ChristiansUnite Forums

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?

3.To tell people they cannot understand the Bible?

4.To comfort sinners with thoughts of purgatory?

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

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

7.To teach infant baptism?

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

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

No


No


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.

No


Eh?


Yes


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



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

What is wrong with the NIV I always read the KJV but my friend and I run a bible study and he reads the NIV and I read the KJV.  The NIV says the same thing.  I haven't found a dispute and I think that the NIV is easier to understand.


Kris

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the new international version, it happens to be my personal favorite translation. there's nothing wrong with most other translations either, and i am certainly not suggesting that the NIV is the superior translation, but there is definitely nothing wrong with it; it is not in any way corrupt. what are you basing this claim on?

This “pastor” sounds like an overzealous nut case. “corrupt text like the NIV” What? NIV is a fine translation. A few idiots found one verse they didn’t agree with, and they tell the world the NIV is corrupt.

What does he mean by “to extract money from people using the tithe” Does he mean for personal gain, or is he referring to tithe in general?  

And what is wrong with meriting the favor of God by doing good works? It is called sowing and reaping, and it is a biblical principal! You do good things, you get favor, you do bad things, you are punished, it the way God made things, what is so wrong about that? No, you can not get into heaven by good works alone, but he didn’t say that now did he?

What does he mean by “Calvinism”? Is he talking about predestination? But what about the anti-Episcopal form of church government they support? A vote against Calvinism is a vote for Catholicism and the Catholic Mass, the same Catholicism that he clearly attacks in questions 4 and 7. So, what is this guy?

Yeah, I'm in agreement with this one, too. Also I'm not sure what the problem is with number 11 either, since it is a true statement. (The entire book of Ephesians deals with this topic, particularly the first couple of chapters.) But the others seem pretty well on target, and thank you for posting it. It's good food for thought!

I'm pretty suspicious of the NIV.  My impression is it tells us more what we would like to hear, than what we need to hear or should hear.  Just a hunch.

I use the RSV mostly; and  KJ sometimes--it's so beautifully written, poetic(as opposed to "pathetic"--if you catch my drift--hehe).  RSV is one of the three recommended by scholars for biblical exegesis; I don't recall what the other two are--perhaps The Jerusalem Bible.

"Broken" here knows.  She's a Divinity student at *censored*

I get the impression the NIV, like other recent knockoffs, is to pander to the itching ears of the rebellious masses--i.e., don't give'm what they need to hear, or should hear, but only what they want to hear.

Sigh.

But I'm in general agreement with most of A4C above.

Well, the question with NIV is how closely does it follow the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

I gather Broken knows in advance that you're telling the world that?  :-\

Quick! If you are at home or if you have your Bible near at hand get it and come back... I’ll wait for you. Good...
Turn to this verse: Mat 18:11

Now try this one: Mark 7:16

How about this one: Acts 8:37

Just one more for now: Romans 16:24

Just for fun go look at this verse: Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Does the bible you use leave out the underlined words above? Does your bible leave out those verses listed above? Does your preacher, pastor, pope or potentate preach out of a bible with missing verses and missing words?

Just how blind are you willing to become before you get your eyes opened?

There are over 5000 differences between the "modern" versions and the B-I-B-L-E of the PRO-TEST-ANT Reformation, the King James Bible. You can Wimp out, Sell out or GET out, which one will it be?

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

PS... You will see this again at the judgement!

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Under the Law of Moses (Num 18:26) , Israel was to give 10 percent of everything, not just money. This is where the tithe concept comes from, tithe equals ten percent.
Under the Kingdom program (Luke 18:22 & Acts 2:44,45) they were to sell ALL they had and bring it to the church. Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, were killed because they lied saying they had given all. The verses (Acts 5) go on to say great FEAR came on all the churches because of this.

Paul says we are not UNDER THE LAW but under grace. We do not collect the tithe today. We do not pass the plate. We do not tell our folks how much to give.

Paul tells us: 2 Cor 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Today, in the dispensation of grace, we do not give because we HAVE to but because we want to..... Why are you giving???

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

No, not even if you wanted to. Why? Because to go to heaven you have to be perfect.
More perfect than Ivory soap which is 99.44% pure soap.

In fact the Bible says the more you try to work your way to heaven the more you owe!!

Notice this verse: Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

The more you try to earn grace the more it cost you.

You cannot earn what God wants to give away. He wants to give you eternal life.

You cannot do enough good works, prayers, good deeds or such to buy it. It is only available to those who will believe the gospel.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Those preachers, priest and popes that are telling you to work for salvation are telling you a lie.

Why not get back to the Bible and believe the Word Of God not the word of men.

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

I Corinthians 13 is in the Bible, too. As far as the law passing away, it hasn't, as proven by these scriptures:

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. Romans 3:31

 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Romans 6:1-2

 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. James 2:18

 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. James 2:26

It is only the *ceremonial* law which we do not use. It hasn't disappeared from God's word, but has been *fulfilled* in Christ.

Which Bible Is The Right Bible?

The most popular bible on the market right now is the New International Version also known as the N.I.V. but is it the right bible for you? At BBC we believe, practice and teach the King James Bible is God’s word without error. We cannot say that about the NIV. Let me show you…

This is the KJV reading of Col.1:14

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

This is the NIV reading for the same verse.

"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

Here is the KJV reading for Acts 8:37

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Here is the same reading for the same verse.

(blank)

The space above is blank because the NIV doesn’t have Acts 8:37. This is only 2 of over 5,000 differences between the NIV and the King James Bible. The differences are "textual not translational" in nature. This simply means the text from which the NIV was taken is different than the text of the KJB. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t trust a Bible that leaves out the blood of Christ and omits entire verses. Would you? You may contact us for more information on "manuscript evidence".

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Sure, I would be very much interested in verifiable, technical information on the reason for these differences. Absolutely.

Which Bible Is The Right Bible? Part 2

Last time we demonstrated how the New International Version is a corrupt bible and not to be trusted by BIBLE believing Christians. Here is another one of 5, 000 plus errors for your consideration.

The King James says… Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The NIV says… Mark 1:2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"--

The NIV is wrong!!! The KJV is right when it says in the prophets. The quote is from Isaiah and Malachi.

The differences are "textual not translational" in nature. This simply means the text from which the NIV was taken is different than the text of the KJB. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t trust a Bible that leaves out the blood of Christ and omits entire verses. Would you? You may contact us for more information on "manuscript evidence".

 

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Which Bible Is The Right Bible? Part 3

Last time we demonstrated how the New International Version is a corrupt bible and not to be trusted by BIBLE believing Christians.

Here is another point for you to ponder.

The Greek text from which the NIV comes was produced by a couple of Mary worshiping Catholics by the name of Wescott & Hort.

Wescott & Hort did not believe in salvation by grace but by works according to their own testimonies. They hated Protestants and they hated the Protestant Bible of the Reformation the King James Bible.

None of these truths are hid. For more information we recommend G. Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions", which fully documents these truths in detail. By the way, all you "Russelites" (Jehovah Witnesses to the uninformed) out there, look on the inside cover of your "New World Translation" and see where YOUR Greek text came from…. WESCOTT & HORT. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny!!!

The differences are "textual not translational" in nature. This simply means the text from which the NIV was taken is different than the text of the KJB. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t trust a Bible that leaves out the blood of Christ and omits entire verses. Would you? You may contact us for more information on "manuscript evidence".

 

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Are You Tithing Enough?

If you are ONLY giving 10 percent of everything you OWN you are not giving ENOUGH under the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT made with GOD!!!!

I know most of you sweet wonderful people really want to do what is right so you need to RUN DON"T WALK to your local denominational church and pay that extra 17% REQUIRED in the Old Testament!

Your denominational preacher has been causing you to ROB GOD only collecting 10% of God's money! No wonder you have been having all that trouble!

NOT only that but that 10% you have been giving should not go to the preacher or any other function it belongs to GOD under the Old Testament.

The Old Testament requires a 27% tithe not 10% and the 10% you have been given is going to the wrong person or activity so now you need to pay back another 10% RETROACTIVELY!

Denominationalism might settle for 10% of GOD'S money but I can tell you God will not be happy!

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

You people have been busy this morning, doesn’t anyone go to Church anymore :-D lol A

Back to the NIV really fast, to add my 2 cents. How about you read the verse above and below the those “missing” verse in the NIV. They are there, they are just mixed in with other verses. The bible was not written in Chapter and Verse, this was done by the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, there a verse that start with AND! They will split phrases mid-sentence, and all this does is help make it easier for guys like good ol’ Benny to make them say what he wants.

Speaking of which, who is this Pastor your keep quoting!? He is like Jack Chick, only he seems to have it in for ALL Christians! Tell me, what does htis guy beleive? Does he have any beleif other then that everyone else is wrong? Lets see a post where he is tell why what HE beleives is true, not about what we beleive is fault. Lets try and built up, not tear down! Instead of telling us what we beleive is wrong, post a link from him telling us what he beleives in RIGHT.

I don't know who this "pastor" doug dodd is, but it breaks my heart that someone would have such a passion and desire to divide believers.  :'( There is nothing at all wrong with the NIV, and I absolutely gaurantee that you CANNOT prove that there is, because there just isn't. The thing you have to realize is that though the wording of translations differ, that does not in any way mean that the meaning differs at all. The NIV is not a word-for-word translation, what it is, is a thought-for-thought translation. what this basically means is that the original meaning of the text is kept in tact, yet it is communicated in a way that is more understandable in this day and age. The meaning of the text is preserved. Again, the NIV is not the superior translation, but it is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation. whatever translation you prefer, is fine. yes there are some exceptions, in which the actual meaning has been changed to say what someone wants it to say, but these fabrications are pretty easily spotted. the NASB, NIV, KJV, etc, are all perfectly acceptable. Which Bible is the right Bible? The one you read!

My guess is, you're probably in a different time zone. :)

 Yes, that *would* be helpful.

BDoggy, I see what you're getting at, too; I think the NIV is more than a paraphrsing, though; I think it's pretty accurate.

I am interested in seeing what happened to those verses, though. I did look at them, and I'm wondering if it had to do with the manuscripts. Hm. Anyone have any beta on this?

My guess is, you're probably in a different time zone  

Um, you mean like, The Twilight Zone?


I think it's possible to take this version thing too far.  How many different ways can you spell, S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E ??

But indeed, doesn't the fact that literally everybody is drooling over the NIV tell you that it must be suspect?  I'd use it if it was all I had--but only if it was all I had.  But that's just my instinct--no real academic basis.  

But my problem isn't which version, but just simply using the version I DO have.  Anyone else have that problem?  

No, I guess knot.

(http://e4u.consoleradar.com/crazy/1087.gif)

I was just joking about the church thing, we had some guess speakers, so my church ran a little long and I had to run a few errands afterward, so by the time I got back, the thread was 10-12 posts bigger, and not small post either. I was joking around, don’t sweat it.

Yeah, translation problems are a big thing. And the Crusaders did a good job of burning down the building holding the original texts, so we have some trouble getting our hands on the first manuscripts, or the first few copies. I advice, if you can’t get a hold of a good piece of the text in the old Hebrew and Greek, and you don’t speak fluent Hebrew and Greek (the ancient verse, not the modern), then you need to read several translations. When doing research, I read New international, New King James, New living, Amplified, New American, and in extreme cases, the Message. I mean, the chances of reading the verse in context in 5-6 different versions and getting a different meaning each time is highly unlikely.

 For the non-native English speakers reading the bible in English, I know they find the NIV to shed light in verse that where not clear in the NKJV or other popular version.

How, oh how did I know that this topic would inevitably role into this forum with the tact of the proverbial china-cabinet-bull?

I've learned two things about this entire topic; a topic I've studied from both angles.  The KJV/Majority Text/TR side will swear that their transcripts are the oldest, and validate their adherence to the text by its durability throughout the ages.  The NIV/NASB/RSV/NASV/etc./Minority Text/Alexandrian Manuscript side will swear that their transcripts are the oldest, and adhere for the same reasons.  Both sides have "proof."  So what is the average believer to do?  Baptist tenent here that is of good understanding: Priesthood of the Believer.  It's your call, between your God and your conscience - His Holy Spirit.  I personally, am eclectic.  I tend to hold to all of the textual families, and settle for the inclusion of them all.  Hence the NKJV/ESV side.  Eclectic translations.  Why, however, do we find verses missing?  Because many of those verses only show up in the TR based texts.  The translators in many of these other versions make note of these verses (at least the ESV does). Which leads to yet another confusing argument - which side has the more transcripts?  The KJVers will claim they do, while the NIVers will claim they do.  Both, again, with "proof."

But regardless of which "translation" you adhere to, it is important to realize that we have no inerrant current translation[/b].  Why do I so boldly pronounce that?  Because of two simple (and others to be sure) mis-translated words found in every version:

Baptize - from the greek baptizo which means, "To immerse."  Not to sprinkle.  Not to spit warily upon.  Not to pour, dump, or otherwise douse.  No.  To immerse.  Why then the transliteration of the word?  Because then baptize can mean whatever the denominational body wants it to.  King James had that in mind when he authorized his "inerrant" version.  All other translators did as well.

And...

Church - from the greek ecclesia which means, "Called out assembly."  It is a political term in reference.  It was used to call out the town's population for a meeting.  Jesus called believers His ecclesia, His called out assembly, separated unto Him, for His work and to His glory.  King James had that in mind as well, as did the others.  Why?  Because the term was always used biblically in a localized sense.  That is, local assemblies as opposed to universal assemblies.  Many denominations demand adherence to a hiearchy or universal headship of their "church."  By calling ecclesia "church," no one ever questions the denominational head of every local body imposed by certain hiearchial structures.  I do, however, believe that Christ speaks of the "church" as a whole at times, but in many cases throughout the New Testament Epistles, the "churches" referred to are local, independent bodies of believers.

To say that we possess a perfect "translation" is to attribute the perfection of God's original with man's translation.  Can we then trust the bibles that we do have?  AMEN!  Why?  Because every believer discerns those words only at the bequest and in the power of God the Holy Spirit.  We understand what we are to understand as He teaches us through that word.  Some spend more time arguing about that word, than they do pointing people to that word.  Beware!

I agree with the Pastor 100% Amen, thanks  for postig this A4C

Brother Love :)

If you think that the NIV is corrupt then what Bible version do you think is right?  How do you know that the version that you have is right?  I read from the KJV.  My dad goes nuts and says that, that one is the most correct, but is it?

Kris

No, we talked about this in another post. The NKJV was written in another version of English that we speak. Not only was it written in a Dialect used in Britton, but a Dialect used in Britton centuries ago!

Where has saved_4_ever been? Either way, this should bring him out of hiding ;D

Allinall- Yeah, and John the Baptist baptized people in the Jordan river, not a bath tub. The Jordan, as I’m sure you know, is a mess. It was a sacrifice to get dunked there. Where were you baptized? the bible also says to cut off body parts that causes us to sin. Are you without sin, or do you type with your tongue? When Jesus was doing the first lord’s supper, and he told us to “do it in remembrance of me,” he was eating a full meal with his buddies. They where not munching in a cracker and grape juice. But when was the last time YOU ate a full Passover meal for the Lord supper? A lot of things we do in the church today don’t follow thing TO THE LETTER. That is a problem with our Doctrine, not your translation. On top of that, it looks like you have taking the definitions from the strong’s-like books. These books are good for study, but they are pretty vague, and they only tell the Lateral Translation, not the Connotation of the word, not what it REALLY meant. Think of if you told a non-native speaker to “Get up” In his own language. He would think “How can I TAKE up? How can I get raise from the bed?” That is the same problem we have with the Greek Dictionaries some times.

New International Version Bible Authority Test

INSTRUCTIONS:
Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.
Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"


Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.
(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of the NIV as an "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?


If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.


* This test came to us by way of email and has been adapted and edited for use here.

Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Only with studying the background of how a particular version came about, Kris.  That takes a little extra work.  Then, you have to allow time for learning how different versions read, and which you prefer.  And then, what the experts say, too.

After that, it's just bascially which do you prefer?

I hate to break it to your pastor friend, but Matthew 5:44, Matthew 27:2, Matthew 27:35, Mark 3:15, Luke 7:28, Luke 9:55, Luke 9:56, Luke 22:14, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:42, John 3:13, John 7:50, Acts 9:6, Acts 24:8, First Timothy 3:16, First Peter 4:14, and Revelation 1:11 are ALL in the NIV. Look it up in your book, look it up in bible gateway, go to your local Christian books store and look for those verse in as many copies of the NIV as you can, it is in all.

Conclusion: Either this so-called Pastor doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, or he does but he thinks he is preaching to idiots! And when reading the misses verse, and comparing them to the verse in other bibles, you will find the "misses" verse are in fact there, in the context. See, the Verses and Chapter was made by man, not God, and where added Centuries after the fact. They are a guild to help in study, not a requirement, Christians read it for ages without Chapters and Verse, and did fine. If you base your belief that the NIV is corrupt because the guy told you, perhaps your should rethink this belief.

allinall, "It's your call, between your God and your conscience - His Holy Spirit"

what did you mean by this comment? It sounds like you are saying that our consciences and the Holy Spirit are the same. I do not, however want to put words in your mouth, so can you explain what you meant by this? our consciences are certainly not the same as the Holy Spirit. I mean, the Holy Spirit can and does use our conscience to convict us of sin, but the Holy Spirit is God, and I for one, would never make the claim that my conscience is God!

hehehehe I haven't even looked at the boards lately I've been busy doing other things.  Glad to see you still know where I stand.   ;)  Funny someone knew to give me an email buzz to let me in on it though.  ;)  I've done my research and have my conclusions, liberal translations are not for me.  I will not "shun" you for using otherwise but I will not "pat you on the back" and say "whatever floats yer boat".  Hopefully the LORD will clue you in.  To claim ONLY the Hebrew and Greek texts matter is to say that God had no intentions of anyone else to have his word save the highly educated.  It also makes some verses of non effect.  Here are but a few. Mat 24:35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mar 13:31  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luk 21:33  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.  

If one has the best no need to mess with the rest.  The KJV was good enough for just shy of 300 years it's good enough for me.  Getting aquainted with English that's not so far off from current and much more perfect (thee thou etc) is a heck of a lot easier than learning 2000 ywaer old greek which is SO much different than english it's not even funny.


No actually I didn't and I can't imagine it's been that way for long.  My grandfather was baptized in the Jordan which gave him a special prefix to his name (hazit) making my baptized family name hazitstamatis which was changed to stamis when he arrived in America.  I can't claim the Hazit prefix as I was baptized here in america.  Anywho it matters little to me, he was unfortunately an orthodox anyhow like most greeks.


Seeing that Alexandria is in Egypt, and Egypt is a type of the world, where a large portion of gnotistism came from I find anything from there highly suspect.  How 'bout you?  Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

I'm not going to battle this all out with anyone nor will I constantly defend my position.  I have done my own research and it was part of my solid stance.  I suggest every else do their own as well.

I'm off to dinner and Bible study.

Take care,
Jason

Tibby,

We're not talking about a doctrine, we are talking about a clear word that a false doctrine is based upon.  As for my use of the Strong's...I was using the 2 years of Greek education I received in Bible College as my basis for my study.  As for the last time I ate a full meal for the Lord's Supper...the last Lord's Supper I had!   ;D   Our assistant pastor was showing how we often misunderstand the purpose of the rememberance.  It was a very good, and biblical understanding.  As for baptism...it isn't only acceptable in the Jordan river.  The word means to immerse.  It isn't the location, it is the method.  But I didn't post that to start doctrinal argumentation, rather, to point to the inconsistency of translations.


I meant that while every man has his own inate understanding of right and wrong, that it is the Holy Spirit that lays the conviction on us.  If I worded that oddly, I apologize.  As for it being your call...so as the Spirit and your conscience which should be guided by that same Spirit are in accord...then as a child of God you have the liberty to chose.  Does that help?  Sorry for the confusion.  :(


I'm not wanting to argue with anyone here either, but I just want to point out that this is a faulty argumentation for your point of view.  How, has His word passed away?  It hasn't, whether it is in the TR transcripts or other.  I will say one thing here as an encouragement.  You have done your study, and made your decision.  I compliment that.  Most haven't.  I have as well, and have come to a different understanding.  Sooooooo...which of us is wrong?  YOU!   ;D  Actually, when we get to heaven we'll find out who's right and who's wrong.  Regardless, we'll be in Heaven!

In Christ...

Allinall-now I think I understand what you are saying. you mean that while our consciences are not perfect, the Holy Spirit is, so we must test the light of our conscience to see if it is of the Spirit. at least I think that is what you are saying, right?

well, now you can see why I said I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, cause I didn't know exactly what you were saying, but now I think I do. thanx for clearing it up.  ;)

Bingo!  Hence, "try the spirits..."  If after trying that light with the Spirit, you find yourself in accord with the Spirit, then that is the course.  And anytime I say something that doesn't make sense (usually 90% of the time my mouth opens... ;D) call me on it!  And I'll be glad to explain and if wrong, repent.  :)

God in Heaven, Jason , what are you taking over there in Philly? Zoloft? Prozac? Or are you just tired of everyone arguing, and no one listening? lol, When you realize no one wasn’t to listen to what you have to say, and that no one here is going to change what they believe no matter what, it does get dull. lol

Allinall- I’m impressed ;D I bow to you, sir.

*Helps him back up*  No need.  The study on this topic was done 4 years ago and I currently use lexicons/concordances with the occassional original Greek when I'm feeling smart.  I usually stop feeling smart shortly thereafter... :D

 

The Pastor did NOT say those verses have been taken out. You need to re-read what he said, and answer his questions.

The words of the LORD are pure words,
As silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them
from this generation forever.
Psalm 12:6,7
            
Heaven and earth shall pass away,                                            
But my words shall not pass away.
(Mat 24:35)

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.

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..


 http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/kjv/mouth.htm


Http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/truthquest/w_and_hQ.htm

What they said about............ The Scriptures:

"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)

Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that,

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

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).

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.

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.

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

I have an NIV copy and use it, to reference words, in order to discuss verses with them that prefer the NIV, intelligently..

Blessings,
Petro

Have you taken the test? The NIV says the same things any other bible (other then the OKJV, that is) says, but it paraphrases. It is more accurate then, say, the KJV. Why do you think they made the New King James Version? To correct the mistakes in the older one, the mistakes revealed in the text. It has been edited and changes so many time over the pass few years, and there are cases where the KJV says just the opposite of what every other Version says. It was the King James Version that incorrectly names the Reed Sea the Red see.  It was also this version that used “week” to describe a 7-year period.

Petro, The Jehovah’s Witness use the New World Version. They read the NIV like a Protestant would read the New American bible, during research. The JW believe the NIV has many errors.

I guess it all boils down to this: most translations still carry the most important messages from God, but to read just one is foolish. Sorry, it is late (or early, depending on how you look at it ;D), and what I’m starting isn’t the most coherent, but you get what I'm saying  

Why should I need the use of happy pills?  I have Jesus and the assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of sins.  Should one need more?


I think you mean "when you realize no one WANTS to listen..." correct?

Quite the contrary, there are many more lurkers than posters.  I have had PM's before and other such things that show some people are listening intently and have come to some better realizations about the liberal bibles against the KJV.  There are also plenty of other poster's who give good info.  Besides I think my sig and animation make it quite clear.  Don't you think so?


HEHE NOT!


The same reason everyone else made revised editions.  They wanted more sales since this new NIV had come out.  Bible sales are quite profitable.  If the NIV is so perfect and better why do they have so many revisions in less than 4 decades getting worse each time.  The TNIV is probably the worst making everything gender neutral along with much other assorted garbage.


What are you talking about?  The only thing I can see is that the Red see thing (which is not in my bible) would have been the older way to spell it.  It's not a mistake it's a different spelling from times past.  I don't call that revising either.  LORD only knows how repugnate the english language will be in a another decade or so.  "Bootylicious" is now in the dictionary or soon will be as well as hottie.   ::)

Right On! LOL, Thanks Brother

Brother Love :)

Guilt by association - a hallmark of the poor argument.

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


Quotes out of context prove nothing.


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


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

Guilt by association again.

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

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.

Dear me.  I'm about to agree[/b] with ebia!  ;D


Truth.  And were the KJV translators of more impecable character and devotion that their work was so much more?  Did God chose them to propogate His word more than other translators?  In the end, we're all human, sinful, and unworthy of any use God may call us to.


Yes.  But he was a good[/u] Roman Catholic.  

Here's a question for everyone:

If every copy of God's word, regardless of translation or transcript were destroyed and none could be found anywhere, would that constitute the "passing away" of God's word?

As far as the human race is concerned... Yes.  If we have nothing then there can be no final authority for us.  Everyone will claim whatever they please and couldn't be proven wrong.  Unless of course you are of the silly camp of people that still "hear" God in their head.  You know just like the "renegade" Mormans who claim God tells them to kill people that are in the way of God's plans.

God stopped communicating directly with man at the close of scripture(ie no one hears anything from God. There is no one who can claim "thus saith the LORD" if it is not already in scripture.  Though many give it a shot like Benny Hinn ::) ).  

Why, you might ask?  Quite simply everything God wants us to know is contained in His Holy Word.  If His written Word was of no use or importance than Jesus Himself would not have constantly reffered to the scriptures as proof of His statments.  He even used written scripture against satan!!  I dare say then that His Holy written Word is most precious and not to be tampered and handled so lightly.
   

Yes, just look at the difference between the shear number of KJV translators (52 I believe) and their methods compared to any bible there after.

"
"It was the King James Version that incorrectly names the Reed Sea the Red see."

FYI!

The Red Sea gets its name from the explosive growth of a blue algae, trichodesmium erythraeum, that every so many years dyes the normal blue green water of the Red Sea an orange red.

http://red-sea.com/general_info/


Red Sea: Translates the unexplained classical names Erythrasan Sea and Mare Rubrum. To the early Portuguese mariners the name Mar Vermelho seemed to be appropriate, because of the red streaks of water, due probably to floating infusoria.

http://www.sacklunch.net/placenames/R/RedSea.html

Tibby,




Tibby, I gave you the website for comparing the verses, between KJV and NIV;

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

Hey I know it is late, but;

How you can say,
  "The NIV says the same things any other bible",

This only proves you didn't read the caomparisons, or can't comprehend what you read;  try, rerdaing the verses with the quoted compared words, and see if your tatement is true.

If they are, you can eat my hat..
Blessings,
Petro

Before I begin my two to three thousand word essay  ;D  let me say one thing about what Tibby said concerning the "Reed Sea."  There is a popular viewpoint that the sea crossed was the Reed Sea, as opposed to the Red Sea.  Why?  Because the Reed Sea is much smaller and easier to leave God out of the picture for miraculous workings!  It is a non-christian theory mind you.  I believe Tibby may have read the statement somewhere without hearing the whole story.  The Red Sea is the accurate translation.   ;)

Let me begin by saying that I agree with the understanding that we need the word for the mere sake of accountability, if not more so for our knowledge and subsequent understanding of our God.  Paul said in Romans 7:7-8 (and I'll use the KJV not to stir up anything unnecessarily)


God's word provides us the understanding of sin and how to deal with it as God planned.

The point I was trying to make with my question, was to get you to look at the passage from whence came your support for this topic.  Let's look at that passage from Matthew 24 contextually:


Jesus here is speaking in response to the questions posed by His disciples, after He pronounces the fall of the temple.  This is important.  Why?  Well for one, many miss the mark by using this passage as an understanding of the second coming.  Yet the disciples asked two questions:

1.  When will the temples destruction take place - vs. 3a
2.  When will He come again and the end times begin - vs. 3b

In the passage listed above, Jesus answers that first question.  The generation He speaks of was not a spiritual one, but a physical one.  He was being literal, and literally speaking, within that generation that temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.  

But let's stop here.  He is talking about the destruction of the temple - and throws in a statement concerning His written word?  We can explain that away, I'm sure, but not without taking that verse completely out of context.  Jesus had said that the temple would be destroyed.  To the Jew, that was an impossibility.  God, afterall, was on their side.  The disciples had viewed Jesus as a liberator - yes, they knew Him to be God very God, and worshipped Him accordingly.  Yet they had thought His kingdom would be set up in the here and now; that He would remove the Roman oppression and set Israel back up in the supremacy it once knew.  And then He tells them the exact opposite.  For the temple to be destroyed the city would have to fall.  For the city to fall, the vision of Jewish liberation that they had would not have been fulfilled.  So, Jesus makes a very unique statement:

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

These things are temporal.  God's word is not.  God had just said that the temple would fall.  He isn't pointing to the existence of a written copy of His word, rather the truthfulness, and eternality of that word.  All else shall pass away, but not His word.  When we take that verse to support the KJV only position, we do so out of context.  We attribute that word in the form of the KJV.  That is simply, contextually, not so.

Now for Part II...

Christ goes on in the next verses to answer the second part of the disciples questions:


This may even be in reference to His first answer as well!  However, they did ask two questions, and I believe He adaquately answers them both.


I wasn't making reference to the skill, or education of those translators.  Rather, I was asking if they were better men, any less sinful, any better believers than othe translators.

Good info Allinall. Here is some more.

Red Sea, Reed Sea...and the Persian Gulf


The conclusion of Passover has traditionally focused on celebrating the miraculous parting of the Red Sea. There will certainly be some purists among my readers who are already jumping to correct me: The Hebrew "Yam Suf" should be rendered more precisely "the Sea of Reeds," a translation which has been adopted by some recent English biblical commentaries.
 I have heard the accusation that the common English usage of "Red Sea" is nothing more than the result of the ignorance of early Bible translators, or perhaps an old typographical error. This is not the case at all.

Actually, the name "Red Sea" is a lot older than the English language, and can be traced at least as far back as the 5th-century B.C.E. Greek historian Herodotus. It is used standardly in the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Bible, and by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus Flavius.

If one reads these ancient authors one soon realizes that the body of water being referred to is not necessarily the one which currently bears that name. It seems to be applied to the entire maritime area between Africa, Arabia and south Asia, extending at times as far as the Indian Ocean.

Some of the sources make a clear distinction between the more expansive Red Sea and the smaller Reed Sea. The latter lies in the region between Arabia and the Egyptian coast, especially in the Gulf of Eilat--the area that we normally think of now as the "Red Sea."


 
It is likely that the Red Sea was so named by ancient sailors as a result of the peculiar colouring created by the mountains, corals and desert sands (though the Egyptians called the same body of water the "Green Sea"); whereas the "Reed Sea" takes its name from the papyrus reeds and bulrushes that proliferated along the nearby Nile.
The distinction between the two seas is made very clearly in a remarkable document preserved among the "Dead Sea Scrolls" that is known to scholars as the "Genesis Apocryphon." This Aramaic text retells the stories of the Hebrew Patriarchs, much of it presented as an autobiographical account narrated by Abraham himself.

In one episode, Abraham tells us how he travelled along the frontier of the land which God had promised him, progressing from the Gihon River (apparently identified with the Nile), to the Mediterranean, south Lebanon and along the Euphrates River. Following that river through what is now Iraq Abraham arrived at the Red Sea in the east, which he traced through to "the tongue of the Reed Sea, which goes forth from the Red Sea."

From this itinerary it is evident that the Reed Sea is an inlet of the Red Sea. The fact that Abraham reached the Red Sea from the mouth of the Euphrates shows us that what is being referred to is in fact none other than the Persian Gulf!

The implications are quite remarkable. While I do not believe that we necessarily have to begin speaking of the "miraculous parting of the Persian Gulf," it is intriguing to observe that the story places both Iraq and Saudi Arabia within the perimeters of the Promised Land, a view which will warm the heart of the most extreme Israeli right-wingers.

As for myself, I will be perfectly satisfied if people simply stop correcting me whenever I speak of "the Red Sea."


http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/910329_Red_Sea.html

Very true Ollie.  Thanks for the info!

Ollie,

You are being corrected so that you may, See Red.

God Bless..

Petro

Thanks again Ollie

Brother Love :)

An Open Letter To James "M" And Those Of Like Mind

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Dear James,

It is possible that I have misjudged you. Perhaps I do not fully understand your position. I have made errors in judgment before and no doubt will do so again.

However, I find myself in a bit of a quandary because you imply that you are a Christian on one hand and therefore a brother but a defender of Calvinistic doctrine on the other which would make you an enemy of the cross of Christ and by extension an enemy of mine.

I am no friend to the enemy. You can claim Christian fellowship all you want to but as long as you defend Calvinism you will be marked as a heretic and placed on the list with the defenders of Mormonism, the church of Christ (Campbellism), Jehovah Witnesses (Russelites), Seventh Day Adventism, the Roman Catholic Church and all others that make of none effect the gospel of the grace of God.

I stand against Calvinism. I stand against those who teach Calvinism. I am not your friend and neither do I desire to be unless you repent (change your mind) about your defense of Calvinism and end the confusion you cause true believers by the twisting of the truth.

You may contact whoever you wish to contact and you may report to all that you wish to report to for those who know me will not desert me and even is they should I have NO FEAR in meeting you or any of your kind at the judgment seat of Christ, should you happen to make it there which I sincerely doubt.

I believe the following verses apply to you and those like you. These verses are taken from the inspired and preserved word of the living God, found in the King James Version which you and your coconspirators revile!

2 Cor 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

If I am wrong then I am sorry and I apologize, but I am not wrong because …

Calvinism still….

Makes God the author of sin.

Cheapens the grace of God by limiting it's scope.

Populates the planet with a majority population of un-redeemable un-men like creatures who were created by God as "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

Denigrates faith by teaching that regeneration precedes faith.

Falsely teaches that faith is the gift of God rather than salvation.

Takes what should be the RESULT of salvation and makes it the REQUIREMENT of salvation.

 

Denies the truth of the two natures in a believer.

Denies a literal 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on earth.

Denies the truth of generic nature of the word "church" (requiring a modifier) and by doing so falsely identifies Israel and the Body of Christ as being the same church.

Denies the principle division in scripture of Prophecy vs., Mystery

Makes no distinction between Israel (little flock) and the Body of Christ.

Attempts to appropriate Israel's covenants for the Body of Christ.

Makes no distinction between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God.

Makes no distinction between the Apostleship of Peter and that of Paul.

And you, dear sir, defend these teachings and I stand, unapologetically, against this confusion and error.

So James, write all the letters you want, send all the emails you wish, contact whoever you desire it will not change my mind. The only thing that will change my mind about you and those of like mind is a turning from error to the truth.

Going forward as of this date any correspondence from you or your conspirators will be sent to where the sun does not shine UNLESS the subject line reads, "I Repent of Calvinism".

 

The door is open to you. If you have been blinded by Satan we stand with you and for you "In Christ". If you do not know for sure where you will spend eternity then we would consider it an honor to point you to the one who paid for all sin, for all men, for all time.

 

Maranatha

Doug Dodd S.B.G.

P.S.

Thanks A4C for the link to all of Brother Doug Dodds Bible Studies, I posted this one because I really got a lot out of it.


Brother Love :)

The Wescott & Hort 1881 Translators, never did their work out in the open, they kept everything a secret, they hand picked their team, and never annouced their work publicly until imediately before the published it; it can hardly be compared to the work of the KJV committees.

This also, is a historical fact..

Petro

There are no Bible Authorities, for the Bible is its own and only authority. The most deadly mistake of all is to blindly take the word of a fallible man without personally checking with the Infallible Word of God.

KJV ;D

Do You Have Your Own Religion?

I am not surprised if you do, I hear it all the time, "I 've got my own religion!" And no wonder. With so many "religions" to choose from and so many "kinds" of bibles to read it is no wonder that many are confused about what to do or believe. If you find yourself in this condition let me encourage you with a few points.

1. Religion comes from man, faith comes from God through the bible.

2. God has a bible for English speaking people, it is the King James Bible.

3. God has a method for studying his word called "rightly dividing the word of truth" in 2Tim.2:15.

4. Through study, using God's method, you will discover the Doctrine, Duty & Destiny of the Church the body of Christ. In short you will no longer be confused.

Remember, your religion will be no better than any man's religion at God's Judgment Seat.

By Pastor Doug Dodd S.B.G.

Again, we touch on the character of the translators, and their method of work.  What of the scriptural support you'd given that I showed you'd taken out of context for use as support for your viewpoint?

 

Amen!  And you have taken the counsel of man, as God advises, from both sides, and weighed that counsel in the balance of scripture to find the truth?  Because if you have not, rather, have taken what a man has said, and searched to prove that point, instead of discovering what God's might be, then you are making the very deadly mistake you claim others of opposing views are making.

GOD'S WORD ;D

Allinall,

Rev 22
18  ..........If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


I have no idea what mean by what you have proven, I have taken out of context.

The fact is the NIV, is partially a result of the Wescott & Hort 1881 work, the NIV, adds words and omits words, some without editors notes in the margins and some with editors notes.

The website I posted, which shows these men as pro Roman Catholicism , Mariologists, and anti protestant.

I am beginignto think you do not understand what the issue here is..

Petro

Allinall,

Now, as for the character of the trabnsaltors, w

hat else can be said they, simply want to inject their bias into the word of God.

All newer simpler to read english renditoins of the scriptures are the result of this work of 1881.

What else can be concluded, from the results of their works, I suppose you would disgree with this assesment.

If you do, it wouldn't surprise me, from what you ahev posted to this point.

But I say, lets bring up, some scriptures, take whatever ones you like from the table I have supplied you, and show me how you justify there translation of their version.


Petro

(Avoiding the debate of whether "this book" refers to the book of revelations or the whole bible.)
This book refers to the original, in greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic, as appropriate); not the AV, which is a translation from non-original texts.  Unless you can prove that the AV is identical to the originals, comparing the NIV to the AV is pointless.   You need to compare it to the originals (which we don't actually have).

So what if they were.  The man who assembled the text behind the AV was a Roman Catholic too.

(Emphasis added)

If it could be shown that the NIV was internally inconsistent by recklessly referring to Satan as Jesus, would that be enough to convince you that the NIV was flawed?

Grab your NIV:

Compare Isaiah 14:12 (identifying Satan as the "Morning Star") with Revelation 22:16 (Jesus calling himself the "bright Morning Star")...

That's all I need to conclude the NIV was carelessly translated.  How about you?  

PS.  I didn't read the entire thread, so if this was brought up already, forgive the cumulative evidence . . .

ebia, Allinall,

Well there you go.

What about it??

Isa 14
12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  KJV


Isa 14
12  How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations.  NIV

Rev 22
16  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

KJV

Rev 22
16  I, esus have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.  NIV


ebia,

Talk about avoiding the debate!

You do like to focus elsewhere, rather than  the very words in question.

I ask you what is wrong with the verses shared above by  Socrates??

Can you see anything wrong with the words as translated by the NIV, in refering to Jesus??

Your preseumption that we cannot get the original language text straight is to comprimise the Word of God.

As I said, before, it is sad, that you are so, misinformed in this age of information, nothing is a secret today, if you apply yourself and determine to establish truth, you can find it, unfortunately if you chiose to ignore it, it simply shows a willingness to ignore the truth.  (Rom 1:18-19)

Petro

Amen!  Yet I hold that the book is the conglomeration of transcripts that we possess - not the KJV alone.


The text you used stating that heaven and earth would pass away, but "my word" would not was taken out of context to support your KJV based view.  Christ was not speaking contextually of His written word, but rather, the truthfulness and power of His word concerning the fall of the temple.  He was saying that the temporal things of earth would fall - His word, His prophecy of the fall of the temple, would not fail.  And it didn't.


The NIV work is not based upon the same transcripts as the KJV.  It is based upon what the AV folk would call "minority texts," implying that the bulk of the transcripts agree with the KJV.  Interestingly, the NIV side would claim they have the greater number of agreeing transcripts.  The added/missed words are considered added in light of the TR transcripts - not the transcripts from which they were derived.


And the KJV translators weren't.  This argument would and could go on forever.  The point being that more believers than Baptists will be in Heaven and even those will find that they had several doctrinal misunderstandings I dare say.  Please, don't read more into that than was intended.  I'm not pro-Catholic or pro-protestant.  I'm a believer by grace and a baptist by choice.


I dare say, my friend, that I understand the issue better than the average believer.  I came from a church where I was given an NIV when I graduated.  I never used it!  Why?  I preferred my KJV.  I always found it to be a good translation!  However, when this issue came to a head, I decided to see why the other translations were wrong.  Why?  Because something didn't feel right about the argument.  Through study and prayer lasting for a period of roughly 4 years, I came to the conclusion that the ecclectic view was the biblical one.  When you say I do not understand, you assume that I have not studied the arguements you pose.  This simply, is not true.  Rather, I have studied and chosen not to take what man has said, regardless of how good that man may be.  


The works of all other translations has not come just from this work.  If that were so, there would be no ecclectic versions!  And that simply is false.  There are ecclectic translations.  The work comes from the transcripts.

Again, the verses and their differences are based upon two different transcripts and the translations derived from each.  Arguing them would be arguing the validity or invalidity of the KJV or other translations.  I do not argue the validity of either over the other.  But...I will (later as right now I have to put my kids to bed  :D) address those scriptures, as well as any others that are brought into question.

Are we basing the lack of the "Lucifer" label in the NIV translation to imply that that text now labels Jesus in its stead due to the Revelation 22 passage?  If that is so, that is not only non-discerning, but also uneducated.  Am I then to say that God's referral to Ezekiel as the "son of man" is actually referring to Christ, as that was a title He held?  God referred to Ezekiel in that fashion apart from Jesus.  He referred to Lucifer, the greatest of all His angels, in a similar fashion.  The passage itself shows the connection to the "fallen" Satan.  Hermeneutic application here is a must.

Wow.  Perhaps I shouldn't have read this first.  I might have gotten a better impression of the forum if I hadn't.

Why are we fighting?

Matthew 12:25-26
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Now, I first read this in NIV, because KJV is a bit difficult for uneducated people to understand; however, it sounds like it has the exact same message in both versions.  The message?  Perhaps it doesn't say, "United we stand," but it does say clearly, "Divided we fall."

Why must Christians be divided over versions of the bible?

The following article is taken from: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/index.html

Most KJV-only supporters, and even many others, think Isaiah 14:12 is referring to Satan because of the KJV's use of the word "Lucifer":

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

However, here's how the verse appears in some modern translations:

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

Isaiah 14:12 (NASB) "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!"

Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation) "How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations."

Some KJV-only supporters have pointed to Isaiah 14:12 in the other English versions, and accuse them of a great mistranslation error. Some even suggest that these versions are suggesting that Christ and Satan are one in the same, and that Satan himself is responsible for inspiring these translations. This extreme view is because of where, in the KJV, Christ calls himself the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16:

Revelation 22:16 (KJV) "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Revelation 22:16 (NIV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

So, are the accusations of some KJV-only supporters justified? Have these versions taken Christ's title and given it to Satan in Isaiah 14:12? Let's look at this in a little detail, then you can decide for yourself.

One distinction that can be seen right away is that the title "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12 of the NIV is in all lower-case letters, while the title "the bright Morning Star" in Revelation 22:16 is capitalized. Another distinction is that in the Revelation verse, the title is qualified with the definite article "the", as well as the descriptor "bright", both of which are not present in Isaiah 14:12. These differences seem minor, but they are more than enough to distinguish between the KJV's "sons of God" and "Son of God", "lord" and "Lord", "god" and "God", "spirit" and "Spirit", etc.

So where did the name "Lucifer" come from?

Continued...

So where did the name "Lucifer" come from?

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears.

The use of "Lucifer" appears to have originated from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years. Here's what the Vulgate says (note the lower case):

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"

It would seem that Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."). Because many people thought this passage was referring to Satan, people began to think of the term of "lucifer" as a proper name "Lucifer". However, this is not what "lucifer" meant. "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Even though Jerome himself (and others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan, he did not use the word "lucifer" to mean "Satan" - his view that the passage was referring to Satan was purely an interpretational issue of the entire passage - the term "lucifer" was not used to indicate Satan in any way. This can be shown by of how he used "lucifer" elsewhere in the Vulgate. Although "Lucifer" only occurs once in the KJV, "lucifer" occurs three times in the Vulgate: once as shown above, and also in:

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) "et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer"

2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate) "et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"

What is interesting about those two verses where "lucifer" is used, is what the term is referring to. The KJV was not translated from the Vulgate (although verses like Isaiah 14:12 show that it was used and borrowed from), but here's those two verses in the KJV for comparison, to illustrate what the Latin word "lucifer" meant in the Vulgate:

Job 11:17 (KJV) "And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning."

2 Peter 1:19 (KJV) "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: "

What's quite interesting is the Vulgate's use of the word "lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19, a passage that is understood as referring to Christ. Also of interst to KJV-onlyism in general is that some KJV-onlies say the Spanish Riena Valera Bible was/is the inerrant word of God in Spanish, yet it too has the same Spanish word for "lucifer" ("lucero") in both Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19. If the NIV has given Christ's title to Satan, has the Spanish RV given Satan's title to Christ?

So, we learn that the name "Lucifer" (as a proper name) in the KJV is not an accurate word translation, but rather a word transliteration (a new word derived from a foreign word). This transliteration is not even from the original Hebrew, but instead from the Latin Vulgate! If "Lucifer" refers to Satan, that means the Bible has changed meaning! Thus, the term "Lucifer" in the KJV is more of a paraphrase and actually less accurate than the terms used in other translations, especially when you consider the change in meaning since the KJV was first published. However, the use of the word "lucifer" is perfectly acceptable if you understand what "lucifer" really means, and realize it is not referring to Satan, but a king of Babylon, and comparing him to the morning star, or Venus. (Click Here to read why I don't think this passage could be about Satan in the first place.)

continued...

But "morning star" is Christ's title....
However, many KJV-only supporters still object to the use of the NIV's "morning star" and the NASB's "star of the morning" to refer to Satan in Isaiah 14:12, saying that the title is Christ's alone. However, the KJV is quite clear that it isn't:

Job 38:7 (KJV) "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

In Job 38:7, the KJV indicates that this is not just a title for Christ, as it is also given to other angelic beings. One could return the "argument" and say that if "morning star" is only Christ's title, then the KJV tell us there are many Christs because of Job 38:7! (Of course that is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than saying the NIV and NASB are equating Christ and Satan). Even if you remain unconvinced that Isaiah 14:12 is not referring to Satan, is it such a stretch to suggest that "morning star" or a similar term may be applied to Satan, since he too can appear this way? Consider:

2 Corinthians 11:14 (KJV) "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

Therefore, to accuse the NIV and the NASB of giving "Christ's title" to Satan is to accuse the KJV of giving Christ's title to angels. Of course, we then see that "morning star" is simply a title that can be given to others as well.

Even if Isa 14:12 is about Satan, since "morning star" is a title the KJV uses for angels, what's wrong with with using the title for Satan? Most argue (erroneously) that "Lucifer" was Satan's name before he fell. Thus, before he fell, he was "Lucifer", an angel, a "morning star". Whoops. How do KJV-onlies know that the implied analogy is to Christ in Rev 22:16 and not to angels in Job 38:7??? Whoops again.

Also, Satan is called a lion in one passage (1 Peter 5:8), while the Lord Jesus is called a lion in one passage (Revelation 5:5). Isn't it kind of a double-standard for KJV-onlies to ignore this while jumping on the NIV's "morning star"?:

1 Peter 5:8 (KJV) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"

Revelation 5:5 (KJV) "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."

Of course, Jesus is "the bright Morning Star" (NIV, Rev. 22:16), and the NIV makes a strong distinction between the title as used in Isaiah 14:12, as mentioned near the top of this article. The KJV also makes distinctions between the title as in Rev. 22:16 and Job 38:7, but because it does not use the upper-case letters as the NIV does in Rev. 22:16, the NIV in fact makes a stronger distinction when the title is given to Christ.

So, accusing new versions of a strange error or even blasphemy when it comes to Isaiah 14:12 seems wholly unjustified. But don't take my word for it, let's see what some people with credentials that even KJV-only supporters recognize have to say:

1. James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D. (author of Strong's concordance)
Here's what the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (that accompanies Strong's exhaustive concordance of the KJV) says about the Hebrew word heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 of the KJV:

1966.  heylel, hay-lale'; from 1984 (In the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--lucifer.

It seems that Strong agrees that heylel means morning-star.

2. The KJV Translators Themselves
Here's how the verse looks in the original 1611 KJV:

Isaiah 14:12 (1611 KJV) "How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, fonne of the morning? how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didft weaken the nations?"

In the original 1611 edition of the KJV, there is a marginal note for the words "O Lucifer". The marginal note reads:

Or, O daystarre.
Clearly the KJV translators themselves understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and even provided "daystarre" for us as an alternate translation!

Also of interest (not to this particular discussion, but the KJV-only issue in general) is the fact that this verse is written as two questions (question marks are used) in the original 1611 KJV, but it's written as two exclamations (exclamation marks are used) in today's commonly used editions of the KJV. Which edition is the "inspired/inerrant/infallible" one?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above article was taken from: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

asaph

 ;D

Amen.  That is, through my argumentation  :( , the point I'm trying to make.  We divide over issues that have no biblical support.  If God said to divide over it, then so be it.  But He hasn't!  So why do we?

At our prayer meeting this evening, our Pastor brought up the need to pray for President Bush in "drawing the line in the sand" on this homosexual marriage legislation.  Why?  Because on the shirt tails of that legislation comes further legislation claiming the Bible to be "hate literature" in regards to its stand against homosexuality.  If God's word becomes subject to legislation...

So regardless of your view of version, or translation, you, I and others view God's word with a high regard.  If not, we would not argue it so.  We must be praying for our President to make hard decisions.  

BTW - I didn't post this as another attempt to start debating homosexuality.  I'm just relating what this issue has to do with the word we're debating here.

  Pastor Doug Dodd: One short answer, please, in regard to your question #8 (Re:Calvinism) How much time have you actually given to the doctrinal issues which divide Calvinists from Arminians? The Arminian faith, held to by very many protestants, stems from James Arminius, who lived in the late 16th century. Was church doctrine wrong until Arminius put people on his chosen path? Have you ever-EVER-sat down surrounded by commentaries written by theologians of both persuasions and actually witnessed the way the men of each
doctrinal persuasion handles the verses put forth as proof of the other's position? Have you seen the way Arminians respond to challenges from reformed theologians, or the way Calvinists respond to challenges from the Arminian theologians? I doubt that you have. Arminians usually haven't really giving honest consideration. They just know APRIORI that their Arminianism is right. Is that a God honoring way to deal with issues concerning His word? Reformed people can COMFORTABLY preach ANY text of Scripture. How about you? Do you have to avoid certain texts because they "don't fit"? Do you understand the full meaning in Jesus being termed "the everlasting Father, the prince of peace"? Do you realize the full import of Jesus being the head of the church? or that He is the Second Adam? How much meaning can you put in a message to your people on Sunday morning when you preach those texts? Are you familiar with the Arminian theologian Theissen who, when faced with a typical Arminian problem with verses out of Romans chapters 9-11, fell back on get this-HUMAN REASON-, saying "Nevertheless, human reason DEMANDS that we believe..". Mr. Dodd. HUMAN REASON has no standing before God's infallible word. Remember that those who will be teachers shall receive greater judgment. What, Mr. Dodd, did Jesus mean when He said, "Why do you not believe what I say? Even because you cannot hear my word."

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?

3.To tell people they cannot understand the Bible?

4.To comfort sinners with thoughts of purgatory?

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

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

7.To teach infant baptism?

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

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.


I really liked this thread, its a oldie but goldie ;D

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


Brother Love :)

QUOTE bluelake:

I had to answer this question. No one can earn their way into heaven. They don't have to, Jesus already did it for us.  
(Eph.2:8-9) we are saved by grace through faith.

God bless,
bluelake

AMEN & AME!!!


Brother Love :)

One more Amen

The Crusader

Reminder...

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?

3.To tell people they cannot understand the Bible?

4.To comfort sinners with thoughts of purgatory?

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

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

7.To teach infant baptism?

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

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

You have every reason to be. The interesting thing is that the translators of the NIV have revealed their agenda in their Preface.

They claim it is an "eclectic" text and their choice of readings is according to the "sound principles of textual criticism" [which in fact were proven to be very unsound by men such as Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Hills, and many others]. It is simply a cover-up for the corrupt Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland Text.

They they also tell us that they have used some of the most corrupt documents as supplementary to their foundation -- including the writings of heretics.

Further, the NIV is based upon the translation principle of "dynamic equivalence", which means the translators have paraphrased the Bible, and a careful comparison with the KJV will show how they have not only tampered with the text but actually perverted certain truths to mean the opposite of what they really are.

Let's take just one example -- Romans 8:28.

KJV -- "...All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose". This teaches us that because God is sovereign, He makes all things "work together for good" to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose [the redeemed].

NIV -- "... in all things God works for the good of those who love him".  This teaches us that God becomes the worker, instead of the one who makes all things work together for good through His divine power and sovereignty.

First of all, THOSE ARE NOT THE WORDS IN THE TEXT.

Secondly, THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH THAT IS BEING TAUGHT.

Thirdly, since God allows afflictions and tribulations to come into the lives of His saints [and that is the reason for this verse being there] GOD IS NOT WORKING FOR THE GOOD IN ALL THINGS.  Rather, He is making all things -- good and bad --  "work together for good".  There is a difference.

So we see how the NIV changes the truths of the Bible.

Since we are talkingn about Bibles.

I also have a kjv, which i sometimes use just for reading for serious study i use:  The New Oxford Annotated Bibles(NRSV) With the apocrypha. College edition.  It was compiled  by experts in each book and the footnotes do not reflect any protestant or catholic view. They put the veres in the context in which it was written.

I'm with you on the tithe.  There have been times when I only had five dollars and I would give two, not out of guilt, but because I just wanted to.

But, I always felt giving tithe shouldn't be because they used to give 10 percent, I felt it as giving for the work necessary for the church and it's people.  

     Thank you.    ;D

God let's us know, He loves us so much, He sees our heart.

This verse refers to the Book of Revelation not the Bible in its entirety.  You cannot just apply a verse anyway and anywhere you want to.

It is wrong to add or remove from the word of God but you have not shown that Wescott & Hort has added any words.  You have only shown that relative to the Textus Receptus they have additional words, that could equally mean that the TR leaft words out and we all know that the TR came from very questionable sources, some were not even in the original languages.

No the problem in the NIV results from the bad translation not from the text it was translated from.

michael_legna,  No the problem in the NIV results from the bad text it was translated from.  

Brother Love :)

<:)))><