I wanna bang my head

[robycop3]

Would someone please address this, and explain your "logic" in believing two DIFFERENT things can both be the same:




Thank you. I'll await someone's response................:BangHead:

While I was a cop, I often took four witness statements from four intelligent, literate, well-intentioned people who witnesses the same event. I had to consider all those statements, as well as examine other evidence, to determine what had actually occured during the event in question. part of that process included piecing together a mantal reconstruction of the event from ALL the witness accounts, knowing that each witness noticed certain elements of the event, while usually not noticing ALL of them, as the event occurred unexpectedly, such as a vehicle accident.

Thus, it is with Scriptural mss. Each was written by a different person, sometimes from an oral account of certain events, often by a 3rd party.

 

[robycop3]

*sigh* that isn't the same thing and all of you know that. Strawman, at best.

Oh, yes it IS-and even MORE SO! And let's also not forget that different writers have different writing ability and/or powers of observation.

 

[Baptist4life]

Oh, yes it IS-and even MORE SO! And let's also not forget that different writers have different writing ability and/or powers of observation.

We're not talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being different! We're talking about the very same verses in Scripture being different in the KJV vs. the NIV! Or being left out entirely in different versions! Goodness, that IS NOT the same thing you're talking about at all.


(Luke 9:56)

(KJV) "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

(NIV) "and they went to another village."

(2)

(Matt. 18:11)

(KJV) "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)

(3)

(Matt. 9:13)

(KJV) "...I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

(NIV) "...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

(4)

(Acts 8:37)

(KJV) "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."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)

(5)

(Acts 9:5,6)

(KJV) "...the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city....."

(NIV) "...I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. Now get up and go into the city....

(6)

(Col. 1:14)

(KJV) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

(NIV) "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

(7)

(Gal. 6:15)

(KJV) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

(NIV) "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."

http://www.searchthescriptures.com/n...oundations.htm



^^^^^ Those are just a very small sampling of the very SAME verses in different translations that are NOT the same. Hardly what you're talking about!

Now, as I said, I'm not saying who's right or who's wrong, but I am saying they are DIFFERENT, and one of them IS wrong. Which one I'm not sure, but that does cause confusion.

 

[Winman]

Oh, yes it IS-and even MORE SO! And let's also not forget that different writers have different writing ability and/or powers of observation.

This argument is absurd. The 16th chapter of Mark cannot both include and omit the last 12 verses, that is impossible.

 

[InTheLight]

Now, as I said, I'm not saying who's right or who's wrong, but I am saying they are DIFFERENT, and one of them IS wrong. Which one I'm not sure, but that does cause confusion.

Would you say that one manuscript is always right and the other one always wrong, or could it be that one is correct in certain spots and the other one is correct in other areas? For example, suppose the NIV got it right at Matthew 9:13 and Acts 8:37 and the KJV got it right at Luke 9:56 and Acts 9:5-6?

 

[InTheLight]

This argument is absurd. The 16th chapter of Mark cannot both include and omit the last 12 verses, that is impossible.

Suppose the last 12 verses were originally a part of the Alexandrian text but at some point an unbeliever removed (or stole) that crucial section in order to try to discredit the resurrection?

 

[Winman]

Suppose the last 12 verses were originally a part of the Alexandrian text but at some point an unbeliever removed (or stole) that crucial section in order to try to discredit the resurrection?

OK, so how is it the preserved word of God if part of it is missing?

Let's say you saw an ad in the paper for a 1967 Ford Mustang "perfectly preserved". You are a big fan, so you call and make an appointment to see the car. When you get there, the engine and 2 doors are missing. Would you consider that "preserved". :laugh:

 

[Logos1560]

how is it the preserved word of God if part of it is missing?

Your same question applies to the Greek manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based.

Are you actually asserting that the Byzantine Greek manuscripts on which the varying editions of the Textus Receptus and the KJV were based are not the preserved word of God since they had some missing words, phrases, clauses, and verses [if compared to the KJV]?

Would you claim that there are no Byzantine Greek manuscripts that are not missing some verses such as 1 John 5:7, Luke 17:36, Mark 11:26, Acts 8:37, Revelation 21:26?

On what one singular and complete Greek manuscript of the New Testament that had no copying errors or nothing missing or added can you claim that the entire text of the Textus Receptus was based?

 

[InTheLight]

OK, so how is it the preserved word of God if part of it is missing?

In my scenario it's missing, but what if that section is found sometime in the future? Wouldn't that be cool? The world would get an education on Biblical manuscripts and also hear about the resurrection.

 

[annsni]

OK, so how is it the preserved word of God if part of it is missing?

Let's say you saw an ad in the paper for a 1967 Ford Mustang "perfectly preserved". You are a big fan, so you call and make an appointment to see the car. When you get there, the engine and 2 doors are missing. Would you consider that "preserved". :laugh:

I would if the car was originally made without doors. It's just all of those guys who thought they'd help out and add doors later that caused the problem.

 

[Winman]

In my scenario it's missing, but what if that section is found sometime in the future? Wouldn't that be cool? The world would get an education on Biblical manuscripts and also hear about the resurrection.

Well, folks that prefer the Critical Text over the Received Text might not be so happy.

But truth is, the Modern Versions based on the Critical Text and the King James based on the Received Text cannot both be the preserved word of God. The last 12 verses of Mark 16 are either supposed to be there, or they are not supposed to be there, but it is impossible that they both are supposed to be there and not. Yet, that is the view that many people hold.

Me, I don't want a Bible that is missing verses, I want a Bible that is all there without errors.

 

[Baptist4life]

The last 12 verses of Mark 16 are either supposed to be there, or they are not supposed to be there, but it is impossible that they both are supposed to be there and not. Yet, that is the view that many people hold.

BINGO!!! Yet some people don't think that's a problem.

 

[Winman]

BINGO!!! Yet some people don't think that's a problem.

Some folks are illogical.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And some folks demand that God satisfy their desire for a pure manuscript that can, in essence, be worshiped. (As some KJVO's admittedly do).

Which He, in His infinite wisdom, has denied us.

 

[Mexdeaf]

"Illogical" is believing that the KJV is preserved, but not being able to say which one is the preserved one.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

And some folks demand that God satisfy their desire for a pure manuscript that can, in essence, be worshiped. (As some KJVO's admittedly do).

Which He, in His infinite wisdom, has denied us.

What? Why would a corrupt manuscript be good? Does God desire that we err?

This might be the worst argument I've ever heard. :laugh:

 

[annsni]

What? Why would a corrupt manuscript be good? Does God desire that we err?

This might be the worst argument I've ever heard. :laugh:

Are any of the manuscripts we have perfect? Do we have perfect manuscripts of the whole Bible? Who is to say that it's "corrupt"?

 

[Mexdeaf]

What? Why would a corrupt manuscript be good? Does God desire that we err?

This might be the worst argument I've ever heard. :laugh:

Please explain how a "corrupt" manuscript might cause me to err. Say for instance, that I have a Bible without the long ending of Mark in it. How might that cause me to "err"?

Before you answer too quickly, think on this... for centuries, believers did not even have a complete copy of the Bible. In fact, there are multitudes of believers in countries and regions today that may only have a copy of the book of John or Romans. Were/are they in error also? Were/are they not able to live lives that were pleasing to God?

 

[Revmitchell]

Apparently my daughter is at a friend's house and it seems they've been sucked into the KJVO lie. Why????? I have to say that this couple is kind of gullable and jumps on weird bandwagons but really - the KJVO thing is SO easy to dispute - especially the arguments they are bringing up. My poor daughter hasn't been exposed to it and even though I've done quite a bit of study on it, I've not really discussed it with the kids much. I've been texting her the answers to the arguments they are bringing up (like Revelation 22:19 with tree vs. book) but I just said that if it's a debate going on, to come home. They won't listen. I know it. It saddens me.

Well here ya go


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWp-Hr1iGeg

 

[Winman]

Please explain how a "corrupt" manuscript might cause me to err. Say for instance, that I have a Bible without the long ending of Mark in it. How might that cause me to "err"?

Before you answer too quickly, think on this... for centuries, believers did not even have a complete copy of the Bible. In fact, there are multitudes of believers in countries and regions today that may only have a copy of the book of John or Romans. Were/are they in error also? Were/are they not able to live lives that were pleasing to God?

Ok, we had a regular member here who was confused by Mat 5:22 in one of the Modern Versions

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

This person (who has posted here at BB today) was distressed because her version (can't remember which) did not say "without a cause" and this person felt guilty every time she got angry at another person, even though she had legitimate reasons for being angry at them.

So, this person was confused and caused a great deal of anxiety by her version that left out this phrase.

As to other countries having corrupt or incomplete versions of scripture, that is certainly a problem. I don't know why we have to have hundreds of English versions of scriptures when literally millions of folks need the scriptures in their language. That shows a failure of Christianity.