"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

[Soldier4Christ]

2nd Timothy,

Brother - AMEN AND AMEN!!

Your post was beautiful and it makes me want to sing again:

"Thank you LORD for saving my soul,
"Thank you LORD for making me whole."

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 104:34  My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.

2nd Timothy and Brother Tom,

A third and Fourth
AMEN and AMEN

The Apostles did not have the KJV or even the Greek or any other language version of the New Testament. There are many today in various countries that do not have it. They are still being brought to the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ. Some day the Bible will be outlawed. The KJV will be gone and still there will be those that will be saved. The Bible tells us this is true. Yet so many want to argue this point which takes away from precious time to witness and preach Salvation.

[cris]

How's this?  God's words are inerrant.  God's spoken word's are in the bible, all versions.

This should settle it!

But it didn't, if I must say so myself.


Oh, 2T.....JN didn't point out John 1:1, I did.




 

[JudgeNot]

2 Corinthians 3
1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

Does this clear anything up for you, gotcha104?

[ollie]

 Hebrews 12:25.  "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
 26.  Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
 27.  And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
 28.  Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
 29.  For our God is a consuming fire."

ollie

[ollie]

Quote is gotcha104's:

Fairly heated discussion for a non-salvation issue

You say Christians are denying the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and then say that salvation is not involved. You need to study God's word. That very denial is of a hell bound nature. It is what the devil wants. God be praised, not denied.

ollie

[Soldier4Christ]

Quote is gotcha104's:

Fairly heated discussion for a non-salvation issue

You say Christians are denying the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and then say that salvation is not involved. You need to study God's word. That very denial is of a hell bound nature. It is what the devil wants. God be praised, not denied.

ollie

Sorry Ollie, that was Judgenot that said that not gotcha104.
 

[JudgeNot]

Quote:
Fairly heated discussion for a non-salvation issue

Yes, I did say that, and I will continue to believe whatever “version” (choke) of His word is read and understood for salvation, then that is the correct version for that reader.  As BEP said and I agree whole heartedly, I DO NOT WORSHIP KING JAMES!
(THERE IS NO VERSION OF GOD'S WORD! THERE IS ONLY HIS WORD! GOD SPEAKS ONLY ONE LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL WHO SEEK HIM!)

And, for the record, I also believe the Savior’s Word is written in my heart.

If anyone believes that means I’m bound to burn then you are very welcome to your opinion.

I’m done with this tread – both reading and replying.

~JudgeNot~

Sheesh - kids can drive me nuts.
I know better than getting involved in a 'Debate' thread.  I'm too old, too set in my ways, and I have high blood pressure.  

[2nd Timothy]

Oh, 2T.....JN didn't point out John 1:1, I did.

My bad cris....I was refering to JN's reply #3 in the "Bibles" thread"

[2nd Timothy]

Ollie, I think (at least the way I understood the flow of the discussion was) that JN had pointed out there was no evidence of salvaic alterations in any of the well known translations.  


I must say, neither have I heard from any KJVonlyists, what altering beliefs and NEW doctrines have risen from the different translations?  Can they site any?   I mean, give a hundred men 1611 KJV bibles and you will probably have 100 differing interpritations on many points all from the same translation    

Numerous people have met the Author of scripture without ever having read a word of text from scripture.   I know I have led a few to Christ via converstation....I was using the 2TV     But it was not my word that saved them...it was His.   And I'm pretty sure my grammer may have missed a jot or tittle here and there  

One doesn't need to buy a book to be introduced to the Author.   Yes, reading the book may give great insight to the Author, but a first hand introduction is the only way to get an intimate perspective on the authors thoughts and message.

In the case of scripture even moreso.  It is quite necessary to know the Author.

1Co 2:11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


Want to get your hands on the accurate word of God Brandpluck?   All you gotta do is reach out and take His hand friend.   This Living Word is the way, the truth, and the life!   And He is fluent in all tongues  

[ollie]

Quote is gotcha104's:

Fairly heated discussion for a non-salvation issue

You say Christians are denying the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and then say that salvation is not involved. You need to study God's word. That very denial is of a hell bound nature. It is what the devil wants. God be praised, not denied.

ollie

Sorry Ollie, that was Judgenot that said that not gotcha104.
 

I picked up on it in a "gotcha104" post. I donot recall it coming across as a quote. It seemed like something that went along with His train of thought. If it was presented as a quote of JN I missed it.

My apologies to all and especially "judgenot"
and "gotcha104"

However salvation would be involved for one to deny the truth and inerrancy of the word.

Thanks PR for the heads up.

ollie

[brandplucked]

 The anyversionists claim that the "message" is still retained in the modern versions, that no important doctrine is messed with. As we'll see, apparently salvation is not an important doctrine to modern version supporters:

Is the "narrow way" HARD?
KJV Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

ESV 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Holman 14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

CEV 14 But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it.

Nkjv 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

        The modern versions make salvation hard/difficult, when it is actually quite easy. That's a serious difference dealing with the vital doctrine of salvation.

        The narrow was is EASY. Getting saved is easy, just believe on Jesus Christ. No effort at all. The scriptural examples of how easy it is are things like, opening a door, drinking water, eating bread, and all them actually require more effort than believing on Jesus.

    
Is it HARD to get into God's kingdom?

KJV Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

        The KJV notes that it is hard for those who TRUST in RICHES to enter the kingdom - that's because we must TRUST in CHRIST - and then entering the kingdom is EASY.

 But the modern versions still make it hard:

NIV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (the NASV reads almost the same)

NASB The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Holman But the disciples were astonished at His words. Again Jesus said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NWT But the disciples gave way to surprise at his words. In response Jesus again said to them: "Children, how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!"

ESV And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NLT This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to get into the Kingdom of God."

CEV The disciples were shocked to hear this. So Jesus told them again, "It's terribly hard to get into God's kingdom!"

        Now it is not just hard, not just difficult, not just very hard, it is now terribly hard. At this rate the next version that comes out will have to say "it is impossible".
        
Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

gotcha104,

The preserved and perfect Bible is in Hebrew and Greek primarily, not English.


BEP, there are multiple different Hebrew readings, and the Greek is far, far worse.  There are at least 25 very different Greek texts in print, thousands of varying manuscripts, and the Greek Nestle text and UBS that are behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV continue to change every few years.  You have no settled text.

I agree, the Hebrew was the inspired text, but why then do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman all often reject the Hebrew readings?

I list many examples of this here.


http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos2.html


"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminsh ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5,6.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; 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." Revelation 22:18, 19.



Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

. This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact. Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB and the ever worsening NIV.

Will K

[brandplucked]

I have a couple more questions for you ...
Is there some reason why the number of revisions of the KJV are almost impossible to count?"

Sorry BEP, but the King James Bible has never been "revised".  The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed. All that has happened is that the spelling was updated (like Sonne to Son), the type was changed from Gothic to Roman, and minor printing errors were corrected.  The underlying TEXT of the KJB has never changed.



BEP>>>I'm fully aware that the 1611 KJV and a large number of KJV revisions were published with the Apocrypha.

Is the Apocrypha part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible?

If you think the Apocrypha is part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible, would you please list the authority for that opinion?

Bep, this apocrypha thing gets really old after awhile.  Maybe this will help you.

WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets".  Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout.  It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha".  Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV.  These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.


Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
 
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including Miles Coverdale 1535, and the Calvinist Geneva Bible of 1560. ... The deliberate omission of the Apocrypha from an English Bible is first noted in the 1640 edition of the Geneva Bible, ... Not until the nineteenth century, however, did the omission of the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles become normal.

The Protestants in those days were obviously a victim of their times. Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the Westminster divines wrote,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (WCF 1:3).

[brandplucked]

Amen Pastor Roger!!   I see all of this KJV only stuff as a work of the devil. It obviously is since many translations of the Holy Bible contain complete and accurate doctrine.

Sorry BEP, but not all bible versions teach correct doctrine.

Please read through the following examples, and then come back and explain how they all teach the correct doctrine, OK?


No Doctrines Are Changed?

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, ESV when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard,and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

[brandplucked]

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV, Holman, and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too :-)

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/Eze14deceive.html

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/begotnSon.html