Starting the Bible

[ChosenbyHim]

And you have absolutely no proof of that.

Wrong. There is plenty of proof of that.


The NIV (New Idiot's Version or Non Inspired Version) attacks the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ a number of times.


IN Micah 5:2, the NIV gives Jesus an origin. Hence, attacking His deity.

In Matthew 5:22, the NIV turns Jesus into a sinner by removing the phrase "without a cause"


Matthew 5:22New International Version (NIV)

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[a][b] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.


Now here is how the verse is supposed to read:


Matthew 5:22King James Version (KJV)

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.


Jesus had a righteous cause for being angry with the moneychangers in the temple. And yet with the NIV omitting the phrase "without a cause" in Matt. 5:22, it is basically implying that Jesus sinned when he was angry.

Hence, the satanic filth of the NIV also attacks the sinless nature of Christ. That should be proof enough that the NIV is satanic. And if you don't see that, well then you simply do not understand how Satan operates.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

That's what I said.



I was referring to the manuscripts in the original language. You have this absurd belief, it seems, that a particular English translation is better than the original languages.

The King James Bible is superior to the original languages. Today Greek is a dead language.

And last time I checked, when I see street preachers out preaching the word and witnessing, I do not see them holding up a Greek New Testament in their hand, but rather, I see them holding an English Bible. A King James Bible proclaiming and declaring the word of the LORD.

The bible is not God's "words", they are God's inspired "word". There is no evidence for your claim and it's a man made tradition.

Jesus said His words would not pass away:


Matthew 24:35Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.



Mark 13:31Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


Luke 21:33Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.



Three times it is recorded in the Scriptures that Jesus' words (plural) will not pass away.

Therefore it is not some man made tradition. It is Scriptural.

Let us look at another Scripture that proves the Scriptures are God's words:



John 14:23 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Jesus said that if a man love Him, that he will keep His words (plural). That means we must have His words today then. Therefore, John 14:23 proves that God's pure words have been preserved and that we have them today.

BTW- Which KJV is the right one?

Which KJV? They are all right.

 

[Nautilus]

Only a fool would fall for those explanations chosen

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Only a fool would fall for those explanations chosen

No Nautilus, only someone who is willingly ignorant and does not want the truth will reject these clear truths concerning the Bible Version Issue.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Actually since you made the claim, it is up to you to prove it was removed. The reason it does not appear in other manuscripts is because of copyist errors from the later versions.
[/SIZE]

No it was not a copyist error.


The phrase: "is come in the flesh" is also found in the following English Bibles:


Geneva Bible

Tyndale Bible


So therefore, it belongs in the text.

Yes, but that does not mean that God dictated the bible word for word.

ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16)

The words in the Bible are inspired. ALL OF THEM.

The bible is obviously not the words of God and makes it clear on many occasions. The bible is the INSPIRED word of God, not dictated word for word.

Prove your reasoning.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Is that why they changed it multiple times? I have no idea what you consider an 'error'. An error would be a bad translation. The KJV is a fine translation, but it is just a translation. It has a lot of copyists errors from its use of newer manuscripts. That is why it has things that translations that use older manuscripts do not.

What changes are you talking about??

And what are the nature of the changes?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Then show it. All you have done is made baseless claims.

I have shown it. Go up to Post #61 and then answer it.

So don't say I am making baseless claims, when I gave you two examples. And if you are not going to take the time to address those first two, then don't waste my time. Once you address those two examples in post #61, I will then give you some more examples of why the modern versions are nothing more than Satanic counterfeits.

There are societies for bigfoot and UFOs, that does not mean they are credible or taken seriously.

Did you even check out that link I gave you. Did you at least read about the Dea Burgon Society and see who it is that runs it?

The person you mention is not a credible or recognized source.

The person whom I mentioned is an extremely credible source. John Dean William Burgon was a strong defender of the Bible, he defended the Bible against the evils of rationalism, he stood agains the false doctrine, ractices and corruption of the roman catholic church in his time, he also defended Genesis and its historical and literal account while there were apostate professors who were spiritualizing Genesis and attacking it's historical account.

You apparently believe that ignorance is believing whatever a person tells you, as long as it agrees with you, not whether it is credible or even factual.

No, I check the claims and study the information for myself and see if it has proper documentation for its claims.

That's called a baseless claim. They are not wrong because you said they are wrong, unless you are God.

They are wrong because of the evidence. I showed where the Vaticanus and Siniaticus came from. These two manuscripts basically came from the hands of Bible denying, Arians who did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. The Alexandrian texts (on which the new versions are based) come from Clement (200 A.D.). Do you know who Clement was?

Clement was the fellow who founded the Catechetical School at Alexandria, Egypt. This was the guy who brought in the teachings and wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith. Also, he had begun to collect corrupt manuscripts. Clement was the fellow who trained Origen. Now do you want to know what kind of fruit that Clement's school produced?

Well, one of its main leaders and graduates (origen) spiritualized many places in God's word, (like I mentioned before, Origen is considered the father of Allegory), he changes and altered many passages of Scripture which did not agree with his liberal and arian views. Origen also believed that Jesus Christ was a created being.

Which is exactly what the editors and translators of the American Standard Version (1901) believed.

Don't believe me? Well here is the proof:


One Book Stands Alone - Chapter 2

You never backed up your claims.

I have backed up my claim. And once you address the examples which I gave in my earlier post, I will then post some more examples.

You have essentially said the other translations are wrong because you say so.

The modern translations are wrong because they are translated from the wrong Greek texts. They are not translated from the Received text.

The modern translations are translated from the Minority Texts, and the minority texts only represent 5% of the existing manuscriptus which we have today. The Minority texts were complied by unbelieving Scribes in Alexandria, Egypt who did not beleive that Jesus was God and who also did not beleive the Bible to be the word of God. The Minority texts also abound with many alterations and changes, often made by several different scribes. This is affirmed in Dean Burgon's book (Revision Revised). The Documentation is all there. Furthermore, the Alexandrian texts (Minority texts) omit a total of 200 entire verses from the Scriptures. Now wasn't there a warning in the Holy Bible about taking away from the word of God???


Not only did the reformers of the protestant reformation REJECT these minority texts but also so did the early Christians such as the Waldenses and huguenots.

Now shouldn't that tell you something???


I suggest you do your own due diligence and study the Bible Version Issue. Study the history of the Bible and the Manuscripts. It will help you better understand this Bible Version Issue.