Rev 1:6 and the Majority Text

Taken out of context.

Taken out of context again. Plus, you also disagree with what the translators of the kjv about these verses, as shown in the 1611 margin.

Where did you get this trash??? This is heresy.

We have all heard of these arguments before, so which one should we discuss first?

Ok, I will start a new topic.

 

Why? So you can take things out of context and make differences between various passages into disagreements of doctrine.

I am a little interested in where you are going with this though... so I'll take the bait. Let's compare the NASB.

BTW, I never said that the KJV was not perhaps the best version. I said its words were not inspired by God directly.

If someone does not have the identifying marks of a child of God, are they a child of God?

I think draw a false distinction here borne of your bias, not substance.

You have wrongly extended the national election of Israel with the faith of its individuals. The problem is not an error introduced by the MV's but your misinterpretation of this passage. Compare to:

Romans 2 (KJV)
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Please don't misuse God's Word in order to prove some false presupposition.

See the above quote. According to the KJV and a Jew of the caliber of Paul no less (as God's tool for writing), you are wrong.

I am Calvinist by the way. None the less, the choice of Israel as a nation certainly did not turn into individual salvation for all of its people.

Only to the mind determined to prove it so and willing not to take all scripture in context before tossing out foundless accusations.

 

The Bible is the Word of God... which does not mean that it has to be the words of God. If we required inspired words to have the inspired Word then we either a) could never have it or b) God would be required to inspire text collations and/or translations. Which of these views do you ascribe to or is there another that I have overlooked? His Word is preserved as proven by the weight of the ms evidence... but the same evidence makes it clear that His exact wording was not preserved but instead lost through the copying process.

No. It is what the facts lead discerning, spiritually mature Christians to. It is a very immature Christian that requires something that God in His providence chose not to give.

First off, I am not an apologist for the NIV. I do not like or trust it. My apprehension is because of the questionable theological bent of its translators who supposedly translated "meaning for meaning."

That said, the answer to your question is yes according to Mat. 15:19, I Cor 5:1, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, and others (I didn't do an exhaustive comparison).

What scriptures are you referring to? That would make it easier to answer your question.

BTW, no. I do not believe that it is correct doctrine.

What do you see when you read I Samuel 28? It sure seems like Saul and the woman of Endor saw the ghost of Samuel doesn't it?

I think this was a factual report of two people who were deceived by a demons saw. How about you?

[ October 28, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Hi Scott J, in regards to "fornication" being a sin, you posted:

Does the NIV teach that fornication is a sin?
------------------------------------------------------------------------First off, I am not an apologist for the NIV. I do not like or trust it. My apprehension is because of the questionable theological bent of its translators who supposedly translated "meaning for meaning."
That said, the answer to your question is yes according to Mat. 15:19, I Cor 5:1, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, and others (I didn't do an exhaustive comparison).

Brother, the word fornication is not found at all in the NIV, so how can you say the NIV teaches it is a sin?

I will get to your ghost question in the next post, but here is something to consider about what is happening in the modern versions in regards to sexual sins.

The Slackening of Sin - a modern version Subterfuge

Something very serious is taking place in the modern translations of the Bible, and most people are either unaware or unconcerned about it. The unchanging standards of God’s holy words are subtly and purposely being altered to fit the modern lifestyle. No longer are certain sins clearly condemned in God’s holy Book, and we can see the absence of absolutes both in society and in the church.

Some words are powerful and very descriptive. Others are mushy and vague, and have little impact on our conscience. Take the word fornication. Webster’s 1999 defines this word as “voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons, or two persons not married to each other.”

It is not an archaic word, and though many may not know its meaning, you still see and hear the term in newspapers and movies. The world will not name this as a sin, because they do not consider it to be a sin.

Only the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin. The word “fornication” is found in the KJB 44 times. In the NKJV, the number is down to 21 times, the NAS has it 8 times, but in the NIV, the word is not found (0 times).

I have gone out into the streets and talked to teenagers and asked them to give me some examples of what sin is. Usually they say things like stealing, beating up on girls, and murder. I then ask them if having sex before marriage is a sin. Invariably, I have been told, “No”, or “Not as long as no one gets hurt.” This is the world’s standard. It is the morality of the natural man.

The word “morality” comes from the Latin meaning “usage or custom”. Morals are relative, very flexible; they vary from one person or nation to the next. Morals are not absolute and unchanging. The word fornication, on the other hand has a definite meaning describing a particular act, and this act is forbidden by God and called a sin.

The NKJV, NAS, and NIV have substituted the word “immorality” for the word fornication. I ask you, What is immorality? You will get many different definitions and your morality may not be the same as mine. See, what I mean? The absolute standard has disappeared.

Let’s look at some examples. I Corinthians 5:1, 9-11, mention “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. . . I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world...not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator. . .”

The older English Bibles like Tyndales, Geneva, Darby, Revised Version and the ASV all had “fornicators”, but the NAS, NIV, and NKJV have either, “immoral person” or “sexually immoral”. Again, what exactly is immoral? Those children who are being brought up using the NIV as their bible, can say to their parents, “Bobby and I aren’t doing anything immoral Mom, we love each other. The bible doesn’t teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong, only if it is immoral. That is just your old fashioned standard, it is not mine.”

Does this seem far fetched to you? Let’s look at some actual quotes from some of the Christian leaders of today. In Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson’s book called, “Honest”, he states on page 118, “nothing can of itself always be labeled as ‘wrong’. One cannot, for instance, start from the position sex relations before marriage or divorce are wrong or sinful in themselves. They may be 99 cases or even in 100 cases out of 100, but they are not intrinsically so, for the only intrinsic evil is lack of love.”

Or lets take the book, “Called to Responsible Freedom”, published by the Natonal Council of Churches. On page 11, young people are told, “In the personal individual sense, then, what justifies and sanctifies sexuality is not the external marital status of the people before the law but rather what they feel toward each other in their hearts. Measured in such a way, holding hands can be very wrong indeed, while intimate sex play can be right and good.”

I believe these organizations use the NIV because it does not contradict their beliefs about what constitutes morality. If we can make a Bible version that has wider appeal to apostate churches, we can sell more bibles.

There used to be only one verse in the Bible that said it was not good to even touch a woman, who is not your own wife, in a sexual manner. I’ve heard of Christian fathers quoting the verse to young men who came to the door to pick up their dates for the evening. The verse is found in I Cor. 7:1, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The word is “to touch”, and in the context, it means to touch in an inappropriate sexual way. But the NIV has changed this to: “It is good for a man not to marry.” There is no possible way the Greek can be translated this way; it teaches an error that contradicts other Scriptures, and the admonition about not improperly touching a woman is removed is one smooth stroke.

Another sin that has been grealty toned down or else eliminated is the sin of sodomy. According to Webster’s 1999 dictionary, sodomy is “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex”. The word “sodomite” is found 5 times in the King James Bible. Deut. 23:17, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” The word is also in I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46, and II Kings 23:7.

It is very interesting to see how modern bible translators gradually change the meaning of certain words. It often is done subtly and gradually. They say modern scholarship has shown this word to really mean something else, and all those older Bibles were wrong.

This word was translated all 5 times as sodomite by the Jewish translations into English of 1917 and 1936 put out by the Jewish Publication Society and the Hebrew Pub. Company of America, and by the modern Hebrew Names Version.

It is a pretty good guess that these native Hebrew speakers are a little more familiar with their own language than many modern bible translators here in the United States, don’t you think?

The word is also rendered as sodomites by the Geneva Bible, Darby’s, Webster’s 1833, Third Millenium Bible, KJV 21st Century, Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901. The modern World English Bible has sodomite in 2 Kings 14:24 and Green’s interlinear and the Living Bible renders this word as homosexual.

Then in 1972, the NASB translated this word as sodomite in I Kings 22:46, but the other four times changed it to “shrine prostitutes”. The 1995 NASB update still has Sodomite this one time. The NIV has “shrine prostitutes” in all five verses.

Mrs. Ripplinger, who wrote New Age Bible Versions, remarks that while a teacher and counsellor at one of America’s largest universities, she had often seen sodomites on campus but never a shrine prostitute.

A sodomite may think his sin is not condemned by Scripture, because he is no shrine prostitute. The NKJV has translated all five instances as “perverted person”. What exactly is a perverted person? Is that someone who eats ketchup sandwiches? What might be one man’s perversion is another’s proper behaviour. You see, how vague and undefined the term is?

The last Scripture I want to look at is I Cor. 6:9, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . .shall inherit the kingdom of God.” To “abuse” is to use in an unnatural or harmful way.

“Mankind” is the kind or type that is a man, being used by another man. These are terms for the general two classes of sodomites. The NAS begins to tone it down by saying, “effeminate nor homosexuals”. Homosexual is a neutral word. There is no sense of wrong doing with the strict definition of a homosexual. But “abusers of themselves with mankind” shows that this is an unnatural and destructive activity.

The NKJV has “homosexuals (with a footnote saying, That is, catamites). Do you know what a catamite is? Then the NKJV continues with sodomites. The NIV has, “Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders”. Now, a sodomite can think to himself, “Well I’m not in this list because I’m not a prostitute, and a homosexual offender is someone who rapes little kids or forces himself on someone, and I don’t do those things”.

I was once talking to a radio talk show host and pointed out this verse in the NIV. He said, You know, you can even look at the NIV as meaning “those who offend homosexuals”.

There are many homosexual churches springing up around our country, some with 2 or 3 thousand members. Guess which version of the bible they use. That’s right, the ever popular NIV. If we can make the word of God more vague, less defined, and less condemning, then we can appeal to a wider audience and sell more bibles.

I hope you will prayerfully consider these examples and see how God’s holy words are being changed by the modern versions, and go back to the old King James Bible, where you will find rest for your souls and the pure words of God’s absolute truth. Thank you and God bless you.

Will

 

Hi Scott, in regards to ghosts, you posted: "The NKJV, NIV and NASB all teach that there really is such a thing as ghosts, referring to the departed spirits of men roaming around on this earth after they have died. Is this correct doctrine?
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What scriptures are you referring to? That would make it easier to answer your question.
BTW, no. I do not believe that it is correct doctrine.
What do you see when you read I Samuel 28? It sure seems like Saul and the woman of Endor saw the ghost of Samuel doesn't it?
I think this was a factual report of two people who were deceived by a demons saw. How about you?"

No, the Scriptures actually say it was Samuel, not a demon or a ghost.

Here is where the new versions teach that ghosts are real.

Do ghosts exist?

I work nights and not long ago I was listening to the Art Bell program, Coast to Coast. For those of you who do not know, Mr. Bell has a very weird radio program listened to by millions world wide. His guests include a large number of New Agers, UFO enthusiasts, and witches. His topics include time travel, space brothers, reincarnation and ghosts. Someone mentioned that ghosts were found in the Bible, and this caught my attention. I am a strong believer in the accuracy of the King James Bible, and I didn’t remember ever reading about any “ghosts” in the KJB.

There is the Holy Ghost, which is the third person of the Trinity. There is the phrase “to give up the ghost”, which is not archaic and simply means to die. But not “ghosts’.

When we hear the word ghost, most of us automatically think of this definition as given in Webster’s or the American Heritage Dictionary of 2000. Ghost- the spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.

If there were such a thing as ghosts, then this would contradict several biblical truths. It would of course imply that death is not the end of life. This part is true. However, the King James Bible teaches that when a person dies, if he or she is a blood of the Lamb bought child of God, he immediately goes to be with the Lord his Saviour - “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better” Phil. 1:23; “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” II Cor. 5:8.

To say that ghosts exist, is to deny that at physical death one either goes directly to be with the Lord Jesus Christ, or he goes immediately to hell.

In Luke 16 we read of the rich man that “he died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes being in torments.” This condemned man was told by Abraham that “between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”

God seems to have placed a barrier of some kind that prohibits the condemned from leaving this place of torment. They cannot go back to the world of the living and wander around as ghosts.

We are also told in I Peter that Christ went in the Spirit and preached unto the spirits in prison which were disobedient in the days of Noah. Man has a spirit and a soul. Those who are redeemed are referred to as “the spirits of just men made perfect” Hebrews 12:23, while the others are called “the spirits in prison”. There is no escape.

There seems to be some evidence that a very few of the righteous dead may have been permitted to revisit the living, as with Samuel in I Sam. 28:12 and Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration of our Lord in Mat. 17. But in neither case are they referred to as ghosts, but were recognized as who they were even by people who had never seen them before. They knew them to be Samuel, Elijah and Moses.

It should be noted that these examples occured before the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can you imagine my shock when I began to examine the modern version bibles and found that the NKJV, NASB, NIV all refer to ghosts? The NKJV does this twice, the NASB three times and the NIV four times.

All of these versions change the meaning of Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49. The KJB and Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB all say: “And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a SPIRIT; and they cried out for fear.” The word here is fantasma, and it something that appears to the sight. The RV, Darby and Young render this as “an apparition.” But the NKJV, NASB, NIV say: “It is a GHOST.”

We know from other passages that deceiving spirits, and other spirits of angels can appear in a visible form. “He maketh his angels spirits” and they are “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” Hebrews 1:7,11.

The book of Job mentions in chapter 4:13-16 “In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. Then a SPIRIT passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God?”

I Kings 22 presents us with another example of a spirit which came forth and stood before the LORD and was sent to be a lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets. This was an angelic being, and not a man.

So, when the disciples cried out at seeing Jesus walk upon the water, they thought they were seeing a spirit, not a ghost.

The NIV alone of the four principal versions we are looking at, changes the KJB, NKJV, NASB reading in Luke 24:37, 39. Here the Lord appears to his disciples after his resurrection. It is recorded that they were terrified and supposed that they had seen a spirit. Jesus said “Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” Here the NIV changed both words to ghost.

Perhaps the worst example of giving credence to the false idea that such a thing as ghosts exist is found in the NASB, NIV. In Isaiah 19:3 God is bringing judgment upon Egypt. He says in verse three: “And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof; and they shall seek to the idols, and TO THE CHARMERS, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.”

All of the spiritual resources of Egypt were like so many New Agers today. The spirits of devils who deceive through necromancy and channeling of spirits. These are evil spirits of Satan.

The versions that read along with the KJB’s “Charmers” are the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, 1936 Hebrew- English, Young’s, Webster’s, Third Millenium, KJV 21, Hebrew Names Bible, and the nkjv. Other versions have either diviners, sorcerers or mediums. But the NIV has they will seek to the “spirits of the dead” and the NASB has “they will resort to GHOSTS OF THE DEAD.”

No one, especially a devil controlled medium or charmer, can communicate with the spirits of the dead or ghosts! The dead are either in hell right now, with no way to get back, or they are present with the Lord, and certainly will not be sent to give a devil inspired message to the living. The NASB, NIV present this impossibility as though it were true.

The supposed existence of ghosts is being promoted today by popular movies, books and radio programs like Art Bell’s. This is a New Age Satanic lie. There are no ghosts, and the fingerprints of Satan can be seen in any bible version that gives credence to the idea that there are such entities.

The next time you hear some New Age wacko tell you that ghosts are found in the Bible, tell him they are not at all found in the true Holy Bible, the King James 1611 Version.

 

Deuteronomy 32:5
Tremendous error and contradiction...
The next verse is where the lies of the modern The true Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------If someone does not have the identifying marks of a child of God, are they a child of God?
I think draw a false distinction here borne of your bias, not substance.

You have wrongly extended the national election of Israel with the faith of its individuals. The problem is not an error introduced by the MV's but your misinterpretation of this passage.>>>

Scott, They were and are God's people because verse 6 says: "Is not
he thy father that hath bought thee?" and verse 19 they are again
referred to as His sons and His daughters.

The issue of faith here is of no consideration as to whether they
were His children or not. If you read many other portions of
Scripture, we see that they initially believed God and Moses
when he told them God was going to deliver them out of the
bondage of Egypt, but later did not believe.

Psalm 78 also describes the history of Israel and says they did
not believe God and trust his salvation verses 22, 32, yet God
was their redeemer and He forgave them - verses 35, 38.

Psalms 106:12 tells us "they believed His words, they sang His praise", but then verse 24 says: "they despised the pleasant land, they believed not His word."

They did not cease being God's children. Moses prayed for them on this occasion and God pardoned them, yet He chastized them by not letting them enter the land, just as He did with Moses himself.

Moses himself and Aaron also did not believe God, yet they were
his children. Numbers 20:12 "And the LORD spake unto Moses
and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the
eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this
congregation into the land which I have given them."

Also the children of Israel did not believe God and rebelled
against him to enter the land Deut. 9:23, 24 YET they were
forgiven Numbers 14:19, 20.

If they were forgiven, they were God's children.

Our faith is often weak or even non existent. We ourselves
sometimes do not believe God, but if we are redeemed we are
still His children.

At the very least, you have to admit that the teaching of the KJB
and other versions is not the same as the NKJV, NASB. They
both say they were NOT His children.

The NIV says they are NO LONGER His children. the NIV then
implies they were at one time His children and then they weren't.
Gone is eternal security. Keep in mind the Scriptures describe
those people as being redeemed and forgiven.

By the way, I'm glad to hear you are Calvinistic in your theology. Another error found in the modern versions might make more sense to you than it would to an Arminian.

If God is sovereign and He alone is in control of time, can mortal man speed up the coming day of judgment? Is that day already marked on the calendar and nothing will change it, or is it flexible depending on what man does or does not do?

Will

 

You posted so many errors in such a wordy way that I fear I may not cover it all. I will try to stay with the highlights (or better lowlights).

I posted the scriptures that prove what you say to be absolutely false. To say that the NIV does not teach against the idea of fornication is deceptive. In fact, most people I know would have a very narrow definition of what 'fornication' is. They would limit it to actual intercourse. If I am not mistaken, the word porneia is more expansive than this and would cover self-gratification, petting, talking "dirty", etc.... in other words "sexual immorality."

As for your nonsense on the word immorality, you simply need to pick up a dictionary and stop redefining words to suit your perverse intentions.

If you ask many people today if fornication is immoral, the will probably smile and say something like "not in all situations." If you ask them if self gratification is fornication or immoral, most people (even many Christians) will tell you no. But if you ask them to define immoral, they will tell you that it means "wrong or sin."

These types of people have reared their heads throughout church history. You act as if this were a only a recent development. It has nothing to do with the text of the Bible and everything to do with the condition of their hearts. Liberals don't believe the Bible means what it says in any language. One liberal poster here uses the KJV almost exclusively in his efforts to demonstrate that the Bible does not condemn abortion.

As far as your lengthy false statement on homosexuality, several modern versions use the word homosexual. It is clear and everyone in our society knows what it means. People of this stripe and their apologists will excuse the behaviour regardless of what term you use to describe it. They will twist words to mean what they don't mean and deny principles of scripture by taking some sort of weird hyper-literal approach to narrow the application... much like what you are doing in the reverse. You are being no more honest about what MV's teach than they are.

I have debated a guy named Post-it here about this issue and abortion. He manipulates and explains away the plain meaning of the KJV much the way you have MV's in your posts. He isn't honest when he does it and your not honest when you do it.

 

To Will J Kinney I'm not going to even comment on your thread it is so full of errors. PLEASE TAKE SOME BASIC GREEK OR HEBREW LESSONS AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE ERRORS OF YOUR THREAD. STOP TRYING TO PROVE YOUR POINT FROM A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. AND STOP READING BOOKS BY GAIL RIPLINGER!

 

sorry I forgot one thing the word GHOST is found 108 times in the KJV.

 

Hi Jim, you posted: "Sorry Will you do not have you facts straight.
The bible I am speaking about is The Interlinear Bible copyright 1985. The Hebrew is Masoretic text.
In the preface it says that it differs from the RT many times."

Brother Jim, I'm not going to get into a long discussion with you about J.P. Green's work, but you are mistaken if you think his 1985 work is the "Majority text". He apparently does use the Hebrew Masoretic text for the OLD Testament, but the NEW Testament is not the Majority text at all. It is the basic text underlying the KJB.

Mr. Green, in my opinion, is just another Bible corrector. He gives a lot of outright misinformation. He "corrects" the KJB and has very little understanding. He did translate some words differently than the KJB but that does not make the KJB wrong and him right.

An example of his total misinformation can be found on page xi in the introduction. I just glanced briefly at his intro, and noticed on this page about one third the way down he says: "1 Corinthians 16:1, the KJV has "churches", without any MSS support at all, the Greek has "church".

This is just one example of his fumbling ineptitude. ALL TEXTS have "churches" plural and so does his own translation of the verse!

Frequently his numbers of words do not match and are misprints. The guy is really sloppy in his work. He also lies on the same page where he says 1 John 5:7 has NO Greek manuscript authority.

He is clearly wrong.

I'm not going to argue with you about all this. Just thought I would drop you a note and explain that J.P. Green did NOT use the Majority text for his New Testament.

Will

 

Samuel was dead at the time! Did God honor Saul's wickedness and the encantations of a witch by resurrecting Samuel?

Apply your same standard of scrutiny to the KJV. The KJV uses "ghost" and "spirit" interchangeably to translate the word pneuma... and you apparently think that is "perfect." But then, it uses the word "spirit" to translate an entirely different word at Mat. 14:26. The NASB is more consistent. If you prefer apparition, fine. But the inconsistency of translation in the KJV is far more an issue than the word "ghost" as used in MV's... although neither is an issue for someone who is discerning of God's Word.

... and I would be lying. If I told someone I saw a spirit walking in my house, they would immediately relate it to a ghost. Again, you draw a distinction that simply does not exist.

 

Will : I am sorry you are wrong again.

1Cor.16:1 the word church in greek is ekklesia and it is a plural word. it can be used in the singular form but its meaning always constitutes a plural form ( an assembly of Believers) Check out Thayers Lexicon.

In 1 John 5:7 there is no Greek mss support found before the 16th century.
Only found in late mss of the Vulgate.

STOP SPREADING FALSEHOODS.
LEARN AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND.

If you could read the greek than you would't need to follow the numbers which are so crammed tight because of limited space.

[ October 30, 2002, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: jimslade ]

 

Will:

Even you use a bible that has changed, added, and dropped words from what God said.

II Chron.28:11
1611: "the wrath of God"
1638: "the wrath of the Lord"

Mark 10:18
1611KJV"there is no man good"
1638KJV"there is none good"

Josh. 13:29
1611KJV "Manesseh"
1638KJV "the children of Manesseh"

Rev. 12:14
1611KJV "she might flee"
1769KJV "she might fly"

Which revision is God's perfect Word?
Remind's me of that new KJVO book out entitled

Different is not the Same

Good name, huh?

 

Also, the kjv teaches that turtles can talk.
And don't be a bible corrector and say it doesn't.

SOS 2:2
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

 

Will, a question for you on this. God said the very same thing in the KJV in Hosea 1:9

"ye are not my people"

wouldn't that make the AV be guilty of the same thing you accuse these other versions of?

 

TO WILL

LEARN GREEK AND YOU WILL FIND THE NKJV IS MUCH MORE ACCURATE THAN THE KJV. I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

OH SORRY I FORGOT YOUR A RUCKMANITE.

YOUR THEOLOGY IS BASED ON HERESY.

 

Larry writes: "The word translated "fornication" in the KJV is not what God wrote. He wrote "porneia" in most cases. Now why did the KJV translators feel the liberty to change God's word? Why not use the word that God used?"

Larry, let's rephrase this ridiculous statement of yours. "Now why did the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV translators feel the liberty to change God's word? Why not use the word that God used?"

Why also when I look up how to say fornication in a modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible but is a Greek-English/ English-Greek dictionary, it says porneia?

>>As for ghosts, that is laughable. But thanks for the chuckle.<<

Sound theology tells us there can be no such thing as a ghost, with the meaning of the soul or spirit of a dead man who can be communicated with.

In Isaiah 19:3 a "charmer" is a person who can communicate with a devil, unclean spirit or demon. The NASB, NIV teach that this person seeks to the ghosts of the dead. This is impossible. You don't see it or will not admit to it. [personal attack edited}

[ November 02, 2002, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

Scott says: "No, the Scriptures actually say it was Samuel, not a demon or a ghost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Samuel was dead at the time! Did God honor Saul's wickedness and the encantations of a witch by resurrecting Samuel?"

Scott, just read the Scriptures. It is the Holy Ghost who says right there in the text that it was Samuel. Look at verses 15, 16 and 20. God says this was Samuel, not a demon.

I didn't write the Bible.