The Attack on The Bible part 2.
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
eternallygrateful, yes the King James Bible is free of error and it is the inerrant word of God. Can you prove that there is at least one error that is "supposedly" in the King James Bible?
Okay, what about Mark 16?
And let me ask you this, do you even believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?
Also, do you believe that any Bible is the inerrant word of God? If it is not the KJV as you claim, then where can I get a copy of the perfect and preserved word of God?
Okay, what about Mark 16?
And let me ask you this, do you even believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?
Also, do you believe that any Bible is the inerrant word of God? If it is not the KJV as you claim, then where can I get a copy of the perfect and preserved word of God?
Okay, you say that 1 John 5:7 was added by the KJV translators, what's your proof?
Did you know that 1 John 5:7 was quoted by the early church fathers? Here is an excerpt from John Gill's commentary and exposition of the Bible, New Testament:
As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius F26, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius F1 about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian F2, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian F3 about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.
- John Gill (Exposition of the Bible)
E
Prove it by drinking poison and not dieing.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009 (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.) (Mk 16:17–18). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
παρ-ακολουθέω, -ῶ: fut. παρακολουθήσω; 1 aor. παρηκολούθησα (1 Tim. 4:6 L mrg. WH mrg.; 2 Tim. 3:10 L T Tr WH txt.); pf. παρηκολούθηκα;
1. to follow after; so to follow one as to be always at his side [see παρά, IV. 1]; to follow close, accompany, (so fr. Arstph. and Xen. down).
2. metaph.
a. to be always present, to attend one wherever he goes: τινί, Mk. 16:17
Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (484). New York: Harper & Brothers.
I believe in inerancy of the origional autographs. which are not available today
there are non, the origional autographs disappeared long ago. All we have is interpretations of copies. I believe any version can be read and truth can be known, I believe, as in the NLV, that some versions are horrific. But I believe God has given us the tools to properly interpret scripture no matter which version we use.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009 (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.) (Mk 16:17–18). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
παρ-ακολουθέω, -ῶ: fut. παρακολουθήσω; 1 aor. παρηκολούθησα (1 Tim. 4:6 L mrg. WH mrg.; 2 Tim. 3:10 L T Tr WH txt.); pf. παρηκολούθηκα;
1. to follow after; so to follow one as to be always at his side [see παρά, IV. 1]; to follow close, accompany, (so fr. Arstph. and Xen. down).
2. metaph.
a. to be always present, to attend one wherever he goes: τινί, Mk. 16:17
Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (484). New York: Harper & Brothers.
I believe in inerancy of the origional autographs. which are not available today
there are non, the origional autographs disappeared long ago. All we have is interpretations of copies. I believe any version can be read and truth can be known, I believe, as in the NLV, that some versions are horrific. But I believe God has given us the tools to properly interpret scripture no matter which version we use.
Okay that is not an error eternally-grateful. Here is an excerpt from one of Will Kinney's articles (Gospel of Mark - a Modern Version Mix-up by)
A) And by the way, all translations and Bible versions translate it in a similar way to the KJB reading. IN other words, they all state in one way or another in Mark 16:18 that if they drink any deadly thing or deadly poison, that it should not hurt them.
Modern scholarship has cast serious doubt as to the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark.
Mark 16
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
There are many articles on the internet showing the overwhelming textual evidence supporting the authenticity of these twelve verses. I will discuss it a little, but for those interested in seeing more, here is a good article about it.
purewords.org - pure words Resources and Information. This website is for sale!
All 12 verses are omitted by both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and it is these two manuscripts that are primarily responsible for the omission of some 3000 words and at least 15 whole verses in the New Testament in such versions as the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV.
However these twelve verses are found in the vast Majority of all texts. Dean Burgon says they are present in 618 of 620 known manuscripts in his day. They are also in Alexandrinus, C, D, the Old Latin, which predates anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Pe****ta, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian versions, the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.
Dean Burgon, in his book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, shows 12 church fathers who lived before the end of the 3rd century who quoted from this section of Scripture, including Irenaeus 202 A.D., Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr.
In his book, Which Bible, David Otis Fuller cites Dean John Burgon as saying: "I insist and am prepared to prove that the text of these two Codexes (Vaticanus or B, and Sinaiticus also called Aleph) is very nearly the foulest in existence," (Pp. 126-127) and "That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable....B and Aleph are covered all over with blots -- Aleph even more than B....We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, SOLELY TO THEIR ASCERTAINED EVIL CHARACTER." (Pg. 93, 128)
See my short article on "the oldest and best manuscripts" that reveals what Sinaiticus and Vaticanus really say:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html
Dean Burgon in his book Revision Revised also says: "What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices A, B, C, D, -- especially of B, D, and Aleph. And because this is a matter which lies at root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject...We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that B, D , and Aleph (Sinaiticus), are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: -- have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, -- which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD." (Revision Revised p.15, 16)
When you see the footnote the "oldest and best manuscripts" know that they are referring to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
The confusion and doubt thrown upon these inspired verses of Scripture can be seen in the modern versions themselves. The RSV of 1952 actually omits all twelve verses from their text and places them in small italicized letters at the bottom of the page. Then the NRSV, and the ESV (both revisions of the RSV) have put them back in the text in brackets and separated from the rest of the chapter and with a note: "SOME of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20."
SOME!?! I thought "some" meant several, not TWO! The NASB is interesting in that it continues to change from one edition to the next. The 1960 NASB brackets verses 9-20 and footnotes "Some of the oldest mss. omit." Then it adds another ending to Mark. Addition "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."
Then in 1972 the NASB omitted this alternate ending, but in 1977 they put it back in. Then in 1995 they once again took it out!
The NIV 1978 edition draws a line between verse 8 and 9 and then notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain verses 9-20." But the 1984 Scofield NIV edition also draws a line and separates these 12 verses and footnotes: "Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...but it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second century." So are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus "the most reliable", or have they now been downgraded to "the most ancient"? Neither of which is true at all. They certainly are not the most reliable neither are they the earliest manuscripts.
But now the 2001 TNIV (Today's New International Version) has also drawn a line between these verses and the others; tells us "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" and then in smaller italicized letters print the last twelve verses, thus casting serious doubt as to their validity.
Doesn't it seem just a tad unscholarly and hypocritical for the NASB, NIV, ESV to include these 12 verses in their "bibles", and yet to omit the other THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament based primarily on these same two manuscripts?
I hope this study on the gospel of Mark has been beneficial for you. You should be able to clearly see that modern scholarship is constantly changing and they have no settled text of God's inerrant words. The modern versions disagree among themselves and create doubt and uncertainty as to what our Lord really says in His inerrant words of truth and life.
Believe God's promises. Get yourself an Authorized King James Holy Bible, and rest in the faithfulness of Almighty God to preserve His pure and everlasting words.
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" Revelation 22:21
- Will Kinney (Gospel of Mark - a Modern Version Mix-up)
B) Okay, I really don't understand what your point is in regard to 1 Timothy 4:6 and 2 Timothy 3:10. They are fine translations and renderings in the KJV.
Follow
1. To come or go after; proceed behind: Follow the usher to your seat.
2.
a. To go after in or as if in pursuit: "The wrong she had done followed her and haunted her dream" (Katherine Anne Porter).
b. To keep under surveillance: followed the suspect around town.
3.
a. To move along the course of; take: We followed a path to the shore.
b. To go in the direction of; be guided by: followed the sun westward across the plains; followed the signs to the zoo.
4. To accept the guidance, command, or leadership of: follow a spiritual master; rebels who refused to follow their commander.
5. To adhere to; practice: followed family traditions.
6. To take as a model or precedent; imitate: followed my example and resigned.
7.
a. To act in agreement or compliance with; obey: follow the rules; follow one's instincts.
b. To keep to or stick to: followed the recipe; follow a diet.
8. To engage in (a trade or occupation); work at.
9. To come after in order, time, or position: Night follows day.
10. To bring something about at a later time than or as a consequence of: She followed her lecture with a question-and-answer period. The band followed its hit record with a tour.
11. To occur or be evident as a consequence of: Your conclusion does not follow your premise.
12.
a. To watch or observe closely: followed the bird through binoculars.
b. To be attentive to; pay close heed to: too sleepy to follow the sermon.
c. To keep oneself informed of the course, progress, or fortunes of: follow the stock market; followed the local teams.
13. To grasp the meaning or logic of; understand: Do you follow my argument?
v.intr.
1. To come, move, or take place after another person or thing in order or time.
2. To occur or be evident as a consequence; result: If you ignore your diet, trouble will follow.
3. To grasp the meaning or reasoning of something; understand.
n.
1. The act or an instance of following.
2. Games A billiards shot in which the cue ball is struck above center so that it follows the path of the object ball after impact.
Accompany
ac·com·pa·ny (-kmp-n, -kmpn)
v. ac·com·pa·nied, ac·com·pa·ny·ing, ac·com·pa·nies
v.tr.
1. To be or go with as a companion.
2. To add to; supplement: a dish best accompanied with a robust wine.
3. To coexist or occur with.
4. Music To perform an accompaniment to.
v.intr.
Music To play an accompaniment.
accompany [əˈkʌmpənɪ əˈkʌmpnɪ]
vb -nies, -nying, -nied
1. (tr) to go along with, so as to be in company with or escort
2. (tr; foll by with) to supplement the food is accompanied with a very hot mango pickle
3. (tr) to occur, coexist, or be associated with
c) Now, in regard to your response on Inerrancy, at least you gave me an honest answer. Okay, you only believe that the Inerrancy of Scripture applies to the Original Autographs but not translations or copies right? Well then from your own point of view and reasoning not even the apostles of the New Testament had the inspired and inerrant Scriptures. In fact, if only the Original Autographs were inspired than no one has ever had the inspired Scripture. Since the Originals soon wore out and vanished into the dust not too long after their first composing.
Now, let me ask you this, do you believe that your view on Inerrancy is biblical?
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2 Timothy 3:15-16
For one thing, Timothy did not have a copy of the Original Autographs at the time when the Apostle Paul penned theses Scriptures. What Timothy had in his home and possesion were copies and translations of the Original Autographs, but not the autographs themselves. And that is exactly what Paul was referring to. I am sure he was well aware that the Original Autographs of the Old Testament were long gone. No where in Scripture will you ever find a reference for the "Original Autographs." Not even in the new and modern versions. So, your view on Inerrancy eternally-gratefull is clearly not biblical. When Satan tempted our Lord Jesus in the wilderness, each of the three times, our Lord Jesus fought Satan with the Sword of the Spirit. Notice that Jesus declared each time: "It is written."
Also, if it is Scripture, then it is inspired according to 2 Timothy 3:16. And of course, if we do not have the inerrant and preserved word of God, then how can we obey 2 Timothy 4:2 where it commands us to preach the word? Here are some neat facts in regard to the original manuscripts:
First: there never was a book of 66 originals of the scripture.
Second: there never was a book of the 39 originals of the Old Testament.
Third: there never was a book of the 27 originals of the New Testament.
Fourth: no one living or dead ever saw the 66, 39 or 27 originals.
Fifth: each of the originals was lost, worn out, destroyed or gone within 100 to 150 years of their writing.
Sixth: the originals were written over a period of about 1600 years from the first book of Job to the last one Revelation.
Seventh: the originals (from the Old to the New Testament) were written from as much as 2000 miles apart from each other.
Eighth: the originals were written in at least three different languages.
Ninth: the originals were written on any number of kinds of materials, with any number of kinds of writing fluid.
Tenth: the originals under God's will and guidance incorporate many kinds of culture and background.
Eleventh: no version in existence today was or is translated from any original.
Twelfth: no one living today would know or recognize any one of the 66 originals if they saw one.
So, while I am glad that you at least gave me an honest answer to my question, I do hope you are starting to see how silly and unbiblical it is to believe that only the original autographs were inspired. When examining the evidence and studying what Holy Scripture says in regard to its preservation and inerrancy, one should be able to discern that while the original autographs were inspired, so are the faithful and pure translations and copies of those autographs.
So, can a translation be inspired? Yes it can. And can a translation be the word of God? Yes it can. The King James Holy Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. It has stood the test of time for about 400 years now. Six Billion copies of it have been sold since 1611. And it is the true Bible that has been blessed by God.
Yes, it could be if God had chosen to do so.
It could be if God had chosen to do so.
That is simply not true. You saying it and believing it does not make it true. God did not "authorize" the KJV. There are errors in the KJV, as has been pointed out to you.
It is a good translation, in fact my preferred translation, but it is not inerrant, and not "the" Word of God. The scriptures, as originally given, are God-breathed. No translation is.
It could be if God had chosen to do so.
That is simply not true. You saying it and believing it does not make it true. God did not "authorize" the KJV. There are errors in the KJV, as has been pointed out to you.
It is a good translation, in fact my preferred translation, but it is not inerrant, and not "the" Word of God. The scriptures, as originally given, are God-breathed. No translation is.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"look",,,,,,,,,,,,"textus receptus",,,,,,,,,,,it is Latin,,,,,,it means "the text we received",,,,,,,you have to bear in mind the wars that were being fought,,,in this time period,,,,,lets say "666",,,,if you go to the "British museum",online,,,,,,,,,,and research "666" you will find,,,,,,,,,,,the only fragment of the "original book of revelations",,,written by john,,,,,,is a two by two fragment,,,,,,and is of this exact,,,,,,,,,,,,,"exact"scripture,,,,,,,,it dont say "666" it either says "615 or 614",,,,,,,,,,,"and",,,,"or"..........."that you will calculate it",,,,you come up with the number,,,,,,,,,,,,"you make it up",,,,,,,,,,,,you say in your heart,,,,,,,"this is the number that gives me power to buy sell and trade",,,,,,,,,,"i got a name in this system of the beast,,so i can buy sell and eat",,,,,,,,,,anyway you want to see it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you receive it,,,,,,,you choose it,,,,,,,,,,you don't want to be in this world,,"without it",,,,,,,,,,,it's your name,it gives you the right to sign your name to your "credit",,,,,,,,to deduct your money from your "bank account",,,,most of you cannot already receive your paycheck without it,,,,you cannot pay your lights water and gas without it,,,,,,,if you get food stamps you had to calculate "the number of your name" to so when you swiped your card in your "right hand",,,,,,you could give the "number of your name",,,,,,,,,,,,and no one has "wisdom of it but you",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes ,,,,,,,,"and if you were married to the beast your name would hold the same value as your husband the beast",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"your new name",,,,,,,,,,,,,yes you would "have the name of the beast",,,,,,,your name,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet but now "who is the fool?",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,take your bank card and cut it up!!!!!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,don't use it anymore,,,,,,,,and when the lights come due next month,,,,,,,,,,,,,don't give your number,and let them cut them off!!!!!!!!,,,,,,,,,,,and when the water is due "dig you a well',,,,,,,,,,,and do not give the the number of your name anymore,,,,,,,,,go to wall-mart and get the groceries and when you go through the checkout "don't give the number you have in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,leave the groceries behind,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and when you don't pay your bills and you cannot buy food,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"i will send cps,and take you children",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"because you wont play the game",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," will you live under a bridge??????????????",,,,,,,,,,,,,and i will come and take your children away and say you "have not been good parents"???????????yes i will give them "good houses" i will give them foster parent's and grow them up into,the houses that,,,,obey mine voice",,,,,,,,,,,,,and you Rebecca will weep,,,,,,,,,,,,what is your "pin number?????????????",,,,,,,,,,,,are you the only one who has the wisdom of it???????????,,,,,,,,,,,,,"lets play",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'lets play",,,,,,,,,,,,,you and "your pin number",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"oh shut up so and so",,,,,,,,,,,"i was never,,,,,,,,,,,,,deceived",,,,,,,,,,,,,i will grow mine own garden,,,,,,,,,,,,,and make mine own water,,,,,,,,,,,,though the earth is polluted and the companies in America have the patents on all the garden seeds ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,although all the creeks are polluted,,and all the gardens are hybrid,,,,,,,,,,i will stick mine stave into the ground and it will give water not polluted and seed will grow all around it.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes you who have the "mark of the beast written in your forehead",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"set,,it,away from you",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As we have read from the scriptures man has continuously perverted the word of God throughout time. Even in the days of our Lord, the scribes and Pharisees corrupted the word of God.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
It is corrupt hearts and minds that corrupt the Word of God which leads to false doctrine. And I believe it will continue and get even worse till the day our Lord returns.
In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
It is corrupt hearts and minds that corrupt the Word of God which leads to false doctrine. And I believe it will continue and get even worse till the day our Lord returns.
In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316
That's meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally. It is the Word of God. We shouldn't think the Gospel of Mark ends in the word "fear". ."afraid". It should include the reference "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", in support of the correct Christian doctrine of baptismal regeneration (see John 3:3,5).
L
Brother EG we cannot do that for the Bible says this
Matthew 4:5-7
(5) Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
(6) And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
(7) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Matthew 4:5-7
(5) Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
(6) And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
(7) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
E
I know that my friend. That was not my point. I am sure many a Christian have died from a poisonous snake, or by drinking poison of some kind. My point was to show that those verses are rediculous. And probably added at some point by some scholar. For if that verse was true. Then everyone who follows God would never get sick or die by those things.
Well Shroom2, I believe along with thousands of other King James Bible believers that God did choose do it that way. A translation can be inspired. And I already gave an exampe of why it is biblical for a translation to be inspired. I am going to share with you an excerpt from Sam Gipps' "The Answer Book" which will further prove that a translation can indeed be inspired and that God has inspired several.
Sam Gipp writes:
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23.
"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."
It is, of course, an accepted fact that no translation can be "word perfect". Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?
If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of many Fundamentalist's charges of "progressive inspiration?"
This same question arises in Exodus chapters 4-14 in Moses' contest with Pharaoh. Moses, though speaking for God to an Egyptian king in the king's native Egyptian tongue, translates both his and Pharaoh's statements into Hebrew when he records the account in writing. Which did God inspire? The verbal statement made in Egyptian, a copy of which NO ONE ON EARTH HAS? Or did He inspire Moses' Hebrew translation?
The problem of inspired translations refuses to go away.
In Acts 22 Paul speaks to his Jewish tormentors in the Hebrew language (Acts 21:40, 22:2). The testimony found in verses 1 through 21 is all given orally in Hebrew. Yet there is NO manuscript extant of Acts 22 which records Paul's statement in Hebrew. Luke wrote it all out in Greek. Which did God inspire? Paul's verbal statement or Luke's "progressive inspiration"?
The answer is simple and is found in II Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The word "scripture" by its very root, "script" is a term for written words. Therefore, we can rest assured that the various translations (there are more than the few I have pointed out) we have in our Bible are the inspired words of God. If a fundamentalist chooses not to believe in inspired translations, he will have to do it contrary to the Bible practice.
- Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book
Well sir and just because you believe there are errors in the King James Holy Bible does not make your belief true either now does it? And by the way, those "alleged errors" that were posted in this thread, most if not all of them have been answered and addressed already. And I can see from your response, that you also believe that we no longer have the word of God. Okay well how are we to obey 2 Timothy 4:2 if we don't have the word of God? Also are you saying that Revelation 6:9 is not true?
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: - (Rev. 6:9)
So what is Revelation talking about then if we don't have the word of God? It clearly states that their souls were slain for the word of God, which means we must have it. Like it or not sir, your view point is not a biblical one. Again, no one has ever had a complete book of the original autographs. No one in this lifetime has ever seen them.
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. - 1 Peter 1:23
Shroom2, are you implying that this verse of Scripture is not true? I mean since from your viewpoint, you believe that no translation is the word of God. Again, if no translation is the word of God, then not even the Apostles of the New Testament had the word of God.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. - 1 Thessalonians 2:13
And finally, did Paul mean what he said in this verse of Scripture? Did they receive the word of God or not? I believe that they did receive the word of God. And I along with thousands of other king James Bible believers also believe that every word in the Holy Bible is true. If we have no inerrant word of God, then what are we to submit to? What is our Final Authority? We need a perfect Bible. Without a perfect Bible that is inerrant how can we even be sure that the Gospel accounts are true?
I encourage you sir to seriously pray that God would open your eyes to the Bible Version Issue and that you would have ears to hear and eyes to see the truth of God's perfect and pure words found only in the King James Holy Bible. Good day sir,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I disagree with you that the KJV is an inerrant translation. Errors have been pointed out to you which you claim to have addressed, but your explanations are wrong.
As I have said, the KJV is very good, and it is the bible I read the most. There are occasional errors in it, which can be readily proved with a simple concordance.
As I have said, the KJV is very good, and it is the bible I read the most. There are occasional errors in it, which can be readily proved with a simple concordance.
Dear friends:
I believe that the KJV (King James Version) is based upon a
correct Greek text of the New Testament, but that it is not
the only valid translation of the NT; and that it is wrong in
certain verses, such as Hebrews 6:6. But the last 12 verses
of St. Mark's Gospel in the KJV should be retained and
believed. The longer ending of Mark is the correct text. 1
John 5:7 is also correct.
In Erie Scott Harrington