Is the Bible really the inerrant Word of God?

KrispyKrispyKrittr wrote:OK, good answer. Next question... which Bible? NIV, NASV, KJV ect?Keep in mind the definition of the word "inerrant":1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors. Krispynone of them unless one receives the revelation of the scriptures from the SPirit of God who breathed the scriptures.

I believe the original writings are infallible but I don't believe any translations are, including the KJV.I can see where this thread is leading and I just want to say that before we start attacking any translation we should carefully consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit had a hand in the translation. It's great that many people prefer the KJV, I do too, but if we don't believe the true gospel is in any of the newer versions then we either haven't read them or we have an agenda which keeps us from admitting it. I've even heard some say the new translations are of the devil, this is in my opinion very dangerous ground to tread on.In Christ,Ron

Well, the original writings no longer exist. Where does that leave you? Do you think that God failed in the presrvation of them? No, not at all!! He doesn't need them! And nor do we. What version did the Pharisees study so very diligently? Was it not the originals? And why did they miss something as obvious as the Messiah - whose coming wasn't just an obscure prediction. It was repeated over and over and over. They missed it because they were stuck in their courts.God's Spirit enlightens us to truth. Without that any translation is distorted within their minds. And why could such writers as King David understand the heart of God so well - even without having a lot of the Bible as we know it? Someone said, much of Scripture cannot be understood without persecution. I believe it. Just think of the words that COME ALIVE during tials.I find it amazing how God can use even a "loose" translation to bring someone to his saving grace. Diane

The Scriptures as originally written are inerrant. However, since there exists no single greek or hebrew manuscript on the face of the planet that doesn't have some sort of error in it (typo's included!), we cannot say any of the manuscripts we posses are free from error. This does not mean we cannot say however, that the Scriptures are the final authority. This view of inerrancy is based on what is indeed factually true. To come up with a view of inerrancy that is not grounded in the evidence we actually have, is to stick one's head in the sand. E.g. saying only the TR is without error. Who knows, maybe there exists out there a copy of each book of the Bible that is free from any sort of error in it, but if such is the case, then it is like when all copies of the Law vanished during the OT times for a period of time, until the days of Jeremiah where a copy of them was found in the ruins of the damaged temple. Perhaps a yet undiscovered copy exists out there. If such is the case, then it actually exists, but we simply do not posses that copy.

Krispy,The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 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. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.1 Corinthians 2:10Murray

If such is the case, then it actually exists, but we simply do not posses that copy.In view of this reality, the original question would need to receive a "no" answer, since it is a close-ended question and leaves no space for deeper consideration. Perhaps the question is better asked, "Can we trust the Bible?" Even that question has limitatins.... think some more.... "Can we trust the author of Scripture to REVEAL the truths to us - AS WE NEED THEM. And if we don't believe that, then we don't understand the New Covenant (see Jeremiah 31 )Diane

Here we go AGAIN! The one thing that has been constant throughout time has been Satan's attack on the Word of God. My only input on this thread is that ANYONE who chooses to question the validity of the KJV as the Word of God is a FOOL, and will stand in judgment in the end of days. Greg

I must unapologeticly submit to you, that the KJV is the Word of God A pastor taught us many years ago: If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me. DianePS: All aside, Who can question the countless lives that were marvelously transformed through the KJV................ and the NASB and the Good News for Modern Man, and the Manderin translation and.... and.... ?

Krispy: OK, so this is my last comment on this thread. Krispy, if in your opinion my previous post is wrong, I will withdraw it. If we are "Born Again" the Holy Spirit convicts us of the Truth of His Word, and no "thoughtful discussion" is needed. If we are dealing with indaviduals that intend to cause confusion, they need rebuke, as Jesus demonstrated in the following verse..Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Is it not time that the Church of Christ stand up for something??? Greg

Krispy, I did actually hear it preached. It was not meant in zest or ridicule. He was serious. Nevertheless, I should not have posted it... clear case of impusive fingers. I think we should not make fun of the translations God uses to speaks to people... even calling a translation a perversion. That is an insult to God's magnificent ability to overrule man's weaknesses and save someone through that Bible. The important truths we need to know are said over and over and over and over again in the Bible, and if we miss it while we read one section, we can revisit it somewhere else.... and somewhere else. I know someone who was saved through reading the Old Testement. The Good News is there too!!! PTLDiane

All I'm saying is that I am attempting to have a thoughful discussion about this. There are a lot of truly born again believers on this forum who dont agree with me on this. I dont think there is any place on here for condemning people for disagreeing. I think when the discussion turns volatile we all lose.It's an attempt at a thoughtful conversation which is not based on reality. We need to base our theology on fact, not declaring something simply as so.Fact: We have not one single manuscript in Greek and Hebrew that is without error. A theology that declares otherwise is one based on fantasy, and has no substance to it. If your doctrine of inerrancy and preservation does not fit this fact, then you need to modify it-- for the very documents you quote to propigate your doctrine has the very flaws you declare it doesn't have!

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Which translation? Don't they all say basically the same thing? I do have a problem with some paraphrases that change the intention of Scripture, other than that....If we cannot trust our Bible regardless of translation, how can we know God? There are many out there who teach that God doesn't speak to His people except through the Bible. I don't believe this, but I believe you should test every spirit by the Bible.and that's all I have to say. Period. :-)

I went to Bible Gateway and did a comparison of some verses in the following versions:KJVNIVNASBNLTNKJVeven though the other versions note that certain verses were left out in NU (don't know what that is), it seems that the verses said the same thing.I still believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I use the KJV, NIV, NKJV in my studies. I don't have a favorite. I just know that I can trust my Bible over any other source. I have faith that God decided which books should be in the KJV when it was written and I will go with that. If I can read the KJV and the others and they contain the same basic intent, I am not being misled.

I said: I know someone who was saved through reading the Old Testament.J-bird asked: Did they already have an established understanding of the gospel?Aparently not. I don't know much about the story, just this fact. It shouldn't be a surprise. Much of the NT is the OT repeated. Diane

quote]So... in other words, you're not sure.This sounds like a new thought that you havent considered before. I recommend you look into this whole issue and see what you turn up. I used to be a huge supporter of the NIV, NASV, etc... but based upon my own personal study of this issue I have rejected modern versions.KrispyWhat makes me uncomfortable, is that I deal with unbelievers on a daily basis who question the authority of the Bible. I KNOW that when I pick up my Bible, be it KJV, NKJV or NIV, God is going to speak to me. If I cannot be sure of God's Word, how can I be sure of anything? Can I even trust in my Salvation? How do I know I won't be reincarnated? How do I know that Jesus is God's Son? Why do I pray or study the Bible, if it isn't God's Word? How can I say, this is my Bible, I believe it, but only this version? That just seems to prove what the unbelievers think to be true.

Say I release plans for a house to be build. I've sealed it and sent it out. Some contractor takes it upon himself to alter the drawings without my knowledge... then the drawings have been perverted. Right? Krispy, are you a lawyer? You seem to think from a legal perspective. (not a criticism) Yes, you express a very legitimite concern! I happen to see the perverting of Biblical truths on a far grander scale than you do - far in excess to what the worst tranlators have ever done. For example: Think of the word: "Worship". What comes to your mind? Is it praise songs, guitars etc in a church service. Well, if so, then you have perverted the meaning of the word. Many have done that. Now think of the first three commands, and then think of "worship" again. One worships whatever he trusts in - could be anything. You even could worship your "worship" ie religious experience. However, God wants us to trust in him and place him above all else. That is worship - incorporates our entire lives. If you worship God only patly, then the other part you are not worshipping God, and you are worshiping something else (job, money, etc) and that is idolatry. Now take the word, "love". That one has been perverted so grossly that we would be better to use another word, like: care, empathy, etc. Now, we cannot blame translators for the perversion of that word, "worship" or "love". Can't you see a diabolic force here, not just creating an innocent misconception of the word. God's word is twisted in people's minds in order to keep them from truly obeying God. I could create a huge list of common Biblical terms and then show how through common and sloppy use they have become perverted IN PEOPLE'S MINDS - to the point of even destroying the true meaning of of God's God News. We all have perversion to some degree. That's why we need the Sprit. Re biblical perversions: God outsmarted even the devil. For example, even without using the word "love" at all, Jesus taught us the meaning of love by examples: like the Good Samaritan, foot washing etc etc.It is the same for the word "worship". Worship of God is modelled in many accounts in the Bible. So is worship of idols. (would be a good study) So, even the purest translation is limited by the limitations of the reader. ... but not the Holy Spirit who alone can enlighten true meaning of God's word. I fully trust that God has revealed himself and his will through the Bible - even today, and I fully trust it as the guide for my life. Diane

This is not a fact. You learned this from whatever college professors you have sat under, but there is plenty of evidence refuting exactly what you have said. Dean John Burgon, for starters.And how is that you can proove there are no greek manuscripts that do not have error?This is fact. We have no single manuscript that agrees with any other manuscript. All of them have typo's/mispellings. It's not a single college professor. You can look up it in any technical Greek aparatus which compares the manuscripts. You can look it up in any introduction to textual criticism text book. This is fact.The fact of the matter is you have no way of knowing anything because you don't even know the greek alphabet. I HAVE SEEN THE DIFFERENCES WITH MY OWN EYES and there are plenty of works out there that document all the differences in all the manuscripts.

I wont answer that... I'll let you. Do a side by side comparison between the KJV and any modern version of the following verses, and then you tell me (and this is just the NT):You should not fail to mention the hundreds of differences in the TR manuscripts. Will the real TR please stand up?

Not to sound spamish, but for everybody's benefit, here is a quote from the following site:http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htmThe differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully listed by Scrivener (1884) [Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 56-60,242-63] and Hoskier (1890) [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, by H.C. Hoskier, London: David Nutt, 1890, Appendices B & C]. The following are some of the most important of these differences.Luke 2:22"their purification" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts."her purification" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).Luke 17:36"two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left" -- Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.John 1:28"Bethabara beyond Jordan" -- Erasmus, Stephanus 3 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic."Bethany beyond Jordan" -- Stephanus 1 2, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.John 16:33"shall have tribulation" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate."have tribulation" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts.Rom. 8:11"by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, Aleph A C, Coptic."because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including BD, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.Rom. 12:11"serving the Lord" -- Erasmus 1, Beza, King James, Elzevir, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate."serving the time" -- Erasmus 2345, Stephanus, D G.1 Tim. 1:4"godly edifying" -- Erasmus, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate."dispensation of God" -- Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including Aleph A G.Heb. 9:1Here Stephanus reads "first tabernacle," with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, Beza, Luther, Calvin omit "tabernacle" with Pap 46 Aleph B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version omits "tabernacle" and regards "covenant" as implied.James 2:18"without thy works" -- Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions), King James Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate."by thy works" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek manuscripts.

bro KrispyWhat does that mean?Think about this, if I go to court and testify to an event, and I tell the absolute truth about an event... is it only true if the Judge has a revelation that what I say is true? So if the Judge decides that I am lying when I am telling the truth... does that make what I said any less the truth?There is a hell. The fact that many people (even so-called Christians) dont believe in it doesnt change that truth. It's still the truth.you know exactly what i mean. your arguement citing the court case and comparing that truth you speak in court and the truth of the scriptures is like comparing apples to oranges, one is spiritual and requires a spiritual approach and the other a worldly matter. bro you know i love you much and we disagree on this so unless the Lord burdens me further i won't argue this with you. well we have many times over anyway :-P God bless you bro

Dear Brother Krispy,I have no desire to argue with you either. But maybe you could explain a couple of verses concerning the KJ translation.Acts 12:44 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. KJVWas Luke using a pagan holiday to mark time or should the Greek word 'Pascha' have been translated Passover, as in all the other passages?Heb 4:7-87 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.KJVWas the author of Hebrews meaning to say that David wrote these words in Psalm 95 after Jesus or should the KJ translators have written Joshua?I grew up with the KJ and have memorized much from its pages however I do not feel compelled to exalt it as highly as you do.Love in Christ,Jeff

No problem brother. Have a good rest in the Lord.In His love,Jeff

KJ... did you happen to notice that that article (and especially that site) in no way supports or bolsters your argument? Your kinda contradicting yourself by citing David Cloud...I simply cited him in order to support the fact that even he says the manuscripts differ and have errors in them in the TR tradition.

"If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.[Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant..."Philippians 2:1-7"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.Let not then your good be evil spoken of:For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."Romans 14:13-19

You do realize the TR is not a "manuscript" like the Alexandrian Texts, right? That the TR is a collection of miniscule writings taking from lectionaries and various other ancient witnesses, letters, etc.I know the TR is not simply a single manuscript. You do realize that many of the passages of scripture that are omitted in the Alexandrian ARE quoted in the letters, sermons and writings of the first century church fathers... right? There were several men who compiled the writings and sermons of the first century chruch fathers, and every passage of the 27 books of the NT was quoted by them with the exception of 3 verses. One of the compilers was Dean Burgon, and I forget the other's name. I can find it easily tho if you want it.This would be incorrect. It is correct to say most of the NT is quoted by various patristic sources, but this is over the course of several centuries, not one (mostly from ante-nicene fathers). I think that span would be first-fourth centuries. Can I read Greek? No. But thats smoke and mirrors, KJ. Thats dodging the real issue and skirting the question. I dont have to know Greek to know the history of the Bible. I dont have to know Greek to know the Bible.It's not smoke and mirrors. Until you have some knoweldge of Greek, you have no way of verifying which of the manuscripts are best. External evidence is an important aspect of textual criticism, but unless you know Greek, you cannot perform the other part of it, and look at internal evidence. Until you know Greek, you cannot properly do textual criticism. So far when you speak of there being no perfect translation or manuscript all you have mentioned is mispellings and typo's. How is that an argument? Is that all you have? Look at Tyndales Bible compared to Wycliffe's. Look at the 1611 compared to todays english. The English language had no standard of spelling until little over 200 years ago... and depending on where you are in the world today, there still isnt.It goes beyond typo's and mispellings (including textual variants in the TR). I simply mentioned these as the lowest common demoninator to show that no single manuscript has been perfectly preserved in the Greek. Copying is copying. Even though antiquity had no standard for grammar and language, that doesn't keep the copyists from copying what is before them. Show me a real disagreement between manuscripts. Show me an error in the KJV.I've already showed a web site that shows there are variants in the textual tradition the KJV was part of. So whats your point?My point in all this is simple, the TR is not perfect. Do you know with certainty, KJ, that you know you have a Final Authority? Can you honestly tell me that you know what the true Word of God says? Jesus said His wordS shall not pass away. But you say they did... when the originals disappeared from the scene.It's obvious when Jesus said His words will not pass away He wasn't speaking verbatim. First, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and most everything we have recorded as the sayings of Christ is in Greek. Secondly, in the four gospels when quoting the same event and teaching, the gospels don't always agree word for word on what Jesus said. Rather, the gospel writers modified the sayings of Christ ever so slightly to suit their purposes, personal grammatical style, etc. Finally, even John acknowledges not all the things Christ taught have been preserved. So, when Christ said His word will endure, He obviously didn't mean it His words would survive verbatim, as His exact wording in all His teachings when He taught them here on earth has indeed passed away.How do you decide what is true in the Bible you read? Can you know with 100% certainty? I am confident with absolute certainty about the Bible I read.

If you don't mind, when i frist heard God word of truth enter my ear, then the word took root in my mind,and brought life to my soul, it was like a sword,showing me the two sharp edges, cutting away at my flesh and my desires of the flesh,showing me my sins my faults!at the same time pruning away at my repentive sprite,that I may bring forth fruit.like clay that I am being molded daily. and without proof, without sight,I knew.know other words put in any order or fashion speak that way,only coming out of the Holy scriputures, do we have sight,and sound of The one who is the word of God him self made flesh to die on the cross for our sins that we may have life thur Him.who was raised from the dead,He brings Hope to the sinner,to those who are forgotten,for those who are lost,and shows mercy and love's towards those who where never loved in this life, who were shuned,and a outcast to thy brother. Our God brings Hope,Love,and forgivness,in his Son Christ our Lord.

Hi Krispy...Studies have shown (one was done by Cornell University, and another by Harvard University) that the KJV is on a 5th grade reading level.It is quite evident that the language of the KJV is not understood by "most 5th graders." In fact, I know believers that have been saved for years that struggle with the language, verbage and grammar of its early 17th century usage. For most individuals, studying the KJV often requires an additional resource (such as a dictionary that contains information pertaining to the often misunderstood words). How many times have you heard a pastor or teacher that felt the need to "interpret" what the passage is "actually" saying? This contradicts the hopes of the translators, who desired to create a version of the Bible in the language of common men -- and not just the clergy or educated. As for the supposed "infallibility" of the KJV translation -- why not take an original 1611 KJV and compare it with the current KJV (completed in 1769 but with a few more revisions in 1850). Through such cross-examination, you'll be surprised by the changes that occurred over such revisions due to errors in the original translation. These have been discussed in numerous threads (most recently, in response to Stever's barrage of KJV-only threads). Many KJV-only believers argue that these were not "major" revisions. However, it completely destroys the argument that the KJV was PERFECT. A simple Google search -- along with verification using both an original 1611 (available online or at many libraries and Christian bookstores) and the common KJV used today -- will verify these differences. I included a list of several dozens of these changes in a previous thread, including a link to some photographs of an original 1611 KJV that shows some of the changes. Since my University's internet is experiencing problems, you'll have to use the SEARCH feature in order to find that particular thread.As for your list of verses with notable differences between the KJV and "modern" versions, we must remember that the KJV is taken entirely from the Received Text. Modern versions like the NIV use other source materials -- some supposedly older than what was used for the KJV. While there is a legitimate argument that can be made about the superiority of one source over another, to cross examine these versions in order to find "error" is unfruitful. This would be like comparing two finely tuned pianos that were tuned by different master sources. Which "tuning" is correct? That is open for discussion. Academic (and of course, spiritual) honesty prevented translators from including passages that were not a part of the sources they were using. However, in both the KJV and NIV, there are words that are incorrectly translated. The translators of the KJV were instructed to keep some traditional language, and the translators of the NIV felt inclined to (such as the names of books, people, etc...). Some versions (like the NIV) include footnotes that describe the translators' situation in many of those instances.In my opinion, the only infallible Word of God is the "rhema." The "logos" will vary from one translation to the next (including translations taken from the Textus Receptus). Whether Nathan said, "Thou art the man!" -- "You are the man!" -- or "Tú eres aquel hombre!" (2 Samuel 12:7) is almost irrelevant. Why? Because Nathan did not say this in English or Spanish. He actually spoke using ancient Hebrew. But the spirit of all four of the versions of the phrase agree. When most people think, they often do not use a native language. They think in non-linguistic thought. We usually think using concept or idea rather than language. When the Lord speaks to us, He is not confined to speaking in a particular language. He often speaks to us by expressing an idea or understanding into our intellect (or even into our spirit) with knowledge that came from outside of our intellect. How often have you "felt inclined" to do something, without actually hearing an "english" voice of God? Thus, the "logos" does not have to be identical in order for the Word of God to be perfect. One time, I visited a jail with a chaplain. Inside of the jail was an individual that only spoke and understood Spanish. Even after three years of Spanish in high school and four years of Spanish in college, my Spanish is still quite limited. But I was able to share the Gospel with this man by reading passages of a Spanish Bible to him (since I know how to read in Spanish). Although I didn't understand the words that I was speaking, I did know the passages. After I read the numerous verses about God's plan for mankind, I prayed for him. When I finished praying, I looked up and noticed that tears were streaming down his face. As we embraced, I understood that God is not confined or limited by language or Bible version. Personally, I study the Bible using the KJV. In my opinion, this is the best version from the Received Text. However, I also use the NIV (1978), which I feel is the best version from other sources. :-)

Big deal. I have faith. Krispy, What/who is the source of your faith? Is it a person, or is only visible written symbols about the person. Do you believe that God can speak to me through my Bible? Is it his word? Or would you view me as having a lesser revelation of God because I don’t read the KJV? I'm a structural engineer. So you not a lawyer. I suspect that you work with the tangible dimension, and are very good at your profession, because you are clearly a clever person. However, the intangible aspects of life are hard to draw out on blueprints – ex: the way people’s minds work, the way people are drawn to Christ, and the way they come to understand God’s precepts. I repost some of my earlier comments here, because I got the (intangible) impression that you didn’t see my (intangible) concern nearly as valid as your concern. Do I understand right? I will edit it in an attempt make my (intangible) point easier to assimilate. I happen to see the perverting of Biblical truths on a far grander scale than you do - far in excess to what the worst translators have ever done. Think of the words, "Worship”….. "love”, “God”, “mercy”, “forgiveness”, “submission”, “lead” “sin”, etc . Countless Biblical terms are perverted so grossly IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE that we almost need to throw them out and find a better word…. (until it gets too perverted to resemble it’s true meaning)Now, we cannot blame translators for the perversion of those words Can't you see a diabolic force at work, not just creating an innocent misconception of the word. God's word is twisted in people's minds in order to keep them from truly obeying God. Their minds are made dull, their eyes are blinded, their ears can’t hear….I could create a huge list of common Biblical terms and then show how through common and sloppy use they have become perverted IN PEOPLE'S MINDS - to the point of even destroying the true overall meaning of God's God News. We ALL have perversion to some degree. Thankfully God outsmarted even the devil. For example, even without using the word "love" at all, Jesus taught us the meaning of love by examples: like the Good Samaritan, foot washing etc etc.It is the same for all important Biblical concepts. So, even the purest translation is limited by the limitations of the reader, but not the Holy Spirit who alone can enlighten true meaning of God's word. PS: I am not here referring merely to the non-Christian, but everyone. Christians too see through the eyes of their culture, their heritage, their experience etc. But it is very hard to recognize, perhaps because it is so intangible. That’s why the importance of testing and trials: they purify one’s faith. Krispy, I respect your concern, and wouldn’t mind at all if you go through my site and check for any errors that resulted from using other translations. Diane

Aaah, Krispy, So you aren't going to check me out for error, and I think that you are qualified enough to do so. I'm starting to get a rejection complex. I have invited other KJVO's to examine my writing for error, but so far, no one will take me up on it. :-( I posted about the distorting of the blueprint in people's MINDS? People are driven by what's in their MINDS which to a large extent superimposes on what they read. (mindsets) Do you think I'm overstating the problem? PS I don't see any connection betweeen the Word of Faith and the NIV. I suspect that the movement is prepetuated by man's sinful desires and failure to examine and study ANY translation ... failure to submit to God.. pride, etc. They then find some verses to say what they want it to say. (I've seen that a lot)Diane

I am 100% certain that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't need to do major research into all the versions of the Bible. I love the Word of God. I have no favorite version. I do like to compare the wording sometimes, but when I read my Bible it is to hear from God and be transformed, not to decide who screwed what up in translation. :-D

And by the way... whenever I have this discussion with someone who considers themselves to be intellectual and scholarly the first thing they try to do is shut me up because I dont know Greek.Trying to do textual criticism without a knowledge of Greek is like trying to describe the color red to a person who has been blind from birth. Or in otherwords, you just can't really know. Big deal. I have faith.You insist on quoting all sorts of writings, refering to all sorts of books and the like, in a rather scholarly way in order to establish your case. But when others bring their scholarship to the table, you coil back and ignore whatever they say and speak gibberish about faith or the Spirit. This is frankly, a double standard. Either use scholarship all the way, or not at all. Consider the pro's and con's of the arguments on both sides of the fence, and be ready to conclude based off evidence. Faith comes by the word... And there is nothing in the word of God that says "believe thou the TR-eth." Obviously your "faith" rests upon something which is not declared in the Scripture. It rests upon some sort of scholarship and study. know enough of the Cherokee language (see my signature) to tick someone off... but I'm willing to bet, KJ, that you dont know any of it. Does that prevent you from learning about the Cherokee history, culture, etc? No...I picked up some Arabic when I was in Gulf War I. Do you know any? Do you have to know Arabic to understand whats going on over in the middle east right now? No...And like I said, you dont have to know Greek to understand the history behind the two different schools of manuscripts.Of course, you don't have to know a language to know the history of anything. However, if you are going to be criticially examining manuscripts and writings from that culture, a knowledge of the language will be required. For so long as you don't know the language, you will have no way of verifying anything other than what other people tell you about any given document. For example, if I were to hand you a Greek copy of the gospel of John, and told you it was a representation from the Majority Text, you would have to take my word on it. But, I could be lying, and actually giving you an Alexandrian copy of the text. So, unless you actually knew Greek, you frankly, wouldn't know one way or the other. If you don't know the Greek, you might as well be doing textual criticsm blind.Alexandrian Text - Alexandria, Egypt. Origen was a pagan, and he mutilated not only scripture but himself. History traces the Alexandrian Texts from the modern versions all the way back to Origen.Received Text - Antioch... the church that sent Paul out on his missionary travels. Ancient witnesses proove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is in the KJV originated in Antioch.This simplistic 'guilt by association' argument is entirely faulty. The fact of the matter is the churches were full of heretics and people who were wrong in doctrinal matters. Take for example, the beloved Ignatius of Antioch. He spent his dying breaths on his travel from Antioch to Rome attempting to establish a monoepiscopate in the area churches. He help setup the entire whorish Roman system with it's blasted hierarchy! So, we can point to such and such preacher at such and such city and claim they are responsible for the errors introduced into the variant copies we have today. Take for example Oriegin. He was well known for his allegorization of the Scriptures in order to provide interpretation. Frankly, he was not overly interested in the literal sense of Scripture, and he simply used his allegorical method to explain away anything he found difficult to reconcile in the Scriptures. He probably wouldn't have been very interested in actually deliberately modifying a passage to suit whatever purposes he had. Ultimately, just because a document was in a certain area with a certain preacher doesn't prove it was tailored to suit that preacher's preconceived notions of what the Scriptures "really taught." Of course, we know such did happen, as is the case with the Samairtian Pentateuch, but such modifications are pretty obvious, and to my knowledge, rare. Most errors we have today in any copy of the Scriptures are simple scribal errors that were accidentaly introduced into the text. This includes accidently adding words, substituting words, sometimes ommiting words. From my limited study thus far in comparing various textual issues in the Greek, this seems to be the case most the time. When we examine multiple witnesses from multiple regions over several centuries of time, we are able to determine which variant was probably original. It's not simply a matter of saying "Alexandrian vs. Byzantine.Take for example, Acts 7:46, which can either read "...that he might find a dwelling plcae for the God of Jacob" or "...that he might find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob." Each of these variants has support in early Alexandrian manuscripts. Each is also supported by later Alexandrian manuscripts. Each also has support in the Western texts. The first variant has support from the Majority text, but the latter has support in several late Byzantine manuscripts. Neither is quoted in any of the early fathers. Which is right? Each variant is strongly supported, and has a wide area of circulation in early and late documents. When one does textual criticism, this is the kind of difficulty one is actually faced with. I fear you are presenting an oversimplified manner of these things filled more with rhetoric than anything else. "I am confident with absolute certainty about the Bible I read."Absolute? Is that the same as 100%? Which Bible is it that you read? There are so many... how can you be 100% sure? Or can't you? Because if you are only 99% you might as well be 0% sure.Even though I'm aware of the textual issues, I would say with absolute certainty, 100%, no matter if I had a KJV or NASB in my hands and my life was on trial. When I go to preach on the streets, I take my NASB with me. When I go to the universities, I take my NASB with me. When I go into a nearby ghetto full of drugs, crime, prostitution and the like, in order to minister to homeless crack addicts who are entirely unpredictable and high as a kite, I have my NASB with me.So yeah, I'm absolutely certain. I'd do just as well with the KJV, but I personally like my NASB more.

and that is where I will leave it.

Oh yes, many ancient Israelites kept Easter. Modern Israelis still do. In summary we can say that when Herod, after the Passover and during the days of unleavened bread shut up Peter intending to bring him out after Easter, Herod meant exactly what the King James Version is saying. He meant Easter not Passover which had already come and gone. This means that every translation which uses the word Passover in Acts 12:3-4 is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Easter is the correct word, and the King James Version uses it. Easter as a translation doesn't make sense. This was a Jewish persecution of the Christians, headed by the Jewish govenor, Herod. Jews prior to the exile indeed practiced pagan rituals, as is abundantly clear in the OT. However, Palestinian Jews in the time of Christ were NOT known for their participation in pagan practices. This is clear in the gospels themselves, such as when Christ was asked if it was lawful to pay taxes simply because Caesar's image was on the coin. If they had a hard enough time handling Roman money, they would not have partook of worshipping Ishtar. Jews after the return from exile, especially after the desecration of the temple during the intertestamental period, had no interest in overt acts of idolatry. Also notice in this passage Herod persecuted Peter in order to "please" the Jews. "The Jews" being used as a term to describe the Jewish population at large, and probably even more specificially, the Sanhedrin Court. The Sanhedrin Court was consumed with matters of the Law, especially during Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, we read Peter was put in prison during the days of Unleavened Bread, intending after the Passover to bring Peter out. Words that have multiple meanings and possible translations must be translated in context, and context makes it clear there is no thought of Ishtar here. Peter is in prison "during" Passover, and thus, Herod is intending to bring him out for public trial "after" the Passover. Frankly, the KJV translation got it wrong. There is nothing remotely in this context to cause one to translate "Easter."

But when the KJV says one thing, and a modern version says something else... and at times the modern versions contradict each other... then either one is the true Word of God... or none of them are. But they can not all be.What about when the texts behind the KJV say different things? It's not simply "modern versions" that say different things as you like to propigate. So, which version of the KJV are you going to stand on? All the KJV's can't be right!

KJ... You learned Greek from someone. You rely on others research and learning to get where you are. We all do that.We all learn something from somebody. Yes, I have learned Greek from other people. However, not everybody agrees on everything in Greek. While I am endebted to those who have taught me, ultimately, I am not forced to agree with their conclusions. Upon further study, I may come to my own conclusions that differ perhaps from every scholar on the face of the earth.

Dear Krispy, It is difficult to tell if you are asking this because you are struggling with the question, or if you are just trying to stir a debate. Personally, I don't like debating and do not wish to debate. However, as a brother in Christ, I love you, and wish to be of help. Therefore, I will pour out my heart unto you as directed by Christ and lay an answer to your question at your feet as a gift. If you, or anyone should disagree, there I leave it so that Christ may do with it as He wills. I will also pray for you and I that we may both grow together in such an important question. Is the Bible, specifically the canonical book widely recognized as the "Bible", the inerrant "Word of God"? Let me start by asking you a question. If your wife was to deliver a message for you, would you consider her words to be your exact words? Or, to say it in a different way, if your mother were to come to you and deliver a message from your father, would you say, "Those are the inerrant words of my father"?If it were me, I would believe the message was true as I trust my mother delivered the correct message. However, I would not believe the words she spoke were the exact words of my father. Likewise, if my wife were to deliver a message for me, then I would trust that she would give the correct message, but not "word for word." I would also say the words spoken by my wife were not my words, they were her words, but rather my message was delivered through her. Through out time, God has visited many different people in order that they would carry his word to others. God spoke to them and they in turn wrote down what God had said. In some cases, they wrote directly as they heard, and in other times, they wrote as inspired. In each of these cases, the Word of God came to these writers, and then the writers wrote what they experienced. This means that each writer of the bible wrote down a testimony of what they heard or saw. The Word of God was spoken or revealed to them, and they in turn testified to the Word of God. In the King James version of the bible, the statement "the word of God came" is found 4 times, and the statement "the word of the Lord came" is found 93 times. In the New American Standard bible, the statement "the word of God came" is found 3 times, and the statement "the word of the Lord came" is found 98 times. Nearly 100 times does it say in the bible that the word "came" to someone, as though the Word of God appeared. This person in turn wrote down what the Word of God said to them. They wrote down what they saw and heard, and as such made a recorded testimony of what God said. The importance of this is to realize that the writers of the bible are not the Word of God. The Word of God came to them, and they in turn became a vessel by which the word of God could come to others. They wrote down what they saw and heard. The record of what they wrote, the scriptures, is not the Word of God Himself, but rather a testament to the Word of God. As such, the bible is not the Word of God, but rather a testimony to the Word of God. The first chapter of the book of John establishes that "the Word became flesh" meaning that Jesus is the Word of God. John also establishes that the "Word was God." The Word of God is much greater than man's word. Our words are thrown about, and we hardly ever say anything of great importance. What can be done by our word? We have no authority. However, the Word of God has all authority over Heaven and Earth. God spoke the world into existence. The Word of God is the power that governs all. Would you say this is true of the bible? The bible is a testimony and this is told throughout the bible. In John 5:39, Jesus said the scriptures "testify of me." In John 21:24, John says of himself, "This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things." In Revelation 22:18, John says that "I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book." In Acts 20:24, it says "to testify the gospel of the grace of God." In Exodus 25:16, the law which was sealed in the ark was called a "testimony." Lastly, Revelation 19:10 says, "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." There are many other scriptures that tell of this same thing. The writers of the bible were filled with the Holy Spirit and as such, wrote in accord with the Holy Spirit. The writers were not God in flesh. They were writing under the inspiration of God, as established by Paul, in order that the Word of God may pass through them. This is important because the bible and the writers of the bible were vessels that God used. The writers of the bible were not the only or the last vessels God has used to spread His Word. John the Baptists was also a "witness to the light." Jesus also sent out many disciples to testify to Himself. There were the 12 apostles, some of who wrote the bible, and countless disciples including the 70 he sent forth spoken about in Luke chapter 10. Even today, the Lord has raised up many preachers who carry the Word of God to the world. They preach the Word of God as given unto them by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, every person who bears the Holy Spirit, who has the Word of God inside them, is a walking vessel of the power of God. Every person who has been born again is a living testimony to the Word of God. The Church is the body of Christ. The Church is the living word of God. The bible is but a book that has no life. The scriptures bear the words of prophets spoken many years ago. They are important and are relevant today. Even so, the Church is also equally important as the Church is what carries the bible. The Church is not only speaks with words, but shows with actions. Everything we do as believers of Christ testifies to Christ. We are Christ on earth, not the bible. I believe understanding the bible is a testimony is important for our faith. The trend has become as to call the bible "The Word of God." Because of this, we have elevated the bible to the position of God. Many religions worship the bible as if it were God and also base an entire faith on the bible. However, anyone who does such a thing quickly discovers a weak faith. They become lost in debates and arguments. They are upheld by their own ability to believe the bible is true. However, as Christians, we follow Jesus Christ and base our faith on Him. We know Jesus, not through the testimony of others and not through the words of the bible, rather we know Him in Spirit and truth. The Spirit of God dwells inside the heart of each believer. This is a tremendous thing. The Word of God lives inside of us. What a blessing!!! What an amazing gift!!! The Word of God is written on our hearts, and we follow it because the love of God. The bible is not a basis for faith, but rather, a builder of faith. Our faith should be based upon Christ Himself who dwells inside of us. This means, our faith is not given or affirmed by our own power, but by the power of God. We have faith because Christ has made a way for us to believe. We know God because of what Jesus has done. We know this in our heart. Often times, we cannot explain the ways of God. We cannot put into words the wonderful joys we feel in our heart. However, we know them to be true. The bible confirms all this in us. The apostle Paul has explained the scriptures and helps us to understand in our mind what has happened in our hearts. The bible gives us a basis by which to test prophecies. The bible is a guide to understanding the Word of God. The bible is a collection of testimonies, and as we know, whenever we agree, Christ is with us. These collection of testimonies throughout time give us a better understanding of what God has done. The bible, however, is not the Word of God. The bible is a vessel by which the Word of God has come. The bible is a testimony to the Word of God. When we realize this, we begin to realize the need for God in reading the bible. We need Jesus, who is the Word of God, to dwell in our hearts in order that we may understand the bible. Otherwise, this testimony has lost all meaning. The bible can be quickly misinterpreted or misunderstood. The Word of God does not need to be explained in order to know Him. When Jesus comes to us, we know Him. However, the bible is not the Word of God. When people read the bible without Jesus, they don't know what it is really says. How can they understand this testimony, if they have not experienced it? No one can come to the Father, except through Jesus Christ. And no one can truly understand the testimony of Jesus, unless they have the Spirit of God in them. When we realize the bible is a testimony to the Word of God, we also realize that it may bear error. The error comes not in message but in sayings. The message or meaning of the bible has been preserved by God so that all people may have a chance to come unto Christ. However, this does not mean every sentence of the bible is accurate and true. In order to give you an example, I could say to you, "Go to the store." Obviously, this means what it says. However, I may call your house and say, "Is Krispy there?" Obviously, I am not asking what it says. I am not asking, "Is Krispy there?"; otherwise, you might only answer "yes" or "no." I am asking to speak to you if you are there. Likewise, when Jesus said in John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."; He was not saying that we need to literally eat of His flesh. Jesus was trying to tell us that His Spirit needs to enter into us that we may have new life. This comes through Jesus dying on the cross in which Jesus gave His life in flesh over unto death that we may live. Thus, when we realize the bible is a testimony to the Word of God, we are not weakened in faith when we do find errors or contradictions. We do not fret if we cannot understand the bible, or if we don't follow it word for word. Our faith is not based upon the bible, it is based upon Jesus Christ who lives inside of us. Some people may say in response to this, "Well then, it is subjective. It is based upon whatever that person thinks." But I say in response to this, "You do not know Christ. If you did know Christ, then you would know that anyone who bears His Spirit lives in accord with His Spirit. They do not follow their own thoughts or desires, but live in complete control of God." It is Jesus who directs our path. It is our Lord who is in control of our lives. It is our Savior who has bought our life. And we follow His leading in accord with the Spirit that dwells inside of us. The next question arises, however, is the bible inerrant? Obviously, the Word of God is inerrant. God is perfect and Holy, and His Word is perfect and Holy. If the bible were the Word of God, it would have to be inerrant. However, we have established the bible is the Word of God, rather it is a testimony to the Word of God. Let me ask you, the Lord is was able to use Billy Graham to deliver His Word. Many people have been saved through his sermons. Would you consider Billy Graham to be perfect? Would you consider Billy Graham's preaching to be inerrant? The bible was written by humans. If we say the bible is perfect, then we must also assume the writers were perfect, or that they were able to be perfect for a time while they were writing. I have difficulty in believing this. Have you ever known any person who had given their lives completely over to Christ who did not err in some of his or her writings? Even King David sinned, and He was filled with the Holy Spirit. Even Moses became angered and made a mistake which prevented him from entering the promised land. How are we then, to expect, that the bible was written perfectly word for word as God would have it? If they had been perfect, then a quick error could easily arise. We might be tempted to put our faith in the person giving the testimony. For instance, we might be quickly lead astray by putting our faith in the apostle Paul rather than Jesus. We believe in Jesus, not because of what Jesus did on the cross, but because of what Paul says He did, or any other gospel writer. Or worse, we believe in everything Paul says, and do not follow Christ. We abandon the will of God in order to follow Paul's council. We must be careful of such a trap. The writers of the bible were vessels which God used. The vessels were weak and imperfect. They made mistakes and sinned. Likewise, the Church is filled with vessels that God has made His dwelling place. Jesus lives in the hearts of all believers. These vessels are weak and imperfect. They need Jesus to help them continually. Despite this, God uses all believers to share the gospel and declare His Word to all nations. The Word of God is perfect, and yet, God uses weak and lowly vessels in which to bear His Word. The same is true of the bible. The bible is not perfect word for word. The bible is a vessel that bears the Word of God. The Word of God is perfect, inerrant, and exacting. The bible is not exacting. The bible is the vessel by which the Word of God can come. Another trap many people fall into besides trusting in the bible more than trusting in Christ, is to enslave themselves under the scriptures as law. Some of the scriptures are the law. The ten commandments and the laws for daily Jewish life were given through the scriptures. However, some people make the canonical book of the bible into a book of law that must be followed at all costs. "This is what the bible says!!!" However, we must remember that we have been set free from the law in order that we may follow the law in our heart. We have been set free so that we may follow Christ, and live a Christ-like life. This life needs not be forced upon us. The Spirit of Christ dwells inside of us. We have been born again. It should be our nature to follow the law. As shown above, there is a difference what something says and something means. The Pharisees made a huge mistake with this. The law said, "Do not work on the Sabbath!" What was the meaning of this law? Should it be used to stop Jesus from healing someone? Obviously not. People often do the same with the bible. They do not try to understand what the bible means, rather they point out what it says. Doing this, we could make the bible say anything to fit our own evil ways. We need Christ to lead us and His Spirit to control us. The bible, as Paul established, is good for edification. It is good for testing and for checking. We can learn a great deal from the bible and grow in our faith. However, we cannot learn anything unless our hearts are open to Christ. God has planted a message in the bible that is to be taken to all nations. However, the message can only be understood by those whom God has given discernment. Does this mean the bible is not trustworthy? What does this mean? This means that we can trust the bible in as much as we trust in the Lord. Our faith must firmly be planted in Jesus Christ first, and then, by His help and aid, we can come to know the Word of God, and even see the truth held in the bible. However, if our hearts are far from God, then our hearts will be far from His Word. When this happens, the bible will become an empty vessel. We will read the words, and not hear His voice. We will see the pages and be confused. And so, to answer your question, "Is the bible the inerrant Word of God?" No, Jesus Christ is the Word of God. We are to follow Jesus Christ. We are to become like Christ. We are to be filled with His Spirit. The bible is a vessel by which the Word of God may come, just as all people who have the Holy Spirit in them are vessels by which the Word of God may come. May Christ be our Lord. May He alone rule our lives and lead us unto salvation. In love,Blake

Excellent, Blake.

Hi Krispy...But when the KJV says one thing, and a modern version says something else... and at times the modern versions contradict each other... then either one is the true Word of God... or none of them are. But they can not all be.The reason that the KJV disagrees in some instances from some of the newer translations is due to the fact that they are taken from different sources. Like many KJV-only advocates, your posts do not show any "proof" that the sources used for the NIV were flawed. Nor have you offered proof that the Textus Receptus is superior to all other sources. All that you have shown is that the sources used for the NIV and the KJV were not the same. This is my biggest problem with the KJV-only argument. While those that adhere to such a position undoubtedly believe it wholeheartedly, they offer little credible evidence to support their position. You know as well as I do that the revisions made to the KJV were minor, effected no doctrine and were mostly grammatical. This is a straw-man.This is not a straw-man. It seems that you are arguing that the KJV is the completely "perfect" and "preserved" Word of God. The fact that the original contained numerous errors that were eventually corrected in several subsequent revisions completely destroys such a notion. By your own words, even the smallest mistakes would mean that such a translation is "perverted." This doesn't mean that the true Word of God is flawed. The Word of God is perfect. But the KJV is not the flawless Word of God. All translations were completed by flawed man. No matter how well-meaning the translators were -- they were succeptable to some errors.Hi Blake...that was well said. Good job! :-)

Posted by beenblakeLet me start by asking you a question. If your wife was to deliver a message for you, would you consider her words to be your exact words? Or, to say it in a different way, if your mother were to come to you and deliver a message from your father, would you say, "Those are the inerrant words of my father"?If it were me, I would believe the message was true as I trust my mother delivered the correct message. However, I would not believe the words she spoke were the exact words of my father. Likewise, if my wife were to deliver a message for me, then I would trust that she would give the correct message, but not "word for word." I would also say the words spoken by my wife were not my words, they were her words, but rather my message was delivered through her. Friend; you err in your understanding of scripture. The following passage should help.Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Jesus CLEARLY states that He would send the Holy Spirit so that He could; "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."Does this not mean that the Apostles would be able to EXACTLY remember & record EVERYTHING that they had heard and seen? Greg

You know as well as I do that the revisions made to the KJV were minor, effected no doctrine and were mostly grammatical. This is a straw-manRevisions are revisions, no matter how minor. It matters not if it's a word or two, or if it's an entire verse, or even passage e.g. Mark's endings. A change is a change. Using your logic, then we must reject the TR because even it has changes. And if there are any changes, since the whole of Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and these minor differences occur in Scripture, then obviously doctrines are tweaked as well. But, Alexandrian or Byzantine, it has been my experience in study thus far, any verse that allegedly "omits" or "adds" to a passage has confirmation in some other passage. KJ, I respect your views and you know I have the utmost respect for you as my brother. Personally I believe you are totally wrong on this. You cite all these errors in the KJV, yet you produce none.I cited a web site earlier that documented some of the differences in the different versions of the TR. It cited several textual issues. I need not cite it again. Even in the more detailed example I gave of Acts 7:46, it shows differences between Majority Text and the other Byzantine texts of which the KJV arose. I come back to the simple question that you refuse to answer... do you know with 100% certainty that you have the Word of God available to you today? If so... which one?I've answered more than abundantly clear that I believe with absolute 100% certainty that I have the word of God available to me today. I'd die preaching from either the TR or Alexandrian based translations. Even with the textual variants in each, I believe both are the preserved word of God. The question you've not answered is, which of the TR's is correct?

One last post on this topic.2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. (ASV) As is clearly evident in these two verses of scripture, those that hold to the "newer", more liberal renderings of scripture,(ASV in this case) can determine for themselves what scripture they believe to be inspired. That is totally what this whole issue is about, man's insistence on choosing what they will believe about God. The renderings from the Alexandrian Text accommodate that quite nicely. If the issue truly was about the Received Text vs. the Alexandrian Text, why is there not just 2 bibles, one based on each set of writings? Instead, more and more renderings of the Alexandrian text pour off the presses, each one more abominable than the one that preceded it.. Greg

Hi Smokey...Instead, more and more renderings of the Alexandrian text pour off the presses, each one more abominable than the one that preceded it..Abominable? That is an incredibly bold thing to say. However, I fear that your statement might actually be bearing false witness against some of what you call "modern" translations. Be careful -- because you may find yourself testifying against the Word of God Himself. :-(

That is an excellent question. I would say one would do. Why did they start making so many different translations anyway? Maybe the different publishers just want to make money.

I'm not asking cuz I'm struggling cuz this issue is settled for me. The Pharisees asked closed-ended questions – ones that required a yes or no answer. They were not interested in receiving enlightenment from Jesus. The issue was already settled in their minds. They just wanted the others around to see that Jesus could not be trusted. It aimed to eroded their trust in him. I see countless members of our society who are messed up, lonely, lost, and frightened. They cannot read well. They have no concept of any Biblical thought. Giving them a KJV is like giving them a stone or a scorpion. And then to say, that all other Bibles are perversions is like eroding their trust in any Bible. Can’t you see how damaging this is? Then they may as well pick up a Harry Potter book. Your question is generated from a concern for maintaining the purity of God’s word. But it expresses a significant blind spot – a failure to understand the nature of either God, the Holy Spirit, or the Son (ie, the way they work in hearts). And that is exactly what the Pharisees were like. So they resorted to the letter of the law, and failed to see the spirit of the law. If KJVO’s really cared about my soul or the souls of those I influence, then they would be happy to check me out correct me where necessary. As far as I see, they are mostly concerned about being right. what I am trying to do is get people to think about this issue, and to be honest about it.People are indeed thinking, and also being honest about it, but it seems like you cannot accept anything as honest or helpful to you unless it lines up with your mindset. You have helped us all with your question. The only one who misses out in the blessing is yourself. Diane

KrispyKrittr wrote:

I believe both are the preserved word of God. That is an impossibility.

Dear Melissa,There are many different reasons for the many translations of the bible. We cannot be judge of any peron's intentions for doing so. I would imagine there has been some good intentions and some bad intentions. When Martin Luther translated the bible into German, it seems as though he wished the bible could be read by the common person in common language. With other translations, like the King James version, there were many people involved. Even still, the name of the bible bears the named of an earthly king named "James." Are we to say the King James version is not to be trusted because it was endorsed by King James? More modern english translations have arisen because people don't agree with the wording of others, feeling it is too confusing or incorrect. Other versions appear because different early texts have been found. I believe wholeheartedly, though, that the goal of most translations has been the attempt to present the message of God in a way that some group may recieve it and understand. Whatever the reasons may be, God has allowed for this to happen. The motives behind a translation may have not been pure, but God can take something meant for evil and turn it into good. He does this quite often. And what amazes me about the plethora of versions is not that they have minor differences, but that they are so well aligned. They bear the same message of Jesus Christ. Personally, I feel blessed to have so many different translations available in my language. If something doesn't seem to make sense in one, I look it up in another and get a better understanding. It is like sitting around with a group of friends and asking them, "What did you get from this?" Each person says the same thing in a little different way, and through each, we gain a better understanding of God. Obviously, as this thread has pointed out, the bibles are not exact. Each translation is a little different. However, the question is, do these differences hinder the Word of God? If the bible were the Word of God, it would be very difficult for any believer. They would ask, "If the bible is the Word of God, then why are there so many different versions? Which one is the right one?" When we realize that the bible is not the Word of God, but rather a testimony to the Word of God, it makes more sense why there are so many different versions. Think of it like this.....One of my favorite songs is "Heart of Worship" originally written by Matt Redman. I have heard many different versions of this song. I really like the version Sonic Flood does. The music staff at our Church does an excellent rendition for Sunday morning services. Each version of the song is a little different, however, each provides the same message. Each touches my heart a little differently. The music is the same, however, the performance is different. The Word of God never changes. However, the testimony to the Word of God varies greatly. This is exemplified in the four gospels. Why are there four different versions of the same gospel? Because it is the story of four different witnesses. In each gospel is the testimony of the Word of God, who is the same in all four, to each witness who spoke and experienced the Word of God in different ways.Hope this helps,In love,Blake

Well that answers that question. Thanks for the information.But I still believe that I can hear from God reading the NIV or the NKJV without comparing it to the KJV.one comment, do you think that this kind of debate is any kind of edification to the different members of the Body of Christ? It seems that in 9 pages, some of the people are really getting angry with each other. Is it possible that this debate would fall under Titus 3:9? Titus 3:9 KJV But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. Just curious. Thanks.

Quick mention for anyone that is interested...In the greek text from which the King James has been taken, the word "begotten" is not there. The greek text uses the word "Monogenes" which is translated "only." And so, the word "begotten" was added in the translation.Blake

what makes people think the bible is the inerrant word of God? someone told you so? you feel it ought to be? the council of nicae was made up of perfect men? paul never sinned? it's the "foundation" of the christian "religion?" God showed you? (He hates a false witness) many godly men thought so too? aposltes said they had a more sure word of prophecy? paul said scripture was profitable? men spoke from God in the old testament Scriptures? (do men speak from God today? are their words inerrant down to the letter? shouldn't we add that to the bible if so?)just curious. i used to have my own reasons i said the bible was the inerrant word of God, but none of them were ever any good.Jesus is the inerrant word of God.

Dear Krispy,Indeed, I see that you disagree. I was not sure at first, but it has been made quite clear. I am sorry that we cannot agree on this. I do pray, though, that we can agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. :-D In love,Blake

KrispyKrittr wrote:

have looked up John 3:16 (as you suggested) in the following versions:Whats missing in most of the modern versions? the word "BEGOTTEN". Very important word to omit... look up the definition.Krispy

alanrepent wrote:what makes people think the bible is the inerrant word of God? someone told you so? you feel it ought to be? the council of nicae was made up of perfect men? paul never sinned? it's the "foundation" of the christian "religion?" God showed you? (He hates a false witness) many godly men thought so too? aposltes said they had a more sure word of prophecy? paul said scripture was profitable? men spoke from God in the old testament Scriptures? (do men speak from God today? are their words inerrant down to the letter? shouldn't we add that to the bible if so?)just curious. i used to have my own reasons i said the bible was the inerrant word of God, but none of them were ever any good.Jesus is the inerrant word of God.So should I just throw out all the versions of the Bible that I own and just wait to hear God speak to me only through the Holy Spirit? How will I know that it is really God speaking and not the enemy or my own flesh? How will I learn to know God and trust Him more? How will my faith grow?

Thank you for your reply, Blake. I appreciate your input.

John 1 says that Jesus was with God in the beginning and that Jesus is God. I don't believe that leaving out the word 'begotten' takes away from Jesus' divinity. at least it doesn't in my mind. :-)

MSeaman wrote:So should I just throw out all the versions of the Bible that I own and just wait to hear God speak to me only through the Holy Spirit?I don't recommend this. A lot of well-meaning servants of Christ have gone really far astray because they were unwilling to listen to what those brethren wrote about Jesus.How will I know that it is really God speaking and not the enemy or my own flesh? How will I learn to know God and trust Him more? How will my faith grow? If you know the Father the brethren who wrote the new testament knew, you could write the new testament yourself and it would be consistent. God says His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. If you would be lost and unable to grow if the Bible were taken away from you, this may be an indication that you have trusted and built your foundation on the Bible and not Christ Himself. I did this too and was in great danger of missing the abundant Life Jesus has to offer.Also, you didn't answer the question posed.

If you know the Father the brethren who wrote the new testament knew, you could write the new testament yourself and it would be consistent. God says His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. If you would be lost and unable to grow if the Bible were taken away from you, this may be an indication that you have trusted and built your foundation on the Bible and not Christ Himself. I did this too and was in great danger of missing the abundant Life Jesus has to offer.Interesting. But what is your standard? how do you test the spirits? how do you know that the voice you hear is His?

MSeaman wrote:Interesting. But what is your standard? how do you test the spirits? how do you know that the voice you hear is His?The truth will set you free from sin.

Krispy,At first I was like, here comes an unprofitable discussion. I personally read an NIV version and believe I am in a saving relationship with Christ. That was a good point you made about the "BEGOTTEN" speaking to his divinity.I tend to agree with Diane about giving a King James version to a new Christian is like giving a stone or a scorpion. I also don't tell new believers to start at the beginning of the bible(O.T.), because by the time they got to Leviticus they would be a little confused.(Sacrifices, regulations, etc.) I believe the Holy Spirit is able to guide me into the truth with his voice and the word.All scripture is God-breathed.Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned.Murray

alanrepent wrote:

Also, you didn't answer the question posed.You mean why do people think the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?This is why I do:2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV) 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.The Bible says it is. Even Jesus quoted Scripture. That is good enough for me.

MSeaman wrote:You mean why do people think the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?This is why I do:2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV) 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.The Bible says it is. Even Jesus quoted Scripture. That is good enough for me. The Bible says the old testament Scriptures are by inspiration of God. It also says they are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness... and those are the things that will make a man perfect. It never says anything about the Scriptures being the inerrant word of God. Note also it is not the Scriptures that will make a man perfect or all men who have them memorized would be perfect. It is the Body of Christ that will make a man perfect through the Head Jesus.Jesus quoted Scripture, and also did not quote it word for word such as when He said, "Out of His belly will flow rivers of living water."

There are some very solumn warnings in the New Testament that should draw our attention to the seriousness of the inspiration of scripture:"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: 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) We could isolate this passage to mean merely the book of Revelation, but in good conscience I cannot imagine why God had not taken the same view of the 'other' scriptures also. Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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." (II Peter 3)Notice that the writings of Paul are grouped with the 'other' scriptures. Paul comments on his own writings:If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (I Corinthians 14:37)

I try to stay away from the Unitarians, I dont mean to be offensive, but they seem to be like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, preaching another gospel, not the Gospel. don't other Scriptures also speak to the divinity of Jesus, not just the one I quoted?

Dear Melissa,Thank you. I know you didn't ask these questions, but I feel compelled to answer, at least in a condensed version. So should I just throw out all the versions of the Bible that I own and just wait to hear God speak to me only through the Holy Spirit? How will I know that it is really God speaking and not the enemy or my own flesh? How will I learn to know God and trust Him more? How will my faith grow? These are all great questions. There are so many answers out there, and so many books that have been written. I could probably write a book myself on what God has shown me. I will reccommend a good book to you, one that I am currently reading. The title is a little misleading. However, it really provides a great insight on how to totally put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The book is called, "The Christian's Secret to a Happy Life" written by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book is a Christian classic written in 1875. You should have no problem finding a copy relatively cheap. As far as questions about the bible, lets go through these one by one. "So should I just throw out all the versions of the Bible that I own and just wait to hear God speak to me only through the Holy Spirit?"The bible is certainly not worthless. Rather, the bible does help us grow in faith, and does serve a very important purpose. The bible is a written testimony of Christ. This becomes especially true of Jesus in the flesh as a man who walked on the earth. We can know Jesus in Spirit through the Holy Spirit that lives inside of us. However, how should we know Jesus in the flesh, except through the testimony of the gospels? Likewise, how should we know the plans of God, except through this testimony that has been preserved over so many years. We come to know Jesus Christ in Spirit through salvation. His Spirit enters into our heart. We know God's love, not because the bible tell us, but because of Jesus. However, the bible affirms our faith and strengthens it. There is a difference here. If we believe in the bible first, then we are putting the bible above Jesus. However, if we believe in Jesus first, we are putting Jesus above the bible. We can then say, "I believe in the bible because Jesus confirms it is true in my heart." I like to think of the bible as a love letter written by a soldier during war time to His wife back home. He wrote the letter to help strengthen His love for her. However, the letter is not the reason or cause of His love. She may hold the letter dear to her heart, but she knows the letter is nothing compared to her husband. Though she has this letter, she awaits eagerly for her husband to return from battle. Always seek out the council of the Holy Spirit where ever it may come. The Lord may speak to you through the bible, using passages of scripture to sing to your heart, or direct your path. However, He may also use another believer such as a preacher or teacher. He may use your parents. He may use experiences to speak to you. He may use the earth in it's beauty. The bible is good for testing. The greatest test we have is that the Lord is not the author of confusion or conflict. He is always in peace and agreement. The bible is good to test for conflict. If something disagrees with the bible, then we should be weary. We should continually seek the answer in prayer, leaning on the Lord to deliver an answer. If we ask, He will answer. It is always good to discuss things in a small group of believers, and pray together in a small group of believers. Christ said that if two or more come together and agree, He is there. Close fellowship in a small group is great for strengthening our faith. Personally, I love the bible and all it says. Every time I read it, I learn something new. I don't think anyone should reject it or discard it. However, we should always keep in mind that Christ is Lord. Christ is greater than the bible, and as His followers, we should follow Him. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Many people have a hard time with this, because it means letting go of control. We want to be on top of things and in control. We have difficult saying to Jesus, "Whatever happens is up to you. I am here to do your will. I leave it in your hands." Instead, they turn to the bible as the law book of all life. They become followers of the bible rather than followers of Jesus. They stay in control of thier life because they manipulate the bible to fit whatever way they feel is best, just like the Pharisees did. "The bible says I can do this and that, but it doesn't say I can do that." God, however, is a person, not a book of rules. He is a God of love. God wants a relationship with people. This is different than doing everything the bible says. There are many things the bible does not talk about, and many things God leaves open ended. God did this on purpose because He wants to be our Father. He wants to take care of us. He wants to enter into us and do the hardwork. He wants us to sit back and enjoy Him. And so, to answer your question, do not throw out your bible. You should read your bible every day. It is good to read it. However, your primary goal should be to seek Jesus Christ. When you read the bible, don't do it because you feel forced. Do it, because you want to be closer to Jesus. When you read the bible, pray and ask God, "What are you trying to say in these scriptures that I may draw closer to you?" If you seek Jesus in all things, He will direct your path and life as your Lord and God. And as such, you will not ask, "What should I do?" But rather, you will do it, because you will have become one with Christ. When you are one with Christ, you are at perfect peace and happiness no matter what is happening around you. This is such a difficult thing, a lesson I am learning continually. "How will I know that it is really God speaking and not the enemy or my own flesh?" This is a great question. There are many ways to test this. The book I recommended has a whole chapter devoted to discerning God's will. This question also highlights an important fault in Christians. Often times, we want to know what is from God and what is not because we want to manage our own sin. When could we ever manage our own sin? When could we ever make ourselves Holy? The answer is to trust in Jesus to manage our sin. He is our Savior and deliverer from the enemy and sin. We should trust that He will always deliver us from sin and from Satan. And so, our part to play or do in this is really simple. We need to abandon ourselves to Jesus and believe in Him. We should not worry about what is from God or not, but rather, we should say, "Jesus, here I am. Take my life. I leave nothing for myself. I give you all my sins, all my thoughts, my ways, my life, my heart and soul. I surrender all to you. I want you to be the Lord of my life to rule over me and control me in every way." When we do this, the Lord will answer our prayer. He will be the Lord of our life. This means He will direct our path, and control us. We need not worry what is from God, because God is in control. What we need to worry about is whether we have really done this. Have we really and truthfully abandoned all to Jesus?Do we really believe He is our Lord? Or are we keeping some known thing to ourselves? When we keep something to ourselves, then we fall into sin. We fall away from Jesus. We stop trusting in God, and we find a whirlwind of anxiety and confusion inside. "How will I learn to know God and trust Him more? How will my faith grow?"The more you abandon to Jesus, the more you will know God. When Jesus can take control of you, He will fill you with His Spirit. You will know God better than you know yourself. Your ways will be God's ways. Your will becomes God's will. You will be transformed. Lastly, you must realize who is the Lord of your life? Who is in control of your life? Is Jesus in control of your life or are you?If Jesus is your Lord, then He is your shepard. He is also your gardner. The seed of faith has been planted in your heart. Jesus is the gardener who will make it grow. He will clip off leaves that are dying. He will water it when it needs to be watered. He will care for your faith and help you grow into the beautiful flower you were meant to be. You cannot control the growth of your own faith, and the more you try, the more you will fail. Instead, we must give ourselves over into His care. Here is a better illustration that is used in the book I spoke about. We are balls of clay that the Lord is trying to shape into useful pots. The Lord starts by picking up the ball of clay and preparing it. He must first work out all the air bubbles and other sorts of impurities. He must make the ball of clay flexible so that He can work with it. And so what does He do? He pushes back and forth in His hands. Sometimes He pounds it on the table. He keeps breaking it and breaking it until finally, it gives way to His every movement. When this happens, when the clay is finally broken to the point where it stops fighting against Him, when it does whatever He commands, He then shapes it into a wonderful pot, a vessel He can use to do His will.If the clay never breaks, and does not give way, it will never take shape. He will place it on the potters wheel and it will be destroyed. And so, the Lord takes great care in shaping each of our lives. We need to let Jesus be the Lord of our life, so that He may water our faith and make it grow. We need to give ourselves to Him so that He may shape us into a vessel that can carry His Word. This is how you will learn and grow, through the handiwork of God. However, if you try to do it yourself, and try to make yourself grow, then you will surely fail.Let us pray and give everything up to Jesus. May Christ be our Lord!! He is great!! He is King!!In love,Blake

alanrepent wrote:

MSeaman wrote:Interesting. But what is your standard? how do you test the spirits? how do you know that the voice you hear is His?The truth will set you free from sin.

I had to grin when I saw this, because my question was actually in response to Alan's "the truth will set you free."Great Job, Krispy! :-D

Just so you know, Jesus is my Savior, and we are family in Christ. I appreciate your point of view, even if I am not completely convinced of it. :-)

Dear Krispy,I am not speaking on my behalf, and I am not proposing "my" opinions. This is not "my" approach, and I am indeed extremely angry that you should acccuse me of such things. I am sharing with what God has revealed to me and many others who testify to these things, including the bible itself. Everything I say is with the deepest and most heartfelt seriousness. We are talking about the Word of God, who is Jesus Christ. The bible confirms this in the first chapter of John, and it is also confirmed in the hearts of all true believers. Those who know Jesus as their Savior also know that Jesus as their Lord. This is the utmost and most serious matter. Anyone who does not know Jesus in Spirit, who is not born again into the Spirit will not enter into Heaven, but rather enter into Hell.No where in the bible does it say scripture or the bible is the Word of God. The law is referenced as being the word of God. However, the written law, which was written by God's own hand onto stone tablets, was called a "testimony." The bible is not the Word of God. This is a lie proported by the Devil, and it has damaged the Church. She has become overly critical of herself, and instead of seeking the will of the Lord, and being a good bride, she has fallen astray, worshipping the bible as a false idol of the Lord. This is of the utmost seriousness, and all those who have placed the bible above Jesus Christ or at the same level as Jesus Christ, who worship the bible as if it were God, have entered into a dangerous territory.Jesus Christ is the final authority over all things! Jesus Christ is the standard by which all things will be judged! Jesus Christ is the truth, the life, and the way!Jesus Christ is the one and only son of God! Jesus Christ is Lord!When the day of judgement comes, all will be judged, not by the standard of the bible which is merely a testimony to the Word of God, but by the Word of God, which is Jesus Christ. This is so very important, and I do not wish anyone to enter into Hell because they have been preached anything other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christ, Blake

Once again I feel the need to interject here.beenblakeThe very first message that you posted on this site was a scathing attack on scripture as the true Word of God, and your insistence that all one needed was to be in touch with the spirit to receive inspiration. I will say this of you, you certainly are consistent. I shudder to even imagine what the Christian faith would be like if we all had to seek our own personal revelation of truth.. Without the written standard, that is preserved scripture, we would be no different than any other religion out there trying to win over converts. Jesus was CONTINUALLY referring to the Jewish written record( the Talmud-or the Book, in Luke 4:17). If Jesus was confident about quoting from His written record, I am comfortable with mine. Greg

Dear Brother Krispy,I want to thank you for posting the article on Easter. I really appreciate your passion and devotion for the Word of God.If I understood your words correctly then we ALL have perversion when it comes to understanding the true meaning of some words. For example if I were to say, "I am gay." Many people would immediately begin to think that I am homosexual because that is the most used meaning of the word today. Those who know me well would know the 'spirit' or true meaning of the phrase and know that I am happy.I find it very difficult to believe that the King James translators were not influenced by the common celebration of Easter within the church to not perceive that Luke was speaking of the festival (week long) when he wrote pascha. It was comenly translated this way in many other places and the Hebrew word pecach is still used today to mean the week long festival of unleavened bread.I encourage you to continue in your devotion and faith. I applaud your civil discussion of the topic and your acceptance of those who have put faith in God using another translation. You obviously have learned the meaning of 1 John 2:9-11:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.KJVBy the way the quote from Heb. 4:8 "Jesus" was cut and pasted from my computer KJV. I also checked a printed version of KJV and found the same thing. I have used KJV for years, many differnt Bibles, and have seen "Jesus" printed in those every time. I don't know why they would be different from yours.Love you! Thanks for loving me.Jeff

Pardon this minor but related sidebar everyone...I shudder to even imagine what the Christian faith would be like if we all had to seek our own personal revelation of truth.. Smokey, we don't really have to imagine. During the earliest centuries AD there apparently were some bizzarre sects associated with the name "Christian" that would've set our hairs on end...the further away (geographically and doctrinally) these sects would get from authentic Apostolic teachings towards mystic self-revelation, the more perverted and downright shocking these sects would become.Blake, consider that you are living in the fading light of a thousand years of cultural Christian acclimatization. Yet, even during the church's brightest cultural hours, your anchorless Christian epistemology would've ebbed and flowed into all manner of unhealthy superstition, and outright blasphemy in just a couple generations. How far and fast would we drift today, without the utter authority of scripture, now that even the dim light of cultural Christianity has all but faded?It isn't that the indwelling Spirit is insufficient, or that our eyes are not fixed on Jesus, but without an external reference pointing to Jesus our own fallibility garantees we will lose our way. (Even with the written Word we must test each others less then perfect hearing and understanding constantly!) The first century church may not have had their New Testaments, but they did have the Apostles riding circuit and writing scriptural epistles. Today, if we treat their epistles as unreliable or optional...then we have less authoritive instruction then even the first century Christian. My apologies for this interruption to a fine discussion gents,MC

Please excuse the side bar.This a question for King Jimmy or any other Greek Scholar.In the text mentioned earlier: Acts 12:44 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. KJVthe Greek word meta translated 'after' seems to be most often translated with, among, or in the midst of, in other passages. Is it possible to understanding this as Herod desired to in the midst of (during) the passover festival to bring him forth to the people? Herod was so blood thirsty I believe that the laws of the passover festival probably would not have mattered much to him. The festival is also when there would be the most people present to see and be appeased.Thanks for your thoughts.Jeff

The Greek word "meta" is a preposition. It primarily has two meanings, "with," and "after" depending upon it's grammatical function within a sentence. When used in the genitive case (which shows possesion) it is translated "with." If it is in the accusitive case (direct object of the verb), then it is translated "after." In this context here, it is used in the accusitive case, thus translated "after."

Yowsers, I went away for just a couple hours and this thread exploded. I can only imagine what it will be like when I awake in the morning.

Hello...The following thoughts seem relevant to this "discussion":1. The original 1611 KJV contained many errors which were corrected through various revisions over a period of over 150 years. By the time the KJV arrived to its current edition, the translators (and their children and grandchildren) had been dead for many years. Why is this important? The fact that the 1611 KJV contained numerous translation errors destroys the original argument that only the KJV is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God. 2. Acts 12:1-4 is obviously mistranslated in the KJV. Why? Because nearly every translation before it and after it (including other versions taken from the Received Text, as well as nearly every FOREIGN LANGUAGE VERSION) translate it correctly using the word "Passover" (or "pask" and "Pascua") instead of the newer pagan word "Easter."3. All Scripture is given by inspiration from God. The Word of God is indeed flawless, even while portions copied by man might not be. 4. Sadly, one of the most typical "defense" for the KJV-only position is an "attack" on nearly all other versions. 5. A truly productive discussion would be to discuss the supposed "superiority" of one set of source texts over another. The KJV is derived from a completely different set of sources than the NIV. This results in differences in translation, rather than the "conspiracy theories" held by many KJV-only advocates. Perhaps this discussion should "lay the axe to the root" of the issue and discuss sources rather than product.6. The original intent of the translators of the KJV make it obvious that the translation is no longer in the "language of the common man." Despite any attempt to argue that the KJV is "easily understood" even by children, the fact remains that this is simply untrue. One of the biggest reasons that many people use for not reading the Bible is due to the language barriers presented by the KJV. Its early 17th century language and grammar are difficult for even college students to read without having a dictionary handy (unless, of course, you have been raised in Church and have grown up understanding certain explanations of archaic terms in the KJV).7. Many of us that read versions other than the KJV still hold the KJV in high regard. However, we are simply defending the other versions from constant attacks by people who supposedly want to "discuss" the issue with open hearts.Just a few thoughts... :-)

Ccchhhrrriiisss earlier wrote:As for the supposed "infallibility" of the KJV translation -- why not take an original 1611 KJV and compare it with the current KJV (completed in 1769 but with a few more revisions in 1850). Through such cross-examination, you'll be surprised by the changes that occurred over such revisions due to errors in the original translation. These have been discussed in numerous threads (most recently, in response to Stever's barrage of KJV-only threads). Many KJV-only believers argue that these were not "major" revisions. However, it completely destroys the argument that the KJV was PERFECTThe KJV that is carried by the average KJV only advocate today looks much different than the editions that came off the press in 1611. Not only do many printings of the KJV today lack the marginal notes and references, but the form of the text, and the wordings of the text, has undergone change over time.Editions with changes in the text came out as early as 1612, then another in 1613 followed by editions in 1616, 1629, and 1638. And in 1659 William Kilburne in his work “Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles to the Great Scandal and Corruption of Sound and True Religion” claimed that 20,000 errors had crept into six different editions in the 1650’s.Most modern KJV’s follow the version of 1769 which had undegone extensive revisions. Which begs the question, does the modern edition of the KJV differ significantly from the 1611? From what I have studied, mostly the revisions concern spelling, punctuations etc… Another question though…for those who assert the absolute inerrancy of the KJV … is “which KJV” ?Perhaps KingJimmy or Philologos will comment on William Kilburne’s work.tonys

Perhaps KingJimmy or Philologos will comment on William Kilburne’s work.SOrry, I don't know enough on that matter.Jimmy

To all whom have addressed me....My concern in this is not for those who hold the bible dear to their hearts, but for those who hold the bible as a greater authority than Christ Himself. My concern is for those who follow the bible before following Christ, whose hearts are so far from Christ they fear letting go of the bible and trusting in Him. The bible is not useless or to be thrown aside. It is good for testing and for growing in faith. However, the bible is not the basis for faith. The bible is not the authority of the Church. The bible not the God of our lives. Jesus Christ is Lord. Those who know them in their heart, who have been born again, who have lived a life controlled by the Holy Spirit, will join with Him in Heaven. Those who have followed the law will be judged by the law. Those who have followed the bible will be judged by the bible. They will die in their sins. For anyone who has died with Christ on the cross, they have been set free from the law. They have died to the law. They have also died to the bible and are to live in accord with the Spirit. They do not live under the authority of the bible, they live under the authority of Christ.When Jesus returns, many will call out His name and say "Lord, Lord." And He will say that He never knew them. They will say, "But Lord, I read your bible. I know every word you said." And He will say, "You do not know me in Spirit and truth."The bible is not the Spirit and it is not God and it is not God's Word. So many false religions have arisen because they base an entire faith on the bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses are one such as these. And yet, their hearts are far from Christ. The bible has no authority apart from Christ! The bible is a testimony about Jesus. We do not live for the bible or in accord with the bible. We live for Jesus Christ and in accord with Jesus Christ. The bible is good for assisting us in this journey of walking with Christ. However, unless we are first following Christ, the bible will be misinterpreted and will lead us astray.So many people want to make the bible into the law again, to bind us under the law again just as was done during the time of the Pharisees. Look at how they rejected Christ, but upheld the law. They used it to cast out sinners, and look down upon them. What better are those who look upon the bible as if it were the authority of all things? Is the bible the authority of all things or is it Christ? For anyone who follows the bible as the Word of God, I ask, Why do you call yourself Christian? Christians live entirely and completely for Christ. They have taken up their cross and died, giving their entire life, will, and way unto Jesus Christ that Jesus Christ may rule them as Lord. When Christ calls you at the rapture, will you stop and turn back to retrieve your bible? Will you be as Lot's wife and look back at the things of this world? Or you will run like Peter to embrace your Savior? Who is your God? Jesus or the bible? Who is the authority of your life? Is Jesus or the bible? Who is the Word of God, that has the power to divide the spirit and soul, that can take a dying man and raise Him to life again? Jesus or the bible? On the day of judgment, who will be your judge? Jesus or the bible? Who do you worship? Jesus or the bible?Who is your Lord? Jesus or the bible? Blake

KrispyKrittr wrote:...and this is one of my favorites!Act 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. ...but good luck finding it in a modern version!KrispyNIV omits this verse! I wonder why? You are right there are some differences. What is the point of being baptised if you don't believe in Jesus?Great Job, Krispy!

so do the newer versions, completely change the fact that you have to believe in Jesus?

KrispyKrittr wrote:MeAgain... check the footnotes on those modern versions concerning that verse. The verse is in the text, but drawn into question in the footnotes.KrispyIs it really important to read all those footnotes? I'm serious, not just pulling your chain. I mean, when I am reading the Bible, I want to see what the Bible says not what the editor says.

Question: Which Greek dictionary are you using? I'm not disputing that particular definition. I'm just curious... are you using the most commonly used Greek dictionary... Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament?KrispyMy particular greek dictionary I'm using in my Greek Grammar class is the one that comes attached with William D. Mounce's "Basics of Biblical Greek," which is a combo of Bruce Metzger's "Lexical Aids" and Warren Trenchard's "Complete Vocabulary Guide." This dictionary is specifically designed for the beginning student, and only covers all words that appear 10 times or more in the NT.I also personally own "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature" by Walter Bauer (also known in academic circles as BDAG). This lexicon is pretty much the mother of all lexicon's, and defines all greek words used in the NT/Septuigint/Church Fathers. It is a pretty exhaustive work, and even cites passages various words are tied to from antiquity (including usages in classical Greek). Also, Kittle's dictionary from what I understand, though an invaluable tool, is not as concerned about the broad semantic range of words, so much as the narrower theological usages of words.

Even KingJimmy (who I DO NOT consider to be "hostile" toward the KJV) has not even heard of him.I'm simply not well versed in all the in's/out's/critiques of the various translations and manuscripts.

The translators of the KJV were scholars among scholars. If KingJimmy is honest (and I believe he is) even he has to admit that the scholarship and learning of these men was astronomical for their time.No doubt, the KJV were good scholars for their day. Anybody who has enough knowledge of ancient languages to put together a solid translation of Scripture is pretty well learned in their craft. I have a hard enough time translating 10 verses a week for Greek class each week. However, it must be noted as learned as the KJV translators were for their day, our understanding of Greek and such has increased dramatically since then. I mean, it wasn't very long ago that professors were teaching Biblical Greek was a special "Holy Ghost Greek" made up by God for the purpose of writing the NT. Now we know the Greek of the NT was simply the common language of the people.

I doubt very seriously that they would have been ignorant enough to insert a holiday that they new very well did not exist when the event in question happened. Especially since the KJV translators were very much set against the Catholic Church, and they new the origins of celebrating Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan holiday of Ishtar came from the RCCNot to drag him into it, philogos has noted pretty well that the KJV were somewhat biased (as we all are) translators. THey were selected from the status quo of the Church of England, as King James had in mind to see the Church of England further propped up. They were ecclesastically biased according to him, and adjusted their translations accordingly (e.g. with the "office" of bishop). Why they chose Easter as a translation is merely speculation though. If his theory is true and consistant, then it would seem they inserted "easter" for whatever ecclisastical reasons they had, though, I might say they are possibly seeking "the dynamic equiavalent" for some reason, as of course, "after passover" when baptized into Christian language would fall "after easter." However, there is no reason in this passage to translate "Passover" as "Easter," especially when the context already tells us the event which Peter is being held during is Passover. Even if the KJV authors were thinking anything about Ishtar when translating the verse (and I doubt they were myself), such a translation is extremely way out in left field, and contextually cannot be defended. For the context is not pagan festival celebrations, but Jewish festival celebrations.

So far everyone says they are there, but none have been presented.I'm not being critical. If there are errors, lets point them out and discuss them.I have presented twice very specific references to errors in the various manuscripts behind the KJV. The one web site I quoted from gave four or five diferences in the various Greek manuscripts used. Also, Acts 7:46 (which happens to be a homework assignment of mine) shows differences in the Byzantine and Majority Texts behind the KJV for two different variations, each agreeing with Alexandrian manuscripts which differ from one another. One does not have to look far in a critical Greek aparatus to see this stuff.

KrispyI write to you, young men,because you are strong,and THE WORD OF GOD LIVES IN YOU,and you have overcome the evil one.Murray

If it isnt omitted in the text, then there will be an (*) beside the passage leading you to a footnote that claims that it either shouldnt be there, or the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" omit it.I did some background search on Acts 8:37 in question, and it appears the earliest known Greek manuscript with this verse in it comes from the 7th century (the Western text at that!), and appears in some other foreign translations, and then few manuscripts that are damaged. Even with the manuscripts that have 8:37 in it, there is no agreement on the exact wording amongst them, with several variations. The earliest manuscripts (3rd century) do not have the verse. Some of the early church fathers when quoting this passage, don't mention this verse, but some who do quote it do mention it (Chrysostom and Ambrose omit, Irenaeus includes one variation). It seems somebody added this verse later on. And one cannot simply say this is an issue of Alexandrian vs. TR. For even within the Alexandrian family of texts (9th century) this verse appears. Kinda interesting to see that 3-8th century Alexandrian Texts do not have this verse, but starting in the 9th century one does! In fact, most of the Greek manuscripts supporting this additional reading are late Alexandrian texts!The conspiracy theories must stop.

My husband has his degree in the GreekScary! so I know you're not allowed to use these cheat books, but just the GNT.Well, the seminary I attend is actually encouraging us to use the "cheat" stuff after we actually learn the language. There is a program out there called Bibleworks 7, which is the ultimate Bible searching software. It costs about $300, but it basically does your homework for you. All you have to do is mouse over a word and it will tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about it. It will even diagram sentences for you to show you how the Greek is working. Personally, I plan to keep doing it the old fashioned way. I am not about to flush two semesters of Greek down the drain. I personally felt sad for two of my professors at my undergraduate school, who both learned Greek during their seminary days, but have since forgotten most of what they learned.

Hi Krispy...beenblake... God has a much higher value on His word than you do. I really question your understanding of scripture. Seems pretty reckless to me. Some really godly men from the past take issue with what you just posted.Krispy, perhaps you might want to be a little more careful when boldly writing such things. Such statements can sometimes lead to resentment and misunderstanding. If someone was to write this same statement directed toward you or your position on this issue, it might not come across without some degree of hurt feelings. Everyone that knows you realizes that you mean well in your posts. However, there are alot of newer members of the SI community that do not know you well enough to take this statement "with a grain of salt."Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that beenblake has been trying to state that there is a difference between the Bible and the Word of God. A "Bible" is simply a collection of written, printed and translated portions of Scripture. However, the "Word of God" is eternal and perfect -- because Jesus is the Word. Beenblake's position, among others on this thread, has been that translations of the Word of God (including the KJV) are sometimes riddled with flaws even while the Word of God is always perfect. A scribed translation can be burned or destroyed -- but the Word of God is living, active and eternal.Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.(Note that this is drastically changed in the modern versions... wonder why? It's no coincidence...) The reason that this is different in modern versions, as has been stated many times, is that versions like the NIV are taken from completely different source material. Academic and spiritual honesty prevented the translators from copying other translated versions. Since in many cases, the source material that was used while translating the KJV no longer exists, the translators today use other sources (some even older than what was available for the KJV). Such cross examination is helpful in pointing out the differences in source. However, such verse-by-verse comparisons are not helpful in determining accuracy when the translations in question are derived from completely different sources. For instance, the passage about "Easter" (Acts 12:1-4) can be cross examined between the KJV and the NIV to note the differences in translation between seperate sources. However, that same passage can also be compared between the KJV and say, the Reina-Valera Antigua in order to determine single-source accuracy since they are both derived from the same source (the Textus Receptus) -- while noting that the Reina-Valera is actually older. The KJV translates the word "Easter" while the Reina-Valera translates it "Pascua" (spanish for "Passover"). As far as the errors that were contained in the 1611 KJV and were corrected in the subsequent revisions over 150+ years following its publication, not all were simple grammar or type errors. There were some that included actual omissions, additions, and completely changed words. Even some of the misspellings completely change the meaning of certain passages. For instance, take Psalm 69:12...1611 KJV"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek good."Current KJV"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God."There are many more examples where the KJV translators simply got it wrong. A simple Google search, cross-examined with a hardcopy of a 1611 KJV and a current KJV, will demonstrate this. There are literally hundreds of such translation revisions between the original 1611 KJV and the later revisions, until the common KJV was completed in 1850. Let us not forget that the 1611 KJV also included the Apocrypha. What does this prove? It completely destroys any claim that the King James Version is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God. It also proves that the translators were indeed human, and prone to all of the flaws that the rest of us are. Is the KJV the best translation? It very well might be! I use it as my primary version of the Bible. I consider it a faithful translation taken from the Textus Receptus. However, I consider the NIV the best translation taken from other sources. I do not "spit" on either version (or consider all of the newer versions the work of heretics or the result of a conspiracy). There are notable advantages of both. :-)

I'm interupting the flow here (of lots of great reading!) with a question that might best fit here among those who may be able to answer, though it's a bit off topic. What is your impression of the International Standard Version I've enjoyed reading the site, the various responses to questions that people raised. However, I am not scholarly enough to assess... other than have some personal thoughts about the logo. I see that the ISV is on E-sword. I wonder if it will be the up and coming common modern translation. .... now back to the topic.... Diane

If thats the case, then how did the first century church fathers quote it in their own writings? Thats an ancient witness. They quoted it from somewhere, and attributed it to Paul. It didnt just show up in the 7th century, it had to exist for it to be quoted in the 1st century. (This is documented in Dean Burgeon's book)You keep saying this, but it is not entirely true. First of all, there are very few "first century fathers" to draw from. At best, there is part of the Didache, Clement of Rome, and they don't quote a whole lot of bible as it is. The notion that most of the NT could be reconstructed from these guys is laughable. Even if you toss in Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius and Justin from mid-second century, you'd still have a TON of unquoted NT. The early church fathers don't start quoting a lot of the Bible until the late second and early third centuries. One could indeed rebuild most the NT from what is said in the entirty of the ante-nicene fathers (4 centuries), but it is a gross exageration and highly misleading to say first century fathers. Also, the fathers were not always right in what they quoted. Sometimes they quote stuff that frankly doesn't exist, kinda like a lot of people today who say something along the lines of, "The bible says that if your good deeds outweigh your bad, you'll go to heaven." If memory serves correct, I think it was Clement of Rome(?) who quoted a verse from the OT about how "The Lord will reign from a tree." However, when one searches the OT, no such verse exists. So consider this. Is it not possible that one of the early fathers misquoted whatever it is they think they were quoting (as their quotations are not always exact), and in misquoting a verse (either through bad memory, loose paraphrase, or even a defective manuscript they had), a later scribe who was familiar with their writings came across a place in the NT while copying and thought "hey! there is a verse missing here! I know it's quoted in such-and-such father, but it's not in my own manuscript, therefore, I'll insert what they said should be here!" Is that not a realistic possibility, especially in the demonstrated verse? Out of curisoity, I just looked up what Metzger has to say in his UBS4 commentary, that explains why 8:37 is omitted: Verse 37 is a Western addition not found in (names a bunch of manuscripts whose symbols I don't know how to type on SI), but is read with many minor variations (quotes more symbols). There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. ... The formula "pisteuo... Christon" was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in a margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative. Although the earliest known NT manuscript that contains the words dates from the 6th century, the tradtion of the Ethiopian's confession of faith in Christ was currren as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it... Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms.2), it stands in the margin of another(ms.4), from which he inserted it into his text becaused he "judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes." Interesting thoughts by Metzger. The Comitte behind this ruled with absolute certainty that they don't believe this verse to be original to the text. Amazing, Erasmus didn't even have it in one of his copies, and even the copy that he did have it, it was in a margin! Based on the fact that it was in the margin, he decided to simply add it to his text. Maybe Erasmus judgment was faulty, especially considering the manuscript support for the addition is very very short, not to mention divided on the wording!

Anyway, whoever it was who called him a heretic, you need to look a little further. Here is a brief article about him. If his view of the authority of the Overseer is his main error... I would hardly call him a heretic. He was a champion for the Lord against the poison of the Gnostics.According to 3 John 1:9-11, with Diotrephes engaged in similar behavior. Yes, Ignatius was rather orthodox by all apperances in much of what he said. However, his solution for unity was to have everybody fall under a single bishop. This movement Ignatius was part of and leading, eventually gave rise to the Roman Catholic church with all her popes, cardnials, etc.

Hi Krispy...Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It completely destroys any claim that the King James Version is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God. It also proves that the translators were indeed human, and prone to all of the flaws that the rest of us are. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------When did I claim they were otherwise?It just seems that you were trying to suggest that either the KJV was the "perfect and preserved" Word of God or it was "perverted." For instance, you earlier wrote:"But if the truth was tainted by human hands, no matter how small, then by the definition of the word... it has been perverted."It does not mean that it is "perverted" in a sense that it was willfully altered. It just means that the translators of the King James Version were just as susceptable to error as the rest of us (and the translators of versions like the NIV). Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1611 KJV"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek good."Current KJV"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------If I am not mistaken, that was an error made by the printer, not the translators. Unless you have proof otherwise, I would look for a better example.If this was merely an "error made by the printer," then it went uncorrected for over 150 years. But there are many other errors that cannot simply be attributed to printing. While there were also alot of spelling and copy errors, there were also some major grammar, omission and addition errors too. However, there are hundreds of such errors that were corrected in the subsequent revisions of the KJV. The internet at my University is crawling along right now -- so it would take some time for me to look them up. Like I said before, you can easily obtain a version of the 1611 KJV and compare it with the current KJV. There are several websites that list these errors (which could then be verified by looking up the verses yourself). Some of these websites actually have photographs of pages from an original 1611 KJV edition, in order to demonstrate these changes. The purpose of most of these websites is to refute the "KJV-only" claim that the KJV is the "perfect and preserved Word of God." :-)

KJ... have you ever read anything by Dean Burgeon, or reviewed all the information that he compiled about the writings of the first century church fathers? I would suggest you do that before you dismiss me on this because I know you're misinformed. I suspect you've been taught what you're saying, but havent done the research yourself (the same thing you say to me about Greek).I don't need to review anything by him to know he's wrong (or perhaps simply your representation of him). I've personally read the writings of the fathers from the first century, some of the documents several times. There is simply no way you can reconstruct the NT from the writings of the first century. You couldn't even come close.

What you're referring to is what "scholars" call the "Silent Centuries" ... 100 AD to 400 AD ... but the fact is, those centuries were anything BUT silent, and thats a fact. Archeology has proven your position to be false, but yet the professors keep right on teaching it.I know for a fact that I am correct on this.Archeology has not proven my position to be false. I am simply quoting from the available Greek manuscripts that we have, the manuscripts that available for all to see (if you can read Greek that is... oops I forget, you can't). This is no mass conspiracy. I am not buying what they say hook-line-and-sinker, for I have access to the very same documents everybody else has, and can make from the amassed documents conclusions of my own if I suspect their reasons for the inclusion/omission of a word/verse(s) is faulty. The variant manuscripts are detailed quite exactly on what their contents are, published in the NA27/UBS4 where variants exist, and are detailed quite extensively on what centuries they came from, and are told the very place you can go view them in a museum if you wish. For you to say you know "for fact" anything is absurd. You show you only know and trust the comments of whatever you read in a book about various sources. I have access to the original sources myself, and am capable of determining on my own if I agree or disagree with the conclusions of other scholars. I'm telling you, as a matter of fact, that what you are saying is entirely inaccurate. You are simply unable in anyway to produce even so much as a single epistle in any of the quotes from the first century church fathers. I know, for I have read the first century church fathers myself.

Gentlemen,"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." Luke 24:45Murray

I was going to add my 2 cents but its gettin to a little to hot for me....S-M-O-K-I-N 8-)

"If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.[Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant..."Philippians 2:1-7"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.Let not then your good be evil spoken of:For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."Romans 14:13-19

I'll open it up reading Psalm 23 from the KJV :)

I want to be one of His disciples much more than I want to win an argument.Praise God, Krispy! May he grant you your desire! ..any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. Lk. 14:33I guess that includes the need to be right. God bless you. Diane

I'm surprized ,that know body brought up the greatest dicovery of the 20th centry,which in fact had a stablizing effect on new testament criticism,The dead sea scrolls,the new teastament appears as a jewish book with a Christian theology with less Greek influence in it's formation than jewish. synoptic gospels, beginning with mark dated between a.d. 60-65, the book of hebrews can be dated before the destruction of jerusalem in 70 a.d.

There is no translation that is perfect, so just pick the one you like the best. Only the originals are perfect. There is no translation that is perfect. One reads a translation because that is as close as one can get to reading something in the original language. Don't get me wrong, you can still retain a great deal of accuracy with translations, but, no translation of anything is perfect. To say otherwise is to totally disregard the nature of translation. Translating anything from one language to another is like painting a picture of a mountain. No matter how precise the artist is, and careful he is about his task, he will never perfectly translate what is before him on to his canvas. Or you might compare it to taking a picture of your spouse. As great as a picture of your spouse might be, I bet if you had to choose between having a picture of your spouse and actually seeing your spouse with your own eyes, you'd pick seeing them with your own eyes any day. Even though a camera (especially in the hands of a highly trained professional) can capture with extremely great precision and quality an image of your spouse on film, it's simply not the same as actually seeing your spouse with your own eyes. As great as a camera is, it will never quite live up to seeing your spouse with your own eyes. By way of analogy, a translation is like having a picture of your spouse vs. actually seeing your spouse. And the EDUCATED are the only ones who can interpret them. So the final authority is the "scholars". Noone can know for sure except the scholars and the educated."I would disagree with this notion. So long as a translation is faithful to the original languages, anybody can interpret the Bible accurately. One does not need to go to Bible college or Seminary. In fact, sometimes scholarship (while important) will hurt the interpreter, as some scholars miss the trees for the forest, or the forest for the trees. However, where scholarship is needed is when it comes to dealing with original sources. No, one doesn't have to go to seminary to interact with these sources, as thanks to sites like Amazon.com, there is little to no difficulty finding about any book on any subject these days. But it will still require detailed study (which is what scholarship is about, whether you get a degree or not is irrelevant). So, frankly, unless one knows Hebrew and Greek (and I mean actually 'know,' simply looking things up in Strong's doesn't count), one simply cannot determine which translation is the most faithful to the original languages. To say otherwise would be somebody like me attempting to grade the correctness of a calculus math problem, as I don't know anything about calculus. It simply won't fly.And so it is with areas of textual criticsm. Frankly, you can know the history of various manuscripts all you want. Such is without a doubt needed knowledge. But frankly, if you don't have access to the Greek and Hebrew, you will simply be unable to discern what the actual differences in the manuscripts are, and not be able to really say how those differences were introduced into the compostion of any given manuscript.It'd be like me trying to figure out how Krispy built something without knowing anything about construction techniques. I can know the history of wood all I want, and know how the load of wood he used for any project got from the jungles of S. America to North Carolina. But, unless I understand the methods he employs and the tools he uses, I'll never understand how he builds what he builds. If I wish to attempt to understand, I'll need to do a lot more homework, and who knows, perhaps go to school and get a degree in the subject matter. While one might not have to get a degree in the subject, it will require a good deal of studying, and studying in the original languages and sources, to accurately determine which manuscripts are best. Areas like this do require a great deal of study, and do require a certain degree of skill. Some areas, we must humbly admit, do require expertise knowledge that is the fruit of long tedious study. To say otherwise is simply not wise. Greek is a dead language. Why would God still be using a dead language? Does he not care about the "common folk"?Christianity is a historical religion. Jesus actually came into the world, and actually did so in real time. When one studies the original languages, one studies what God has actually really done in history, and how He has revealed Himself in history. Just because Koine Greek is a dead language doesn't mean we cannot enjoy the fruits studying such a language. Koine Greek is still utilized by thousands, perhaps even millions of people to further understand the things of God, as well take the Scriptures as originally penned, and translate them into the tongues of people who have never heard the gospel before. This type of question would be like a blind person questioning why God chose to communicate the truth of the gospel in writings that are not accessible to people like him, who frankly, can't read because of a handicap. He could ask, doesn't God care about blind people?

Lets all let charity win the day here above all else.Amen :) I must apologize as well. I was not being very spiritual in what I said, and was rudly harsh in my "oh you don't understand Greek, I forgot" comment.

KingJimmy... have gotten down there to see it yet? I'm thinking about going sometime. I think it's there until late April or early May.No, but I'm wanting to go very badly. We are talking about some at my church of going as a group, and maybe taking the kid's along so they can see that their faith is one that is historically grounded in reality, and not something that has simply been made up. I wanted to attend the special seminars they are holding on the scrolls while they are in town, but my Greek class conflicts with these special lectures. Had I known the scrolls were originally going to be in town, I would have taken Hebrew this past year instead of Greek, as my Greek will not allow me to do much of anything with the scrolls other than know their historical significance and contribution to scholarship. But I suppose next year I will be able to do such anyway, as our school's library has a lot of material from the scrolls published in print. I don't want to pass it up though. As many have said, the chance to see them is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls are on display at the Discovery Place in Charlotte NC right now. You can see them for $20.Now that would be nice! Any chance they are heading to KC? :-D

The title of this post is: Is The Bible Really The Inerrant Word Of God?With very little exception the resounding cry from this post is; NO! It can't be trusted! If God is so small and impotent that He cannot preserve his written Word, can He truly raise you from the dead, as He has promised. Surely it must be easier to keep track of what he has recorded than to do ANYTHING else He has promised. If I am to believe your reasoning, than I am truly lost because I follow a finite, limited God. How many of you out there even pray before you post this stuff?The enemy of our soul can still find people who will still believe the first lie he ever spoke "yea, hath God said", Questioning the Word of God. The response from most people here is no.Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Jesus asks a very interesting question in this next verse that used to puzzle me, however I can now see the truth of His words.Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? It saddens me so to see supposed "spirit filled" believers conduct themselves like a class of first graders on the playground, each one wanting to get their own way at any cost. If there is a spirit led response anywhere on this thread, could someone please point it out.\t\t\t\t\tGreg :-o

Smokey wrote:The title of this post is: Is The Bible Really The Inerrant Word Of God?With very little exception the resounding cry from this post is; NO! It can't be trusted!\t\t\t\t\tGreg :-o I'm not saying it was Spirit-filled, but I believe my response was "I am 100% certain that my Bible can be trusted as the Word of God."I think it isn't necessary to fight over which version is best, but I think it is interesting to see why the different views are held.

Not necessarily... what language did Jesus speak when He appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus? Hebrew. (unless your using an NIV, which says Aramaic... which contradicts the other modern versions)What language did Paul write his letters in. What language was Acts written in? Not Hebrew. Greek... right? So by your assertion, Paul and Luke lost something of what Jesus said in the translation?Literally speaking, verses like Acts 26:14 where Paul recalls his conversion experience, read "...the Hebrew dialect." (NASB) The same verse in the KJV reads "...the Hebrew tongue." To be specific, neither the KJV and NASB say that Christ spoke to Paul in Hebrew. Rather, it says the Hebrew tongue/dialect. The normal word for "language" in the NT is glossa. The word used in this instance is dialekto, from which we get our word "dialect." This might sound like splitting hairs, but the language of the day for Jews was not Hebrew. The Hebrew tongue/dialect was actually Aramaic. Instead of translating it word for word, the NIV decided to give a dynamic equivalent for us, and went ahead and translated "the Hebrew dialect" simply as Aramaic. As for the nature of translation, I can not argue the nature of translation because I am not a translator (altho I am quite fluent in deciphering my 2 yr old son's speech). However, it seems to me that God demonstrated over and over again that He can and does go against nature. Parting the Red Sea, pregnant virgin, elderly women becoming pregnant, walking on water... so why cant He break the rules of nature concerning translation?You can try to put your spin on it all you want, but it simply does not line up with reality. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe very little is actually lost in translation most the time. However, even the beloved KJV doesn't bring everything over in translation, and some of the nuances of the Greek language don't quite come over. According to my pastor in his own personal studies he noted to me that the NASB actually usually does a better job at bringing out the nuances.A great example that my Greek prof has used numerous times about the nuances of the Greek language comes from Luke 23:34.KJV:Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.NASB:But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.This will appear very subtle, but such is what I'm aiming at. The word for said/saying comes from the imperfect indicative, 'elegen.' Essentially, an imperfect indiciative is a past continous action. Meaning, it's not just something that happened once in the past. Rather, it happened in the past over and over again. The NASB picks this up and translates it "was saying." As my prof likes to note, Jesus didn't simply ask His Father to forgive them once, rather, Jesus was continually saying it. Or in otherwords, when Jesus was being flogged, he was saying "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." As they were leading Him down the road with His cross, he was saying, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." As He hung there on the cross he was saying, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." Frankly, that's a pretty powerful nuance- made me want to cry... and it preaches pretty good too :)The KJV fails to pickup this nuance, and it is indeed lost in translation. Instead, the translators don't translate it most literally, and simply put "Then Jesus said, father forgive them..." They translate this as if it were simply an aorist and do "said" instead of "was saying." It's a very subtle nuance, but it is one that is actually there in the Greek. The NASB tries to preserve this past continous action of the word elegen, but the full effect of it is difficult to bring over into english without "adding" some words into your translation. The NASB if they wanted to be emphatic enough could have said, "And Jesus was continually saying, father forgive them." If you were simply using the KJV, you would have never seen this nuance because it was indeed lost in translation. But the NASB picked up on this nuance.

Smokey wrote:It saddens me so to see supposed "spirit filled" believers conduct themselves like a class of first graders on the playground, each one wanting to get their own way at any cost. If there is a spirit led response anywhere on this thread, could someone please point it out.Sometimes from a distance there are many who are watching these threads expecting to see a true spirit of Christ and come away disillusioned. As I am typing this there are 26 guests online and 5 members. That means it is quite possible that there are 4X as many people reading as posting. The My Utmost For His Highest entry today asked a riviting question: Am I Carnally Minded? Where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal . . . ? —1 Corinthians 3:3 We all have deeply held beliefs that we are not willing to compromise on and 'that' is a good thing. However, knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifies. There is something about these forums that can be deeply troubling at times- they tend to expose us for who we really are at times. Ever go back and read some real old posts you made and cringe? I have. A man told me once, "before sending out a sharp 'missive' always sleep on it and see if you would say the same thing the same way in the morning." It was good advice. The problem is, things are happening too fast here for that... or at least... there is that constant factor in which we cannot allow for a contrary remark to go unchallenged. Sometimes I have just had to commit not to enguage certain topics. I know that in the end my gain is someone else's loss. No sense in trying to prove everything. It never really changes minds anyway. As for this topic I am certainly a KJV proponent. But I am not KJV 'only'. I am conscious of the fact that newer translations have shortcomings as do all translations. I heard once that a translation of a native tongue to a different tongue is like kissing a bride through a vail. You loose something in the process. What shall we do? Study to show ourselves approved. ;-) And when we do that- study some more. And so on and so forth.

To all that venture here:\tPLEASE, ponder how absolutely lost we are IF we do not posses the innerant Word of God. In whatever form.For then WHAT CAN WE BELIEVE?

Another important monument discoverd in 1798, was the rosetta stone,three languages in which this monument was found inscribed,greek,and two forms of egyptain writtings,one being the oder and more complicated hieroglyphic.which had been said to be the key of unlocking the door of knowledge of the languages and literature of ancient Egypt,and opened the door to mondern era of bibical archaeology.

Hi Annie,"Sometimes I have just had to commit not to enguage certain topics. I know that in the end my gain is someone else's loss."I tried here to explain the nature of competition in polemics. If I win the argument, I may 'feel' gratified and the other feel the sense of loss. This is a terrible thing that troubles me. This should not be the nature of our converstions. And that, because we are supposed to love one another. I had some very heavy debates when I first arrived at SI and I regret my tone in them terribly. I was sure I was right and would stay up all night writing tractates defending my position only to upload the text files in the AM when I signed on. Just being honest. (btw I have moved on some of those dogmatic positions I held also since then ;-))Another thing that Ron has said that I have had to learn is that we have to allow folk to have the liberty of conscience. Everyone has to be fully persuaded in their own mind. I could post something that could throw a person into a tailspin spiritually as it might minister a question to their minds. I have always understood the word 'to sift' to ultimately mean 'to riddle'. Would it not be a horrible thing for me to be the instrument of satan to 'riddle' someones mind trying to win a polemic debate? I may win the argument, but someone could suffer great loss in the process. Sometimes we are operating on a wisdom that is not from above. If we think to ourselves, "Wow, that was a good comeback" or "My, I am really witty!" we could be in danger. Chances are we are not that witty and some of our thoughts and reasonings are not our own or the Holy Spirit's. This is exhaserbated when there are motives that play upon our passions- opening us up to even more earthly+sensual+devilish reasonings. What says the scripture:and the wisdom from above, first, indeed, is pure, then peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of kindness and good fruits, uncontentious, and unhypocritical... (James 3:17) and again Blessed are the peacemakers... I find this also in witnessing. You can win an argument and loose a soul. Hope that explains it. :-)

Dear Smokey,You asked, To all that venture here:PLEASE, ponder how absolutely lost we are IF we do not posses the innerant Word of God. In whatever form.For then WHAT CAN WE BELIEVE?You can believe in Jesus. For it is believing in Jesus that we are saved. You must understand my dear brother that a faith based upon the bible is no faith at all. The bible cannot save you and cannot change you.Do you not think that God in all His splendor and awesome power could maintain a rock solid and authentic version of the bible if it were truly His Word? God wrote the ten commandments with His very fingers, and they were preserved in an ark. They were locked away, and preserved in thier original form. The bible, however, cannot be authenticated. There is not a single original document of any of the writings in the bible. We only have copies of the originals. The bible cannot be proven to be true or right or accurate. God allowed this intentionally, so that we may never place our faith in the bible, or believe the bible to be God. He wanted us to come to His son Jesus Christ so that we may be saved through belief in Him. The bible can be shown to have error. However, Jesus Christ is without error. Jesus Christ is perfect in every way, and He is blameless. What can anyone possibly say against Him? And if they should, imagine what doom shall come to them for making such lies against Him. He is perfect, and He has been proven by countless testimonies. The greatest collection of testimonies we have for Jesus is the bible. This collection of testimonies prove that Jesus is good, Jesus is right, Jesus is Savior, Jesus is Lord, and Jesus is God. I am not saying here or anywhere that the bible cannot be trusted. The bible can be trusted. However, the bible is not the inerrant Word of God. We are not saved by believing in the bible. We will not enter Heaven by following the bible. Neither will the bible be the authority or judge of all things.Our faith, believe, life, love and will must be directed and given to Jesus Christ. God has asked us to take a leap of faith and trust in Jesus. When we do take this leap, when call upon the name of Jesus, He is sure to answer. Our part is to trust in the Lord Jesus, and when we do, it is God's part to answer our prayers. And so, you ask what we are to believe.....and I tell you, believe in Jesus. Goto Him in prayer and consecrate your life to Him. He will not lead you astray. He will raise you up. You see, Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Jesus is God's promise to us. It is true that many of us have gained information of Christ by reading the bible. We also gain information about President Bush by reading the news. Does that mean you know the President. Surely, you don't know the president as a friend, or a brother, or even a father. And so, anyone who claims to know Jesus by reading the bible, does not know Him at all. They know His story, but they do not know His Spirit and His heart. To truly know Jesus as a friend or brother, a person needs to be born again. They need to have a personal and intimate relationship founded on love. When a person has this sort of relationship with Jesus, they will trust in Him, they will believe in Him, and they will have faith in Him. A person who has this sort of relationship will be able to read the bible and say, "I know this is true because I have experienced it myself. The Spirit of God confirms it in my heart." Then and only then, will this person know the Word of God because they will know Jesus. In love,Blake

BeenblakeSorry man, I am not believing that.Check this out.1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. The very fact that Paul, James, Luke, Peter felt led to WRITE letters to the early churches to instruct, and correct, prove that a second witness, the written word, is needed to establish the validity of what the spirits, and false prophets, were telling them.\t\t\t\tGreg

MeAgain wrote:That's good tacklebox. Good bunch of NC boys on here. We all oughta meet with our families and have a Prayer/Praise session. Neat !That would be wonderful! Where in NC do you live?

a faith based upon the bible is no faith at all. The bible cannot save you and cannot change you.Blake, at first you got me wondering where you were at, but your explanation clarified your statement. I agree with you. I suspect you are saying that one can have a vast understanding of Scripture, of Greek, be a scholar, a translator, a teacher, an apologist, a evangelist, and defend the words zealously, but not KNOW the author of the word. And, you certainly can have a faith in the words, but not faith in the Person of the words. It still makes me cringe to hear the Bible thumpers of my past who shouted from the pulpit while pounding their fists on their Bibles. "The Bible says it! I believe it! That settles it!" They were such a turn off. ...on the other hand.... I once led a community Bible study, and some ministers dropped in, to "check on what their parishioners were getting fed". One priest cautioned our group about the dangers of bibliolatry. Now, to an extent he has a valid point. We can get caught up straining gnats. We can worship ideas and theologies, but not worship God. However the minister then proceeded to warn all of us "lesser ones" that not everything Paul said was true. He may as well have put a pin in the balloon - he killed the study. Thankfully he came only once, no one in the group was persuaded by him. I do not believe you are implying anything remotely close to that Anglican priest, but at first it seemed like it. I guess we have to be careful not to assume one's doctrine based on a line or two. I agree with those who said earlier that experience of God is essential in order for the Word to come alive. Yet, Satan has always been able to mimic just about any experience, and steer people away from solid truth. Then, very subtly, experience and mindsets rule over truth. That, I feel, is one of the reasons the Bible is so essential. The world needs Greek scholars, apologists, theologians to keep the ship from going off course. Just think what has been done over the centuries in order to preserve Scripture! And think of how many have been martyred doing it. Surely God has been in it, or else we would now be left with something that no longer remotely resembles the Bible. However, not everyone needs to be a Greek scholar. We also need prayer warriers, foot-washers, those wiht the gift of mercy, administration etc.. (Romans 12)I suspect that those thologians and teachers who have gone off-course failed to incorporate the rest of the body into their lives. They became unbalanced. "The body is not made up of one part but of many... If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? 1 Cor. 12:14All would do well to consider these words in this very discussion.... Diane

FolksThis is me shaking my head as I walk away from this post. What has the "so called body" of Christ come to ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Greg :-? :-? :-? :-? PS Edit: 2Ti 4:3 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;

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and EXAMINED THE SCRIPTURES every day TO SEE if WHAT Paul said WAS TRUE. What would have been the point of that if the scriptures couldn't have been trusted?Just a thought.Murray

or believe the bible to be God. It looks like Blake is trying to balance a pendulum swing between the two far-out extremes, and it looks like he is overcompensating, ie going too far one way. But I'm not prepared to make the final verdict on our brother yet, because he also defines the authority of Scripture through relationship with the author. (unless I'm reading into his words)I illustrated the two extremes earlier by giving two examples of ministers: one claimed to have faith in the Bible and loudly proclamied that every word in it is true - literally. Yet his character was in need of refining. He failed to remember the verse in James about those who look in the mirror and then forget what they look like. (I suspect that he could only see the mirror analogy literally, and couldn't see how it was convicting him.)To swing away from that extreme end of the pendulum and not go too far the other way requires one essential: KNOWING God, as I read here: They know His story, but they do not know His Spirit and His heart. To truly know Jesus as a friend or brother, a person needs to be born again. They need to have a personal and intimate relationship founded on love.I add: when we take our eyes off of the AUTHOR, even if we believe the Bible is the final authority, we really make ourselves the authority of God's word. This is the real god we worship - ourselves. or believe the bible to be God. We end up with a god of our own making - a false image, idolatrous - what the Pharisees did. Jesus is the word. (John 1) the eternal word..... ... my word will never pass away... A thought:When we're in heaven, do we need to study ancient Biblical history?....Is the eternal living word something beyond that? Is it not Christ himself? Diane

Is it entirely correct to say that the Bible is only meaningful when we one is birthed by the Spirit, since God’s word must be spiritually discerned?. When God gave the law, he gave it to those who were unregenerate. It would seem that God’s word is, for a large part meant for the UNSAVED. It is God’s map to himself. So, I don’t think we can say that the Bible is meaningless for unbelievers. I think it has a lot to say to them. They can understand the LAW. And was not the LAW meant for those who had not yet entered into the new covenant (Romans 7)? The LAW keeps them in line until they receive the Spirit, and become guided by the Spirit. As we have already discussed in other threads, there are many today in our churches, never mind outside our churches, who are unregenerate. A huge percentage of those who think that they are saved, are not. They also do not have the Spirit!!!! To tell this vast segment of our church that they can rely on the Spirit and Jesus, and don’t need the Bible, to me, is a horrendous heresy. And I’ve heard it too often! That scares me.Diane

Hi Smokey...I suppose that most of us consider the KJV a great translation. However, there are those of us that believe (or realize) that the KJV is merely a translation created by the effort of flawed men. As such, it is prone to translation error. The Word of God is indeed perfect. However, a translation is simply a copy of a copy (of a copy of a copy...). I have great trust in the KJV -- particularly since I view it as the best translation from the Textus Receptus. But I also have a great amount of trust in the NIV. I consider it a very faithful translation from the other sources. However, I must point out that my faith is not in a translation itself -- but in the Word of God. In my opinion, the passage from Acts 12:1-14 (concerning Easter) is simply an obvious error in translation on behalf of the translators of the KJV. This, along with the various revisions of the translation that took place over a period of over 150 years, proves that the version was not the "perfect and preserved" translation that some would have us believe. There are some believers out there (often referred to as KJV-only believers) that believe that the KJV is the only version that is acceptable for believers. Many of them go to great lengths in an attempt to "prove" that all other versions are flawed. They often slander the translators of other versions, as well as try to discredit the purpose behind newer translations. The degree of beliefs of KJV-only believers can vary widely. Some believe in the perfection of the KJV, but will not slander other versions. Others can go so far as to believe that, since the KJV version in the only perfect version, everyone in the world should learn the KJV. Others view all other translations as part of some great conspiracy to pervert the Word of God. Many of us that accept translations other than just the KJV realize that there have been no perfect translations -- even though the Word of God is still perfect. Our faith is not in the translation. Rather, it is in the Author. We also realize that, although the KJV is a good translation, it is the work of men (thus, prone to such flaws of translation). Some of us also believe that there are language barriers with the KJV, since many of the words spoken in 1611 have since changed their meanings. We believe that this is in contradiction with the original intent of the translators (found in the preface of the KJV). They wanted a faithful translation of the Word of God from the original languages in which they were written -- into a form that would be understood by common people. In other words, it shouldn't take a certain degree of literary skill in order to understand the Word of God.There are indeed alot of needless versions out there. Some of the newer versions (such as the "gender neutral" NIrV) are almost certainly created to please man, rather than make the Bible more understandable. My practice has been to read the KJV first. I often look up the same passage in the NIV in order to get a perspective from either modern English or from a version that used sources other than the Textus Receptus. I'm really not certain what Krispy's intent was in beginning this thread. However, it seems that the thread itself has gone in several different directions. "Is the Bible really the inerrant Word of God?" Immediately, some people might ask, "Which version?" It is important to realize the difference between the terms "Bible" and "Word of God." A "bible" is simply a collection of books. A "Holy Bible" is simply a collection of Scripture translated by men. However, the "Word of God" is Jesus Christ. While a "Bible" can be flawed, and even destroyed -- the "Word of God" is both perfect and eternal. :-)

The bible can be shown to have error. However, Jesus Christ is without error. Jesus Christ is perfect in every way, and He is blameless. What can anyone possibly say against Him? And if they should, imagine what doom shall come to them for making such lies against Him. Blake,Your 'logic' here reminds me of the old computer technician’s joke that says, "Most problems with computer systems begin with the component between the keyboard and the seat."It's all well and mystical to say that Jesus has no error, but what about you bro? Are you also inerrant? Certainly the pages of scripture are a more faithful account of Jesus then your own life. What would you rather have people read?It's commendable that you emphasize a personal relationship and communion with Christ above a mere textual interface. That is awesome, but most Christians understand that we don't "believe" in a book for salvation. (Please sir, you’re tilting at windmills on this point.) And the Christians in this thread are well aware of the fallacy of claiming unlived truth...this is always a challenge to the believer who is confronted with the high standard of scripture.Indeed Jake...what is your standard and how are you confronted? You say the bible can be trusted, but then again it can't be. When do you make these value judgments? Like Dianne, I was trying to see if you were merely overextending a valid point about making sure that we have a personal relationship with the Jesus of the bible...but really I think you are describing a 'post-modern' Christianity where we can not trust the objective meaning of words to convey a knowledge of God...you are saying God can only be known through personal subjective experience. This sounds 'pious' but this mysticism flatly contradicts scripture. The first chapter of the Bible contains the words "and God said" 10 times (Gen. 1).The prophets claimed that their writings were the "word of the Lord"... Isaiah 20 times, Ezekiel 60 times, and Jeremiah 100 times.God told Jeremiah, "Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you" (30:2).Paul said that he spoke "not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13).The Thessalonian Christians welcomed Paul's teaching "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).John began the book of Revelation by referring to it as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants" (1:1).Yet you would have us believe that your personal inner experience of God is sufficient? Indeed, you assert that the only way to 'know' the "Word" is to know Jesus through the path of spiritual intercourse and that faith in the 'bible' is not real faith at all. Since you do not count knowing and believing in what scripture says as valid faith and knowledge of God, are you saying that you have experienced and known these all the following attributes of God through your personal relationship with Christ?Creator (Gen. 1:1)Sustainer (Col. 1:17) Holy (Ex. 15:11) Loving (1 John 4:8) Truth (John 14:6) One (Deut. 6:4) Eternal (Ps. 90:2) Self-sufficient (Ex. 3) Spirit (John 4:24) Unchanging (Ps. 102:27) Ever-present (Ps. 139) All-knowing (Heb. 4:13) All-powerful (Job 42:2) Just (Ps. 18:24-26) Blake, with all respect...you offend reason!MC

Still SIZZLEN here :-o SIZZLENPlease excuse me while I go pray for the lost...(just a hint) ;-)

brentw wrote:Please excuse me while I go pray for the lost...(just a hint) ;-) Hehe....good hint.

brentw...(just a hint)A hint of self-importance bro. Let these people discuss scripture. This is also what Christians do from time to time.This isn't some vain philosophy competition. For some, this is iron sharpening iron fellowship. Christianity isn't just about expanding it's borders...it has to have a stable center too.MC

A hint of self-importance bro. Let these people discuss scripture. This is also what Christians do from time to time.Really? ;-)

Compton wrote:brentw...

(just a hint)A hint of self-importance bro. Let these people discuss scripture. This is also what Christians do from time to time.This isn't some vain philosophy competition. For some, this is iron sharpening iron fellowship. Christianity isn't just about expanding it's borders...it has to have a stable center too.MC

Hi Krispy...Well... the originals were written by flawed me. Do we say then (as some do) that the originals were not perfect as well? God inspired the words, but the men were flawed. What then?The originals were written via divine inspiration as God quoted it to them -- and the translations were not. There is a big difference. :-)

Really? ;-) Brentw brother,Appreciated your point about sharing with the lost below. And it seems prayer is an under devloped area of interest days, so thank you for emphasizing that. Yet it strikes me a little unfair to log onto an online environment like this, and make comments about the value and usefulness of the various postings, inferring that people are neglecting the lost while they waste time at their keyboards. I liken that to going up to an open air preacher while he's speaking at a college campus and attempting to shame him for just using words, but not clothing the naked or feeding the poor. Street preaching is one kind of ministry, pouring soup is another, and discussing the scriptures (even online) is another. We may do them all at some point or another...but they all have value and a place.SI is not the street or a soup kitchen. And that's OK! :-) Bless you brother,MC PS...I won't disrupt the proceedings here further...my apologies.

Ok, I'll break down and put my soup into the bowl...KJV is the Word of God. BUT, BUT I believe we MUST know the jewish culture in order to fully understand why they said certain things in the bible. For example the word "disciple"...when Jesus said disciple in HIS MIND what do it mean????

It was just that his post made me chuckle. Everyone is so upset about this post. I think that each person is giving good input on what they feel is true, and others are just getting crazy and accusing everyone of fighting and being bad Christians for debating their different views.

Aw... c'mon... everyone chill out. This has been a good discussion, lets not get caught up in anything over than that.AMEN Krispy!!!!

Unless I missed it in the 20+ pages of posts, I can't believe there is a discussion about the KJV without Stever involved.Question:Does the NIV teach the following:- Existance of God- Deity of Christ- Salvation through Faith- Faith without works is Dead- Jesus Christ being the only way to Salvation- Repentance- TrinityNow, before you get the idea to go google 'NIV errors' and come back with 65 pages of someone's 'proof of the NIV's corruption', please stop and understand what I am asking here.I don't want to know if a phrase or a verse in omitted here or there...I want to know if the above topics are NOT discussed or are NOT presented in the NIV.So, the question is...does the NIV teach these things?

I believe the NIV teaches all these things.

I read the NASB, and find that I believe the same things as people who read the KJV, NIV, etc.

I read the NASB, and find that I believe the same things as people who read the KJV, NIV, etc.I enjoy comparing the many versions on studylight and then looking at the underlying Greek words. There are many many resources to study scholarly though I am no scholar. I love the KJV, but would love to be able to read Greek. Maybe God will someday allow it. :-)

Jesus is identified as the Word, right? Well doesn;t Psalms say that he would not suffer his Holy one to see corruption? I might be taking this a little far, but an almighty God is not going to allow his instrutcions to man kind to be distored. Can they find Jesus in the version that you're reading? I think thats the main thing Eli-

I enjoy comparing the many versions on studylight and then looking at the underlying Greek words.Robert, What's studylight, and how does it compare to e-sword?Diane

Unless I missed it in the 20+ pages of posts, I can't believe there is a discussion about the KJV without Stever involved.laughing out really loudly, that's too funny!!!

Does the NIV teach the following:- Existance of God- Deity of Christ- Salvation through Faith- Faith without works is Dead- Jesus Christ being the only way to Salvation- Repentance...Since I happen to read this book and study it intensively,(and also compare it with other translations) I will speak. The answer: All the needed ingredients are there!!!! If one who reads it misses it in one spot, they will find it somewhere else. The scripture supports itself all over the place. If an important phrase is left out, the concept will appear somewhere - maybe revealed through the life story of a Bible Character, or one of Jesus' deeds. "Ask and ye SHALL receiveSeek and ye SHALL find, Knock and the door SHALL be opened...If one does not see the fundimental truths, it is not the fault of the tranlation, it is because of this; "he has blinded them so that they cannot see, ...."It is a remnant of the fallen nature. And, if any of us is honest, we have to admit that we don't know what we don't know. In other words, we can't see what we can't see. But, amazingly, we are so very good at seeing what others can't see. Diane

The Lord is impressing on me a truth that I have never before given much thought to:God makes himself very vulnerable to humanity. He chooses fallen man to do his job, and has done so since the beginnning. He could have sent angels who would do exactly what he wanted, and write the Bible in the perfect language of heaven. Instead he chose sinners, even people who fell as badly as David, King Solomon, and Paul to record his holy message. He chose Moses, who messed up so badly that he couldn't enter the Promised Land, but not badly enough to record years of important history right from creation, as well as the entire LAW! What's with that?He chose an ass to speak his words. He chose a man on an ass who was more an ass than his ass to proclaim a blessing on his beloved nation Israel. God, you should be ashamed of yourself! .... Or maybe we should be ashamed of ourselves for doubting your amazing supernatural ability to work through fallen flesh!God chose fallen disciples (non-scribes) to write his gospel message! That is amazing! None of them would be hired by any university today to do the job of writing important documents. Why did God not assign his Son to dictate a Holy Book, and then proofread what was writen? His followers wrote AFTER he was gone!!And to think that even during the hey-day of the Roman Catholic Empire, the scripture message did not get destroyed. Think about that. If the religous leaders had usurped their wish on the translation, what it would look like today? The Bible would now be glorifying the entire religious institution and its leaders. Yet Scripture couldn't be more obvious in it's condemnation of religious heirarchy and greed for power. Even where the KJV has mistranslated some words by using heirarchal terms (rule), still the sentiment of godly leadership remains intact: ex Jesus taught servant leadership by washing feet. .. Paul's example... Think about that for a while - and it will blow you away! We have an awesome God who comes down to mankind in all his glory. Still today, we can trust that a tranlation is available in our modern-day language that WE can read and understand - and find God and hear God! And still today, he chooses fallen man to spread his word around the world, to translate the word into hundreds of languages, to teach his word ... As inefficient as it seems to have been, and as resisted by forces from within and without - the kingdom of heaven is growing like a mustard tree. What does this say about our God?Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words will never pass away." Mk. 13:31Amen, right? Diane

Hi Krispy...You dont want examples of verse, but hey... the Word of God is my final authority on everything, so from me... you will get scripture. Sorry if that bothers you. .......- Salvation through FaithThey all teach salvation thru faith, but none as strongly and as clearly as the KJV, the Reformation Bibles, etc. (TR Bibles)"As strongly and as clearly?" This is definitely a matter of opinion. I see nothing in the NIV that tells me that salvation is not through faith.- Faith without works is DeadThey all teach this, however I can show you that some of the modern versions change verses to make it appear that you need works for salvation. For example in John 6:28 the KJV says:Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? The NIV says: Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"There is a big difference in these verses.This is very misleading -- and one of the most often used tactics of KJV-only adherents. Versions like the NIV didn't change anything. They simply translated the Bible out of a different set of sources than the KJV. The translators did their best with the sources they used -- just as the translators of the KJV worked to do their best with the sources they used. Krispy, in this thread you have called the NIV a "faithful translation" from other sources. The notion that such verses were "changed" almost gives credibility to the notion of a "conspiracy" by translators to pervert the faith. It really is a silly notion -- and completely false.- Jesus Christ being the only way to SalvationThey do, however they remove certain things about this salvation in key places. For instance, Acts 8:37 shows that confession of Jesus as the Son of God is required before baptism. Very key doctrinal verse concerning baptism. Yet it is completely removed in most modern versions, and if it isnt removed then there will be an (*) in the footnotes saying it shouldnt be there.Again, nothing was removed if it was never in the source to begin with. The NIV omitted certain verses because those verses were not in the most reliable sources used for the translation. However, the NIV also footnotes this when it is contrasted with RT versions (like the KJV), or when there were even remote possibilities of differences. Unfortunately, we don't know much about such situations during the translation of the KJV -- since no footnotes were used. We also do not have the testimony of the translators in which we could determine the academic methods of their translation (or even what kind of men they were).- RepentanceNot in every place. For instance:KJV Mat 9:13 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. NIV Mat 9:13 But go and learn what this means: :I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.Whats missing? Repentance!! And this is only one example of where repentance is removed. Without repentance this verse doesnt even make sense. What does it mean? He came to call sinners? What? On the phone?- TrinityAh... the trinity. The answer is NO. They dont. And that is why Unitarians and JW's LOVE modern versions. And this is why you can not win an argument with either one using a modern version.Here is the greatest verse in the Bible testifying to the trinity:KJV 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.KJV 1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. How does the NIV and all the other modern versions render this verse?NIV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: NIV 1 John 5:8 the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.Notice whats missing in verse 7? "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."Whats missing in verse 8? "in one".And whats in the footnotes of the NIV and the other modern versions?? A statement saying that they probably shouldnt be there at all.This again is misleading. The NIV definitely supports the notion of both repentance and the Trinity. Even if there are differences in certain verses because of the differences in the sources used, there are alot of other places in which the NIV contains this doctrine. As stated earlier, nothing was "removed" from the KJV. The NIV was an entirely new translation taken from what the translators and many Bible scholars felt were the best and most reliable sources. Due to academic (and personal) honesty, they could not simply "insert verses" in order to please individuals that are used to the KJV translation. In conclusionSo to answer your question "does the NIV teach these things?" the answer is NO, it does not teach all of those things.Want more proof... engage a JW in a debate about these things using an NIV. Your NIV is not really any different that a JW's Bible. See, when you as if your NIV teaches these things, thats really not addressing the issue.I really don't have any idea what you mean with these statements. But I disagree with you conclusion nonetheless. The NIV does teach the aforementioned doctrines with complete clarity.When people ask that I have to wonder... why not just read the KJV? Why kick against it so much that your willing to admit and settle for a bible that may be inferior? Because there might be a word or two that you dont understand? Thats why there are dictionaries. Heaven forbid we expand our knowledge and our vocabulary.The reason that I believe in the need for the NIV is just as you say -- it takes an expanding of knowledge (of grammar, 17th century vocabulary, and etymology) in order to understand the KJV. This completely goes against the purpose of the translators. They wanted a version that would be easily understood by common individuals. In its day, the KJV was good as such. However, many individuals have a difficult time with the language of the version. As the meaning of many of its words have changed, so has the need increased for a version more easily understoond. The NIV also provides a great version from the sources it used for translation. This is good for those who want to cross-examine translations from seperate sources....and later...... and the God who we call Almighty was incapable of preserving His pure word.Why do we sing "What a mighty God we serve..." when he cant preserve His own word?I guess you dont have a final authority. Y'all have answered my original question loud and clear. How could you have a final authority when ya'll say we can not trust the Bible? You havent said that in so many words, but it IS what you're saying. And anything that is not trustworthy is NOT an authority.Krispy, no one is accusing God as being "unable" to "preserve His Word." In fact, the Word of God is ETERNAL. But there is a huge difference between the eternal Word of God and a Bible version that is translated by flawed men. We have already pointed out (and you have conceded) that the 1611 KJV went through several revisions due to numerous errors of translation and printing. While many of these may have been minor -- where was such "preservation of his pure Word" at that time? The point is that, as good a translation as it is, the KJV is simply that -- a translation. Our faith is not in the translation (or the translators) but in Christ Himself. :-)

Non-Christians have sometimes told me that they believed that the Bible is the product of man’s biases and is filled with inconsistencies, mistakes, and…... you know all the arguments. So they view it, not an authority, but merely as a guide.That brings me to another thought: I suspect that there have been a lot of people who have tried to pervert the Bible message and make it support their heresies. However, I also suspect that it would be a tremendous challenge, if not impossible to come up with a Bible translation that distorts the overall message so much that its overall message is lost. You would have to call your book something else. I suspect that the original Spirit-breathed message was filled with so many safe-guards that it has been near impossible to completely ruin it in translation. Why would the Bible have been read in Latin for hundreds of year? Why would masses of people have been prevented from learning to read? It was to keep the people from finding out what the Bible says! Why didn’t thei religous rulers just translate a Bible that would be “safe” for the masses? I suspect that heretics get around it by writing a heretical COMMENTARY on the Bible, or adding another “sacred writing” to coexist with the Bible. Since man has a tendency to prefer the words of MAN, they will gravitate to books ABOUT the Bible, or in some way put their trust in man’s interpretation of Scripture rather than trust the Bible and the Spirit to lead them to truth. So religous leaders can teach a lot of "garbage" and no one will check them out against Scripture. All that just to say, again, that I am in awe that a trustworthy Bible still exists and no one has ever been able to pervert it out of existence. Perhaps someone here who knows about Biblical canonization, etc, could make a helpful comment that I could share with my unbelieving friends. (Maybe it's back a few pages, and I missed it)Diane

Krispy, did you catch how you responded to my post about whether or not the NIV teaches core Doctrines?You answered, "Yes, but...""Yes they teach these things, but certain other parts are misleading in other places..."The NIV either teaches the Deity or it doesn't...(John 1, Colossians 1)The NIV either teaches salvation through faith or it doesn't...Eph. 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."The NIV either teaches redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ or it doesn't...Eph 1:7 "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" The NIV is faithful to the message of Jesus Christ. I want to state this very clearly so that all can understand...There is NO conspiracy on the part of the NIV to pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

LAMSAWhat's this?Diane

It's what she is used to reading. If you grew up reading the KJV or started out reading it, than your going to enjoy that version. But what of those who read the NIV all their lives?I remember our very first NIV. My husband got it. It was such a relief to read something EASY that was actually scripture. I did poorly in English class and had anxiety over Shakespeare, so a modern version was like mercy drops from heaven. At first it felt sacrilegious to talk and read holy truths in the common every day language of the world. I had become accustomed to a "sacred language" ex: prayers " We beseech thee, O Lord, Grant our petitions this morning...Shine forth Thy.... " or whatever.. Also I had become accustomed to hearing the preacher "translate" his text verse into modern English (according to him). I wondered at times if he would have had anything left to preach if he had used a modern version. I still use my NIV study Bible because for several years I have been marking it up. I've written in numerous dates of specific verses that the Lord has given me for specific revelations, or for various people, situations, and times in answer to prayer. I also have been inserting different translations of verses if they shine more light on a particular verse. I see spiritual truths in color, so I have colors all over my Bible - marker and pencil crayon, including little pictures that help me SEE the point. I also write in thoughts and cross references as I study. Actually, my Bible appears somewhat of a disaster. But to chuck out my Bible would be to toss out a lot of my spiritual journey and God's personal words to me. I wouldn't mind another translation as sometimes I feel that NIV phrasing could be improved upon. I think the NLT brings more clarity many times just by the way it pharses sentences. The NASV in its attempt to stay close to the Greek, sacrifices flow of thought, in my opinion, not that it is bad. Precepts Ministries uses that one.I have my eyes on the ISV which is still in the making. But now with e-sword, I think I have more than enough to keep me out of trouble. If you don't have e-sword, I recommend it. You can see the Greek and Hebrew def'n pop up as you're going along. And there are several translations available.Diane

Hi there, Krispy... ccchhhrrriiisss... thanx for responding because you were right about one thing, my wording was misleading. Not intentionally! But when I said the NIV removed this or that, you are correct when you say that it is a translation of a certain source. The things that I mentioned were omitted almost 2,000 years ago by a pagan named Origen in Alexandria, Egypt. Thus: Alexandrian Text. And down thru the centuries others had a hand in adding and subtracting from it.Let me make this clear: The NIV tranlsators did make some strange renderings in certain places, however as for the omissions, they were made centuries ago.Of course, there is still another side to this story. In my opinion, the KJV and NIV debate comes down to a question of sources – particularly whether or not a person is willing to accept the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian and other texts, or both. I have studied both sides of the argument with an open heart. I have spent a considerable amount of time looking through the arguments as presented by KJV-only believers. Unfortunately, there is so much obvious bias that is not based upon fact, that it is often difficult to find legitimate academic sources for the position held by so many KJV-onlyers. In fact, there are quite a few “urban legends” concerning this issue that have proven to be false, yet are still “preached” by KJV-only websites and books. However, I also set out to contact many supposed experts in this topic – from Bible scholars, professors of Biblical languages, Bible publishers, and even some of the actual translators of the NIV. I have been very interested in consulting first-hand sources whenever possible, rather than books or other works that are obviously overflowing with bias.Through it all, I actually felt overwhelmed by the incredible amounts of information available. However, as a result of my endeavor, I have found nothing that I would consider academically credible that would make me conclude with any sort of certainty of a superiority of the Textus Receptus over the other sources that were used for the NIV. At the same time, I am quite cautious not to make a final position concerning which sources are more accurate. So I currently approach the issue through a more prayerful scrutiny. I always read Scripture through prayer – asking the Lord to open the eyes of my heart and understanding to the truth of the Word of God. From an academic standpoint, most of the more proficient scholars today seem to view the sources used for the NIV as superior. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are correct. However, this is a matter that is almost always ignored by many KJV-only individuals. While you spoke of questions about the creation of the Alexandrian Texts (which I will have to check for accuracy), we must also remember that there are similar questions about the Textus Receptus (and Desiderius Erasmus). Remember, the Textus Receptus was actually revised twice – arriving to the third and final edition that was used for the KJV. However, it is interesting to document the changes that took place in the editions. The first and second editions of the Textus Receptus did not contain the Comma Johanneum. This frequently debated portion of Scripture from I John (chapter 5 verse 7-8) is often incorrectly labeled as having been “omitted” by the translators of the NIV. In fact, one could argue that it was “added” to the Textus Receptus in its third addition after it was not included in the first and second editions. Does this mean that the Comma Johanneum was not considered divinely inspired? Of course not. However, it is quite obvious that there was considerable debate about the passage itself even at that time. From the standpoint of a person who uses both the NIV and the KJV, I can testify that I believe in the Trinity regardless. There are many other verses in the NIV that confirm the Trinity. Like all important doctrinal issues of true Christianity, the concept of the Trinity is not established by only a single passage. One might say that such observed doctrine comes from the testimony of "two or more witnesses..."There is a strong argument for the superiority of the Textus Receptus over other sources. However, this is seldom the issue for most KJV-only adherants. It seems that a defense of the KJV often turns into an attack on the other versions – and often by individuals or organizations using biased and inaccurate information. This ranges from a belief that the modern versions were put together in haste to a belief in an all-out conspiracy by evil men wanting to “pervert the Word of God” through modern Bible translations. There are even some that are so bold as to label the NIV as a “work of the devil.” That is a rather strong accusation to lay against a work that might indeed contain the written Word of God.Like I have said all along, I use both versions. I feel that the King James Version, while not completely perfect, is a very sound translation from the Textus Receptus. I also feel that the NIV is a very sound translation from the various sources it used. However, I also believe that the KJV no longer lives up to the purpose intended by the translators in 1611. The English language has changed considerably since the KJV was published (and subsequently revised). Regardless of the argument, there are many individuals (including individuals that do not know Christ) that would be forced to consult academic aids in order to interpret the meaning of many words and phrases from this version. As for the rest of your responce... love ya brother, but I believe you are completely wrong on this one. In true and honest humility, thank you. But I suppose that this feeling is quite mutual between those who are convinced on both sides. I just believe that we should all be ever-searching on this issue. Hence, this is the beauty of such discussions as is found within this thread. Too often, I have found that many Christians believe something without knowing why they believe it. It is quite possible that both the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Texts (among others) have it correct some of the time. Both of these sources were gathered from other older sources. It would have been interesting to read first hand debates about this from theirown times. :-)

The things that I mentioned were omitted almost 2,000 years ago by a pagan named Origen in Alexandria, Egypt. Thus: Alexandrian Text. This is simply false.

Of course, there is still another side to this story. In my opinion, the KJV and NIV debate comes down to a question of sources – particularly whether or not a person is willing to accept the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian and other texts, or both.Excellent post here chris.

take the discovery of the rosetta Stone, this stone held the key to unlock 3 ancient languages, which is inscribed,..Greek,and two forms of Egyptain writings,one being the older hieroglyphic. all three languages on this stone,are in one acorde in the mesage inscribed.a key facter in decoding these languages. was the Coptic language which is the oldest form of Aramaci,which is still spoken today.

Is it false because you say it is? I may have over generalized it, but the statement I made is not false.Can you please offer any actual proof whatsoever the Oriegen delibereately made additions/omissions to create what is known as the Alexandrian texts?

Hi MeAgain...HA Chris, I thought you were the guy who said he doesn't like to press a point. Is this a record for you on one thread ? I thought it was just sort of out of character for you. How come ? I'm just interested because you said you read the KJV, so why so many posts for the NIV and all of this work on one topic ?And I ain't bein' a wise guy neither ... just so curious about what drives you on some topics.It's not that I want to ever force anyone to concede a point. However, I feel that if someone feels the need to create a thread when a position is already decided beforehand, then the motive is to spark some sort of discussion. On a side note, I have noticed that there are alot of Christians that believe a particular doctrinal persuasion -- yet cannot rightfully validate their beliefs. If a person believes in the "pre-trib Rapture" -- why? What Scriptural evidence does that person base their beliefs upon? The same can be asked about nearly every topic of discussion in the Church. While many of the positions we take on issues are true -- far too often that position is influenced primarily by what we are taught, and not by truths that we sought out. Likewise, there are believers that take a "final" stand on an issue when they are not (or cannot be) completely convinced about taking such a position with the little or tainted information they obtain. Sadly, it seems that it doesn't take much to convince many believers. The Church truly needs men and women with Berean-like attitudes. I pray that God fill us with an attitude where we "prove everything" that we are taught -- as Paul urged us in I Thessalonians 5:21. If Christianity around the world is truly "missing the mark," then we really need to test everything that we hold so dear. Remember, it is "hard to kick against the pricks" (Acts 26:14). :-)

Anything that Adamantius Origenes (Origen) didn't agree with, he changed. Finally, in order to be more "holy," he castrated himself.All you've done is offer smears on Origen and have attempted to demonize him. Such is proof of nothing. Once again, do you actually have any proof for what you say? It's quite a charge to say somebody deliberately manipulated a text. Just because you quote somebody else that says he deliberately falsified a text doesn't prove anything. Please show me hard facts that he actually purposefully manipulated a text, not just quoting other people who echo you.

But dont you see? Thats what you do... you quote your scholars and professors and books. I've not quoted too much in the way of scholars for anything in this thread. If you are unable to present proof of an accusation, don't make it. If you don't have the personal ability to access primary source documents e.g. Greek manuscripts, then at least show me the work the scholar you are citing has done. If one of your guys says Origen manipulated documents, then show his research for me so I can make an assesment for myself whether it is true. If the scholar you cite offers no proof for what he says, then he's simply running his mouth and should not be believed until he can show some facts as to why one should believe him. Let's stick to the facts. If you've got hard facts, show them. If you don't, you shouldn't make accusations. so you're depending on the translators and scholars who give you that Greek to read.Indeed, somebody had to sit there and type out the various manuscripts as they appear in the copies. But at the same time, I have access to pictures of these actual documents. So, outside of actually going to the museum's where these things are, I can come pretty close to interacting with direct sources. I know one book I have on my shelf has dozens of such photos, and that with a bit of time in our school library, I have access to many more. I've asked you to offer proof of what you say. If you can actually do such, I'm more than willing to listen to the evidence. If you frankly cannot offer any actual facts to prove Origen did what you say he did, then perhaps you should re-evaluate if you believe he actually did so or not. It's a rather serious accusation you make, and it's wreckless and irresponsible to believe such if you have no actual proof, let alone setting out to convert others.

Pardon me for being a page or two behind. George M. Lamsa, the translator, devoted the major part of his life to this work. He was an Assyrian and a native of ancient Bible lands. He and his people retained Biblical customs and Semitic culture, which had perished elsewhere. With this background and his knowledge of the Aramaic (Syriac) language, he has recovered much of the meaning that has been lost in other translations of the Scriptures. Thank you Karl, for sharing Lamsa info. I had never heard of him. I wonder what I might be missing in my Biblical understanding by not being aquainted with Lamsa. I realize that it is most helpful to understand Biblical cultural background, as that makes the text come alive with meaning. After all the Bible is filled with picture language - using common everyday cultural aspects to portray spiritual truths. There is also the need to understand the culture of those one wishes to translate scripture INTO. For example: The Zulu tribes in deepest Africa have no clue what snow is, so to say, "Whiter than snow" is meaninless. If I understand correctly, Whycliffe transltors try to use common terms from their culture to present the picture. Of course, to the purists that would then produce translation "errors". Here again, what is more important is that the spirit of the message is understood by the recipient.All three aspsects of communication must be considered: The senderThe message itselfThe recipient Really, there can be no such thing as a "perfect" tranlation, because of the constant change and variables of language use. Here's another comment:The latest tranlation of the Banladesh Bible uses the word "Allah" to translate God/theos Because in THEIR language Allah means God. This may seem troublesome to those who only associate "Allah" with Islam. But really our God is the God of the universe, not just western Christendom. The Bible tells the Asian who Allah REALLY is. But then, "God" to the vast majority is not the same as God in the Bible. I wonder if anyone has a "pure" perception of God. Again, the context of Scripture helps define the definition. "Context is king"Diane

Fact is, KJ, Origin's theology eventually became adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any better example of the blend or paganism and Christianity? That is the result of Origen's theology.Now, I dont have access to all the cool achademic stuff that you do... so I'll leave this discussion at this point because all thats happening now is a "one-up-manship", and I dont really want to be a part of that.So far all you've done is demonize Origen. Simply showing he was a heretic (which he was) is far from proving that he set out to deliberately manipulate and create the documents known as the Alexandrian texts. This stuff about Origen and his allegorical method, attempts to blend Greek philosophy and Christian thought, etc. are all well documented and known. But you have yet to show how Origen created the Alexandrian text types, by deliberately omitting and adding to the Scriptures. Though I'm far from well versed in Origen, knowing what I do about him, in my opinion, he seems very unlikely to actually deliberately alter the Scriptures, as his methods of interpretation and preaching would not require him to alter the text. To my knowledge, he actually just attempted to explain away alleged contradictions and such simply through the allegorical method. To my knowledge, he did this especially in regard to issues of continuity between New and Old Testaments. So, until you can show that Origen was more than a heretic, and rather a fabricator of the Alexandrian text family, you should cease from spouting propaganda that has no substance to it whatsoever. I'm willing to be convinced if you can show proof of what you say, but until you can, there is no reason what you say should be believed. Now, I dont have access to all the cool achademic stuff that you do... so I'll leave this discussion at this point because all thats happening now is a "one-up-manship", and I dont really want to be a part of that.You have access to it if you want to study this area bad enough. For the same price you spend on the books you read, you could actually go buy something else. A lot of it is available on Amazon.com. With the advent of the internet, a lot of these sources are becoming more and more available online for free. Don't use this as an excuse for reporting things you can't prove "as a matter of fact."

reading it without faith, reading it without the holy Spirit guiding you is no different than reading any other historical work.I'd like to challenge this. For example, the commmandmdent, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," doesn't require the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning. Also when it says, "In the beginning God created...." Children do not require regeneration to understand the command to obey their parents. God's word is the universal authority, because God is the God of all people regardless of whether they want to accept it or not. By the way, I think I changed my mind on this point half way through this thread. I have come to believe that there is a lot in the Bible that even pagans can comprehend, that even atheists themselves believe. But there are also many portions that are quite meaningless and impossible apart from Spirit revelation ex Jesus words: Eat my flesh, drink my blood; if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, eternal truths, etc. Here's a thought for Krispy to crunch on - not that it necessary, as it alluded to earlier: My husband and I built a house two years ago. The house passed inspection and is very trustworthy, as any house could be in this temporal world. But I have to admit that it has several flaws, and from time to time we try to fix or make improvements. But none of those flaws jeapardize it's reliability. Could it not be so with Scripture? It is perfectly reliable in its authority, that is, its foundational structure because it is a work of the Master Builder who oversaw flawed humans to get the job done. Though many doubt the authority of Scripture and so make themselves the authority of Scripture, surely, in spite of the flaws we can heartily say: "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righeousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equiped for every good work." Pardon me for being repetitive, as I think all these points have been covered each time we went "round the mountain", but it is good for ME to be sure that I am not shaken in my trust in the Word even though there are flaws, and I have an answer for the skeptics. Diane

Next question... which Bible? NIV, NASV, KJV ect?There are not many bibles. The NIV, NASB, KJV, etc are not different Bibles but differeint tranlations of the One Bible. And they vary as to thier accuracy and fidelity to the origional.We don't have the origional manuscripts but we have miriads of copies of the origionals which are in 98% harmony with the 2% disagreements being mainly is spelling and such minor insignifigant factors.Through thses God has persevered His Word throughout the centuries. And through the available translations we have the ability to know accurately what the origionals said.As the translators of the 1611 KJV said in their preface, "even the meanest translation is the Word of God".Graftedbranch

I'd like to challenge this. For example, the commmandmdent, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," doesn't require the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning. Also when it says, "In the beginning God created...."One does not need the indwelling Spirit to understand every doctrine or teaching of the Bible. But one needs the Spirit to enter into its intrinsic meaning and to have any benefit from it.One may obey the command "thou shalt not commit adultry" and do this quite apart from Christ. ONe can build him self up in biblical morality and not be a member of the Kingdom of God which requires being born of the Spirit, possesing the Divine Life to enter into (John 3).The moral teaching of the Bible has no capacity to give Life. In fact, the Law of God has only one function, that is to condemn us and to show us our need of Christ.BUt when through faith in Christ we have been regenerated with the DIvine Life, then the moral teaching of the Bible becomes to us a revelelation of the Person of Christ who indwells us. And as we live in this Person, abide in this Person, and walk by this indwelling Person, "the just requirement of the law is continually fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.Graftedbranch

If the NIV,NASB,KJV, etc, are all the same bible, then why do the New bibles destroy important verses that Gods word, the KJV include. 98 % of all manuscripts make up the majority text and the texus receptus and this is where the KJV comes from. The NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLV, NET, and all the rest besides the KJV, follow the 2% of manuscripts that take verses away from the Bible. They are dangerous bibles and should be avoided like the plague. We do not need a new bible. We need to read our own bible and stop looking for something else.1611word

The NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLV, NET, and all the rest besides the KJV, follow the 2% of manuscripts that take verses away from the Bible.How do you know the TR didn't add those verses? Also, are you aware that not even all the TR agrees with all the TR?

How do you know the TR didn't add those verses?It seems the premise being put forth here is just this: That if we don't have one singe translation that is perfect, then we cannot claim to have the Word of God.And this premise is often put forth as the logical conclusion of God's promise to preserve His Word. And therefore if we cannot look at one single translation as perfect, then God has failed to preserve His Word.But the verses put forth to support the doctrine of the preseverance of the Bible do not really promise this but rather promise what What God has spoken will not fail and His word will abide forever.But that notwithstanding, God has preseverd His Word, but there is nothing to suggest this is preserved in one, single, perfect translation. The reality is we have the scriptures preserved in the manuscripts upon which the translations are based and the worth of any translation is found in its fidelity and accuracy to the origional.As the translators preface to the KJV states, "any translation however mean is still the Word of God".And they claimed not to offer a perfect tranlation but rather to make good translations better.And in their edition they had many marginal notes, many alternate renderings and went to great lengths to demonstrate why these are necessary. And they did so against the same arguments put forth today to suggest that further work in tranlation in to our modern "vulgar toungs" is unnecessary and even wrong.And their conclusion was that in all matters of importance, of central doctrine, of revealed truth, these things are clear. But in smaller matters some things are not so clear and so liberty must be given in interpretation and translation which is not an exact science, but rather an exercise which combines science, with comprehension, understanding and often ones view of the whole.I suggest a reading of the preface to the KJV 1611 to gain a proper view of their own view, their own position, and their own conclusions regarding their work and their translation, and the need for ongoing work to follow theirs.Graftedbranch

ok, ive been reading the majority of these posts, and from i get from it. the people here are debating the accuracy of the translation of bibles, right? ....why? is there really a difference in a bible made for fourth grade kids than a regular nkjv? The only thing thats different is the way things are worded, they still mean the same thing. It would be like talking to a kid about a baseball game, and asking him who won. I could say, "Team 'A' (O.o) beat the other team" while another person could say, "Team 'A' barely won, and ..(long elaborate sentence or how they won)" But its still the same, just geared from two different people. different bibles are made that way too, you know, some people have a hard time understanding what people say in the kjv, i know i do. teen bibles and other bibles are made so people can understand whats said. Its cool that everyone has a different opinion in this subject, but i think i saw that some one had written that there were sertain versons that took out scripture and added to it, but there was no compairison... Thats something that we can proove by compairing verse by verse if its true or not. I dont buy it. You can know everything in the bible inside and out without being a christian, but you can only know the creator of the word of god in the scriptures if you have the holy spirit. Theres a difference from knowledge and wisdom. knowledge:Noun1. The state or fact of knowing.wisdom:Noun1. The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.Knowledge can become wisdom, but knowledge alone has no substance and no purpose, other than the fact that you know alot. Its compairable to the things of this world. In the day of judgement, its all wood hay an stubble.I guess this is just my inability to understand debating, but dont you think that God is omnipotent? If there was even a chance of making his word infaliable, dont you think he would know and have the power to change it? Or, to make it so obvious that we as christians could come to a common conclusion that its not right? One example of that is the Mormon bible, not that i dont like them, but from talking to them enough and learning about them, its obvious that the bible they read in not the true word of God. The holy spirit gives us the spirit of god to discern what is right and not right. Of course we know whats right and wronge, ie. stealing, killing, ect.. but there are somethings that only the spirit of God can reveal. one last thing that really bothered me too was the fact that christians, brothers and sisters in the lord are, debating.debating:VerbInflected forms: de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·batesVerbintr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss. 4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.Verbtr. 1. To deliberate on; consider. 2. To dispute or argue about. 3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally. 4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.Its like formally argueing. I dont understand why we enjoy argueing with each other. That is certainly not a characterisic of the lord. I mean, i dont really know anything about debating except for what i just looked up and have witnessed in the past. But its still argueing, why do you want to argue with your christian brothers and sisters... I dont know, it makes me think of the parable Jesus told (I really cant find it, please let me know where it is if you know..^_^;;) about a pharasee and a tax collector, the pharasee stood boldly before the temple and spoke proudly, 'Lord look at what i've done for you, I tithed regularly all that i have, and i fast daily.' (this is not exact, its pharaphraised to the best of my memory)All the while the tax collector is down on his knees, not even looking up at the temple steps, probably thinking that he is absolutly no good whatsoever. humbling himself before God. Jesus said that the tax collector was esteemed higher than the pharasee because he humbled himself. So i guess it still brings my back to the point of why argue? or debate? whatever you want to call it. when i first read this thread some of the stuff set me off. I got angry, im over it now and im not angry anymore, but it still seams like its a refined childish act of selfishness, adapted by people in this world who like to argue. I mean, its interesting to see what people think, dont get me wronge, i just dont see the purpose in debating. I have issues too.. *twiches*