Translation ERROR in KJV bible.

[natters]

Rooster crowed "Since the NIV is copyrighted, there are diffrences between the NIV published by differant publishers, they all have to make some change in order to copyright their version of the NIV"

Please name one publisher than publishes an NIV altered so that 1 John 5:13 is removed. Unless you or anyone can, I will simply believe that psr.2 doens't verify his facts before posting.

Rooster crowed "the NIV also leaves out "The Blood of Christ"

In one single verse, due to the manuscript evidence that it was most probably added after Colossians was originally written. The NIV does not wholesale leave out the blood of Christ - do you want me to post the verses to prove it to you?

 

[Rooster]

Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rooster:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
psr.2 said "The NIV omits 1 John 5:13"

No it doesn't. Do you even check your facts before posting, or are you just repeating what you heard somewhere?

Since the NIV is copyrighted, there are diffrences between the NIV published by differant publishers, they all have to make some change in order to copyright their version of the NIV, leave out verses, or change them, the NIV also leaves out "The Blood of Christ" </font>[/QUOTE]***yawn***
Are you aware the KJV was copyrighted? did that mean it couldn't be used until it's copyright was no longer in force? Do you want me to direct you to Kutilek's article about this? </font>[/QUOTE]That my friend is were you are wrong, the KJV is not copyrighted, however the sudy footnotes added by the publishers are, but the text is not.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
In one single verse, due to the manuscript evidence that it was most probably added after Colossians was originally written. The NIV does not wholesale leave out the blood of Christ - do you want me to post the verses to prove it to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do we have remission of sins by the blood of Jesus Christ? or not? If we do, this indicates the truth in the KJB, not the OMITTION OF IT in the modern versions. The reason it is not in the modern versions, is because of the omittion of it in the texts that underline it, to which is not reflective of the rest of the manuscript evidence for it, as is indicated in the KJB. We do not go on older equals better, but the truth and the evidence for it in church HISTORY.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
A charter member of the Nehushtan (2 Kgs 18:4) Pickled Version Sect who believes apparently that God is stuck to speak to today's readers in the version produced by (some) Anglicans who despised Baptists, in a version that is stale for many of today's readers (not fresh), and the Sword is rusty, in that it's English is old as your common man has difficulty w/ it. (it's language, I'm not talking about it's message, which is much clearer in the MV's).
Remember, God chose to write His N.T. in the Greek of the day; Koine, the "everyday" Greek instead of Attic Greek; i.e. classical. Sound familar? That principle alone should tell the KJVO's:kjbo's the principle of using MV"s is A-OK. Even the KJV says to use the MV's! where? read 1 Cor 14:9.
--------------------------------------------------


Just like the Hebrew and Greek, only Hebrew and Greek we (the common faithful English speaking believer) cannot understand. We CAN UNDERSTAND the English of the KJB (Gods words -the scriptures) however. Your logic and excuses fail and will always fail, if they are not grounded on this truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

A little study will do you (and me) some good. So, should you study the languages God chose, or man's language that in this case is outdated? why the added burden?

 

[natters]

Rooster, the KJV is copy protected in England, it's just that North America law chooses to ignore that.

 

[Rooster]

Originally posted by natters:
Rooster crowed "Since the NIV is copyrighted, there are diffrences between the NIV published by differant publishers, they all have to make some change in order to copyright their version of the NIV"

Please name one publisher than publishes an NIV altered so that 1 John 5:13 is removed. Unless you or anyone can, I will simply believe that psr.2 doens't verify his facts before posting.

Rooster crowed "the NIV also leaves out "The Blood of Christ"

In one single verse, due to the manuscript evidence that it was most probably added after Colossians was originally written. The NIV does not wholesale leave out the blood of Christ - do you want me to post the verses to prove it to you?

You know I don't read the corrupted NIV, so I can not point out allll the changes, perhaps if you contacted the publishers they will tell you were they made their changes at.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Rooster:
That my friend is were you are wrong, the KJV is not copyrighted, however the sudy footnotes added by the publishers are, but the text is not.

Sorry, Mr Rooster, the KJV text, etc was copyrighted by Robert Barker...let me see if I can find the link 4U

 

[natters]

Rooster crowed "You know I don't read the corrupted NIV, so I can not point out allll the changes, perhaps if you contacted the publishers they will tell you were they made their changes at."

Ah, just guessing then. I see.

 

[Rooster]

Originally posted by natters:
Rooster, the KJV is copy protected in England, it's just that North America law chooses to ignore that.

Thats not true. I don't know were you get your info from , but they are misleading you, unless you are making it up yourself.

 

[Rooster]

Originally posted by natters:
Rooster crowed "You know I don't read the corrupted NIV, so I can not point out allll the changes, perhaps if you contacted the publishers they will tell you were they made their changes at."

Ah, just guessing then. I see.

No , actually, my Pastor showed us the mistakes in the NIV, but I didn't take the time to memorize, perversions to Gods word, better use of my time is memorizing the KJV.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Rooster - Fair warning. You are being ridiculous and I won't tolerate it.

The NIV does not leave out I John 5:13. You are wrong.

The NIV does not omit the blood of Christ (like the TEV does many times). You are wrong.

The KJV (whichever revision you think is "perfect") IS copywritten in English law. Always has been. You are wrong.

If you just want to troll around acting stupid or garnering "amens" from only sect clones, do it elsewhere.

 

[Rooster]

well goto get ready for church, God Bless everyone, see ya tomarrow, maybe.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rooster:
That my friend is were you are wrong, the KJV is not copyrighted, however the sudy footnotes added by the publishers are, but the text is not.

Sorry, Mr Rooster, the KJV text, etc was copyrighted by Robert Barker...let me see if I can find the link 4U </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, I sent it to your email...please read w/ an open mind. From a former KJVO:me!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Thirteen year-olds should not be allowed alone with a computer. They end up showing both childish conduct, faulty information, and parroting/prating about things of which they haven't a clue.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
A little study will do you (and me) some good. So, should you study the languages God chose, or man's language that in this case is outdated? why the added burden?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would much rather put my efforts on studying the words of God that He wonderfully provided already for me, and generations of English speaking believers in my own language that I can understand, rather than some dead language to which I don't understand. Look at what has happened because of this. Now everyone thinks they are a scholar enouph to know that God's word in the English language has errors in it. This then leads them to believe falsely, that God allows errors in His word of truth. This line of thinking is VERY WRONG and UNBIBLICAL, and VERY DANGEROUS. We do not need the Greek and Hebrew today, unless of course you think the word of God has errors, and you need to prove it does, by the vanity of your own mind and wisdom. My time is much better spent studying in my own language, and letting the Lord reveal to me the truth, even if I do not understand it. There is much in the word of God that men do not understand, until the Lord reveals it to them. Many cannot understand what God has said, and are impatient to wait for the Lord to reveal that truth, and turn to the lie, that we need an easier to understand version. This excuse is revealed as a lie, as those who claim such things, must then always refer to the origional Hebrew and Greek languages when faced with the errors in the mv's and turn around and attack the true word of God. This is folly, and it only reveals the doubt and denies the power and providence of God concerning his word of truth.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Rooster]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Rooster - Fair warning. You are being ridiculous and I won't tolerate it.

The NIV does not leave out I John 5:13. You are wrong.

I never said it does. all the info on KJV I learned was in church, and on various websites dedicated to the KJV, just because you think your info is right, and undissputed , doesn't mean it is, this is a debate forum, and I use the information that I was given, and I belive that info, doesn't mean that it too is perfectly right or undissputed either, there is alot of conflicting information out there, the choise is up to the individuale to decide what they whant to belive. I belive the way I do , because thats how the Holy Spirit convicts me to belive, likewise everyone else, is it wrong to defend my belifes how I learned them , is everyones belifes better than mine?

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by Rooster:
is it wrong to defend my belifes how I learned them , is everyones belifes better than mine?

Yes, because your beliefs are based on slanderous lies.

 

[natters]

Rooster said "there is alot of conflicting information out there"

Which is why it is very important that you verify things for yourself.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Thirteen year-olds should not be allowed alone with a computer. They end up showing both childish conduct, faulty information, and parroting/prating about things of which they haven't a clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then what is your excuse Dr. Bob, being that you are a grown man guilty of these things?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
A little study will do you (and me) some good. So, should you study the languages God chose, or man's language that in this case is outdated? why the added burden?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would much rather put my efforts on studying the words of God that He wonderfully provided already for me, and generations of English speaking believers in my own language that I can understand, rather than some dead language to which I don't understand. Look at what has happened because of this. Now everyone thinks they are a scholar enouph to know that God's word in the English language has errors in it. This then leads them to believe falsely, that God allows errors in His word of truth. This line of thinking is VERY WRONG and UNBIBLICAL, and VERY DANGEROUS. We do not need the Greek and Hebrew today, unless of course you think the word of God has errors, and you need to prove it does, by the vanity of your own mind and wisdom. My time is much better spent studying in my own language, and letting the Lord reveal to me the truth, even if I do not understand it. There is much in the word of God that men do not understand, until the Lord reveals it to them. Many cannot understand what God has said, and are impatient to wait for the Lord to reveal that truth, and turn to the lie, that we need an easier to understand version. This excuse is revealed as a lie, as those who claim such things, must then always refer to the origional Hebrew and Greek languages when faced with the errors in the mv's and turn around and attack the true word of God. This is folly, and it only reveals the doubt and denies the power and providence of God concerning his word of truth.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Let me say again that I bet you are glad the Anglican translarors did NOT have thy attidude. You choose the "fruit" of the tree, when you minimize the "roots", i.e. the languages God chose to inspire His Word in. Sorry, I even have the AV translators on my side w/ this one.
(and since you just might reply w/ something like God is on your side, well, He's on our side!)