Hovind video

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Its 500 verses - and to be honest a copyright has nothing to do with the worthiness of a translation.

My Oxford KJV has a full copyright forbidding any reproduction or storage of any portion without permission.

So what version do you suggest Christians in the UK use to avoid copyright problems?

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

Its 500 verses - and to be honest a copyright has nothing to do with the worthiness of a translation.

My Oxford KJV has a full copyright forbidding any reproduction or storage of any portion without permission.

So what version do you suggest Christians in the UK use to avoid copyright problems?

does it have a concordance or notes if it does thats probably what is copyrighted

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

does it have a concordance or notes if it does thats probably what is copyrighted

The copyright says that NO PORTION may be reproduced or stored - it is a copyright, I have reproduced here in the past.

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

Its 500 verses - and to be honest a copyright has nothing to do with the worthiness of a translation.

My Oxford KJV has a full copyright forbidding any reproduction or storage of any portion without permission.

So what version do you suggest Christians in the UK use to avoid copyright problems?

I agree the copyright dont. just a fact i presented i thought it was 200 words but its 500 oh well been wrong b4. but how do we ignore the 16 missing verses or where it says Oh how you have fallen from heaven morningstar etc.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree the copyright dont. just a fact i presented i thought it was 200 words but its 500 oh well been wrong b4. but how do we ignore the 16 missing verses or where it says Oh how you have fallen from heaven morningstar etc.

I don't defend the NIV - I just like fair and honest discussions without erroneous statements.

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

The copyright says that NO PORTION may be reproduced or stored - it is a copyright, I have reproduced here in the past.

my bad dont get mad Ive never seen a KJV with a copyright or heard of one. Mine has none neither do any of my friends that read the KJV

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

my bad dont get mad Ive never seen a KJV with a copyright or heard of one. Mine has none neither do any of my friends that read the KJV

Why do you assume people are angry when they confront statements made here? No one is angry, you have just made some ill advised statements.

 

[EdSutton]

Its 500 verses - and to be honest a copyright has nothing to do with the worthiness of a translation.

My Oxford KJV has a full copyright forbidding any reproduction or storage of any portion without permission.

So what version do you suggest Christians in the UK use to avoid copyright problems?

If I may offer a suggestion. Acquire a "bootlegged" "counterfeit" "genuine American" KJV, Darby, ASV, or one of the other ones I listed in another post. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Why do you assume people are angry when they confront statements made here? No one is angry, you have just made some ill advised statements.

Amen, Brother Christ4Kildare (C4K) -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Needless to say, in this Forum we have to refute the same
unchecked lies over and over and over.

Doesn't anybody use the Prime Directive of Bulletin
Boards (bb)now days?

The Prime Directive of Bulletin Boards:

Read Before You Write

Because the Admin who told me not to correct
folks English is gone now - can I start helping people
with their English? Does anybody know that if you
have about five consistant English oopses that keep
getting used over and over one can figure out who
you are when you get another (illegal) BB /baptist board/
moniker?

Correct usage:
They're their own worse enemy there.

their - stuff that belongs to them
there - over yonder
they're - short for (can be replaced by) they are

All these words are pronounced alike but
spelled different with different usages.
Your spell checker will not tell you if you have
used the wrong word in the wrong place, but
it shure makes you look:

1. foolish
2. uncaring about who you are writing to
3. uncaring about what you are writing

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

DJ N'LyTe, with all due respect, here are some of your exact quotes that Ed Edwards replied to. I'm neither Ed Edwards (I'm "the other Ed"), nor do I 'have a dog in the fight', FTR. But you may recall my early post suggesting you "Drop the agenda." You might still consider taking that to heart. One doesn't have to have any ill intentions, in order to post false statements, and in fact, many are done with the best of intentions. However, even "the best intentions" cannot serve to make a false statement to be true. Once again, I respond to you. Now your quotes: (my emphases)(Language Cop suggests that you might want to proof-read your sentences and posts a bit more, before you actually enter them, BTW.)

My! My! My! What do we have here?? [Shakes head, sadly!]

1.) Yes, God's (written) Word was translated, both in the whole and in the part, into English, a few hundred times over the last 13+ centuries (There are parts in 'Irish' that date 200 years older than that), starting with the 'paraphrased' hymns of Caedmon, and the efforts of Cuthbert, Aldhelm, Eadfurth, and Bede, all c. 650-750 AD, in "Old English" or Anglo-Saxon. And the first translation of the whole Bible was made into "Middle English" and was made by John Wyclif, with the first part appearing c. 1382. The translations, editions and versions are still occurring and appearing, with translations being worked on today, even as I write this post. To date, there are several hundred distinct editions in English that have been published. So, yes, the Bible was translated into "english".

2 a, b, c.) Your next three phrases only represent unsubstantiated opinion, at best.
>"and God doesnt need paraphrased bibles"< (sic) How do you or I know what God "needs", as you put it? Does any Scripture ever declare this anywhere?

>"the KJV isnt perfect"< (sic) And how do you or I know whether or not the KJV is or is not perfect? More than one poster on this forum hold the opinion that it IS, in fact, perfect; likewise more than one poster holds that the KJV is NOT perfect. All I will say to this is that the translators of the KJV did not claim any perfection. Anything beyond that is, again, only an unsubstantiated opinion, no matter from whom it proceeds.

>"but its the best version we have,"< (sic) Again, opinion, only! Where is this standard written anywhere? Not everyone holds this opinion, see above. Most of us, including me, believe it to be a very good to extremely good version. But that is not saying the same thing as you did.

3.) >"its the only one without a copyright."< (sic) Sorry, but there are three false statements or implications contained here in one innocent apprearing little phrase. The KJV in fact, in its multiple editions printed in England, does have a "Crown Copyright" as Ed Edwards, C4K, myself, and others have pointed out, in the United Kingdom, its country of origin, and that has never been changed. However, in the United States, along with much of the rest of the world, the KJV is in the "public domain". As such, one does not have the same standards that a 'copyrighted' work has. You or I can print, or have printed, a KJV here. And at the same time, you or I are free to 'improve' upon the spelling, minor wording, or whatever, at our discretion, and vbe called into account, only by a reader, if even then. No governmental agency or law prevents this. In fact, I often refer to "American" editions of the KJV as "counterfeit editions" of the KJV for that very reason. While you may have only meant "in the United States", you did not state that, but blithely repeated only "what you heard the rest of 'em say", without bothering to check it out.

Second, not only "English" versions are in the "public domain" in the USA, for various other language versions are, as well.

And third, the RV, ASV, DARBY, YLT, Wesley, Webster, Moffat, Goodspeed, 'Williams', NET, TFB, Weymouth, Douai-Reims, and UKJV to name more than a dozen, are also all in the "public domain", in English, in the USA.In fact, the poster actually saidThat is not saying what you said. rbell appears to be correct, here, from my perusal, but granted, I did not spend hours on this in research.Short and sweet! I agree!

This is, as others have mentioned, an 'Open Debate' forum. So if and when you make an unverifiable or an incorrect statement, expect to get called on it. You have every right to your opinion. You do not have any right to expect another to agree, just because you said so. Every thing I have said in this post is verifiable, even to accurately citing quotes, for they were "cut and pasted" from existing posts. I encourage you to check it out.

And you owe Ed Edwards an apology for the remark and implication you made about him, IMO!

Ed

[Edited to add] P.S. Shall I continue?? Let me know.

you may recall my early post suggesting you "Drop the agenda." You might still consider taking that to heart. Im just resopnding to resonses to me. I will defend myself and my beliefs no wrong in that, if this all dropped Id drop it.

I just offered a video and people went on the attack.

Language Cop suggests that you might want to proof-read your sentences and posts a bit more, before you actually enter them, BTW whats wrong with it other than grammer?

Yes, God's (written) Word was translated, both in the whole and in the part, into English we agree but the written add is just splitting hairs you knew what I meant

a, b, c.) Your next three phrases only represent unsubstantiated opinion, at best.
>"and God doesnt need paraphrased bibles"< (sic) How do you or I know what God "needs", as you put it? Does any Scripture ever declare this anywhere?

>"the KJV isnt perfect"< (sic) And how do you or I know whether or not the KJV is or is not perfect? More than one poster on this forum hold the opinion that it IS, in fact, perfect; likewise more than one poster holds that the KJV is NOT perfect. All I will say to this is that the translators of the KJV did not claim any perfection. Anything beyond that is, again, only an unsubstantiated opinion, no matter from whom it proceeds.

>"but its the best version we have,"< (sic) Again, opinion, only! Where is this standard written anywhere? Not everyone holds this opinion, see above. Most of us, including me, believe it to be a very good to extremely good version. But that is not saying the same thing as you did. just because I said them doesnt necessarily mean I stated them as fact it seems to me your attacking my oppinions Ive found mistakes from the greek and hebrew thats how I know its not perfect.

someone said he (Kent Hovind - Ed) was a goof at science
In fact, the poster actually said
Quote:
He makes a confusing mess out of science, too. We are young earth creationists ourselves and try hard to warn people away from his material. He mixes opinion and fact without ever telling his audience which is which and then doesn't keep up with his facts anyway.

The man is not a good source for anything that I am aware of. is that not the same thing? goof at science or confusing mess of science im going to chalk this one up to a language difference in the generational gap

If you take your NIV and preach out of it using more than 200 words its against the law unless you have written consent. my bad its 500 words

This is, as others have mentioned, an 'Open Debate' forum. So if and when you make an unverifiable or an incorrect statement, expect to get called on it thats cool lets debate but I wont tolorate people calling me a lier or taking shots at my Savior or taking shots at my salvation I feel you handled this very well as other havent

You have every right to your opinion. You do not have any right to expect another to agree I could care less what others believe as long as they believe Jesus died for their sin and rose in 3 days the bible version is trivial

And you owe Ed Edwards an apology for the remark and implication you made about him, IMO! thats your oppinion but ok I apologize for defending myself so strongly when Im directly insulted by being called a lier you see you never called me a lier youve stated some of my beliefs were wrong (I disagree) but who cares right you didnt come out and say that

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

Anybody who has figured out how to use the 'search' feature
on this board can find where those verses are listed.
Anybody who realises it has been a year or so now that
Google has made their own copy of pages on the
BB (bapatist board) so search Google
using the line:

"phrase words" site:baptistboard.com

I used:

"missing from NIV" site:baptistboard.com

Even if one finds a page that is no longer on BB,
it might exist in the Google cache.

Here is the one I found today:

--------------------
G. A. Riplinger and fundamentalism - Page 5 - BaptistBoard.com

[SIZE=-1]I mean how do you justify 16 verses missing from NIV, Jesus being demoted the blood being removed, fasting being removed the NIV and NLV saying Jesus fell ...
www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1119040 - 75k -Cached - Similar pages

[/SIZE]--------------------


Anyway, I can't find a list of 'missing from the NIV' verses there.
But they aren't missing from the NIV.
I'd question the source that says they are missing,
which is incorrect.

If you have a NIV look these up Matthew 17:21,18:11,23:14,4:18, Mark 7:16,11:16,9:44,9:46,15:25,3:15, Luke 8:48, 1 John 5:7, 2 Corinthians 6:5,11:27, Titus 1:4, Acts 3:11 they were all missing from my version of NIV some may appear in yours but not all

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

Why do you assume people are angry when they confront statements made here? No one is angry, you have just made some ill advised statements.

I dont assume people are angry I just dont like to be called a lier I disagree with the ill advised statements I have goofed a few things but the points are still legit

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

Amen, Brother Christ4Kildare (C4K) -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Needless to say, in this Forum we have to refute the same
unchecked lies over and over and over.

Doesn't anybody use the Prime Directive of Bulletin
Boards (bb)now days?

The Prime Directive of Bulletin Boards:

Read Before You Write

Because the Admin who told me not to correct
folks English is gone now - can I start helping people
with their English? Does anybody know that if you
have about five consistant English oopses that keep
getting used over and over one can figure out who
you are when you get another (illegal) BB /baptist board/
moniker?

Correct usage:
They're their own worse enemy there.

their - stuff that belongs to them
there - over yonder
they're - short for (can be replaced by) they are

All these words are pronounced alike but
spelled different with different usages.
Your spell checker will not tell you if you have
used the wrong word in the wrong place, but
it shure makes you look:

1. foolish
2. uncaring about who you are writing to
3. uncaring about what you are writing

I could care less about the grammer I know about their and there I know the definition of foolish but thanks for implying Im dumb. Im not an english teach nor do I ever wish to become one Im a Telecommunications Tech. I work on phone systems and program computers none of which require great grammer how bout I come over and show you some stuff on computer programming or installing a phone system or installing a huge businesses computer network. we all have things were good at and things were not so good at. so Id appreciate it if youd get off my back about grammer Who cares its a computer screen does it devalue the points.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I dont assume people are angry I just dont like to be called a lier I disagree with the ill advised statements I have goofed a few things but the points are still legit

Then I suggest you get on your own case:

Ed Edwards: // ... liars spread the untruth
that the KJV has no copyright. ... //

Dj n'lyte: // Hey thanks for calling me a lier buddy
their someone else in the bible called the great accuser.//

I note that logically speaking Ed Edwards
did NOT call anybody a liar.

Old maxim:
The bit dog Yelps.
Kind friend: you Yelped.
DJ N'LyTe called DJ N'LyTe a 'liar'.

I was totally willing to cut some slack for
all present. So I deliberately and with malice
of forethought used exactly the right phase;
by contrast somebody else used exactly the
wrong 'yelp'.

I tire of such games & taking candy from
babies. Mine was a snotty way to 'win' a
debate.

I was chewing up athiests & agnostics and
spitting them out in 1984 on Bulletin Boards.
That was 24 years ago, when most here
didn't exist or were still in diapers.

However, I was called (about 1973 or so) to
edify God's called persons. So anybody here can
feel paranoid if they wish, but I really mean well
and know lots of stuff, some of which I've shared,
if one would bother to read my postings
that I made before you showed up.

To be fair I notice DJ N'LyTe probably has
incompatibalities with their browser program
and/or Editor program -- incompatibalities
with the Posting Software on the BB
(baptist board) bb (bulletin board) posting
software.
So I won't mention those flaws (cause I haven't
figured them out. All I know is my 82-year-old
mother's board (mother is 82, not her board)
she cannot edit cause many similiar things happen
when she posts. So if I had figured it out,
I'd have fixed up Mother first.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards:
//1. foolish
2. uncaring about who you are writing to
3. uncaring about what you are writing//

Reply comment: //I could care less about the grammer ... //

Yes, we noticed. I'm not going to take the time
to look for it, but the Bible says that
fools cannot accept correction.

Your comment proves mine.

I forgot 4:

4. looking like one assumes everyone
else is a nobody.

Grammer is the software that runs on communication
hardware. 'I could care less about the grammer'
says 'GIGO' /garbage in-garbage out/

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ecc 4:13 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Better is a poore and wise childe,
then an olde and foolish King,
which will no more be admonished.

foolish = cannot be admonished

// so Id appreciate it if youd get off my back about grammer//

Written in English:

//So I'd appraeciate it if you'd get off
my back about grammar//

I did a google on // grammer edwards site:baptistboard.com //

it gets 424 hits

I did a google on // grammer site:baptistboard.com //

it gets 339 hits

Explain that
In your explaination, note that
'grammer' is correctly spelled: 'grammar'.


- Ed Edwards, Guru at Bible Versions/Translations
(we reinvent the wheel monthly,
retranslate the NIV fortnightly)

 

[franklinmonroe]

I really dont care how many are removed or if they are important to doctrine evedentally God thinks their important or else they would not have been recorded. Question its assumed that everyone in here believes that God loves them enough to die for them but when the bible say that he will protect his word We dont believe that he loves us enough to make sure his Word gets to us in tact???

Let me be more explicit: if just 1 or 2 of these 16 verses were NOT actually 'removed' from the 'bad' Alexandrian manuscripts, then logically, they must have been 'added' to the 'good' Byzantine manuscripts. But the result of any 'adding' (also a violation of God's command) would erase their 'good' status. It wouldn't even take a whole verse - a single added word to the approximately 800,000 words (in English) would violate God's command about adding to His words.

So, in how many people are you trusting that the KJV text hasn't added a single word to what the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers to record thousands of years ago? Dozens of imperfect humans? Probably hundreds! Clearly, you haven't personally verified each and every translated word from ancient documents that you have certified as being authentic (and neither have I).

It would take a miracle for the inspired text to reach us. God can do miracles; but God didn't tells us exactly how He would do this miracle, or that He would only do it once.

By the way, the original language manuscripts are also the words of God (they were some early Christians' cherished Bibles).

 

[EdSutton]

In your explaination, note that
'grammer' is correctly spelled: 'grammar'.

Language Cop duly notes you are attempting to patrol his beat! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

If you have a NIV look these up Matthew 17:21,18:11,23:14,4:18, Mark 7:16,11:16,9:44,9:46,15:25,3:15, Luke 8:48, 1 John 5:7, 2 Corinthians 6:5,11:27, Titus 1:4, Acts 3:11 they were all missing from my version of NIV some may appear in yours but not all

Well, I (actually my bride) do have an NIV, © 1978, New York (now International) Bible Society.

Each and every verse you cited (which, according to you, is not found in your version of the NIV) is in my copy, with some in the footnotes, and some in the main body of the text. The ones not found in the main body of the text, but rather found in the footnotes, were placed there, based on the evidence for the Greek texts, and as the NT in the NIV is (predominately) based on the UBS2 Greek NT, the NIV usually tends to follow this reading in the main text, with the 'questionable variants' in the footnotes, but not always.

I will comment in I John 5:7, which is 'supposedly' omitted from the NIV. Part of the verse, the so-called Johanine comma, is indeed not found in the main body of the text. Indeed it is not found in the 'main body' of any Greek manuscript, save #61, a manuscript of the 16th Century, now known to be a forgery, that was 'manufactured' in order to support a 'late' Vulgate reading of that verse, before about 1530. (It does appear in some later Gk. manuscripts, where it appears to be copied into the Greek from the Latin.) The 'comma' is not found in any manuscript or version before the 5th century, nor is it ever mentioned by any 'church father' before 1000 A.D. It appears first in some 'later' Latin MSs, in the fifth Century. The overwhelming evidence is that it was "added to" the Word of God, and not "taken away". I have spoken to that before, as has franklinmonroe. I suggest you research this, without prejudice, as I have at least tried to do.

Be that as it may, however, once again, you have made a false statement, even if unknowingly, as to the verses not being found. I suspect the verses are also found in the footnotes of your NIV, as this is a copyrighted work, and it is not allowed to be printed or changed, in publication. I seriously doubt that one can find a non-copyrighted NIV, as the Copyright is still in force, and will likely be such for both your and my lifetime, no matter how long that is, as I am 59 already, and I note you are 27. The NIV copyright will remain in force until at least 2074, and maybe longer, as the Chief Editor, Dr. Kenneth Barker is living, and the rights should endure for at least 70 years after his death, at a minimum. I certainly do not forsee living until I reach the age of 126. Perhaps you will make it to 94. In which case, you may actually see the NIV in the public domain. But enough of that rabbit trail.

There is a difference between the versions of the NIV, NIVI, NIrV, NIV-UK, and TNIV. Perhaps you have one of those versions, to which I cannot speak.

I am not now (nor have I ever been) attempting to persecute anyone on this Board. I have refuted factual errors, debated Scriptural interpretations, and given my opinion, usually identified as such, on a few things. EdSutton has made over 5000 posts on the BB, the current count notwithstanding, as I have had well over some 300 'magically' disappear in updated formats of the Baptist Board.

Ed Edwards has over 13,000 posts currently; C4K has over 18,000 posts currently; (Neither would recognize me, nor I them, should we even meet.) Several other posters on this thread have several thousand posts, as well; DJ N'LyTe currently has 41 posts. Do you notice a slight disparity in numbers, here? I suggest that several of us can well stand on our records.

My original posts on this subject never said one word about anyone, other than to point out some factual errors made on the video. Other posts included attempts to correct other factual errors and refute false statements, as well. I have twice suggested you check out what you are posting, rather than take the word of another and merely repeat it. I'll repeat this admonition once more.

I do not dislike anyone here, but I do strongly dislike false statements from anyone, and will reserve the right to call someone's hand on an open debate forum. If I can no longer do that, then I will no longer post in the forums. And I am critical of positions, not people, FTR.

It's way past my bedtime, so "Good night, all!".

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If you take your NIV and preach out of it using more than 200 words its against the law unless you have written consent. my bad its 500 words

For one thing it is 500 verses - you keep ignoring that.

For another the copyright protection is for printed materials. If a pastor were to publish a written copy of his sermon and directly quoted, not referenced, more than 500 verses he would have to have permission.

He could quote the entire NIV from the pulpit orally if he wanted.


No one has attacked you personally. If one makes an unsubstantiated statement he should be called upon to back it up. Much like if I were to say.

"There is a major passage where either the KJV1611 leaves out words or the KJV1769 adds two words. Of course I should be willing to back it up. It is not an attack on me to ask for proof.

You posted a Hovind video like it was the be all and end all to the versions controversy. People pointed out his errors. That is not an attack on you.