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

[George Antonios]

See post #18

That's true, you did. And I even quoted it. My bad. Got lost in all the posters.

So, you don't believe the Bible, not just the KJB.

That's what that thread was about.

Want to prove the Bible wrong because of contradictions you can't reconcile? Begin a thread.

Moving on.

 

[atpollard]

Have you considered that one lineage ( the one in Luke ) is tracking Mary's descent back through Nathan to David, while the one in Matthew is tracking Joseph's back through Solomon?

Can you read the words actually written in the KJV (your preferred, but it is the same in every translation) and honestly say that Luke is saying Heli was the father of Mary and not the father of Joseph?

[Luke 3:23-24 KJV] 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, 24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,

 

[Logos1560]

So, you don't believe the Bible, not just the KJB.

.

You bear false witness with your bogus, false allegations. You continue to put words in the mouths of others that they do not say.

 

[atpollard]

So, you don't believe the Bible, not just the KJB.

Not true, just your false summation of my answer to your "Excluded Middle" fallacy.

That's what that thread was about.

No, this thread is about you sowing discord among Christians by deliberately misrepresenting their beliefs.

Want to prove the Bible wrong because of contradictions you can't reconcile? Begin a thread.

No, sir. I want to prove your thesis of Biblical Perfection nonsense because of contradictions YOU can't reconcile!

 

[Dave G]

Can you read the words actually written in the KJV (your preferred, but it is the same in every translation) and honestly say that Luke is saying Heli was the father of Mary and not the father of Joseph?

No, but that's the best that I can come up with, for now.

Because I trust that the Bible is God's word to me as His child, then whenever I come upon "contradictions" in my studies, instead of outright rejecting them, I simply accept that the Lord had a reason for transmitting it to men in this fashion;

For example, a similar thing could be said regarding Judas' death...
Did he hang himself ( as Matthew 27:3-10 states ) and the chief priests purchase the field that he hanged himself in, or did he purchase the field and fall headlong and his bowels gush out, as Acts of the Apostles 1:18 states?

I accept what is written, and then I trust Him to show me how to resolve things.

[Luke 3:23-24 KJV] 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, 24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,

I agree that that is what the words state, my friend.

However, just as John 3:16 seems to state that God loves everyone ( despite Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5-6 and several others "contradicting" it ) and per 1 Timothy 2:4 He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth ( despite Romans 9:14-24 "contradicting" it )...
I see more in the details when it comes to those apparent contradictions.

In other words, God doesn't create the contradictions in our finite ( and needing-to-be-renewed-by-His-word ) minds..
We approach them in our studies, and He then, over time, shows us how to resolve them.

 

[George Antonios]

deliberately misrepresenting their beliefs

Says the man who in the next breath writes:

I want to prove your thesis of Biblical Perfection nonsense

 

[George Antonios]

You bear false witness with your bogus, false allegations. You continue to put words in the mouths of others that they do not say.

"false allegations"? Here's @atpollard

I want to prove your thesis of Biblical Perfection nonsense

 

[Salty]

six hour warning -
This thread will be closed no sooner than 355 pm est/1255 pm

 

[Dave G]

@atpollard :
To develop this theory ( you decide, as it's just my own private observation ) further:

But have you considered, based on what is revealed in the Old Testament about how families were organized, that each "house" is/ was patriarchal, and all lineage was established through the father to the son(s)?
Daughters were said to be "begotten" of their fathers, not necessarily their mothers.
Have you considered that one lineage ( the one in Luke ) is tracking Mary's descent back through Nathan to David,
while the one in Matthew is tracking Joseph's back through Solomon?

Legally and based on adoption in the physical sense, the Lord Jesus was raised as Joseph's son and was a son of his house...
Even though He is the Son of God by the Spirit and through Mary.

Therefore, on both "sides" of His lineage, whether actual or legal, He is the son of David

Since Mary became part of Joseph's house by marriage and she then began to be identified by her husband's house line, then when the account in Luke tracks "Joseph" back through Nathan to David, it's actually tracking Mary back, but not directly mentioning her...

But she was technically identified with Joseph ( for two shall become one flesh, Mark 10:8 ).
Something else to consider, at least in my opinion.

 

[George Antonios]

You continue to put words in the mouths of others that they do not say.

Translation: "you continue exposing the uncomfortable truth which most will not say out lout, that they don't believe any Bible, not just the KJB, and I hate that".

 

[George Antonios]

THE SUM:

To the simple and fair question:

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

We got:

None of them are, as there are no perfect as in 100 % 0f the originals!

Infallibility and inerrancy are modern concepts that go beyond what the Bible has to say about itself

I hold that no Bible is "inerrant".

It is irrational to demand from God one perfect version

at this time, I don't have an answer.

No translation is given by 100% inspiration

The answer to the OP question is no.

@Salty basically discreetly ducked the question, sensing the danger of revealing his hand.
The rest also just ducked and kept on making the issue about the KJB, when it wasn't, as best exemplified by @Logos1560.

No one's beliefs were misrepresented. All the above, and a whole bunch of you that didn't have the stones to answer a fair question, don't fully believe any Bible, anywhere, in any tongue, in any age, and the insistence on limiting the conversation to the KJB serves to hide the uncomfortable truth that you don't believe the word of God (which expression in the scriptures is rarely, if ever, a reference to original autographs) is error-free: plain and simple.

 

[Van]

Now you answered.

So which Bible, that I could buy today, (and say, give to my Muslim friend), would be "a perfect copy of the inspired word of God"?

Your post reflects the absence of truth. Which bible did I say was my go to bible? NASB. Did I say a bible needs to be "perfect" without corruption? Nope, that is you bogus claim, Sir.

 

[George Antonios]

Your post reflects the absence of truth. Which bible did I say was my go to bible? NASB. Did I say a bible needs to be "perfect" without corruption? Nope, that is you bogus claim, Sir.

The question, yet again, was not about your "go to" Bible; and yet again, you know it.
At least the guys that answered had the stones to answer.

 

[Van]

Question; do these 2 references align or not?

John 16:13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. NASB

Since the Holy Spirit will not speak on His own initiative, but He speaks by whatever He hears... then how can He even groan?

Romans 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; NASB

Compare how the KJV keeps the truth of John 16:13 aligned with Romans 8:26 where not even His groanings can be uttered.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. KJV

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. KJV

Now you ask Jesus Christ as your Good Shepherd as to which Bible version loved Him to keep the truths in His words as aligned?

Sir, you have highlighted a bogus understanding of scripture. The Holy Spirit leads according to His understanding of the will of God. Both versions say the Holy Spirit communicates with "groanings."

 

[Van]

The question, yet again, was not about your "go to" Bible; and yet again, you know it.
At least the guys that answered had the stones to answer.

Now this poster attempts disparagement to push bogus views. How charming. Our current bibles contain corruptions. Those that deny this obvious truth are agenda driven and fail the test of the spirits.

 

[Yeshua1]

The word of God = God. John 1:1.

You know ZILCH about God without the word of God.

Christianity 101.

Jesus is that Word. not the KJV!

 

[Yeshua1]

Then you really don't have something that is trustworthy and infallible ( without error ), do you?

I've highlighted what I agree with...
To me, the originals were the only ones that God "dictated" to His apostles and prophets.
All Scripture is "God-breathed" by the Holy Spirit ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21 ).

So, I agree with you( at least in principle ), on part of what you said.
As for the first ( the inerrancy part ), it seems to me that you're admitting that you cannot hold in your hands the actual inspired and inerrant word of God, since the originals are long turned to dust.

As it stands, if you are completely unable to trust any translation and any manuscript in existence to be the 100% accurate and faithful word of the living God...
Then you have no Bible, do you?

Do you see the road you're going down, my friend?
Do you see where it leads, when one believes that it all stopped with the originals, and that God did not providentially preserve His words for ( and make them accessible to ) His people down through the centuries?

The foundations for the faith get eroded right out from under the believer, don't they?

Instead of gaining comfort from words that were written for them ( Romans 15:4 ),
they are now told, by men, that those words might not have been written for them at all.

Infallibility means that the translations are all able to give to us what the Lord intends us to know!

 

[Reformed1689]

No one's beliefs were misrepresented. All the above, and a whole bunch of you that didn't have the stones to answer a fair question, don't fully believe any Bible, anywhere, in any tongue, in any age, and the insistence on limiting the conversation to the KJB serves to hide the uncomfortable truth that you don't believe the word of God (which expression in the scriptures is rarely, if ever, a reference to original autographs) is error-free: plain and simple.

Actually you are misrepresenting me. I did not focus on the KJV at all in my post. And I NEVER ONCE said I do not believe the Word of God. That was not the question that you asked.

You are twisting things, taking things out of context, and you somehow have this notion that translations are inspired. They aren't. God directly told the translators what to write? Do you believe that?

You should read some articles about the KJV Translators Preface to the Reader: What a 400-Year-Old Bible Preface Can Teach Us about Translations | The Logos Blog

They did not hold as high a view of their work as you hold. They admit they were not inspired nor infallible. Only the original authors were.

We can be reasonably sure that we know what the originals said and intended. Do we know with 100% certainty that we have the 100% exact reading of the originals? Of course not. That does not equate not believing the Word of God. Rather, it shows that we have great faith that God has preserved His message to us.

 

[George Antonios]

Actually you are misrepresenting me.

No, you are me.

I quoted your answer and said that the "REST" (hence excluding you) focused on the KJB.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's true, you did. And I even quoted it. My bad. Got lost in all the posters.

So, you don't believe the Bible, not just the KJB.

That's what that thread was about.

Want to prove the Bible wrong because of contradictions you can't reconcile? Begin a thread.

Moving on.

So there are NO differences between the 1611/1769 and 1873 Kjv?
ALL of ther TR Greek texts read exactly the same?