Forget the KJB. Is there any version that you believe is perfect?

[George Antonios]

Because that's the true issue.
You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age.
But it's a lot easier for you to appear to hold a Christian position when you focus on the KJB rather than expose your true colours:
you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.
That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

 

[Yeshua1]

Because that's the true issue.
You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age.
But it's a lot easier for you to appear to hold a Christian position when you focus on the KJB rather than expose your true colours:
you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.
That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

None of therm are, as there are no perfect as in 100 % 0f the originals!
We have 99%+. trustworthy and Infallible!

 

[George Antonios]

None of therm are

@Yeshua1 : ALL Bibles are corrupt, NONE of them are perfect, the word of God has errors.
And the serpent and every humanistic atheist and every Muslim says to him: "amen"!

NEXT!

 

[Yeshua1]

@Yeshua1 : ALL Bibles are corrupt, NONE of them are perfect, the word of God has errors.
And the serpent and every humanistic atheist and every Muslim says to him: "amen"!

NEXT!

Why must we have perfect bibles to have trustworthy ones, that give to us all that God wants us to know?

 

[George Antonios]

Why must we have perfect bibles to have trustworthy ones

Because, logically, an imperfect Bible cannot be trusted.

This is insane that we have to point that out.

Still eating out of the serpent's hand while fancying yourself more intellectual, eh Eve?

 

[George Antonios]

We have 99%+. trustworthy and Infallible!

If it's "99%" then it can't be "infallible", by definition. This is a breakdown of reason and logic.

It's true what they say: "When you mess with the book, God messes with your mind."

 

[atpollard]

If it's "99%" then it can't be "infallible", by definition. This is a breakdown of reason and logic.

It's true what they say: "When you mess with the book, God messes with your mind."

So which Gospel lineage of Joseph is the "perfect" one?

• MATTHEW 1:
  
• 2 Abraham [fn]was the father of Isaac, [fn]Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of [fn]Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of [fn]Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.
  David was the father of Solomon by [fn]Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of [fn]Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of [fn]Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of [fn]Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of [fn]Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of [fn]Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
  12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of [fn]Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of [fn]Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called [fn]the Messiah.

• LUKE 3:
• 23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, [fn]as was supposed, the son of Joseph, [fn]the son of [fn]Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of [fn]Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of [fn]Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of [fn]Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of [fn]Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of [fn]Salmon, the son of [fn]Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of [fn]Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of [fn]Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of [fn]Heber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Who are the Father and Grandfather of Joseph?

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I believe that the parenthetical "as was supposed" in Luke's genealogy is there because that genealogy traces the lineage of Mary, establishing that the baby borne to her as described in Luke 2 is the God-Man, the Son of God. Matthew's genealogy follows all the kings of Judah until the Babylonian captivity and demonstrates that Joseph is of the lineage of those kings and thus Jesus, his (as was supposed) firstborn, has claim to the throne of Israel. As Matthew emphasizes Jesus as King and Luke emphasizes Jesus as Man, their respective genealogies are appropriate to their context.

 

[George Antonios]

So which Gospel lineage of Joseph is the "perfect" one?

• MATTHEW 1:
  
• 2 Abraham [fn]was the father of Isaac, [fn]Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of [fn]Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of [fn]Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.
  David was the father of Solomon by [fn]Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of [fn]Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of [fn]Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of [fn]Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of [fn]Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of [fn]Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
  12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of [fn]Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of [fn]Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called [fn]the Messiah.

• LUKE 3:
• 23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, [fn]as was supposed, the son of Joseph, [fn]the son of [fn]Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of [fn]Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of [fn]Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of [fn]Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of [fn]Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of [fn]Salmon, the son of [fn]Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of [fn]Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of [fn]Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of [fn]Heber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Who are the Father and Grandfather of Joseph?

Long detour for ducking the OP.

 

[rsr]

George, I would ask why you insist upon using an Enlightenment framework for judging the trustworthiness of the Bible. Infallibility and inerrancy are modern concepts that go beyond what the Bible has to say about itself. Why do you think hyper-rationalism is the best way to deal with the Scriptures?

It is no secret that the Masoretic text of the books of Samuel are problematic in many places, for example. In your framework, one corruption in I Samuel would invalidate the entire Bible. The problem is not the Bible but in your trying to impose a modern framework on an ancient text that must be understood in its own terms

BTW: I am not antichristian or "of the sepent" or eating out of the serpent's hand. You really need to dial it back and stop attacking people because they don't want to ride your one-trick pony.

 

[Yeshua1]

George, I would ask why you insist upon using an Enlightenment framework for judging the trustworthiness of the Bible. Infallibility and inerrancy are modern concepts that go beyond what the Bible has to say about itself. Why do you think hyper-rationalism is the best way to deal with the Scriptures?

It is no secret that the Masoretic text of the books of Samuel are problematic in many places, for example. In your framework, one corruption in I Samuel would invalidate the entire Bible. The problem is not the Bible but in your trying to impose a modern framework on an ancient text that must be understood in its own terms

BTW: I am not antichristian or "of the sepent" or eating out of the serpent's hand. You really need to dial it back and stop attacking people because they don't want to ride your one-trick pony.

There are indeed issues with certain numbers in the historical books, which does not invalidate that historically recorded true accurate account!

 

[Yeshua1]

Long detour for ducking the OP.

Does problems in math in the OT accounts render it all corrupted?

 

[George Antonios]

George, I would ask why you insist upon using an Enlightenment framework for judging the trustworthiness of the Bible. Infallibility and inerrancy are modern concepts that go beyond what the Bible has to say about itself. Why do you think hyper-rationalism is the best way to deal with the Scriptures?

It is no secret that the Masoretic text of the books of Samuel are problematic in many places, for example. In your framework, one corruption in I Samuel would invalidate the entire Bible. The problem is not the Bible but in your trying to impose a modern framework on an ancient text that must be understood in its own terms

BTW: I am not antichristian or "of the sepent" or eating out of the serpent's hand. You really need to dial it back and stop attacking people because they don't want to ride your one-trick pony.

Long way of saying: "I don't believe any Bible is perfect."

NEXT!

 

[Yeshua1]

Long way of saying: "I don't believe any Bible is perfect."

NEXT!

God is perfect, that is all we need to know, next!

 

[George Antonios]

A ROUND OF APPLAUSE for the stream of valiant, godly, born again Christians, lining up on this thread to show us errors in all Bibles, to tell us ALL Bibles are corrupted and we can't believe any of them 100!
Keep listing all the mistakes of the Bible guys.
You need no help from the atheists and Muslims.
Serving the Lord, amen, by boldly stating no Bible is perfect.
My, what valiance for truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

A ROUND OF APPLAUSE for the stream of valiant, godly, born again Christians, lining up on this thread to show us errors in all Bibles, to tell us ALL Bibles are corrupted and we can't believe any of them 100!
Keep listing all the mistakes of the Bible guys.
You need no help from the atheists and Muslims.
Serving the Lord, amen, by boldly stating no Bible is perfect.
My, what valiance for truth!

If there is any mistakes in the translation that invalidates the Gospel of Jesus?

 

[atpollard]

you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.
That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

Rubbish, nonsense, lies and balderdash.

I hold that no Bible in "inerrant". Perfect is another matter. Almost any hammer is "perfect" for driving a nail, that does not require the hammer to be "flawless".

"Perfect" requires the bible be suitable for the intended purpose, and in Christianity, the intended purpose is that of all scripture: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV].

So you asked:

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

Here is a list that I can personally recommend, there are many others, but I have not read all translations:

• KJV
• NKJV
• NLT
• NIV
• ESV
• CSB
• NASB
• NET
• RSV
• ASV
• NIrV

None of these are "inerrant" as I believe the original Autographs were, but all of them contained the inspired truth of the word of God and are "perfect" for the function of Scripture as defined in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

To the implied nonsense that any version is "Perfect" (as in "inerrant") or that I was somehow avoiding the OP with my earlier post, Joseph was THOUGHT to be the father of Jesus according to multiple scriptures.

Was the father of Joseph, Jacob (Mat 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)?

• "Jacob was the father of Joseph" (Mat 1:16)
• "Joseph, the son of Eli," (Luke 3:23)

If all Bibles are "perfect" and completely "inerrant", then how do I answer this simple question?
Is it really "antichristian" and "of the sepent" and not of "the Holy Ghost" to admit that Matthew and Luke disagree on the genealogy or are you making false accusations with heavy-handed and inflammatory rhetoric?

 

[George Antonios]

I hold that no Bible in "inerrant".

And here's another one for the record:

@atpollard: ALL Bibles are corrupt, NONE of them are perfect, the word of God has errors.

And the serpent and every humanistic atheist and every Muslim says to him: "amen"!

NEXT!

 

[Conan]

It is irrational to demand from God one perfect version because it would be to much to use 5 versions. To get a perfect Text you would have to use at least 3 Greek Testaments. A Byzantine/Majority Text, a Textus Receptus, and a Nestle/Aland Greek Text. The first is very,very accurate, but when there is an error you would have to look to the others to fix the error. That is if you demand a perfect Bible. If you want an excellent one, get a Byzantine Text. If you want a very good one, get a Textus Receptus. If you want one not quite as accurate as the other 2 get a Nestle/Aland. But if you want a perfect Greek Text your going to have to get all three.

So if you want a perfect English Bible you are going to have to get several diffent Bibles. The more you have the better to excellent you get. Start with A King James Version. Make that Several KJV's, starting with a 1611 edition. Then a later edition that changed some errors in the Original 1611 edition. Of course sometimes the later editions change the correct readings into errors, so you can see the need to have several editions of the KJV just to fix the errors of that edition. Then you would need other pre-KJV Bibles for when they had correct readings but were changed for errors in the KJV. Then you would need several Modern Versions. While not as good as the pre-KJV's or the KJV they would still be necessary to fix errors in the earlier Bibles when they were in error.

To demand only one perfect Bible only is an unrealistic demand.

 

[atpollard]

And here's another one for the record:

@atpollard: ALL Bibles are corrupt, NONE of them are perfect, the word of God has errors.

And the serpent and every humanistic atheist and every Muslim says to him: "amen"!

NEXT!

You have twice run away from a very simple question:

Who was the father of Joseph: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)?

• "Jacob was the father of Joseph" (Matthew 1:16)
• "Joseph, the son of Eli," (Luke 3:23)