King James Version 100% pure

[PeterAV]

[quote author=asaph
All the versions are without error because the Holy Spirit teaches us what He wills. Is it proudly or presumptuously? Is it Jehovah or LORD? The Holy Spirit says both words are acceptable in both instances. Am I evil for believing this? If I am tell me how.
asaph

Matthew 5:22 in the new versions make Jesus out to be a sinner.NIV etc.Not all follow these mistakes all the time.This is one out of hundreds and hundreds.
So the new versions are with error.Yes,the Holy Ghost teaches using anything and anybody,but the most important thing is the very words of God.Why is that so hard to understand?I'll tell you why.Many are to proud to admit that they have been duped,others are making money on the stuff.
Many don't believe what God said in his word about his words.
They believe the lies of the modern translators.

We must remember that God mostly uses his words to do his work.If the words are adulterated,you get adulterated understandings.

Proudly or presumptuously?
In this instance the King James has it right.
Yes,it is true that certain words can be translated various ways,but the context always determines the word used.
No different than when the KJV uses Easter in acts,when all the other 27 times Passover is used.
Many prophets can speak with pride and the thing can come to pass.Baalam was not a humble man for the LORD.Jonah was a little on the prideful side too.The gifts and calling are without repentance.
So even though they speak with pride,the thing CAN come to pass.But if the persom speaks presumptuously,it becomes obvious that the word is not right.
The word presumptuously means someone that speaks with an excessive bold confidence.Someone with pride can speak quite softly and with no brashness.So the terms are not the same.
Pride is not the accurate rendering here,as it may be in other places.
Plus you should never ever go to the compromized LexICONS,and fake dictionaries.The Holy Bible has its own built in dictionary,unlike any other work on earth.
All of the translators in that era 1611 and before,did not use worldly dictionaries.They did not want to have pagan definitions for the Holy Bible.So they only use the Bibles and Manuscripts that wre around at that time.
All Lexicons and dictionaries disagree with each other,so it becomes a oppinionated choosing game of I PREFER.
None of the men who wrote the dictionaries and Lexicons professed salvation,many were unsaved,or liberal,od involved in New Age,and humanism.I use Strong's now,only to find a verse.I avoid the back like a plague.

The proper rendering should be LORD.Jehovah is only for the purposeful times that it is definitely needed.They revered the name of Jehovah,immensely.So, that is the reason LORD was used for the those places.

[jesusavedme]

As far as I am concerned, all versions except the KJV are corrupted and NOT God's Word.  They CONTAIN God's Words, but ARE NOT God's Word.  Even if the NIV, NASB, etc., were only missing 1 word of what God intended to be there... why read them knowing that there IS A VERSION that does not omit 1 word?  The KJV and the others ARE NOT THE SAME.  Therefore, which version is right about what it says?  The version that says, "Some messages may contain...", etc., or the version that says, "Thus saith the Lord..."?  God is not unsure about what His Word may and/or may not contain.  God knows.  The last few verses of Mark are not a mystery to God.  The King James Version knows this.  But does your New Age Vaticanus manuscript???  Heaven and earth shall pass away...you know the rest.

[asaph]

Mat 5:22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The NIV omits "without a cause."
Have you ever been angry with your brother without a cause? I have always had a cause, so I'm safe.    Right?

Where was Jesus ever angry with His brother, period?
Was He angry at Peter when He turned to him and said Get thee behind me Satan. I think not. He was angry at Satan and Satan is not His brother. Was He angry at the Jews who sold oxen and sheep and doves in the temple? Yes. Were they His brothers? No. In fact he called the Jews that opposed Him children of the devil. One time Jesus asked the question who is my brother. The answer He gave was whoever does the will of God is His brother.

Mat 12:50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Find me one verse that proves He was angry with his "brother." As far as I can tell there is none.

Now what judgement is Jesus talking about? I believe it is the judgement seat of Christ. If I am angry with my brother I will have to give an account of my anger at that judgement seat of Christ unless I resolve it today. I should not let the sun go down on my anger. With or without the phrase "without a cause" the text is inspired and is used by the Holy Spirit to instruct and convict us.
The Word of God is 100% pure!

asaph

[PeterAV]

.............
Well said jesusavedme.

[PeterAV]

Well done asaph.You are giving it a lot of thought and honesty.I just wish others would learn from your efforts and labour of love of the word of God.You are a good scholar here.
That was a good answer.So I need to change the senario a bit on that one.
The words of God are pure words,nothing to be ommitted.Right?Why do they ommit.Without a cause.Plus,[not counting Jesus]The truth of the verse still is in jepordy for it doesn't say Jesus.But it says "WHOSOEVER".So the new Bibles have made a grievous mistake nonetheless.

Plus Brother can and is used in the way of "in the LORD."
Plus Brother can be used and is used for "any person on earth."but more remotely.
I Thes 3:2,Heb 13:23.
Heb 8:11,etc.
Yes the Holy Bible is 100%,is for sure but not the modern versions.
Just like jesusavedme said,"the modern versions MAY contain the words of God yet not all,why settle for less."

[joelkaki]

Does any of your sorces believe that they posses in their hands the infalible words of God?Do you?

Yes, and I do as well.

A book without prooven error?

Yes.

By the way you speak,I trow not.

You are mistaken.

Would you like me to post the list of manuscripts?You know I can.

Yes, that would be helpful.

I did notice that you simply did not answer the arguments that I presented in my two posts at the top of page 8, but ignored them entirely.  All you responded with was the 99% thing, which is unsupported.  Even if it was, you still ignored my arguments which is telling.

Joel

[PeterAV]

Would you like me to post the list of manuscripts?You know I can.

Yes, that would be helpful.
I did notice that you simply did not answer the arguments that I presented in my two posts at the top of page 8, but ignored them entirely.  All you responded with was the 99% thing, which is unsupported.  Even if it was, you still ignored my arguments which is telling.
Joel

Thanks for reminding me.I'll get right on it.It will take a bit of time to post all the info,so I need to wait for a better time to post.Maybe tonight.
Peter Fuhrman

[jesusavedme]

Peter, I know that this is your topic, I don't want to intrude here, but allow me to come to your defense concerning this issue if you don't mind.  

God told His people in His Word that His Word would abide for ever and be faithfully available unto ALL GENERATIONS.  The Modern Versions are all based on manuscripts (Aleph, Oleph, Alexandrian, Vaticanus, Sinaticus, etc.) that, for hundreds of years, WERE SITTING LOCKED UP INSIDE OF CAVES AND/OR THE VATICAN.  They were and are NOT the promised Divinely preserved texts that God promised.  That is enough to credit their dismissal.

The fact that the Modern Versions are MISSING WORDS that the Authorized Version (Textus Receptus) DOESN'T, means that one of them is right and one of them is wrong.  Take a guess at which is which.  Jesus said that man should not live by bread alone but by "EVERY WORD" that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  Every word means every word.  We cannot and should not attempt to make Jesus' Words void or unavoidable with our finite, carnal understanding.  

The Holy Spirit will and would never lead someone to believe wholly in a Version that does not say "Thus saith the Lord..." but instead "SOME MANUSCRIPTS MAY CONTAIN...".  God is not UNSURE OF HIS WORD, let me tell you that right now.  The last few verses of Mark, 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, etc., are not MYSTERIES OR QUESTION MARKS to God.  He is absolutely certain whether or whether not they are inspired text.  The only manuscripts that pass the test concerning God's faithfulness of preservation and textual credibility is the Textus Receptus, the foundation of our King James Bible.

[PeterAV]

[quote author=jesusavedme  The only manuscripts that pass the test concerning God's faithfulness of preservation and textual credibility is the Textus Receptus, the foundation of our King James Bible.

AMEN!!And Thank You!!

[PeterAV]

[quote author=joelkaki
I agree that the Bible alone is the Word of God and ought not to be changed. .  I believe the KJV does add some things that were not truly part of God's Word.
  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.

You agree Joel,that the Bible is the Word of God and ought not to be changed.
Why did you forget to tell me just what this bible is that is the Word of God.Is it your ESV?Is that the one you believe ought not to be changed,because it is the Word Of God?
You admitt that,in your opinion that the ESV is not false.

Here are just a few tiny samplings of the hundreds and hundreds of corruptions,and I'll do it[pick samples] just in the O.T. where doctrine is not affected that much.They have identical personalities in both Testaments.So just what would the New testament look like after It is exposed?Nevertheless,here are a few samples from the OT.

To start with,if you look at the history of the ESV,you find out that it is nothing more than the revision of the RSV.The most liberal piece of human evidence known to man,concerning the Holy Bible.It failed miserably.So to make money,they change the name and make a few More changes because of thoses darn copyright laws.
 
  Here are a few of the men and women that have promoted this ESV.
R.C.Sproll
Max Lucado
Joni Ericson Tada
John W.Walvoord
Erin Lutzer

The ESV along with the RSV both are founded upon the corrupted Westcott and Hort Manuscripts.These fake manuscripts,ommit over 5,000 words and 18 complete verses.
The Old Testament is an eclectic text that borrows sometimes from the Hebrew Masoratic texts,Then it will jump to the Septuagint[LXX72],it will also borrow from the Samaritan Pentateuch,and the Syriac,Plus the Vulgate.This just what the RSV did.It is nothing more than the RSV dressed up in new garb.Plus they have been using the Dead Sea Scrolls too.From the Essenes,an obvious heretical group.
This is how the modern Bibles are getting Pagan word definitions verses the pure Bible definitions.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you,niether shall ye diminish ought from it,that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Pro 30:5,6
:5 Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
:6 Add thou not to his words,lest he reprove thee,and thou be found a liar.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.

So we have the Biblical standard set;Don't change,don't diminish.don't add.don't take away.God's word stands.
Info by Will Kinney

[PeterAV]

ESV Blunders;
Gen 49:21 he moved them to cities=Heb
NIV<ESB<RSV;he made servants of them.
Then in the ESV footnote they admit they knew what the Hebrew said plus the others that they arbitrarily follow from time to time.
FOOTNOTE;Sam,Sept,Vul,Heb,read He moved them to cities.

Gen 49:10 reads until Shiloh come
ESV reads  until tribute comes to him.

Ex 14:25 reads;took off
ESV reads;clogging

Deut 11:14,15 reads I will give..I will send
ESV reads;He will give..He will send

Deut 30:16 reads; LORD thy God
RSV<ESV reads;if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God...LORD
Again,changing and adding.Plus not in the Hebrew,as usual.
How people can talk with a straight face,and say these versions are reliable is a joke,if it wasn't so serious.

Deut 32:8 reads; of Israel
RSV,ESV reads;sons of God
LXX reads;angels of God

Deut 32:43 Reads;O ye nations,with this people
ESV reads;rejoice with him,O heavens,bow down to him all gods.
Compare RSV,NRSV
Plus it should read;servants
NRSV<ESV read;children...He repays those who hate him..

Judges 14:15 reads on the seventh day
RSV,ESV reads;on the fourth day
ESV footnote;4th day in Syriac and LXX;7th day in Hebrew.
There they go again changing when they didn't need to.they are dishonest.

By having many standards,one can play the mediator and play the game of I PREFER.

Judges 16:13 ESV adds ..and fasten it with a pin.Then I shall become weak and be like any other man.-in no Hebrew Manuscripts.

I Sam 1:24reads; with three bullocks
RSV,ESV reads; a three year old bull.
Fottnote;in Syriac,and LXX

I Sam 2:33 reads thine eyes,..thine heart
RSV,ESV reads his eyes...his heart

I Sam 6:19 reads; LORD...50,000 and three score and ten men...LORD
RSV,ESV reads;LORD struck 70 men

Well, there are hundreds more,but this is just a sampling of the moronic nature of tampering with God's Holy Words.

I don't think you will be rejoicing in the ESV like you have before,if you are honest at the true words of God that ought not to be changed,taken away,added to,or diminished by using unsatisfactory synonyms.

[asaph]

 ESV Blunders;
Gen 49:21 he moved them to cities=Heb
NIV<ESB<RSV;he made servants of them.
Then in the ESV footnote they admit they knew what the Hebrew said plus the others that they arbitrarily follow from tome to time.
FOOTNOTE;Sam,Sept,Vul,Heb,read He moved them to cities.

Huh?
Gen 49:21  Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth goodly words.

asaph

[Soldier4Christ]

That should be Gen 47:21 not 49:21

KJV
Gen 47:21  And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.


ESV
21As for the people, he made servants of them[a] from one end of Egypt to the other.

NIV
 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, [a] from one end of Egypt to the other.

Footnotes:

   1. Genesis 47:21 Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint (see also Vulgate Masoretic Text and he moved the people into the cities


RSV
21: and as for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other.

[asaph]

That should be Gen 47:21 not 49:21

KJV
Gen 47:21  And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.


ESV
21As for the people, he made servants of them[a] from one end of Egypt to the other.

NIV
 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, [a] from one end of Egypt to the other.

Footnotes:

   1. Genesis 47:21 Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint (see also Vulgate Masoretic Text and he moved the people into the cities


RSV
21: and as for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other.

Both thoughts are true and whatsoever things are true, think on these things.
Of course the KJV is the best but the Holy Spirit is not limited to  it but the KJ is limited to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit will not lead us into error. It is true that they were removed to cities and it is true that they were made servants there as evidenced by the Bible record. So what is the great theological error that we are led into by this statement?

Respectfully in Christ under the annointing,

asaph

[Kristi Ann]

The B-I-B-L-E that's the Book for me, the B-I-B-L-E YaY!

I Love the Living Word of God in the KJV 1611 AV B-I-B-L-E, again this is the Book for me, The B-I-B-L-E!!

YSIC,

KristiAnn
MsGuidedAngel