BTW, is that how you do your evangelising:  "Here's a bible, read through it, if you have any questions try google."

You have to be joking.

If you don't want to debate this, that fine.

If you think I'm going to waste my time picking through someone else's website to post refutations here, you are very much mistaken.

Quote:
posted by ebia
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.
 
I made my point twice, I say re read my answers..

I've read them several times - they may make perfect sense to you, but to someone who doesn't know what you are talking about, they make no sense whatsoever.

2.  Like answering the above.
Like acknowledging that Westcott & Hort produced a greek text, not a translation.
Like acknowledging that the Erasmus was a Catholic, so the fact that W & H were Anglicans is no different.
Most importantly, acknowledging that demostrating differences between the NIV and AV doesn't prove that the NIV changed anything, any more than it proves that the authours of the AV changed the same verse.

3.  "... and the fourth looks like a son of the gods..."   is quoting Nebuchadnezzar.  A man who does believe (incorrectly) that there is more than one God.

This is a dumb conclusion, the mormons can no more prove their doctrines, than the JW's could before they came out with their own translation, that is why, they use the "Book of Mormon", as their principle book to teach them, in effect they have elevated "The Book of Mormon" above the Bible and use the bible  only as a reference text

 Exactly.
The fact that the Mormons like the AV doesn't prove that it is rubbish.   The fact that the JWs like the NIV or the Westcott & Hort text does not prove that they are rubbish.  Now can we please leave the Mormons, the JWs and all the other non-Trinitarians out of the discussion.

Here are some more verses for you, since you are to lazy to go to the Comprison Table I posted;

  http://www.angelfire.com/wa/jasonsaling/images/textbox1.gif

I'm not too lazy to look at it.  I've looked at stuff like this plenty of times before.  You can quote differences until you are blue in the face.   Spotting a difference does not prove which is correct.

Now lets try and get something quite clear.  Which of the following are you asserting:
1.  The translators of the NIV deliberately made unsupportable changes in translating from the Greek Text they were using into English.

2.  The translators of the NIV accidentally made unsupportable changes in translating from the Greek Text they were using into English.

3.  The translators of the NIV deliberately used an inappropriate choice of Greek texts.

4.   The translators of the NIV based their Greek text on Westcott & Hort and others in good faith, but W & H deliberately produced a corrupt text.

5.   The translators of the NIV based their Greek text on Westcott & Hort and others in good faith, but W & H accidentally produced a corrupt text.

6.   God is an Englishman and wanted us to all read the bible in 16th Century English all along, writing it in Greek and Hebrew was a mistake in first place, and any translation that doesn't use the exact words of the AV is clearly the work of satan.

[equal]

Just thought I'd stick my oar in a point out a few of the more glaring errors in the last few posts:

"You my friend are misinformed, the first pope of Orthodoxy is the pope (orthodoxy prefers to use the word patriarch, so what, pope, patriarch, we know what you mean) peter, you need to bone up on the history of your soon to be new religion."  Following the break with rome, the Patriarch of Constantinopel has always had the primacy in the east (in fact if you checked the record they voted amongst themselves that the patriarch at constantinople would be second to rome among their churches, so, quit being confused your pope is the man you will refer to, as your Patriarch.  (please refer to Ecuemenical Patriarchate)

There is a huge difference between the E. Othodox concept of Patricarch and the RC concept of a Pope.  Most notably Patricarch's are not concidered infallable, and are first amongst equals with regard to the bishops that fall into their juristictions, just as (in the Orthodox view) the Bishop of Rome should be first amongst equals amongst the Patriarchs (and has exceeded his authority to claim more than that).

Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD, in the Roman Catholic church, you may want to will yourself to be disassociated from this institution, but  they are nothing other than pipe dreams, unfortunately you will be married to it, when you join this practice of idolatry (praying to your saints).

Of course, if you used a decent bible (one without some of the books taken out) you would find biblical authority for this.

The early church clearly DID recognise praying to the saints: the Shepherd of Hermas talks about it, and that book was so highly regarded it almost made it into the bible.

Also:

Clement of Alexandria

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" [A.D. 208].

Methodius

"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. Thou are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs unto the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of thee . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father--the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

The list goes on.
Quite apart from that, the bible doesn't authorise the use of the internet, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit

The question isn't who sent the Holy Spirit, but who the Holy Spirit proceeds from (originates from, approximately).  

And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;

I'm not quite sure what this says - it really help if you put commas in sentences in roughly the right place instead of distributing them randomly.
Anyway, neither Orthodoxy nor Rome make saints, they merely recognise some people as clearly having been saints.  Both admit that they will have been far more saints that they will never notice.

And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;

I'm beginning to think that you think that there is only one Patriarch, which is not true - there are several including Constantinople, Antioch and Moscow.  All equal.

Quote:
Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).
 

Actually the Mormons have to use an extra book to declare their beliefs.  Without it they have no case for their beliefs.  You see, if they just stuck to the bible, they wouldn't have so many silly extra beliefs.

I know, and I agree, but it doesn't nullify my point.

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

Allinall,

You can back track to my reply#7, and check the website I provided, but above all else, spend time in learning the historical record of both Wycliffe, and Tyndale and the record of their translations.

It makes no never mind, who you studied under, no person has the corner on the truth, but history can prove or disprove, what you ahave been taught.

The fact is, the NIV, has ommited words or tweecked it enough in certain verses, to make quite a difference to the verses meaning,

I say look at the Comparison Table of Bible verses, provided.

I have never heard of the person, you studied under, just like you probaly have never heard of the bible translation experts the JW's put forth to justify their translation.

And even the history put forth by sides distort the truth, but, discerning individuals can cull it, by carefull consideration of it, by the Spirt.


Blessings,

Petro

Do you plan to do any of the following:
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.
2.  Address any of the issues raised by other people?
3.  Acknowledge that, no matter how many differences you can find between the NIV and the AV, that cannot prove which (if either) is more accurate.
4.  Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).
5.  Put your commas in the correct place in sentences, so other people can understand what you are trying to say.

[was]

Your attention is invited to Heb 8:1-28..read the first three verses very carefully........

I take it that was a typo: there are only 13 verses in Hebrews 8.

Anyway, this chapter talks a lot about the old worship being "a shadow or sketch of the heavenly one",  that the new ministry is "better", etc.
This carries a heaving implication that, although the old ministry was imperfect, it countained much that was right and valuable.  It certainly does not say "throw it all away - even the best bits".

[given]

The definition of "holy" in the vernacular dictionary, doesn't mean anything.

Words mean whatever people use them to mean - that's the nature of language; there is no inherent meaning in any  word.  The word "holy" is part of the English language - it didn't spring magically out of the bible.   The fact that it might mean something different to you than it does to someone of a different Christian Tradition indicates that (lacking a universally accepted Christian Dictionary), the best place to go to find the commonly accepted meaning given to a word may well be a standard dictionary.

Well of course, you just defined what I meant by what I posted, praying over the oil does not make it holy ,at all, and there is no where in the Word of God, that anyone is instructed to pray over the oil, but over the person on whom the oil is being applied to.

I wasn't clear.  It is the setting aside that "makes" it holy, not the praying.  Makes is the wrong word, though - the sentence is the wrong way around - holy, in this sense, is (just) something that has been set aside for God.  As part of that setting aside we ask God to bless its use, guide the users, etc (nothing wrong with that, presumably).

It make sense. Just think about how incredibly unsanitary it must have been in the temple/tabernacle, in the summer time where they were slaughtering animal after animal. How were they to keep from getting sick? The aromatic oils that they used to anoint all the funtiture and utinsels, and the priests are very strong against germs.

 To the best of my knowledge, it is more resins that are strongly antiseptic/anti-bacterial, such as Frankincense and Myrrh.

For instance using water, which is called holy to sprinkle over animals as though to bless them of God, doesn't accomplish anything, except in the minds of them who practice such things, and neither is the water holy, as though it has some power to accomplish somehting.

I'm sorry you don't believe in the power of prayer.  That must be very sad for you.

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?

People describing themselves and calling themselves names of their choosing rather than God's.

Where did God tell us what label to use for His Church?  The Church seems quite sufficient - where is the instruction to call it anything more than that.  

Pretty cool isn't it!  I have read of similar studies with similar results.

The trouble is
1.  Its pretty hard to estimate the probability of a person fulfilling a prophecy.
2.  Those probabilites are not the same for each one.
3.  Most of the prophecies are only identifiable in hindsight.  The jews do not recognise them as talking about the messiah.
This makes the maths highly suspicious.
For instance, there could be a lot of similar prophesies he hasn't fullfilled but we can't recognise them because he hasn't.  Without knowing how many of those there are, the maths is meaningless.

4.  It would be interesting, if we had this person's actual maths, to go through the bible with the sort of fine-tooth-comb that has been done for Jesus and see how many prophesies you fulfill, and what he says the chance of that are.  I suspect you'd be surprised.  Only trouble is, it would take too long.

[Translation]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

I hope so, because I still don't understand what his position is.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

And please be quite clear about what exactly you are taking as "the original text".

Whats pathetic, is your presumpotion like Tibby's, to my claiming the JW's like the NIV, translation, I was refering to the Wescott & Hort Transalation of 1881.

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.  The reason may be that you, and others, keep referring to the "Westcott & Hort Translation".  in 1881 Westcott and Hort put together what they considered to be the best original Greek text.  They didn't translate anything, so calling it a translation is confusing.

Never the less, my point still stands that the fact that certain cults prefer one version over another does not offer evidence as to which is the more correct version.

The bible tells us that if anyone comes with a message denying or not proclaiming Christ, not only should not be allowed in our house but you can't even send themj of with a godspeed.

So you chase off the postman for bringing the electricity bill?  

What Bible version do you think is the most accurate anyone?

Opps. I now what you are going to say.  I mean ones that are in english.

Define accurate.
Translated from the most authentic text?
Closest to the original words (which may make little sense to the current audience, given that idioms have changed)?
Closest to conveying the original meaning, even if that means using significantly different words and idioms?

Aucuracy of translation is a bit of a moving target - different translations are aiming at different things.   Most modern translations are based on similar greek texts, but have different aims, so it is a good idea if using a "paraphrase" translation like the Message or the Good News for ease of reading and understanding, to compare to a more word-for-word translation like the NRSV when closely studying the text.  The NIV is something of a compromise between the two camps, so is a decent "all-rounder" rather than a master of either.

Single-author translations, particularly, can give fresh insight into a passage (especially the "Luke for Everyone", "Matthew for Everyone", etc series by Tom Wright), but you have to bear in mind that ultimately they represents single person's view of how to translate a difficult to translate passage, rather than a consensus.

As I said before when you have the cults, agreeing with a translation, then christians should take notice, because it usually means something is not right in the translation if it agrees with their version of the scriptures and their teaching.

This is still a pathetic argument, but just to demonstrate how pathetic.

1.  JW's do not like the NIV - they prefer it to some others, but they still prefer their own translation because the NIV still contains the foundation of much doctrine that contradicts JW teachings (eg the beginning of the Gospel according to St John).

2.  If the fact that a cult or heretical group uses your translation is damning evidence, then the King James Only crowd are in big trouble, because the Mormon's insist on using that version.

Other than that, I think Allinall summed it up pretty well.

For you and others that may not realize it, the KJV, contains pratically 80% of Wm Tyndale's translation "word for word", and the remainder would agree with  John Wycliffe's version of 1384.

I am perfectly well aware of this, but what has it got to do with the current discussion.

So to make a claim, that the KJV the only Authorized Version, somehow or other is foreign to previous english translations is lacking in substance.

I never made such a claim.

that the KJV the only Authorized Version

Try as I might, I can't figure out what you mean here.  Maybe its not important, but if it is can you spell it out?

The KJV, in many instances contain the exact english words translated by Tyndales translation, ei: The entire Chapter of Gen 33.

I know.

So what?