Bible versions-Is there only one?

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

The NIV is slowly changing over to another gospel and another Jesus... sadly, they're not the only ones.

No its not, and that's another unfounded lie drummed up by you KJVO ppl.

while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,[Titus 2:13 NIV]

The NIV makes its clear that the Christ is God. If they were going to try to change the Christ into another Christ, they would not have stated it this way in Titus 2:13


Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:[2 Peter 2:1 NIV]

Another verse in the NIV that emphatically states the Christ is God.

So, at least act like you have some integrity when you smear the other versions, alright?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

@KJV1611
@fredoheaven
@John146

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: [2 Peter 2:1 KJV]

The King James VERSION makes 2 Peter 2:1 and little more ambiguous as it seems to put a separation between God and Jesus Christ. Is there an ulterior motive behind the KJV translators by making this verse a little more ambiguous? Of course not.


Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.[1 Peter 1:11]

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.[John 1:32]

Romans 8:16 and 8:26 both use itself in reference to the Holy Spirit.

There's four verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as an inanimate object. Was there an ulterior motive behind the KJV translators doing this. Did they wish to make the Holy Spirit another holy spirit when they translated the KJV? Hmmmmmm?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Don't call me a liar by showing us footnotes. Footnotes in modern bibles tell the reader that those words DO NOT BELONG IN THE BIBLE, by casting doubt on the text. And who will be bothered with footnotes when the NIV claims to be based on *the best" manuscripts (another lie)?

But you have already been siding with the liars and hoaxers who have produced the modern bibles, by giving my posts the thumbs down! So you are actually partaking of their evil deeds -- the MUTILATION of the words of God.

The footnotes are on the same page as the text. It's a more honest translation that tells you SOME manuscripts are different.
You've sustained this attack for years. That's why the thumbs down. YOU ARE ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY.

You are indeed a liar when you try to reduce decades of bible study to a "hoax" and "evil". I read most of your posts. The vast majority of the time- I have come to the same conclusions as yourself regarding scripture and Christian doctrine. But I've learned it by using the NIV mostly, along with some other translations. But you persist in this hateful campaign and barrage of lies against it.
At one time I thought I could learn from you but you have no respect.

Regarding this issue you're the one on the offence. You're the one attacking. You are accusing me of evil. For reading a bible!
And you expect no defence.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

There is only one version of the bible that is absolute truth and that is scripture written in the language of original man--ancient Hebrew. That was thousands of years ago and Hebrew is very changed today.

The gospels were in the language used over 2,000 years ago, and the words of the Lord were written down by Hebrew men who knew the Hebrew language of that time even if they wrote in Greek. Their scripture training that they knew God through was Hebrew from reading the scrolls.

Just think how English has changed from the days Shakespeare wrote and that was only about 500 years ago.

It's amazing we have anything at all. The Lord must have been behind the process making sure his word came through the passing of time. Is there any other collection of books from the ancient world to survive so well?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Notice to the right it says "Or gained. Some copies reade, which yee haue gained, but that ye receiue..." I can't tell what that last word is. Is it etc?

But the 1611 KJV had footnotes, and showed what other copies(mss) used in lieu of that particular word. Even the 1611 KJV translators weren't KJVO.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Let’s look at an example of the ever changing NIV.

Mark 1:40- 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”

The Ever Changing NIV

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

The 2011 NIV reads, Mark 1:41"Jesus WAS INDIGNANT. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

It’s almost laughable to think Jesus was indignant in Mark 1:41.

But you are leaving out the way it appears on the page aren't you?

Because you don't look at the NIV at all. You go to an "I hate the "NIV" website and copy from there.
You believe what they TELL you to believe.

41 Jesus was indignant.[i] He reached out his hand and touched the man. ‘I am willing,’ he said. ‘Be clean!’


[i]Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion .


I take it that Jesus was filled with compassion for the man but angry at the unclean spirit.

The NET has it this way.

41 Moved with indignation,[bw] Jesus[bx] stretched out his hand and touched[by] him, saying, “I am willing. Be clean!”



[bw ] The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splanchnistheis, “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D) and a few Latin mss (a d ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (orgistheis, “moved with anger”). Just as important, the second-century Diatessaron by Tatian almost surely spoke of Jesus’ anger here. On the one hand, the external evidence is so overwhelming for σπλαγχνισθείς that only solid internal reasoning could overturn it. On the other hand, various creative arguments that have been offered for accidental changes in the early transmission of the text from σπλαγχνισθείς to ὀργισθείς generally reveal more about the ingenuity of the scholar than the authenticity of the text. Inner-Greek, inner-Latin, and inner-Syriac accidental changes have all been suggested, but they lack conviction. (See, e.g., Peter J. Williams, “An examination of Ehrman’s case for ὀργισθείς in Mark 1:41, ” NovT 53 [2011]: 1–12, who argues for an inner-Greek corruption; Metzger, TCGNT 65, suggests “It is possible that the reading ὀργισθείς either (a) was suggested by ἐμβριμησάμενος of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraḥm, “he had pity,” with ethra‘em, “he was enraged”).” It remains far more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is to envision a copyist softening “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion.” Against this, it has been asserted that it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant). However, at France notes, this view “ignores the fact that in those passages, unlike here, there was obvious cause for anger” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 115). In the parallels both Matthew and Luke have neither ὀργισθείς nor σπλαγχνισθείς here. The simplest explanation for this omission is that their copies of Mark read ὀργισθείς and the other evangelists simply deleted it. Nevertheless, a decision in this case is not easy. Perhaps the best defense of the “angry” reading is Bart D. Ehrman’s “A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus,” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed. Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 77–98. For discussion of the evidence and bibliography, see D. B. Wallace, “Textual Criticism and the Criterion of Embarrassment,” Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed. Komoszewski (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming), discussion on Mark 1:41.

 

[KJV1611]

Then you have no idea what it is like for people that have been a christian for over 40 years. One of the conditions allowing a man to study and engage himself in the Kabbalah was to be at least forty years old. I thought I would have better understanding when I was 40. I did not because I did not get saved until I was in my 20's. After being a Christian for 40 years when I was in my 60's, that was when I had better understanding.

How old was Paul when he wrote the New Testament, or Stephen when he stoned? You're not into Kabbalah are you?

 

[KJV1611]

No its not, and that's another unfounded lie drummed up by you KJVO ppl.

while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,[Titus 2:13 NIV]

The NIV makes its clear that the Christ is God. If they were going to try to change the Christ into another Christ, they would not have stated it this way in Titus 2:13


Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:[2 Peter 2:1 NIV]

Another verse in the NIV that emphatically states the Christ is God.

So, at least act like you have some integrity when you smear the other versions, alright?

Have you ever heard of the aquarian conspiracy?

 

[KJV1611]

@KJV1611
@fredoheaven
@John146

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: [2 Peter 2:1 KJV]

The King James VERSION makes 2 Peter 2:1 and little more ambiguous as it seems to put a separation between God and Jesus Christ. Is there an ulterior motive behind the KJV translators by making this verse a little more ambiguous? Of course not.


Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.[1 Peter 1:11]

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.[John 1:32]

Romans 8:16 and 8:26 both use itself in reference to the Holy Spirit.

There's four verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as an inanimate object. Was there an ulterior motive behind the KJV translators doing this. Did they wish to make the Holy Spirit another holy spirit when they translated the KJV? Hmmmmmm?

Do you think the Spirit of Christ is a person? The Spirit of Christ is what we are arguing over on this thread, IT'S NOT a person. The Word of God is the Spirit of Christ.

The KJV is trying to TEACH you what the Spirit of Christ (IT, not HE), is and you're rejecting that truth. I will say, since you've made this post I can understand your stance on bible versions.

 

[KJV1611]

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Are there other people here who don't understand that the "Spirit of Christ" in the Old Testament saints was the hidden word of God in the Old Testament scriptures?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Do you think the Spirit of Christ is a person? The Spirit of Christ is what we are arguing over on this thread, IT'S NOT a person. The Word of God is the Spirit of Christ.

The KJV is trying to TEACH you what the Spirit of Christ (IT, not HE), is and you're rejecting that truth. I will say, since you've made this post I can understand your stance on bible versions.

Oh my! The Holy Spirit IS a person. There are three Persons in the Godhead, and these three make up one Being. That’s basic Trinitarian theology.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Have you ever heard of the aquarian conspiracy?

Are you trying to say we are part of the new age movement?

 

[KJV1611]

Oh my! The Holy Spirit IS a person. There are three Persons in the Godhead, and these three make up one Being. That’s basic Trinitarian theology.

Why do you think the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit?

 

[KJV1611]

Are you trying to say we are part of the new age movement?

I'm saying that the objective of the Aquarian conspiracy is to infiltrate all institutions including the corporate church and have those institutions usher in the cosmic Christ.

I'm saying you've been duped.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

I'm saying that the objective of the Aquarian conspiracy is to infiltrate all institutions including the corporate church and have those institutions usher in the cosmic Christ.

I'm saying you've been duped.

Does the church you attend believe this?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Why do you think the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit?

Because they are the same. The Spirit that indwelt Him is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

I’m saying you've been duped.

Not hardly. But keep it coming.