"Which Bible is God's Word?"

Every valid version.

 

James White recently debated Shabir Ally, a prominent Muslim apologist, on the integrity of the New Testament text, and has blogged extensively on this subject in the past year. (There are a few earlier posts in this category that you should look up as well, but just start at the bottom and read up.)

The short version is that Muslims, not surprisingly, start from a position of unbelief in the New Testament and support their opinions with the "scholarship" of other unbelievers, most notably the agnostic textual critic Bart Erhman.

 

From what I understand even Muslim scholars acknowledge that there are irreconcilable contradictions in the Quran.

My answer therefore would be that though there are a very few uncertain passages in the NT it does not contradict itself either with or without them... while the Quran even perhaps as a more certain text with regard to its wording is self-contradicting.

 

How deeply have you studied this rsr?

 

The ones that don't tell lies!
A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way - a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah. "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1. The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS"

A better translation Easier to understand Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE..." John 17:17 says, "...thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "God, that CANNOT LIE."
How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 Either the translators of the other versions can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi or somebody is tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT.

 

I hope I find you doing well Sir and at peace in the Lord.

I can deeply appreciate your conviction in the KJV I have 3 of my own but please be aware that although verse 1:2 is Mal. 3:1 we find Isaiah 40:3 quoted in verse 1:3 and is given pride of mention because of his standing at the head of the prophetic canon. The fact of the mention of "Isaiah" in 1:2 is the accurate Gospel of Mark for the predominate number of source texts.

Again I can deeply appreciate your conviction and deep love and affection for the KJV but the evidence suggests that the predominate number of source texts are accurate and not actually lies.

Thank you Sir and God Bless.

 

As is written in the prophets is the correct translation, IMO.

John Mark was stating the fact that more than one prophet made the prophecies in verses 2 and 3. He referenced Malachi in verse 2 and Isaiah in verse 3.

Many MV's attribute both verses only to Isaiah, which is incorrect.

 

william said:

A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3:

So?

Do you even pay attention to what the thread is about, or do you just shuffle your KJV-only flash cards and post whatever macro comes out on top?

 

I beg your pardon, but that is simply not true. The Greek manuscripts which read "Isaiah" are Aleph, B, L, Delta, 33, 565, 892, 1241, and 2427. Those reading "Isaiah" but with a variant are D, Theta, f1, 205, 700, 1071, 1243, and a single lectionary, 253.

Those manuscripts reading "prophets" are A, W, f13, 28, 108, 579, 597, 1006, 1010, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, all the Byzantine manuscripts (100s of them) including the great Byzantine Uncials E, F, G, H, P, and Sigma and all the rest of the lectionaries (100s of them).

If you honestly believe that then you will have to believe that "prophets" is the correct reading and "Isaiah" is a scribal gloss on the overwhelming weight of them manuscript evidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi there!

I will stand by my original assertion, although it was not my intension to upset anyone, but I will further illuminate my stand by saying once you cancel out duplicates and assign added value to more ancient texts you'll discover that the evidence, as it stands, will side with my assertion. I was not suggesting a literal number of texts but the evidence of the most ancient texts that we have.

Authenticity is not measured by volume.

 

Would you care to expand on that?

A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]Any version that follows its sources reasonably closely, and its sources are recognized as Scriptural manuscripts, is a valid version.

Examples...KJV and NASV follow their Scriptural sources & are valid versions. The NWT has been altered to fit Jabroney False Witless doctrine, & doesn't always closely follow any recognized Scriptural mss; the TNIV has altered many Scriptures as they were written in Hebrew & Greek for the sake of "gender-Correctness"; therefore neither one is a valid version.

 

Well lets go write more bibles cause we have ourselves a Prophet"I will stand by my original assertion" You Know I have learned alot from the BB and still have alot to learn as you all well Know but I sure dont Know what you are talking about! I thought that That the TR was settled as Beeig the recived Text Now there is More to Add to the Word I dont think so!

 

Preach Jesus or we are All doomed!