John 14:14 and Revelation 14:1

[franklinmonroe]

... I discovered this error by Crosswalk.com later.

You can see the mistake is that Crosswalk.com omitted the latter part of the verse completely, and it is not in the verse 2.

In truth, you didn't discover it; you had to have it shown to you by others.

I see you taking no responsibility for your erroneous accusation. The facts are that you did not make a diligent effort to confirm the NIV text: 1) Crosswalk itself did not omit the latter part "completely" but rather the phrase was was right there in the text behind the very next verse number which you should have read in context; 2) the NIV text could be easily confirmed by a second source such as in a hardcopy edition or at numerous other websites before making a serious accusation.

Since your error was brought to your attention you have barely acknowledged that you "found it in the paper book" and further suggested that we should "check here" to see Crosswalk. Where is your apology for your irresponsible scholarship and false accusation?

 

[franklinmonroe]

We are on the Thread about John 14:14 ...

Now that's a precious statement (considering the source)! Who was it that in Post #3 immediately drug the OP topic JOHN 14:14 and REVELATION 14:1 off course by introducing "omission or distortion is intentional" with an erroneous accusation about 2 Peter 1:1? And then followed that up with another post listing over a dozen other Gospel verses?

 

[Eliyahu]

Now that's a precious statement (considering the source)! Who was it that in Post #3 immediately drug the OP topic JOHN 14:14 and REVELATION 14:1 off course by introducing "omission or distortion is intentional" with an erroneous accusation about 2 Peter 1:1? And then followed that up with another post listing over a dozen other Gospel verses?

Indeed, there was another thread which discussed about the deity of Jesus and Olivencia raised that issue. Sometimes I tried to combine the answer to the same poster in one place, which happened here.

Originally Posted by Olivencia
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1)

Franklin,
Do you still believe that John 14:14 should have "ME" there?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Indeed, there was another thread which discussed about the deity of Jesus and Olivencia raised that issue. Sometimes I tried to combine the answer to the same poster in one place, which happened here. ...

Nope, that's not an apology. Its not even a good explanation (it doesn't account for your other early post with the multiple off-topic Gospel verses). Find your spine and take responsibility for your error.

 

[Samuel Owen]

The bottom line in this discussion, is not who is right, but who can prove he is right. Of the 5000 or so textual witnesses we have today, 95% agree with the KJV 99.5% of the time. And the MV's have only a 5% witness, and that based on mostly 2 codices, and their spawn.

How then; do you prove the KJV wrong in JOHN 14:14, and REVELATION 14:1. Based on the textual evidence alone, I would by far rather trust the KJV, than any MV.

I was raised in the Baptist Church, and at that time they were strong defenders of the KJV. But to their shame, it seems they are now defenders of everything else, even the Living Bible (sic). The folks with whom I disagree most with their theology are the only strong defenders, that is the Holiness crowd. On this point I will have to give them praise, well deserved.

 

[Olivencia]

The point of my thread shows that the MV's in John 14:14 and Revelation 14:1 demonstrate the deity of Christ better than the KJV. Now whether one wants to agree with this fact is up to them. KJV Onlyists (at leats a few of them anyway) run around saying that the MV's have some kind of conspiracy to rob Christ of His deity. These two passages reveal how pathetic their claim is for prayer to the Lord Jesus is a powerful testimony to the fact that He is God.

One other thing, manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Well 95% of 5000 manuscripts, would weigh a lot more than 5% of 5000. :laugh:

 

[robycop3]

But the fact is, GOD ALLOWS ALL THOSE MSS TO EXIST, & be deciphered by modern man.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I was raised in the Baptist Church, and at that time they were strong defenders of the KJV. But to their shame, it seems they are now defenders of everything else, even the Living Bible (sic).

I will take issue with this statement. There are only a few thousand individual Baptist Churches out of the thousands that exist that have made which Bible Version that an individual may use a matter of division. Those would be the KJVO churches. I have no way of counting, but I would be willing to wager that less than 15% of all Southern and so-called "Independent" Baptist churches make it an issue. It was NEVER an issue until Pete Ruckman and his ilk gained a foothold in the Indy churches back in the mid-1970's.

Most Baptist churches used (and still do use) the KJV as a matter of convenience rather than as a matter of conviction. But there are many more churches that have never made a big deal out of it because they realize that God is able to preserve His Word in multiple versions, just as He did in multiple manuscripts and fragments.

By the way, the Bible needs NO defenders- it only needs DOERS!:thumbs:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well 95% of 5000 manuscripts, would weigh a lot more than 5% of 5000. :laugh:

That depends on who is doing the weighing. The majority is not always right. If it were we would all be praying to Mary.

 

[Samuel Owen]

But the fact is, GOD ALLOWS ALL THOSE MSS TO EXIST, & be deciphered by modern man.

God allows Satan to exist too, doesn't he ?.

Do any of you actually know! what a KJVO person is ?.

 

[Mexdeaf]

God allows Satan to exist too, doesn't he ?.

Do any of you actually know! what a KJVO person is ?.

Probably not, according to you. But after being exposed to it for almost 30 years I'm pretty sure that I have a good idea.

All those manuscripts and so forth that you call 'corrupt' were once someone's cherished copy of God's Word.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Nope!.
A KJVO person is not one who says they prefer the KJV Bible, or that is the One! we should be using. It’s a person that goes so far as saying the KJV, is even more accurate than the manuscripts it was taken from. Thus is the only word of God that ever existed, apart from the originals. By originals, I mean those directly penned by the Prophets, and Apostles.

I don't say that!.

 

[Olivencia]

Of course Samuel Owen ignored what I wrote concerning John 14:14 and Revelation 14:1.
Couldn't refute it so just ignore it.

Nice way to handle truth.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Nope!.
A KJVO person is not one who says they prefer the KJV Bible, or that is the One! we should be using. It’s a person that goes so far as saying the KJV, is even more accurate than the manuscripts it was taken from. Thus is the only word of God that ever existed, apart from the originals. By originals, I mean those directly penned by the Prophets, and Apostles.

I don't say that!.

You are wrong- a KJVO does not just PREFER the KJV. Nor do all KJVO's make the statements that you made above. You might want to read the sticky note posted above in the BVT forum.

 

[Samuel Owen]

I just examined those verses, and I see no need to extend their length; to say what is already evidently revealed by the KJV. So I can't give you any points there.

The modern versions say they are better, for today's literate reader?. Well I think that the modern day reader is more illiterate, especially Spiritually.

Modern versions try to make up for what is Spiritually discerned, I don't see why! because the natural man cannot live up to it, even if he could understand it.

I think that is pretty evident! in the vast majority, of those who call themselves Christian today.

I read the STICKY note, I still stand on what I said. All KJVO are not radical, but pretty close.

 

[EdSutton]

...even the Living Bible (sic).

"Why did you insert the '(sic)' here? I will grant that the book, when the title is properly written should be underlined as ' The Living Bible ', but that '(sic)' you inserted is not referring to that, at all, with what you are here implying, is it?"

Signed, Language Cop




The Living Bible (TLB) is a bona-fide Bible version, and is effectually a paraphrase of the ASV, another bona-fide version, even though I, personally, do not prefer any generally paraphrased version, as a rule.

However, what you have done here, is to make a very sly attack on a Bible version, and I'm calling your hand on it.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Probably not, according to you. But after being exposed to it for almost 30 years I'm pretty sure that I have a good idea.

All those manuscripts and so forth that you call 'corrupt' were once someone's cherished copy of God's Word.

As the late, very able US Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart once said, regarding a particular subject I will not mention here, "I know it when I see it."

And Mexdeaf is absolutely correct about the great majority of any of these old manuscripts. These old manuscripts (and the Lectionaries), most of which contain only some portion of God's word, was all of the Bible most had, at that time, be it a portion of the OT or NT. One, such as Paul or Apollos, as 'scholars', may have possessed a copy of all the OT Scriptures. It would surely be fair to say the average shepherd or 'ploughboy' did not.

Simply put, there was no such thing as any local, friendly, neighborhood, Christian book store for any of them to patronize, and the very rare individual, in the early days of the church, who possessed anything resembling a complete copy that he or she could possibly hold in their hand, held a precious copy of the written Word of God, indeed. Textual flaws, and all!!

Ed.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The modern versions say they are better, for today's literate reader?. Well I think that the modern day reader is more illiterate, especially Spiritually.

Modern versions try to make up for what is Spiritually discerned, I don't see why! because the natural man cannot live up to it, even if he could understand it.

I think that is pretty evident! in the vast majority, of those who call themselves Christian today.

"Literacy" and "spiritual discernment" are two different animals. There will be NO spiritual discernment without having a literate understanding of what God's Word says.

Let me explain- I went to Mexico in 1999 as a missionary. I had to learn Spanish in order to read and understand the Spanish Bible. That is "literacy", a completely different thing from spiritual discernment. Spiritual discernment comes from understanding (and applying!) what God's Word says.

There are many folks who read the KJV but never live it either, so that charge just doesn't stick.:thumbs:

 

[Samuel Owen]

I would challenge anyone's literacy, that says they cannot understand the KJV, it is not in Spanish. There are not a lot of people a whole lot dumber than myself, and I have no problem with the KJV.

The bigger problem is with the drive-through window mentality of people today, just serve it up to me, I don't want to walk inside. They just don't want to work! for anything, we have a spoiled rotten world full of people.

Well that's enough, I have contended with this useless conversation longer, and more than I should have.