[devoted to]

The Bible never calls oil; "Holy" oil, yet  a certain denomination calls them both "Holy" because a priest has prayed over it and blessed it, yet there is no such teaching for the NT chuch, everything which was established under the ordinances of the OT, has been abolished in the NT.

Men teach things as though God established it, but this is the error.

I don't see what your problem is here.  We call it Holy, because it has been prayed over and set aside for God.

(From Oxford Dictionary)
holy  adj
2  belonging to or devoted to God

So, according to the NT, any run of the mill oil, can be used, since it says nothing about any speacial "Holy" oil.

I presume you would use this prayerfully.  If you also set aside that oil for that use, then you are declaring it holy, even if you don't care to use the word.

This is really the issue, in notg being able to agree with doctrine, nor unite in one faith, since those who love and read the new watered down transaltions, can let their imaginations run wild, and figbure their own works into the picture for their eternal life.

No-one has demonstrated that the AV is closer to the original than the modern translations, so your whole post is built on sand.

Yes, many have of their own accord denominated themselves.
What is that reason?  

We seem to be talking past each other - what do you mean by denominated?

No problem. Just wondering why people that claim to be of God would identify themselves with something other than God.

They don't.   The Church is is of God - the body of Christ on Earth.

Most people don't expect the title to contain the whole story.

ebia,

..........the Orthodox churches do see the Church as the body of Christ on earth.

Yea..........they see the body of Christ as the Orthodox church..

That is a;

Good one...he he..


Petro

Yes, well, I don't agree with them on that one, but that wasn't the point under discussion.

[not]

These three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are unsafe.

No they are not.

You have to prove that the AV is perfect (something its translators did not claim) before you have demonstrated that a differing translation is corrupt.
Until you have done that, quoting differences only proves they are different, not which (if either) is correct.

For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and

Only by the small minority of Christians that happen to speak English.

confidently believed to be the Word of God.

a translation of the Word of God, surely.  The translators make it clear in the preface that they didn't think they had done a perfect job.

In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

There have always been multiple translations available.  Well, not always, but the AV was not the first translation into English.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable -

As reliable as the AV, yes.

are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Many?   A tiny few.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations.

Not exclusively, no.   Most modern translations use an eclectic mix of texts, including but not limited to Westcott & Hort's work.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

Lets get this into perspective - the bible is about 1500 pages long. The discrepencies are small and few, are mostly not of doctrinal importance, and very very few would actually affect any doctrine not made clear in another undesputed passage.

SOME DIFFERENCES SNIPPED

The fact of differences does not and cannot prove which of the two texts is the more accurate.  In fact, it's pretty much certain that the AV will be right in some cases, and the new translations in others.

In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

eh?
Are you claiming the new translators chucked out the doxology to make it fit the version preferred by the Roman Catholic church, or that the RC based their prayer on the modern texts?  You can't have both.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

Such "changes" are based on what the greek manuscripts say.  They didn't go around changing stuff because they felt like it - they translated what they believed to be the best supported greek texts.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

Who on earth do you think carried out this conspiricy?  A group of 2nd and 3rd century devil worshipers planting very slighlty corrupted manuscripts in places for people to find 1500 years later?   Talk about paranoid.

["I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."]

The NIV Translation of the scriptures relys heavily on the Wescot & Hort Greek Translations, 1881.

Then again, certain cults seem to love this Translation, including Jehovah Witness's New World Translation.

Guilt by association - a hallmark of the poor argument.

Brooke Foss Wescott, D.D. &  Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. , were anglican clerics, who leaned towards the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, you can read about there own personal thoughts and beliefs revealed in copys of letter written by the pair, here is a  couple of many web sites, available on this subject;  you decide..

And the TR, the text that the AV (KJV if your prefer) was put together by Erasmus - a (shock horror) Roman Catholic.

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p.vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Quotes out of context prove nothing.

Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that,

"Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

So what - we are arguing about their academic abilities to sort through the mass of manuscripts.

Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated;

 2 Timothy 3:16 as;
"Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," (KJV).

I couldn't comment on the choice of translation there.

The fact that The WatchTower Society refers to the Wescott & Hort Greek Translation of 1881, to be the basis for their own NBew World translation, should raise a red flag in the minds and hearts of Christians who love Gods word;  the following quote is found in the opening page of ; Their 1969 edition, of The Kingdom Translation of the Greek Scriptures.

Guilt by association again.

Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in "The New Testament in the Original Greek--- The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D. ."(1948 Reprint).  

Here is a;  

TABLES OF COMPARISON  of NIV, KJV , NKJV, NASV, ERV
OF SELECTED SCRIPTURES
AFFECTING FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

Http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

There are Christians and, then there are christians, that seem,  to prefer the NIV, over the KJV, even after they have been exposed to these truths. And so long as both read and study different versions KJV and NIV, there can not be agreement as to what the scriptures teach.

If you're doctine is  so fragile that it relies on a disputed passage, you really are in trouble.

Can anyone who has an NIV, quote Jhn 5:4, for me..??

So what?
The translaters of the NIV decided, using all the available evidence (including but not limited to the work of Wescott & Hort) that the evidence pointed to that phrase having NOT been in the very original manuscript.   Any decent print will include it in the footnote.

eh?

The church is the Lord's body of which He is the head. Why does the Orthodox church call itself, (denominate), "the Orthodox church?" Why not Christ's?

The same reason most other churches don't include the word Christ in their title, I would imagine - they take it as implicit in the word Church.

I'm really at a loss to see what your problem is here; the Orthodox churches do see the Church as the body of Christ on earth.

I have no idea, but I would have guesses she meant spatial cleaning. Then you go from room to room, praying a blessing over your house, and asking God to protect it. But I’ve never heard of “owls and frogs” so I did a wed search, and found a page that explain “These are classified among the creatures mentioned in Deut. 14:7-19 as being unclean and abominable. They are types of demon spirit”

The whole page is here
http://www.lakehamiltonbiblecamp.com/manual/clean1.htm

Why those people use owls and frog out of all the Animal’s mentioned unclean, God only knows, and I’m sure even he wishes he didn’t. Some people… It sounds a little too Spooky Spiritual for me.

That's a list of things not to eat.  Where do demons come into it?  In any event, we eat many of the thing banned (eg pigs).

Someone seems to have lost the plot entirely.

Evolution has been divided into two camps, Micro, and Macro-Evolution.

Macro Evolution, does not prove anything that can be credited towards God the creator, if anything it, denys the Biblical teaching for the creation by a Creator.

The reason for this is because those who believe in evolution (macro evolution) depend on death being a part of the creation from the begining (with millions of years between the creation of dinosaures and man), while the Bible clearly teaches, death entered in as the result of Adams sin. (Rom 5:12)

Only if you insist in a childishly simple reading of the passages concerned.

He has made them the gazing stock of the world.

I read that as "grazing stock", which brought to mind entirely the wrong picture.  

eh?

[all]

Is It Right?

1.To tell sinners they can merit the favor of God by doing good works?

2.To extract money from people using the tithe?

No

3.To tell people they cannot understand the Bible?

No

4.To comfort sinners with thoughts of purgatory?

I don't see that the bible has a lot to say about purgatory, but I wouldn't have thought it a very comforting idea anyway.

5.To teach people that water baptism can save them from eternal judgement?

No

6.To teach seeking saints from a corrupt text like the NIV?

Eh?

7.To teach infant baptism?

Yes

8.To teach Calvinism?

9.To believe in annihilation?

10.To teach someone today can be a part of the 144,000?

11.To teach that saved people are "spiritual Israel"?

No, none of the above and hundreds more are not right according to the Bible but are practiced everyday.

Oh, sorry, was that all supposed to be a rhetorical question?

Christ will come again, what will he find you doing?

I'm sure he'll find us all doing things he never meant.

If that where the case, we wouldn’t have Denominations in the first place, my friend. The problem doesn’t not lay with searching the bible, the problem lays with the interpretation, and this is why it may be necessary to state our denomination up front.

Sounds suspiciously like an excuse to ignore people's arguments because they are Catholic, Baptist, AoG or whatever to me.

ebia, I got off on other more important business, but to answer your question;

No worries.

Ok - that's the same version as I'm used to (bar the odd insignificant difference in translation), ie it's the same Nicene creed used by the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican Church and pretty much every protestant church.  Except for 3 words ("and the son" - known as the filioque) added to " who proceeds from the Father " by the RC church, its the same same as that used by the Othodox churches to.   Remove those three words and its just about the only statement that virtually the entire christian world agrees upon.  And has done since its last amendment (bar those three words) about 1500 years ago, give or take the odd century.

Thats why I was a bit surprised by your retisence to acknowledge it.

I might remind you, the Eastern portion of the empire, together with the pope of the day, embraced Arianism, they are the ones who refer to themselves as the Eastern Orhtodox christian church of today

Not quite.  What survives as the Orthodox church today is those who kept the true faith alive while most of their contemporaries turned to Arianism.  They most definitely do not embrace the Arian heresy, and would get very upset if you suggested they did.

Note they are not included in those subscribing to this creed..since they want nothing to do with the RCC.

They do subscribe to it, but without the filioque added by the RCC after it had split with the East.

I like quotes.    In most cases I agree.  However with 4, the importance factor I disagree with.  I'm not going to go to war with a non-believer over that approach, but I believe it to be of importance to the believer.

Go on then - explain to my why it's THAT important.

I cannot respect a position that is in opposition to God's word.  Can I respect an individual who has an opposing viewpoint?  Absolutely!  Like I mentioned before, I'm sure when I stand before God I'll have some of my beliefs realigned.

I guess I'll have to settle for that then.  

Only that I hope you can begin to approach God's word without the preconceived notions with which you already do approach His word.  That is my hope for myself in many other areas as well.

We ALL bring preconcieved ideas to it - we aren't capable of not - the best we can do is acknowledge what they are.