion rather than clarity.

Like every other passage I've read, seems the xian DIC is not a very good
proof reader, or guilty of muddled thinking.

>This verse clearly says that insects have six, not four, legs, but in a
>way that sounds odd to us. Surprise! Once again, our way of arranging
>data is not the only one there is.

True, but your re-write is not accepted. Some hold the xian writ's claims to
the same standards as any other book claiming authority. The xians has so
many errors in it that it fails the standards. Even without the errors,
history in the large sense doesn't back it up, & if that wasn't enough, the
contradictions lay it in the arena of confusion.

>> The best is Deut. 33: 17; Psalm 22: 21, 29:6; Job 39: 9-10; all these passages has God talking about unicorns, a mythical
>> creature. This is proof positive, except to those willing to believe any rubbish, that the kjv is very questionable. God would
>> not talk about unicorns as if they existed.

>The word "unicorn" is the Hebrew word re'eym. In 1611, the translators
>working on the KJV did not know what animal this word referred to, so

Just a minute, I've got to re-attach my irony meter. You almost took out my
monitor, you did take out the BS fuse. Now you stated that the translator's
for the KJV couldn't figure out what the animals[s] being described were, so
the second guessed GOD, Excuse me, why didn't god inspire one of them with
the correct name[s].

>they took a stab at translating it based on its etymology (lit., "horned
>beast").

Could have been many names work as well. Narwhals would have worked.

>They did indeed believe in unicorns in 1611. Those idiots! Try not to
>think about how until recently we believed the atom was the smallest

If we had stayed under theological control, we wouldn't have made it to the
atom yet, though the Greeks & others had no problem with the concept.
You were saying?

>unit of matter, or that Venus was covered with oceans, or that there
>were just eight planets in the Solar System, or... Well, never mind.

Good idea, I've discarded [never minded] your arguments, they have yet to have
any foundation beyond what you accept.

>In the intervening years, Bible scholars have learned that re'eym refers
>to the auerochs (L. Bos primigenius ), a now-extinct species of wild ox.
>Look up all the KJV references to the unicorn in the NIV and you'll see
>(surprise!) re'eym rendered as "wild ox."

Nice thing, again, about the xian writ. When one version catches to much
heat, do a new version. Now this may seem strange to you, but if you hold to
any all powerful being writing/ghost writing a book, one would expect that one
translation would be all that is needed. When that is not the case it leads
one to suspect that there may be a flaw in the claim, providing one is honest
with oneself.

>The auerochs was already extinct in 1611, and its prior existence was
>not known at that time (given that the science of paleontology did not
>exist yet).

>But the auerochs WAS still alive in Bible times. Julius Caesar saw it
>and wrote about it (see Coes., Bell. Gall., iv. 29). He described it as
>immense in size, of great strength (cf. Num.23:22; 24:8), speed (Ps.
>29:6), and ferocity, and that it was untamable (Job 39:9-10). It became
>extinct in Europe in the Middle Ages; somewhat earlier in
>Syria-Palestine, and its name transrferred to the common ox (which still
>exists; the Arab cognate is r'im ).

& the bones/skull of this mythical beast are found where? If it was that
recent there is a strong chance the bones are still around. A better likely
hood would be some variety of Rhinoceros.

>This is a great example of an assertion I've made for years: that the
>Bible and science have nothing to fear from one another. In this case,
>philology (the Akkadian cognate, rimu, describes the auerochs) and
>paleontology (Tristram independently corrorborated its existence in the
>Lebanon Mountains) helped solve a translation problem.

& the published peer reviewed articles can be found where? Not saying the
critter didn't exist, but it appears to have been missed by the writers of
it's time line. So references are in order. TIA.

>> For those who defend the kjv, the above forces them to accept just plain nonsense, and confess it.

>What's nonsense is a cursory skimming filtered through an arrogant
>Eurocentric mindset masquerading as scholarship when perpetrated by a
>cynical skeptic who has no intention of giving the text in front of him
>a fair hearing.

Worse yet is those that don't use plain english. The above translates to
Even worse is the scoundrel that would dare read the writ & not take it on
faith.
Well, it is hard to take things on blind faith for some, impossible for
others. Some have left childhood behind, some still cling to childish things.
As to your case, wouldn't want to figure, but even your own apologists don't
always agree with you.

>> If they fail to confess it,
>> they are by their deeds denying it.

>Rubbish. These "contradictions" merely reveal that you've accepted
>incompetent third-generation scholarship from people you already agree

Even worse. For many it means they have read the writ & held it to the same
standards as any other book that claims authority in any way, be it science,
math, religion. The test is the same. Science books change with the
discovery of new ideas & findings, math gets added to, but the writ just lays
there, a completed piece with error though out. Errors that can't be
corrected according to both the OT & NT.

>with as the truth and are too lazy to check it out yourself. All these
>"contradictions" you've listed (one of which you didn't even reproduce
>accurately) are as old as the hills and have been refuted long ago.

Rather, people, like you, have attempted to refute them with assumptions.
Doesn't fly nor does it fare well for the person attempting it. If you really
want to go at this, then tag it with my name & post it to alt.bible, where i
am responding from. Be glad to discuss it with you, nothing exciting planned
for the day, so I do have some free time. Don't know exactly how much, but it
is not a question of serious time when discussing these issues.

>> Apologetics will not cut it, that is a xian cop out.

>Apparently you don't even know what the word means. You yourself just
>mounted an apologetic in defense of your belief that the KJV is a lousy

Rather you don't know what the word means in definition [defender] or common
usage [specifically, defender of the xian path].

>Bible. Admittedly it's a crummy apologetic; your presentation is so
>sloppy I can't even figure out if you're attacking the Bible in general

Well, I had the same impression about your defense, no cites, not even the
discredited by any not of the xian path IRC AKA ICR. No references beyond a
name with no traceable path to it. Caesar, yes, he would be a reference, &
fair chance he made the claim. However, that does not mean he was correct in
his description or naming of the beast. Be nice to know when he made it to
the mideast to hunt one of these things. Now, hd that been a creature of Gaul
or Briton, then yes, be easier to conceive of him hunting one. But in that
case, the KJV translators would have been aware of the beast in question.

>or the KJV in specific, given that all your "errors" except the last
>appear in every English Bible there is. Nonetheless, it was an
>apologetic. Don't try to play guilt by association when you don't even
>know what a word means. To paraphrase Heinlein: Words have sharp
>edges--juggle them and you'll hurt yourself.

You just did.

>The KJV is a terrific Bible. It's not perfect and it's not the "best"
>anymore, but it has not survived for almost 400 years because it's not
>any good. Here's a challenge, O wise one--name any six of the three or
>four dozen English Bibles translated before the King James, only one of
>which ever approached its preeminence, and I'll salute you.

Can't say, then again, I only use the KJV when discussing xianity with those
that follow that myth. It is readily available in most english speaking
nations. Pity, but oh well, as long as people give them away I suspect that
will hold for a while.

[Peter M.]

The problem with xians is themselves. They demand that everyone accept the bible as inspired and infallible, and than when the
opposite is shown, they resort to apologetics. No wonder xianity is going down the tubes, it must be the will of God.

peace

Peter

[Peter M.]

 

Hunter Int. wrote:

Peter-Troll,

Dave, still resorting to name calling. To be expected from a xian; if you ever become a christian let me know.

It'd be funny, Pete, if weren't so sad.  Honestly...

Last we heard, you were saying (Regarding the KJV)...

>How amusing.

If you left in the rest of the post you would see why. You are not even able to snip correctly; typically of a commandment-breaking xian.

Peter, I ask you, why, WHY, would a comment like this coming from you
matter, at all?

It matters a great deal, just look at you responding. I John 2: 3-6 is right, you are a liar void of the truth, the best proof is your repeatedly responding to my posts to say that they do not interest you -- you know the tree by its fruit.

Since you and I have been badgering each other, I've taken time to read your
other posts as well.  There's this very eerie trend I've seen coming from
you.  It's down right scary, and makes me wonder who you really are.

How nice, to know that you may actually figure something out.

You never support Truth.

What truth? Yours? I John 2: 3-6, proves that you do not have the truth; so how would you know? Your truths are lies, and every christian knows them to be lies.

 You never support THE; faith.

What faith? That mockery of xianity? Christians keep the commandments, xians do not, and can not. Xians call ignorance and intolerance, faith.

 You never support your brothers & sisters (if they truly are your brothers & sisters).

They are not, xians are morally bankrupt. I support christians, not liars void of the truth.

 You absolutely deny the Salvation of many, Myself included, even though they/we
openly confess Christ as their Saviour.

Not good enough, even Satan can make that statement. You confess something with your lips, but not your heart, since you do not believe in Jesus the Mediator of God, you will have to hope that God has made you a vessel for honorable use.

You deny the Scriptures, in fact, you mock them quite often.  You mock believers who express faith in the Scriptures, as if they are morons or something.

I do not deny scripture, I deny the falsehoods that are held up as inspired truth. Do you believe in unicorns -- if you do not, than it seems that you do not believe the bible either. If you took some time to study the DSS, you would know that there are many versions to every OT book, and many do not agree. The same applies to the NT, we have one version in the bible of many possible versions, and one translation of many possible translations [that is why there are so many bible versions]. As for the fake believers who have so much faith in the bible, I leave them this: John 5: 39, "39 You search the Scriptures, because you think in them you have eternal life; ...." I will stick with God and keep His commandments, you can have the bible.

But you love Alan.

Love is in the bible, but you and the rest have the xians have shown your hatred towards him; let God decide which one of us treats him in a christian manner.

 Oh yeah, you sure like him.  The man who openly
confessed to being a dual identity here, the guy who denies God, Christ, the
Bible and Christians, the guy who lies like a rug.

Once again, as the liar scripture shows you to be, you misrepresent Alan. He does not deny God, only your definition of God; He does not share your view on Jesus, and good for him; he proved the bible to be seriously flawed, allowed others to prove him wrong which they could not without making excuses for the bible; and he knows the difference between a christian, and the mass majority of xians. He is a better man than you, he seeks the truth that is denied you from above.

 The biggest trouble maker around here.

Jesus also had that reputation. It is the xians who resorted to name-calling, proving Alan right.

Him you support.  In fact, not only do you support him,
but somehow have seen fit to judge him more 'honest' than your brethren!!
Now, why is that?

First, xians are not my brethren, christians are. Second, Alan seeks the truth, you had your chance and blew it. He quoted scripture, and received hatred for doing so.

Furthermore, you told me you keep ALL the 'commandments', yet you openly
lied to Alan when you told him that 'many' (I must have been on that list),
"condemned you to the pit for saying you SHOULD keep the commandments."
That's a LIE.  Totally.

Actually, it is true. Once again you misrepresent my position, to be expected from a morally bankrupt xian; I stated that I am condemned for standing up for the commandments, one need look no further than you to see that such a claim is received as a lie. But I John 2: 3-6, proves you to be the liar.

You know damn well I never said that, not even close.

I know well enough that you implied it; and were just too dishonest to openly say it.

 Yet you had no compunction about lying to Alan as if it was truth.

It was the truth, you do not keep the commandments, are unable to, and call anyone who admits to keeping them a liar.

You sure seem like a biiiiig help to him, Pete.

Alan proved the bible in error, and xians to be morally bankrupt. It was the will of God.

See, you are a liar, but you can't admit it.

I John 2: 3-6 proves you a liar, now will you admit it?

 As if there'd be something
wrong with that.  You can't 'keep all the commandments', and furthermore,
they aren't 'easy' to keep as you'd have said here often.

A typically statement from a xian; correction: you cannot keep them. If you understood what I John is saying, you would understand -- but God has darkened your mind. I stand by my words, I keep them, and they are not hard to keep; and that too is the will of God.

Peter, you're just another poor cultic deluded troll in need of a Saviour,
and by God I pray you find Him soon.

What would you know about such things, you are void of the truth, a blind guide for blind men; my Savior is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, the Mediator of God. Yours is a false Jesus, a demigod of human invention.

peace

Peter

[Peter M.]

vernon o wrote:

  

Now we know someone other than God defined what a bird is. 

A bat is a mammal. A bird is not. The bible is wrong on this. Also, do you believe in unicorns?

peace

Peter

[Alvin]

the purpose that satan wrote the versions is to leave out some of the
impartant doctrines like trinity, Jesus Being born of vergin, hell ,nasb
left out more than all of them,trying to make works for salvation instead of
grace
Peter M. wrote in message <369936B1...@istar.ca>...

[Greg Hartman]

Peter M. wrote:

You'd have a point if the Bible said a bat is a bird, but it doesn't.
All it says is that birds and bats both have wings. Last time I check,
this was a correct statement.

You'd have another point if the Bible spoke of unicorns. It does not.
This was a KJV mistake (see my previous post on this) which improved
Hebrew linguistics fixed more than 50 years ago.

Two from two is zip. Nice try!

[Peter M.]

Alvin wrote:

> the purpose that satan wrote the versions is to leave out some of the
> impartant doctrines like trinity, Jesus Being born of vergin, hell ,nasb
> left out more than all of them,trying to make works for salvation instead of
> grace
>

Thank you for responding, but you left more questions than you answered. For
example:Where in the kjv does the word trinity appear? The NASB does mention
that Jesus was born of a virgin, so where are you getting the idea that the NASB
leaves it out?

Oh, one last thing, do you believe that fowls have four legs, and that unicorns
exist? The kjv says they exist, so do you believe the kjv on this?

peace

Peter

peace

Peter

[Peter M.]

Greg Hartman wrote:

> Peter M. wrote:
>
> > vernon o wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Now we know someone other than God defined what a bird is.
> >
> > A bat is a mammal. A bird is not. The bible is wrong on this. Also, do you believe in unicorns?
> >
> > peace
> >
> > Peter
>
> You'd have a point if the Bible said a bat is a bird, but it doesn't.
> All it says is that birds and bats both have wings. Last time I check,
> this was a correct statement.
>
> You'd have another point if the Bible spoke of unicorns. It does not.
> This was a KJV mistake (see my previous post on this) which improved
> Hebrew linguistics fixed more than 50 years ago.
>
> Two from two is zip. Nice try!

At least you are not a kjv cultists. But unfortunately, the primary sources do indicate unicorns;
just because xians became ashamed of this, and resorted to apologetics to get around this obvious
error.

peace

Peter

[Greg Hartman]

> At least you are not a kjv cultists. But unfortunately, the primary sources do indicate unicorns;
> just because xians became ashamed of this, and resorted to apologetics to get around this obvious
> error.

"Primary sources"? Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking
about?

The original Hebrew is the word re'eym, which refers to a now-extinct
wild ox unknown to the KJV translators. They took a stab at translating
it based on its etymology (lit. "horned beast").

You could not possible be more wrong about this. And I notice you
avoided the other question....

[Ben Mitts]

It's not hard to agree with the Head Rat on this.  The KJV is a very

poor Study Bible.

 

Ben Mitts

dapre...@provide.net

 

 

Ann Hovsepian wrote in message <36983...@news.total.net>...

[Peter M.]

Greg Hartman wrote:

> > At least you are not a kjv cultists. But unfortunately, the primary sources do indicate unicorns;
> > just because xians became ashamed of this, and resorted to apologetics to get around this obvious
> > error.
>
> "Primary sources"? Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking
> about?

There are no originals as such, there are primary sources. These are the copies that go back to
Constantine's time. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest primary sources on the OT in existence; and
they prove that multiple versions of each text exist, except for Ester which was not among the find.

> The original Hebrew is the word re'eym, which refers to a now-extinct
> wild ox unknown to the KJV translators. They took a stab at translating
> it based on its etymology (lit. "horned beast").

Did this wild ox have one horn? You have resorted to apologetics, which is necessary in order to defend
the primary sources which have mythical creatures and all kinds of other myths and legends. What is
also a good one is 'flying serpents' Isa. 30: 6. The problem with apologetics is that it never ends;
one rationalization must follow another.

> You could not possible be more wrong about this. And I notice you
> avoided the other question....

Which one? I am not wrong on this. Not one to waste an opportunity I will add that Noah did not survive
a planet wide flood, that is a Babylonian legend about some guy who survived the flooding of his
valley.

peace

Peter

[V O J]

Look under tools. There is on many software packages a N.G filter.
say filter
under "from" say Peter M and you can get back to fewer trolls.
Under "subject " add (one at a time) homo, homosexual, queer, and you will
get rid of a lot more trolls and "do gooders"

Hunter Int. wrote in message <369a0...@news1.starnetinc.com>...
>Peter-Troll,

>
>It'd be funny, Pete, if weren't so sad. Honestly...
>
>Last we heard, you were saying (Regarding the KJV)...
>
>>How amusing.
>

>Peter, I ask you, why, WHY, would a comment like this coming from you
>matter, at all?
>

>Since you and I have been badgering each other, I've taken time to read
your
>other posts as well. There's this very eerie trend I've seen coming from
>you. It's down right scary, and makes me wonder who you really are.
>

>You never support Truth. You never support THE faith. You never support
>your brothers & sisters (if they truly are your brothers & sisters). You

>absolutely deny the Salvation of many, Myself included, even though they/we

>openly confess Christ as their Saviour. You deny the Scriptures, in fact,

>you mock them quite often. You mock believers who express faith in the
>Scriptures, as if they are morons or something.
>

>But you love Alan. Oh yeah, you sure like him. The man who openly

>confessed to being a dual identity here, the guy who denies God, Christ,
the

>Bible and Christians, the guy who lies like a rug. The biggest trouble
>maker around here. Him you support. In fact, not only do you support him,

>but somehow have seen fit to judge him more 'honest' than your brethren!!
>Now, why is that?
>

>Furthermore, you told me you keep ALL the 'commandments', yet you openly
>lied to Alan when you told him that 'many' (I must have been on that list),
>"condemned you to the pit for saying you SHOULD keep the commandments."
>That's a LIE. Totally.
>

>You know damn well I never said that, not even close. Yet you had no
>compunction about lying to Alan as if it was truth. You sure seem like a

>biiiiig help to him, Pete.
>

>See, you are a liar, but you can't admit it. As if there'd be something

>wrong with that. You can't 'keep all the commandments', and furthermore,
>they aren't 'easy' to keep as you'd have said here often.
>

>Peter, you're just another poor cultic deluded troll in need of a Saviour,
>and by God I pray you find Him soon.
>

>Dave Steiger...
>
>
>

[Peter M.]

And the great spiritual filter in heaven is the book of life, and if one's name
is not found written in it, they are arbitrarily thrown into the lake of fire.

peace

Peter

[Hunter Int.]

Peter,

Last we heard, you were blathering...

>Dave, still resorting to name calling. To be expected from a xian; if you
ever become a >christian let me know.

Peter, may I remind you that just last week you wrote to me these comments,
and it's only a partial list, compiled from just half of one of your
posts...

>I John 2: 3-6 prove you to be the liar, not I.
>Once again, the ramblings of the liar as classified by scripture.
>That is what the bible talks about. If you had the truth you would
understand.
>It is one of the commandments, don't you know anything?
>I John 2: 3-6 proves otherwise, you are a vain man, deceived by the
deceiver.
>Liar, void of the truth as proven in I John 2: 3-6.
>Once again you prove yourself void of the truth.
>Once again you prove yourself void of the truth.
>You are unable to keep the commandments, and in a normal fleshly manner,
condemn >anyone who does.
>Coming from a proven liar, and being denied the truth, neither Alan or
myself have >much to worry about with your worthless opinions.

And that's not even including your use of the word 'pathetic', or the
constant insistence that "Alan is better than me..." How you came to a
conclusion that someone is 'better' than another, well, I still don't get
that one.

Moving on...

>If you left in the rest of the post you would see why. You are not even
able to snip >correctly; typically of a commandment-breaking xian.

Look, Peter-Troll. I didn't have to leave your conclusions on the KJV. We
agree that the TRANSLATION has problems, yet you condemn it as if it were
the only one that does. There are NO 'perfect' translations. None.
Period, game over. So get off your high horse and take a look at yourself.
You've been summarily deciding which verses YOU think 'are from God', and
which are not ever since you've been here. You have an ego quite in
proportion with a man claiming to 'keep ALL the commandments', my friend..

>It matters a great deal, just look at you responding. I John 2: 3-6 is
right, you are a liar >void of the truth, the best proof is your repeatedly
responding to my posts to say that >they do not interest you -- you know the
tree by its fruit.

Hey, dense-oid, you keep bringing up the same passage, yet you FAIL to
address the others within the same book that show you to be wrong, such
as...

I John 1:8-10
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us.
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not
in us."

Oh, but that's not for a 'commandment keeping' guy like you, is it? I mean,
why confess anything when you're perfect...? And YOU told me that YOU keep
ALL the commandments, Pete.

I John 2:2
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world."

Oh, but Pete here taught me a few days ago that Jesus ONLY died for His
sheep. How could John be so confused..?

I John 4:2
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is of God:"

I am confessing this LOUD & CLEAR. I believe this.

I teach my children this, they believe it. I minister to prisoners in
Joliet, Illinois, they believe it. I preach this to the street folk on
State Street in Chicago just outside the mission of my choice (Pacific
Garden Mission) once a month on the corners in any weather, they believe it.
I teach this to Jews having just arrived in America who come to live with me
and my family until they earn enough money to put themselves together, they
believe it. (I have a 'safe house' system for new arrivals.)

This is my life, and I am a SLAVE, a PRISONER for Christ's sake.

This is what I believe.

Yet you say I am 'not recognized'. And certainly not 'recognized' by
you...? Think I care...? Puh-leeze. Can you imagine how that sounds to
me? No, I don't think you can. I am a sinner, SAVED by Grace through
Faith, and I'm bound for Glory, but, here on Earth for a time.

That is what I believe.

So, since I have no doubt that you will believe little, if anything, of what
I said, then PLEASE feel free to question, challenge, whatever floats your
boat. I know who I am, what I am, and how I got to be here today. I don't
mind the heat, I just can't stand the nonsense!

But the bottom line, the place where the buck stops, that's right here...

Mark 12:30
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart, and with ALL thy
soul, and with ALL thy mind, and with ALL thy strength: this is the first
commandment."

If you cannot do this, (and you can't), then you can't 'keep ALL the
commandments.' And IF you can't keep even this one, then James has this to
say about you (& me...)

James 2:10
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is
guilty of ALL."

Thus, it's mathematically, logically, and, perfectly clear: No one keeps
ALL the commandments. None besides our Lord!! No one, not now, not you,
not me, ever.

Avoid these issues all you like, but they exist, they're real, and they
confound your goofy little brand of theology all over the place.

'Observing the precepts', not 'keeping the commandments'... Big difference,
Peter-Troll..

>How nice, to know that you may actually figure something out.

This is becoming all too common with you. Your ministry is reduced to cheap
one liners. What a thing to be remembered by.

I claimed you are never seen supporting the faith, your brethren, the Truth,
and a few other things, and you said...

>What faith? That mockery of xianity? Christians keep the commandments,
xians do >not, and can not. Xians call ignorance and intolerance, faith.

Thus, proving the point. Unable to support the Truth, the Faith, your
brethren, and so on. Man, you're making this painfully too easy and really
sad, dude...

>They are not, xians are morally bankrupt. I support christians, not liars
void of the truth.

This is Peter breaking our Lord's commandment not to judge, lest we be
judged. Thank you so much for further proof you're a troll, as well as a
commandment breaker...

After claiming (again) that I have accepted Christ as my personal Saviour,
you said...

>Not good enough, even Satan can make that statement.

Again, not supporting your brethren, and lying in the process. Satan would
NEVER make this statement. What a goof.

>You confess something with your lips, but not your heart, since you do not
believe in >Jesus the Mediator of God, you will have to hope that God has
made you a vessel for >honorable use.

Here's what I believe...

1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus;"

...and...

Matthew 7:1
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Yes sir, these things I believe. So stop telling me what I do and don't
believe, lest you fall into judgment, and be a liar, all in one sentence...

>I do not deny scripture, I deny the falsehoods that are held up as inspired
truth.

No, you DO deny scripture, as we shall instantly see an example. Watch, and
see how this works. Do you, Peter M., believe this following group of
passages...?

Galatians 5:17
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh:
and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye CANNOT do the things
that ye would."

...and...

Romans 7:22-24
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,
and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?"

So, answer the question. Do you believe the Apostle Paul spoke correctly
here, or don't you?

If you do, than please explain why he, the greatest of the Apostles,
considered himself a 'wretched man', while you have said over and over that
ALL the commandments can be kept, and kept EASILY? Why would Paul feel this
way if he 'knew' what you 'know'?? Houston, we have a problem...

>Do you believe in unicorns -- if you do not, than it seems that you do not
believe the >bible either. If you took some time to study the DSS, you would
know that there are >many versions to every OT book, and many do not agree.

Listen, Peter-Troll, of course I don't 'believe in 'unicorns', not as we
presently use the word. As if that's an issue.

Is there anybody in the academic community that hasn't already solved that
problem...? And what, may I ask, does that have to do with anything beyond
the KJV TRANSLATION being less than 100% reliable?

TRANSLATIONS have errors, so do your homework. Geesh, you'd think you were
the first guy that ever thought that one up!!!

>The same applies to the NT, we have one version in the bible of many
possible >versions, and one translation of many possible translations [that
is why there are so >many bible versions].

No, by the way, that is NOT why there are so many. See, somebody told you
something, and you thought they had an ounce of brain cells, and boom,
you're off to the races. What a troll, always setting your little traps.

No, Peter, that is not why. Come back and try again AFTER you have read
books like 'Unholy Hands on the Bible', and a few more I'll be happy to
recommend should you like.

And, my God, to hear you carry on with 1 John 2:3 as if IT, and IT alone, is
the cornerstone of truth for the Grace Believer today, but then listen to
this other garbage you're spewing about the error filled Scriptures... How
it is you have believed even a word of it is beyond me.

>As for the fake believers who have so much faith in the bible, I leave them
this: John 5: >39, "39 You search the Scriptures, because you think in them
you have eternal life; ...." >I will stick with God and keep His
commandments, you can have the bible.

Look, here's where you give yourself away as a troll. Man, you're so easy.
What did you think to prove by bringing this line of thought into the
debate? Consider this...

John 5:46-47
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he WROTE of me.
"But if ye believe NOT his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Gee, our Lord was sure an advocate of Scriptural inerrancy. How about
this..?

Acts 2:16
"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;"

Oooops, Peter (the real one, that is...) too...

And man, we could go on and on. There's no mystery in the Great Books that
we can't piece together today. The ONLY problem is people like YOU, people
trying to defend their 'denominational' bias. People 'searching' for the
one thing that most closely resembles what it is they ALREADY believe.

Peter, YOU have NEVER done this, my friend...

Exodus 3:5
"And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for
the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."

No sir. You come to Scripture with shoes tied tightly, and denominational
glasses firmly in place. That's why you can't see the Truth when someone
slaps you in the face with it. You're this guy, Peter...

2 Timothy 4:3-4
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables."

And you're the guy mentioned above BECAUSE you're the guy here below..!

Galatians 3:3
"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by
the flesh?"

Peter, you will NEVER understand the Bible, your own errors in approaching
it, and your relationship with your Saviour until you 'rightly divide'.
And that's a damn shame, because you're missing out on something beautiful.
I truly feel you have no idea why and how God saved you. I honestly feel
that way.

After I said that you sure love Alan, you gave me this little gem...

>Love is in the bible, but you and the rest have the xians have shown your
hatred >towards him; let God decide which one of us treats him in a
christian manner.

Ah, but you are (as well as I am) breaking THIS commandment by the Apostle
Paul, thus by our Lord, in the process...

Romans 16:17
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID them."

Alan is an offense and division maker to this newsgroup, yet you let him
ramble on without any help at all. Actually, you goad him on more than
anything. I've never seen you do ANYTHING besides agree with him, yet he is
a self confessed UNBELIEVER. How can you claim to be keeping commandments,
yet carry on with him in that manner...?

Where are YOU making PROOF of your ministry to him as commanded by Paul?
When have you done this?

See, you can't possibly be 'keeping the commandments...'

>Once again, as the liar scripture shows you to be, you misrepresent Alan.
He does not >deny God, only your definition of God; He does not share your
view on Jesus, and >good for him; he proved the bible to be seriously
flawed, allowed others to prove him >wrong which they could not without
making excuses for the bible; and he knows the >difference between a
christian, and the mass majority of xians. He is a better man >than you, he
seeks the truth that is denied you from above.

Peter, quick send us your address, and we'll send some nice men over with
real comfortable white jackets in just the right size for you.

WHAT...?!?!? Alan does NOT deny God?!?!?

You must be either the densest man around here, or a troll of the highest
magnitude. Which is it?

Have you not seen that Alan has repeatedly posted that God has NOT done a
single good thing? Have you seen this? Yet you think he's simply seeing
God 'differently' than me, and he's a 'better man' than me...?

You are mentally defective Peter-troll, methinks you need help very badly...

I said Alan is the biggest trouble maker around here (I am now changing that
to you being the biggest trouble maker around here) and you said...

>Jesus also had that reputation. It is the xians who resorted to
name-calling, proving >Alan right.

Hey Peter, you've been doing your share of name calling at me, so does this
still apply to me, as well? Besides wasn't it our Lord who called a spade a
spade to begin with? No? Okay, then how a bout this...

Matthew 6:2
"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may
have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Gee, I guess our Lord was acting in a very 'unChristianly' manner according
to you. He called someone a name. I sure hope their feelings weren't hurt
by this. Gosh, Peter's all sensitive and stuff...

>First, xians are not my brethren, christians are. Second, Alan seeks the
truth, you had >your chance and blew it. He quoted scripture, and received
hatred for doing so.

Hey troll boy, why haven't YOU been helping him? Do you, like him, also
believe that God has not done one single good thing? Remember, Alan said
that NOBODY gave him any help on that issue, (which was a lie to begin
with), but that must have included you too. And what did Peter say about
this...?

1 Peter 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready ALWAYS to give an
answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear:"

See how that works? "ALWAYS". But not you, you're more like "NEVER".

Alan has asked over and over, and yet you remain silent. You're a troll,
Peter, first class.

I have to repeat this next one in it's entirety, as it was simply amazing.
First, I said...

Furthermore, you told me you keep ALL the 'commandments', yet you openly
lied to Alan when you told him that 'many' (I must have been on that list),
"condemned you to the pit for saying you SHOULD keep the commandments."

To which you responded...

>Actually, it is true. Once again you misrepresent my position, to be
expected from a >morally bankrupt xian; I stated that I am condemned for
standing up for the >commandments, one need look no further than you to see
that such a claim is >received as a lie. But I John 2: 3-6, proves you to be
the liar.

No, Peter, you are a LIAR. Plain and simple. I will quote you, verbatim,
and you will see what a troll of a man you are. You said, and this is the
quote you gave to Alan...

>What I like with the above passage, is the call to keep the commandments,
>and these xians condemn me to the pit for saying that they SHOULD be kept.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, I defy you to show us even ONE post that proves that statement true.
Just one will do. Show me to be wrong, and yourself NOT to be a liar. Do
that, and you may gain some ground. But you can't. Because that's never
been said to you by anyone here, and you know it, thus you are, indeed, a
liar.

>I know well enough that you implied it; and were just too dishonest to
openly say it.

Again, liar that you are, you know for certain that I say exactly what's on
my mind. I always have, and always will. I hide nothing, as I am afraid of
nothing. Having the truth will do that to you, you know...

>It was the truth, you do not keep the commandments, are unable to, and call
anyone >who admits to keeping them a liar.

Then you are a fool. You are now calling the Apostle Paul a liar as well,
and all because you refuse to study the Bible 'rightly divided'. John NEVER
wrote TO you, and we know this based upon Galatian 2:9, thus you are a fool,
and a liar, for teaching such disjointed doctrine. And I don't mind calling
you a 'fool' either, Paul says you are for the very reasons you display here
on this newsgroup, so I'm in good company with regards to my 'name calling.'
I'm just being honest!

>Alan proved the bible in error, and xians to be morally bankrupt. It was
the will of God.

In case you've been tripping, Pete, Alan didn't prove anything beyond the
fact that he can't understand poetic language, is too cheap to buy
Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, too lazy to use a concordance, and a few other
things. That's all he proved.

And, what, may I ask, did you 'prove' to him? How have you helped lead him
to Christ? I tried boyo, I tried real hard, but he didn't want any of it,
he instead went on the offensive, and caught his lunch by a number of people
around here that actually STAND for something. I made a personal offer to
Alan in private that he turned down for some pretty stupid reasons. I
tried, at least I can say that.

>I John 2: 3-6 proves you a liar, now will you admit it?

Hey dense-oid, I ALREADY admitted it. If you ever actually read anything,
you'd already know. What a troll...

>A typically statement from a xian; correction: you cannot keep them. If you
understood >what I John is saying, you would understand -- but God has
darkened your mind. I >stand by my words, I keep them, and they are not hard
to keep; and that too is the will >of God.

Peter, let's say you may even have a point. Then what have you done to help
me? I'll tell you: Absolutely NOTHING. That's the extent of your
ministry, a big ZERO. Yeah, you're everybody's hero for making such a
valiant effort to 'keep the commandments', the one's you like anyway...

Peter, answer my questions, don't just crack one liners. Unless that's the
best you can do, which may be the case.

You're a wretched man, Peter, but that's okay, so am I. We stink, at least
I do. But until you realize that you're garbage for the dump, you will
never know why you needed a Saviour to begin with.

And, you never answered my question. I'll ask again. Which guy in this
parable by our Lord are you...?

Luke 18:10-14
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that
I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a
sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the
other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Are you the humble guy, or the guy who is bragging about commandment
keeping? Please, it's a real simple question. Which are you?

Until Scripture makes a road kill out of you, you have no idea why Christ
voluntarily went to the cross to die your death.

Think about it.

Dave Steiger...

[Peter Besenbruch]

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:49:06 -0500, "Peter M." <pcmu...@istar.ca>
wrote:

>At least you are not a kjv cultists. But unfortunately, the primary sources do indicate unicorns;
>just because xians became ashamed of this, and resorted to apologetics to get around this obvious
>error.

Greg has answered the "primary sources" part, so I thought I would
throw in a little trivia. Modern translations use the term "wild ox."
The wild ox might be the extinct form of large wild cow called the
aurochs. They were black, stood six feet at the shoulder, and sported
forward curving horns. At one time their range included the holy land,
but the last known specimens died out in Poland in 1627.

The King James extends the list of mythical creatures beyond unicorn.
There is the cockatrice (or basilisk, found in Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, and
59:5), the arrowsnake (Genesis 49:17 and later changed to adder), and
dragon (Ezekiel 32:2, and Psalm 91:13 for a different one).

I don't use the King James very much, except that it is keyed into a
Strong's Concordance. The main translation I use is the New Jerusalem,
a fine, if occasionally more boring <g> translation.
___________________________________________________

Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.

[V O J]

Exactly

Peter M. <pcmu...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:369B8F25...@istar.ca...

[Peter M.]

Peter Besenbruch wrote:

Well said.

peace

Peter

[Peter M.]

Sorry Dave, responding to your posts is a colossal bore. I keep the
commandments, you can preach that breaking them is a virtue; I really do not
care. And yes, Alan is a better person than you; one need to look no further
than your name calling and hatred of anyone not stroking your id.

You are right, translations have problems, but so do the primary sources. Resort
to all the apologetics you want, it does not make the errors go away. In Deut.
14: 11-18, a list of birds is given and a bat is included -- God would never
have made so fundamental an error, but man would have. And Job 39: 13-18 is the
most idiotic statement attributed to God in the bible. Ostriches do not abandon
their young, only ignorant men would think that, God would know the truth, and
worst, Ostriches laugh at horses and riders. Whoever wrote that rubbish must
have been on acid.

peace

Peter

[Peter M.]

Well said.

peace

Peter

[Hunter Int.]

Peter,

See, this is why you're a troll. You just don't get it, yet it's so
easy...!

Last we heard, you were saying...

>Sorry Dave, responding to your posts is a colossal bore. I keep the
>commandments, you can preach that breaking them is a virtue; I really do
not
>care.

You know, the lies are going through the roof on your part.

I never, ever, said anything to the effect of breaking the commandments
being a "virtue". You assume far too much.

Why did you say that? How can you even keep a straight face when saying
that...?

For the record, to be as clear as possible, for you, Pete,

I am ASHAMED at myself for being a sinner. Totally, absolutely, completely.
I am ashamed that my sins drove God to become a man, suffer and die on a
cross. The Creator, becoming a man, dying my death. ALL because I sin.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I sin, I hate it, it sucks, I suck,
BUT, thank God for our Lord Jesus Christ who died MY miseable death, in MY
place. Thank God, Praise Jesus!!!

What is unclear about my representation of the way I feel about sin?

I am disgusted with it, I would NEVER preach to anyone it is 'acceptable to
sin', EVER. Why are you struggling so much with this...?

Could it be because you aren't this guy...?

Romans 7:24

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?"

Or maybe because you ARE this guy...?

I John 1:8

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us."

Which guy are you...?

>And yes, Alan is a better person than you; one need to look no further
>than your name calling and hatred of anyone not stroking your id.

Well, gee, that's just ducky of you to say. Then guess what, the bad news
is that Alan is going to hell should he die today. Ooohhh, that's a baaad
thing to say, right? But I'm (unfortunately) right, and you know why?
Well, I'll tell you anyway!

Alan, just today I believe, said he is looking into a form of Islam, as he
feels there is not a whole lot of good stuff going on in the Bible. How
he'll find it in the Koran, or Islam in general, is beyond me. The bad news
is this...

John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN cometh
unto the Father, but by me."

Do the math, it's very simple. Alan does not believe that Christ is HIS
Saviour, thus he will not be moving in the better direction should he die
today. This ought to paralyze us, as it is a most sobering thought.

What are you doing to help him, Peter..? You simply goad him on the way he
is going, never offering any sensible doctrine. Why...?

>You are right, translations have problems, but so do the primary sources.
Resort
>to all the apologetics you want, it does not make the errors go away.

I don't need 'apologetics' to support the Bible. To support the Truth,
sure, using an 'apologetic' is an instruction given by Peter himself,
although you'll spin it from here to who knows where. We read...

1 Peter 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an

answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear:"

The word 'answer' here IS the word 'apology'. Learn to love it, as Peter
says YOU should be using 'apologies.' Will you proceed to tell Peter he is
wrong, pete...?

('Snip' of the same old ridiculous trashing of the Bible that has been
satisfactorily answered by hundreds of folks...)

Peter, you NEEDED a Saviour, do you know why?

Why did Christ die for you? Were you His friend, or His enemy? Were you
God friendly, or Godly irreverent? What were you?

Furthermore, why do you claim to 'keep ALL the commandments', yet you told
me that you would never 'love' false xtian this and that, when Christ
said...

Matthew 5:44
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you;"

Peter, to be quite blunt, why don't you love me...?

Dave Steiger...

[Dan McMillan]

The closer you can get to the original translations, the less time has
transpired for man to get his fingers and "education" all over God's Word.

Proverbs 22:28: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have
set,"

Now even a grain of wisdom from this book can illustrate so much Truth, why
do we still ask; Can this book be trusted?

[V O J]

Therefore the Code of Hammurabi is the original Bible. ????

What say ye to Dead Sea Scrolls which agree with the O.T of KJV closer than
to others???

Dan McMillan <D...@outrage.com> wrote in message
news:E28n2.29$M01.1...@client.news.psi.net...

[The DataRat]

"It's not hard to agree with the Head Rat on this.

 The KJV is a very poor Study Bible."

 

 

 

 

Actually, the Reformed Rodent's original

comments referenced the KJV-O ( King

James Version -Only ) position ...that is,

that the KJV supposedly is the only inspired

English Bible translation.

 

As for the KJV itself:  A lot of us trip over

the archaic English.   The KJV also has

some especially bad translating ( foremost

of which is "kill" -instead of "murder"- in the

6th. Commandment ).

 

Otherwise the KJV is alright.

 

 

                            The DataRat

 

 

 

 

 

[V O J]

The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4n9n2.1076$RK5...@news.rdc1.az.home.com...

The DataRat

I don't know why everyone hops on the "kill" thing. It is archaic but not a
bad translation. Obviously, even today, God did not mean "Do not kill" as
some would interpret it. How would one "kill" a lamb or a chicken or an ox?
More cogent would be Confess in 1 Jn 1:9. Others have carried the mis
interpretation into all translations. It is "agree".

Some modern translations purposely mis translate to say that angels sang.
The translators say that it is unimportant and most people think angels
sing.

No, I am not a KJV only person.

[gary]

V O J wrote in message <77j4d9$opk$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...

>Therefore the Code of Hammurabi is the original Bible. ????
>
>What say ye to Dead Sea Scrolls which agree with the O.T of KJV closer than
>to others???
>

The code of Hammurabi does not teach the same law as
the Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls serve to cooberated the correctness of the
Bible.

[V O J]

gary <g...@iag.net> wrote in message news:77ja9g$all$1...@news.iag.net...

I agree. I only meant to counter the older is better argument and at the
same time use older is better to support the KJV.

About three years ago I went through all of the translated scrolls and
compared the texts with KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB.

KJV stood very well. It sure didn't turn out as wrong as the Wescott and
Hort and "Better Texts" suggest. Others fared worse. In no case was the
theology changed with the slight weighting of more attention to the glory of
God the Father and our heart.

[bryan and celia white]

Peter wrote:

>14: 11-18, a list of birds is given and a bat is included -- God would
never
>have made so fundamental an error, but man would have.

Peter, can you say "anachronism"?

And Job 39: 13-18 is the
>most idiotic statement attributed to God in the bible. Ostriches do not
abandon
>their young, only ignorant men would think that, God would know the truth,
and
>worst, Ostriches laugh at horses and riders.
>

The laughing at horse & rider part means that the ostrich can run really
fast. You shouldn't need to have that explained to you.

Cheers,
Tichy

[bobe]

Dan McMillan wrote:
>
> The closer you can get to the original translations, the less time has
> transpired for man to get his fingers and "education" all over God's Word.
>
> Proverbs 22:28: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have
> set,"
>
> Now even a grain of wisdom from this book can illustrate so much Truth, why
> do we still ask; Can this book be trusted?

Good post Dan,

Out of the Gospel in the King James, my grandfather, myself and my
grandson found Eternal Life in Jesus. Yes, I trust the King James
Version.

--

"Faith that cannot be tested,
cannot be trusted."

[bobe]

Praise God for the Bible. You know why the Bible is in printed form?
It's because the Bible never changes.

You have given your testimony and my testimony is that I have word of
God in the form of the King James Bible.

The word of God and the Holy Spirit always work together, they are the
two tools of Grace.

Praise the Lord!

bobe

[Peter M.]

Hello Tichy:

The word for explaining the errors in the bible is apologetics. God never made
any statement about laughing ostriches, and Job is a moral parable.
Furthermore, the rabbit does not chew the cud; another bible error. Here is
another error: Dan. 11: 1-2 lists four kings to follow Darius I, but historians
know that there were far more than that, proof that this prophecy is false.
Actually, the book of Daniel was written in Hellenistic times, and the scribes
got the history mixed up.

peace

Peter

[bobe]

I understand where you are coming from Walksalone. I used to walk alone
myself,we all have, but then I heard the Gospel. Here it is in minature:
"For
G-od so loved the world, that he gave his
O-nly
S-on, that whosoever believeth in him should not
P-erish, but have
E-verlasting
L-ife." John 3:16

He's coming again and I pray you find Him while there's time and you
will if you seek Him.

Now I no longer walk alone Praise the Lord! There's someone with me and
His Name is Jesus!

Praise God!

[Walksalone]

On or about Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:16:20 GMT "Dan McMillan" <D...@outrage.com>
having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered the
following:

>The closer you can get to the original translations, the less time has
>transpired for man to get his fingers and "education" all over God's Word.

Well, there is a major stumbling block you just forgot to mention, there is no
original god's word. matters not which myth you invoke, from the time of the
lad history forgot & back, there are no originals left. So, just how do you
determine which myth has the green skinny?

>Proverbs 22:28: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have
>set,"

>Now even a grain of wisdom from this book can illustrate so much Truth, why
>do we still ask; Can this book be trusted?

Because of all the falsehoods, contradictions, errors & braggadocio in it?

Do not stand by this grave & weep,
No one's here, I do not sleep.
For I am the thousand winds that blow,
& the diamond glint on the snow.
I am the sun on ripened grain,
The soft & gentle autumn rain.
When you wake in the mornings hush,
I am the swift uprising rush.
Of the quiet birds in circling flight,
The timeless stars that shines at night.
So, do not stand by this grave & cry,
No one's dead, I did not die.

walksalone overat baawa originization

[Greg Hartman]

> The closer you can get to the original translations, the less time has
> transpired for man to get his fingers and "education" all over God's Word.

Slight problem with that theory, which is that since English is a living
language, it changes--there is no benchmark standard.

If we want to go back as far as we can, we really ought to use the very
first English translation of the Bible. It was done in Old English
around 700 AD. Here's the Lord's Prayer from that Bible:

Foeder ure, thu the eart on heofonum,
si thin nama gehalgod. Tobecume thin rice
Gewurpe jin willa on eorjan
Swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedoeghwamlican hlaf syle us to doey
And forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfaj urum gyltendum
And ne geloe the us on rostnunge,
As alys us of yfele.
Sothlice

This, according to your statement above, is a much more "inspired"
English translation than the King James: After all, it's more than 900
years older. The only problem is that English has changed so much that
very few people can read this anymore.

Let's play a little more fair and use something we can read. Old
English, after all, really ought to be called "Anglo-Saxon," given its
roots; we call it Old English because Modern English came from it.

So let's say that the very first English Bible is actually Wycliffe's
translation. It came out in 1382, nearly 250 years before the King
James. Here's the Parable of the Wheat and Tares from Wycliffe's
translation:

The kyngdom of heuenes if maad lijk to a man, that sewe good seed in his
feld. And whanne men slepten, his enemy cam, and sewe aboue taris in the
myddil of whete, and wente awai. But when the herbe was growed, and made
fruyt, than the taris apperiden. And the seruauntis of the hosebonde man
camen, and seiden to him, Lord, whether hast thou not sowun good seed in
thi feeld? And he seide to hem, An enemy hath do this thing. And the
seruautis seiden to him, Wolt thou that we goon, and gaderen hem? And he
seide, Nay, lest perauenture ge in gaderynge taris drawen vp with hem
the whete bi the roote. Suffre ge hem bothe to sexe in to repying tyme;
and in the tyme of ripe corn Y shall seie to the reperis, First gadere
ge to gidere the taris, and bynde hem to gidere in knytchis to be brent,
but gadere ge whete in to my berne.

No fair complaining if this is hard to read--it's English, and it's the
oldest, so it's the best, right?

Seriously, though--this is the problem with the "older is better" school
of thought. Besides Wycliffe's translation, more than 20 other English
Bibles were translated before the King James, including Cranmer's,
Tyndale's (almost 90 percent of the King James' New Testament comes
directly from Tyndale's translation), the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible
(did you know the Pilgrim's thought the KJV was blasphemous and brought
only the Geneva Bible to America?), the Rheims-Douai, the Bishop's
Bible, and others.

Which of these is the "inspired" translation? They all came before the
King James, and the King James translators built on these previous
works.

Here's another scary thought: Find a really old print of your "inspired"
Bible, one with the original introduction to King James from the
translators in the front. Read it and discover something that may shock
you: The King James translators say in this frontispiece that their work
was done to keep the Word of God fresh and alive--and that if the time
came when their work, due to the progress of the language, became
obsolete, the King James should be discarded in favor of yet another
fresh rendition! Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.

It's that way until today. If we try to pour the Word of God into cement
it will lose a little more of its ability to communicate to each new
generation. If the Lord tarries long enough, the King James will be just
like the Old English and Middle English versions above: Historically
valuable but nearly useless to the layman, because the language will
have changed so much few people will be able to read it.

Even today there are dozens of archaic words that are used only in older
works like Shakespeare and the King James--words like concupiscence,
lascivious, peradventure, tarry and ustoward, not to mention the KJV's
archaic grammar and syntax.

The KJV was and is a fantastic work. But even if we leave aside the
billions of people in the world who don't even speak English anyway, the
hard fact is that history marches on and the English language continues
to change. If we don't make available translations intelligible to
today's reader we will commit the grave sin of leaving the Word of God
behind.

For more info see:

http://christianhumor.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa092097.htm

[gary]

V O J<VER...@CONTRACTOR.NET wrote in message
<77jd57$dp$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...

For anyone interested I have a SCHOLARLY book on this subject.
Not one of the KJV vs. others variety. "The Byzantine Text-Type and
New Testament Textual Criticism" by Dr. Harry A. Sturz. It is most
enlightening.

Gary

[Romath (Elementary- Dr. Watson!)]

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:04:37 -0000, "Ben Mitts"
<dapre...@provide.net> wrote:

>
>It's not hard to agree with the Head Rat on this. The KJV is a very
>poor Study Bible.
>

>Ben Mitts
>dapre...@provide.net
>
**I don't mind the KJV, but yes, for study, I do find it a poor
choice. I have an NIV study bible which I find serves the study
purpose well--- but then, I also draw from different versions
depending on what I am looking for-----
I also have a copy of the Jerusalem Bible which I take a look through
depending on search----
Romath

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will post any and all offensive or otherwise bothersome
emails I may receive.....Need something investigated?
Please post it to alt.spam, to alt.romath, or send to
rom...@bigfoot.com or Dr.W...@TheOffice.net
And be sure to visit: http://www.ASPIB.someone.net
"Helping clean up the Internet--one BYTE @ a time!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[stanN...@mm-ministries.org]

Dan McMillan wrote:
>
> The closer you can get to the original translations, the less time has
> transpired for man to get his fingers and "education" all over God's Word.

That is the *FIRST* problem. You see, what you say is the absolute
truth.

Which *exactly* the reason we need to have one of the more modern
translations available to us. Thanks be to God, as a result of
archeological finds over the last 400 years, we have at our disposal
manuscripts which are far older, and more numerous, than what the 1611
AV translators had available to them.

Since the modern English translations do NOT re-translate the older
English translations, but rather translate from the *original* languages
into modern english usage we should be thankful for their insight.

For example, the Preface to the New International Version says:

"The New International Version is a completely new translation of
the
Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from
the
best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts."

Farther down it says the goal was to make a translation that would:

"...be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity
and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and
private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical
use."

Another example is the Preface to the New American Standard Bible which
acknowleges the 1611AV:

"In the history of English Bible translations, the King James
Version is the most prestigious..."

But, it goes on to say the translators

"...felt an urency to update it by incorporating recent discoveries
of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more
current English."

The Foreword to the New American Standard Bible states:

"The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the
conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned
in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired by God.
Since they are the eternal WOrd of God, the Holy Scriptures
speak with fresh power to each generation, to give wisdom
that leads to salvation, that men may serve Christ to the
glory to God.

"The Editorial board had a twofold purpose in making this
translation: to adhere as closely as possible to the original
languages of the Holy Scriptures, and to make the translation
in a fluent and readable style according to current English
usage."

The foreword continues on to say the translators had a fourfold aim:

1. These publications shall be true to
the original Hebrew and Greek.

2. They shall be grammatically correct.

3. They shall be understandable to the masses.

4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the
place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be
personalized.

So, it is a specious argument to say the 1611AV is closer to the
orginial languages, when in fact it is not. The 1611AV is a BEAUTIFUL,
poetic translation. In my opinion, its beauty has not been surpassed,
which is why I generally memorize verses from that version.

The *SECOND* problem with the 1611Av, in addition to the age of the
source material is the English language has changed mightily in 400
years. There are over 300 places in the King James where the usage of
English has changed SO MUCH, that the sense of the KJV verse is
backwards from modern English usage.

One exmple is the use of the word "let." We now use the word "let" in
the sense of "to allow." However, there were ways to use the word "let"
in King James day so that it meant "to hinder." For example:

Isaiah 43:13 - Yea, before the day [was] I [am] he; and
[there is] none that can deliver out of my hand:
I will work, and who shall let it? (KJV)
^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^
"I will work and who shall let it?" What an Englishman of 1611 meant
when he said such a thing was NOT "who shall allow it," but "who can
hinder it?" who can get in it's way, or stop it or reverse it.

Isaiah 43:13 - "I am God, and also henceforth I am He;
there is none who can deliver from my hand;
I work and who can hinder it?" (RSV)

Isaiah 43:13 - "Even from eternity I am He;
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?" (NASB)

Isaiah 43:13 - Yea, from this day I [am] He,
and no one delivers from My hand.
I will work, and who will reverse it?
(A Literal translation of the Bible,
Jay P.Green, (C) 1987, 1992, 1993)

Another example of a big change in meanings is the word "conversation."
We take it to mean talking. Look at:

I Peter 2:12 - Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles:
that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by
[your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the
day of visitation. (KJV)

Today, "honest conversation" would mean speaking the truth and that's
all. In 1611 "conversation" meant your entire conduct and behavior, how
you live all aspects of your life. So:

I Peter 2:12 - Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles,
so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers,
they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe [them,]
glorify God in the day of visitation. (NASB)

Is the KJV trustworthy? For the most part, yes. But is it my sole Bible.
No. It isn't even my primary study Bible. I have around a dozen
different English translations including two literal translations. And
thanks be to God, I also have the Hebrew and Greek to fall back on if I
still have questions.

There's just been too much going on between 1611 and now to consider the
KJV as an authoritative translation. Too many wonderful archeological
discoveries which lead to better understandings of the original
languages and far too many changes in the English language.

For its time, the KJV was the best, though. IMHO it's still the most
beautiful.

--
+===========================================================+
| Stan Greene | All opinions are solely my own. |
| Remove NO-SPAM to reply | But, they should be yours, too. |
+===========================================================+

[V O J]

Unicorn and dragon were not and are not Hebrew words. We defined what we
think was meant.

I am a biblical literalist and as such I recognize that there was light,
day, night, BEFORE there was a sun or a moon. I also recognize the absolute
beauty of the original Hebrew language.
With God a day is as a Million years and visa versa. You or NO ONE ELSE has
any logical or linguistic evidence that the days were not 24 minutes each or
were not 24 giga years each. You have no proof that you and the earth were
not created by God two minutes ago with a complete memory and status quo.

There was a heaven between the mists and that changed.

Man was made from the dust of the earth (by God) but from the dust of the
earth. God is not some form of man who was ON the earth and fiddled around
with dust. God CAUSED it to happen.

Scientifically, evolution does not exist. Evolution is a coined theory and
every explanation of it is destroyed by science within months of its
proposal.

<gor...@go-concepts.com> wrote in message
news:77m152$uhg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>I have a question for those of you who state that unicorns and dragons and
>other such animals are myths. Were you there? You weren't? Well neither
was
>I, but I know someone who was and I have his word recorded and it is 100%
>accurate. Are you interested?
>
>I have another question. If all you ever read or heard was God's Word,
>wouldn't you believe in 6 24 hour days of creation, a global flood,
unicorns,
>dragons, etc.? An honest person would have to answer yes. So then when
you
>say you don't believe God's Word it is because you have chosen to take
man's
>fallible word over God's infallible Word, which by the way, He said he
>magnifies his word even above his own name.
>
>We need to have more faith in God and belive His Word.
>
>In article <369C0264...@istar.ca>,

>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[bobe]

Everyone is free to chose what Bible he/she will read. Here is my
'short' testimony in answer to the question "Can We Trust The kjv?":

"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have
told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2

I've had a room but never a mansion. I trust the King James Bible. What
a blessing in my life. Only God knows how many have been blessed by the
King James Bible over the past 388 years around the world. When I
discover a word I don't understand, I get out my dictionary. When I come
to a verse I don't understand,I meditate on the verse and I pray and ask
the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning to me. I don't go to someone
else's commentaries. The word of God and the Holy Spirit ALWAYS work
together, they cannot be seperated. That's why I don't need to go back
to the 'older is better' manuscripts nor read and study the Hebrew and
Greek. The Holy Spirit already did that for me and I have the completed
work in the form of the Bible.

You know why the Bible is in printed form? It's because the word of God
never changes. I believe I have the same Evangelical Bible that the
Apostle John guarded with his life, but I have it in the English
language. Yes, we can trust the King James Bible.

Praise the Lord and may this be a blessing to you,

bobe

[gor...@go-concepts.com]

Any "bible" that takes "ye" and "thee" out is less accurate in every case
where one of those words is found. The word "you" can be singular or plural
whereas "thee" is singular and "ye" is plural.

Consider that "ye" is in the KJV 3983 times, "thee" 3827 times, "thou" 5474
times, and "thine" 937 times, the new perversions are LESS accurate in 14221
places.

Also, the older manuscripts the perversionists like to use, are only two and
they are old because the early churches put them aside and did not handle them
as much as the true Word of God. The manuscripts that were accepted in the
early centuries were destroyed from the frequent handling.

In article <369E3D...@mm-ministries.org>,

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

[gor...@go-concepts.com]

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

[gor...@go-concepts.com]

I suppose if you were living before the 1800's you would have laughed at
people who believed in the beast called behemoth who had a tail like a cedar
tree (Job 40). Considering all the dinosaurs that have been "discovered" in
the years since then, you would have had your position proved wrong. Instead
of doubting what God wrote, why don't you belive?

A very interesting site is http://www.answersingenesis.org. Another is
http://www.av1611.org.

In article <369AC598...@istar.ca>,
"Peter M." <pcmu...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Alvin wrote:
>
> > the purpose that satan wrote the versions is to leave out some of the
> > impartant doctrines like trinity, Jesus Being born of vergin, hell ,nasb
> > left out more than all of them,trying to make works for salvation instead of
> > grace
> >
>
> Thank you for responding, but you left more questions than you answered. For
> example:Where in the kjv does the word trinity appear? The NASB does mention
> that Jesus was born of a virgin, so where are you getting the idea that the
NASB
> leaves it out?
>
> Oh, one last thing, do you believe that fowls have four legs, and that
unicorns
> exist? The kjv says they exist, so do you believe the kjv on this?
>
> peace
>
> Peter

[The DataRat]

"I also draw from different versions

depending on what I am looking for..."

These are all translations. It makes
sense to employ several different versions
for comparison purposes.

The latest stuff in the Bible was written
almost 2,000 years ago. Idioms have
changed. Cultural presumptions also have
changed. Comparing more than one
translation -and, even, checking the original
language- helps.

On this note, the Genevan Rodent would
like to mention that you ~don't~ have to be
a scholar to look up the Greek or Hebrew
meanings of words used in Scripture.

Concordances like Strong's or Young's
index all the words in the Bible and give
definitions from the original language.
These tools are available in either hardcover
or computer versions.

The DataRat

[Romath (Elementary- Dr. Watson!)]

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:43:52 GMT, "The DataRat" <dat...@home.com>
wrote:

>"I also draw from different versions
>depending on what I am looking for..."

>These are all translations. It makes
>sense to employ several different versions
>for comparison purposes.

**I think so also, DataRat---

>The latest stuff in the Bible was written
>almost 2,000 years ago. Idioms have
>changed. Cultural presumptions also have
>changed. Comparing more than one
>translation -and, even, checking the original
>language- helps.

**Right on.

>On this note, the Genevan Rodent would
>like to mention that you ~don't~ have to be
>a scholar to look up the Greek or Hebrew
>meanings of words used in Scripture.

**Indeed, one does not-----

>Concordances like Strong's or Young's
>index all the words in the Bible and give
>definitions from the original language.
>These tools are available in either hardcover
>or computer versions.
>The DataRat

**Yup--- i have a hardcover copy of Strong's-- amazing amount of
information in it!!
romath :>)

[Tiger]

Just have a look at the Hebrew text and you will see that the KJV is full or
mistranslation.
Today Israel has so much problem with the Arab world who pretend to be the
descendant of the philistine because of the KJV.

Tiger from Israel

Dan McMillan wrote in message ...

>The closer you can get to the original translations, the less time has
>transpired for man to get his fingers and "education" all over God's Word.
>

[V O J]

Many people rely on study bibles and commentaries. It is quite dangerous
because all commentaries are biased. Getting one that agrees with you is
not the most brilliant thing to do.
Your suggestion regarding a concordance is right on.
I have several translations and have this attitude that the bible is its own
best reference.
Another translation often helps. Topical indexes are great.

The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message

news:cbwn2.1963$RK5...@news.rdc1.az.home.com...

>
>
>"I also draw from different versions
>depending on what I am looking for..."
>
>
>
>These are all translations. It makes
>sense to employ several different versions
>for comparison purposes.
>

>The latest stuff in the Bible was written
>almost 2,000 years ago. Idioms have
>changed. Cultural presumptions also have
>changed. Comparing more than one
>translation -and, even, checking the original
>language- helps.
>

>On this note, the Genevan Rodent would
>like to mention that you ~don't~ have to be
>a scholar to look up the Greek or Hebrew
>meanings of words used in Scripture.
>

[gor...@go-concepts.com]

In article <77m2la$nca$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,

"V O J" <ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
> I am a biblical literalist and as such I recognize that there was light,
> day, night, BEFORE there was a sun or a moon. I also recognize the absolute
> beauty of the original Hebrew language.
> With God a day is as a Million years and visa versa. You or NO ONE ELSE has
> any logical or linguistic evidence that the days were not 24 minutes each or
> were not 24 giga years each. You have no proof that you and the earth were
> not created by God two minutes ago with a complete memory and status quo.
>

Linguistic evidence does exist to show the 6 days of creation were 24 hour
days. Every time the Hebrew word for day appears with either a number (ie
first day, second day, etc) and every time the word for day appears with the
terms morning or evening, it refers to a 24 hour day. God used a number and
both morning and evening each time so He is telling us three times that it is
a 24 hour day.

[V O J]

Yes, I have heard that argument before and I put it with the grape juice
argument. If that is the limit of your analysis of Genesis, you are missing
a large part of the richness of God's word and how it is not in conflict
with real scientists.
If it is important to your salvation in your mind, hang on to it for dear
life.
When dealing in the evangelical or discipling world, leave your system of
theology at your bedside.
Jesus had a completely different Gospel than that. He used symbology and
what is right now for all His teachings.

<gor...@go-concepts.com> wrote in message
news:77ntm0$ikr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...

[ewilson]

Where on earth do you get unicorns from scripture? Its not in there at
all.

Eric Wilson ewi...@jcn1.com

[ewilson]

The KJV is the best translation of the Bible. Doesn't it say in the Bible
" I will purify my words seven times" ? The KJV is supprise supprise the
seventh translation. By the way most other translations are taken from the
KJV!!!! A work that comes from a work is less than the original work. As
long as we keep the original KJV we have a good translation (possibly a
perfect translation). Any translation should be took from the original
manuscripts. The reason the NIV is inferior to the KJV is because it does
just this and translates the KJV into the NIV. You can not do this without
losing some of the text. The original text is always the best next we have
the KJV.

Eric Wilson

ewi...@jcn1.com

[Ann Hovsepian]

You obviously missed my post from about 2 hours ago...

Q: Is the NIV a revision or a fresh translation?
A: Unlike some translations that are revisions of older
translations-primarily the King James Version (which in turn relied heavily
on still older versions), the NIV comes directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic
and Greek into contemporary English. It is not restricted by grammar and
vocabularies of older versions still. Nevertheless, the NIV translators did
not hesitate to reflect the King James Version in such memorable passages as
Psalm 23, Isaiah 53, John 14 and I Corinthians 13.

Ann

ewilson wrote in message <01be40c3$3b247d00$41d0bbce@oemcomputer>...

[Michael Painter]

So the KJV is the seventh translation but we should not have translations of
translations because that introduces errors and the KJV is the best?

I would suggest a little history that has some reality in it.

Real scholars are in disagreement about Chapter one verse one of the book
and it's all uphill from there.

http://religion.wadsworth.com/ would be a good place to start.
"Who wrote the bible" by Friedman is also good and a lot cheaper.

-

[ewilson]

Will some idiot please tell me where they think unicorns are mentioned in
the KJV?

Eric Wilson ewi...@jcn1.com