Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

[HankD]

Hi Mike,

You are preaching to the choir Mike. Everyone here from the mv side of the KJVO issue knows full well that there are less than perfect modern versions out there. That has happened in every age.

What we (myself anyway) object to is KJVO (or look-alikes) folk who have called the NASB/NKJV/NIV by some really nasty blaphemous names.

BTW, I still don't know what to call folks who claim not be KJVO yet propound all or most of the "ex cathedra" pronouncements from the KJVO chief spokesman (I could have said spokeswoman but if I did then everyone would have know who it is so I didn't), so that's why I say look-alikes or wannabees.

INCOMING!

HankD

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Archangle7
I don't see where this is a problem, since every English Bible version I've read tells us that salvation is of Christ.

I think that the problem is, if there isn't acuracy then we may as well throw it all out. I have over 25 copies of the Bible and everyone different in some way. They do not all say the same thing, they just have Similarities. Yes most do say that Salvation is of Christ and yes this is important, but what about all the other information that is necessary for your faith?</font>[/QUOTE]What other "information that is necessary for your faith" can't be found in non-KJV English Bible translations?

 

[Jeffrey H]

To the original post:

Will,

My NASB is the Word of God translated into English. It is fully reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative for doctrine and instruction. Period.

Your KJV Bible is the Word of God translated into English. It is fully reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative for doctrine and instruction. Period.

--Jeff

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
... in my way of seeing things.

Here is the crux of the problem: Will and others have made "their way of seeing things" the test by which truth is to be measured. They believe themselves to be the final authority on the matter. Unless you see things their way, you are the one who is wrong. They have made an idol out of their own understanding. They don't believe what they believe because God said to believe it. In fact, they have well illustrated for us that God never said to believe it. They believe what they believe because it is "their way of seeing it."

Those who love truth and the Bible need to reject such subjectivism and return to the authority of God's word.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Hank D.

Originally posted by Hank D;
You are preaching to the choir Mike. Everyone here from the mv side of the KJVO issue knows full well that there are less than perfect modern versions out there. That has happened in every age.

True; The KJV isn't perfect either. It isn't perfect because it's a copy just like all the rest. For me though it is the most accurate. It's the one I use most and the one I rely on for the truth.
The thing IMHO we have to over come is when we don't like how it is said in one version we switch to another constantly looking for a better interpretation that suits us. What makes us do this? Are we really looking for truth or satisfaction of our own desires of what we want said. Instead of accepting it as it is.

Originally posted by Archangel7;
What other "information that is necessary for your faith" can't be found in non-KJV English Bible translations?

There must be some if our Bibles aren't accurate. The changing of one word can change the entire message of the verse. I've seen photographs of Papyri and the problem is what happens when your reading along and all of a sudden you come to a place where it has been damaged and several verses aren't there. You look for another copy to see if you can find it. Or you rely on more modern sorces of what others have speculated must have been there.
The thing I found most intresting is that in Isreal they say they have a copy of Isaiah I believe that was written out on metal. They carbon dated it to be very old. I'm not sure of the date but it was before Christ. They say that this find is all most an exact copy of what we have to day in the King James. I realize that the new testament and the Old come from different sorces but if God is able to presever His word in the old testament then He must be able to do it in the New as well. God promised to presever His word. I believe He did.

There are other older versions of the Bible that aren't King James but there simularities support one another.
The NASB supports the KJV in Places but it doesn't in others. Such as this verse I read about on another site.

From the NASB;
Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels,taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.

Westcott and Hort translated this from there own version of the Greek new testament correctly but it is not majority text as you can see.

This from the Majority text;

Col 2:18 Let no one rule against you, desiring to do so in false humility and in worship of the angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, in vain being puffed up by his carnal mind,


James White says that the NASB is not making any claims that he has seen anything nor is it asserting that his claims are real.

I disagree The King James gives it corectly.
If what he says is true then why the difference.

King James;
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly.


So many times I've heard men say they used other text as well for translation. I ask which ones. Could it have been the KJV?
May God Bless You all;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

From the NASB;
Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels,taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.

Westcott and Hort translated this from there own version of the Greek new testament correctly but it is not majority text as you can see.

This from the Majority text;

Col 2:18 Let no one rule against you, desiring to do so in false humility and in worship of the angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, in vain being puffed up by his carnal mind,

______________________________

What's the difference?? They seem to be saying the same thing?? The only thing is "defraud" vs. "rule against." But that is no difference. To defraud is to rule against them. Defraud has a littel clearer connotation here.

There is no difference in the Greek text here. All editions appear to say the exact same thing (unless the Hodges Farstad MajT says something different). Scrivener's 1894, RB MajT, UBS 3/4, and NA27 all say the exact same thing.

Where did you get your translation of hte Majority text from??

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry, you appear to be living proof of the saying: "If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind."

You post: From the NASB;
Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels,taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.
Westcott and Hort translated this from there own version of the Greek new testament correctly but it is not majority text as you can see.
This from the Majority text;
Col 2:18 Let no one rule against you, desiring to do so in false humility and in worship of the angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, in vain being puffed up by his carnal mind,
______________________________
What's the difference?? They seem to be saying the same thing?? The only thing is "defraud" vs. "rule against." But that is no difference. To defraud is to rule against them. Defraud has a littel clearer connotation here.
There is no difference in the Greek text here. All editions appear to say the exact same thing (unless the Hodges Farstad MajT says something different). Scrivener's 1894, RB MajT, UBS 3/4, and NA27 all say the exact same thing.
Where did you get your translation of hte Majority text from??


Now, Larry, I know this might be a little hard for you to grasp, you believing in the authority of God's word and all, but there is just a tad bit of difference between "things he has seen" and "things he has NOT seen."

Things which he hath NOT seen" is the reading of the Majority of all texts, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Sinaiticus correction, D correction, C, and about 12 other uncials. It is also the reading of the Spanish Reina Valera and even the Douay version.

However your Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus omit the NOT, and so your nasb says "visions he HAS SEEN".

Now you see it and now you don't. But I guess this is the way you see the Bible version issue.

As for you and Hank saying there are no doctrinal differences, and the same things are taught in the mvs as in the KJB, I will probably start a new topic one of these days on this.

I'm sure you await it with breathless anticipation.


Larry's "bibles"
"seen" = "not seen" No difference at all, no siree.

I doubt most people would be interested, but if anyone would like to see the mess that is "the oldest and best" manuscripts and how the Book of Colossians is all messed up in the conflicting modern versions, I did a study on this book showing how totally inconsistent modern "science of textual criticism" really is.

If you want to take a glance at the first chapter and find it of interest, than you can continue through the book.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Col.html

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Archangel7;
What other "information that is necessary for your faith" can't be found in non-KJV English Bible translations?

There must be some if our Bibles aren't accurate. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but "there must be" isn't good enough. Can you give even one specific example of a key Christian doctrine found *only* in the KJV and in no other English Bible version?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
As for you and Hank saying there are no doctrinal differences, and the same things are taught in the mvs as in the KJB, I will probably start a new topic one of these days on this.

This forum and it's dead topic dump
down in the archives is chock full of
topics trying to prove that there are
doctrinal differences between the KJVs
and the MVs. All expire after a page,
maybe two.

Fact is, the vast majority of
the major divisions of
doctrine between the letigimate Protestant
sort and all the major heresys began
1611 through 1881 USING THE KJVs.

So even if you could "prove" a couple of
doctrinal variants between there is still
that vast doctrinal differences found
by reading the KJV alone.

BTW, has anybody here ever seen
a nKJV or NIV or NASB in the title of
a church's web site? I have not. I have see
KJV1611 in the title, but they didn't
even seem to know that they they
were not using the KJV1611 edition but the
KJV1769 edition.

I have an inspired Bible, the AMPLIFIED BIBLE.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;
I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you seems I'm a always running out of time. At any rate thankyou for your patients. I wish I had a 9 to 5 Job but while on a salry my employer is much more demanding of my time than he was when I was on an hourly wage.

originally from Pastor Larry;
What's the difference?? They seem to be saying the same thing?? The only thing is "defraud" vs. "rule against." But that is no difference. To defraud is to rule against them. Defraud has a littel clearer connotation here.

I believe Mr Kinney pointed out the differences to you correctly. James White a well known person involved in teaching men to become Pastors stated in his book "The King James Controversy" "Nothing in the passage in either transplantation asserts the reailty of such visions" I disagree. This verse supports there visions, as stated the way it is in the NIV, or the NASB. It clearly states that they "have seen" as opposed to "have not seen" what do you think he means about the reality of what they had seen? Do you think to say that the words "have seen" supports there having visions and that the visions were indeed real.

May God Bless You;
Mike
P.S.
I got my english Majority text version from my Bible program "E-Sword"

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you really think these people saw actual visions??? If you do, then you have a wierd doctrine of revelation. When people come to me asking about dreams and visions, I am very quick to point them to the fact that God is not revealing anything to them that way. The understanding of the text is not affected in either understanding.

When I asked what version you were using, I was trying to figure what the real difference you were referring to was. There certainly is no doctrinal difference here. There may be a slight difference in teh actual intent. The KJV translation may mean he is infatuated with things he has not seen, i.e., knows nothing about. That would certainly describe most of the KJVO proponents in this discussion though that is not what Paul was talking about. He would be amused and then saddened by the idea that people would distort the teaching of Scripture to such a degree.

The point is, no matter what, that these people have no real stand for their stand. They are excluding other people from Christianity without genuine basis. AGain, simply study of the text would reveal this to be true. It is always amazing to me how much of this comes down to study. When people study the word from a standpoint of belief, these little "problems" become very easy to deal with. When people like Will and others approach the Bible from a standpoint of unbelief as they have, then they struggle to figure these things out.

To attack God's word on this basis is plain foolish.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The point is, no matter what, that these people have no real stand for their stand. They are excluding other people from Christianity without genuine basis. AGain, simply study of the text would reveal this to be true. It is always amazing to me how much of this comes down to study. When people study the word from a standpoint of belief, these little "problems" become very easy to deal with. When people like Will and others approach the Bible from a standpoint of unbelief as they have, then they struggle to figure these things out.

To attack God's word on this basis is plain foolish.

Oh my, sad but so

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;
I was really disapointed by the answer you gave. Somehow I expected more from a pastor. Your the one who said that all versions say the same thing. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this but try to find away to make excuses for it, by saying that it all comes down to study. I have studied it and they do not say the same thing. The fact that the NIV and the NASB say they did see something implies they must have.

Your right I don't believe they have seen anything thats is my discernment of it. I rely on the King James and it gives the correct rendering.
There are those however who do believe in, and worship angels. I am sure they believe they did see. They can turn to the NIV and the NASB and have something in which to back there faith on.

May God bless You;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

They do say the same thing. They both say that these people have no valid reason for what they are doing. I am not sure what that is confusing.

They saw a "vision." But it was just that. It was not real. Therefore, they didn't see anything. They may believe they saw something, but they didn't see anything.

Besides that, the issue in this discussion is not about whether these two versions are different. It is about what Paul actually wrote.

I have preached through Colossians and taught through Colossians on a Bible college level. This is much ado about nothing.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Iluvlight, you correctly said: " Hi Pastor Larry;
I was really disapointed by the answer you gave. Somehow I expected more from a pastor. Your the one who said that all versions say the same thing. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this but try to find away to make excuses for it, by saying that it all comes down to study. I have studied it and they do not say the same thing. The fact that the NIV and the NASB say they did see something implies they must have. "

Light, you'll have to give Larry some leeway here. You need to understand his brains have been scrambled either at seminary or he was that way before, and after graduating his condition only became worse.

"intruding into those things which he hath NOT seen" equals "things he HAS SEEN" in Larry's way of thinking. Hey, all versions are the same, don't ya know?

Instead of his being just a tad honest and admitting he overlooked the majority plus reading found in the KJB, (as you originally brought up) he continues to insist they both mean the same things.

Whether the false teachers in the context saw visions of angels or not, really means the same thing. Many of God's true messengers saw visions of angels, and there are also false angels of light, but both are really nothing at all and it never really happened one way or another. Am I beginning to make sense now? Maybe I'll get my doctorate here some day and be able to talk like these guys.

One can only hope.

Give the guy a break, OK? You're just being too picky.

Will Kinney

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ephesians 4:4-6 (KJV1769):

There is one body,
and one Spirit, even as ye are called
in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all,
who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.

/ed, still lookin' for that verse that
says "one Bible, one King James Version, one opinion"./

I have an inspired Bible
is the Holman Christian Standard
Bible (HCSB).
I'm just waiting for the electronic copy
of the Old Testament

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Will J Kinney;

Light, you'll have to give Larry some leeway here. You need to understand his brains have been scrambled either at seminary or he was that way before, and after graduating his condition only became worse.

I for one don't find anything Christian is this statement at all. In the future please don't involve me in your personal degrading of other Christians.It's one thing to disagree and quite another to ridicule someone for there beliefs.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[robycop3]

I for one don't find anything Christian is this statement at all. In the future please don't involve me in your personal degrading of other Christians.It's one thing to disagree and quite another to ridicule someone for there beliefs.
ILUVLIGHT

Now you see the true light carried by many KJVOs shining through. Lacking any EVIDENCE to support their myth, they engage in ad-hominem attacks. One of Will's fave chants is, "you have no final authority, & no infallible, inerrant Bible". All he's doing is hoping no one will see his lack of evidence for his myth, or that someine might actually put some stock in all the comparisons between versions he does. here, his prob is that he cannot prove HIS fave version right & all the others wrong. All we have is HIS SAY-SO, & that won't go very far.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Robycop3;

Now you see the true light carried by many KJVOs shining through. Lacking any EVIDENCE to support their myth, they engage in ad-hominem attacks.

I have to say that it makes me sick to my stomach when I see Christians attacking each other with such zeal. I'm not perfect myself and have been caught up in such childish rantings.We should remember that there are folk on both sides of the issue that get carried away and let the debate create hatred inside of them. There are those who say some hurtful things to those who use any version they themselves don't use There are good and bad on both sides of the issue. Shouldn't we be treating those who disagree with us with LOVE no matter what there attitude. After all we may have to spend eternity with them...
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Ed Edwards]

ILuvLight: "Shouldn't we be treating those who disagree with
us with LOVE no matter what there attitude. After all we
may have to spend eternity with them... "

Should be: "Shouldn't we be treating those who disagree with
us with LOVE no matter what their attitude. After all we
may have to spend eternity with them... "

Amen, Brother Mike -- Preach it!

Recall this theorum from Set Mathematics:

From an infinite set, any finite number of infinite subsets
may be made.

Take an infinite set like eternity. Maybe you
get to be with Jesus alone for an hour
every 15 Million years. the infinite
subset = {15Millionth, 30Millionth, 45Millionth, ... }.

So i get to spend eternity ALONE with ILoveLight.
I better get to where i enjoy Mike.