Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

One of the consequences of believing in evolution instead of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis is that in programs one's mind to question the whole Bible.  There can be no salvation if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ as the Bible describes him.  Jesus performed many miracles and died for the sins of mankind and was raised from the dead.  The problem is if one rejects the account in Genesis of creation in six days, how can they then say they believe the miracles in the gospels that Jesus performed and his resurrection from the dead.   Both creation and the resurrection of Jesus were miracles that God did.  One should accept the whole Bible because God inspired men to write it and there is nothing that God cannot do.  It is not man's business to cherry pick what they will believe in the Bible.  We might not understand all of it, but we should accept it all as true.  I am referring to the King James Bible or Authorized Version, not the modern versions which are corrupt or counterfeit. 

Edited by blackbird
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I am referring to the King James Bible or Authorized Version, not the modern versions which are corrupt or counterfeit. 

The modern versions... like what? 

Are you opposed to the NASB and NIV?

I am not sure you understand how these Bibles are translated at all if you are.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

One of the consequences of believing in evolution instead of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis is that in programs one's mind to question the whole Bible. 

Not really. My faith in Christ has nothing to do with the Biblical account of creation being 100% must be Young Earth Creationism. 

I have been a part of most major denominations, studied with most, and served with many folks from all the various major world religions as well. 

Doctrinal positions are built on solid scriptural references and themes, and they are repeated throughout the Bible. It is silly to get hung up on Creationism when the real meat and potatoes of Christianity is Christ. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
1 hour ago, User said:

Are you opposed to the NASB and NIV?

I am not sure you understand how these Bibles are translated at all if you are.

You would be surprised how much I have learned over the past 40 years on the subject of the version.  This has been my obsession for a long time.  As for the NIV and the NASB, they are very corrupt versions.  I am able to to point you in the direction that will be a real revelation.  God is able to help us if we let him.  

Posted
Just now, blackbird said:

You would be surprised how much I have learned over the past 40 years on the subject of the version.  This has been my obsession for a long time.  As for the NIV and the NASB, they are very corrupt versions.  I am able to to point you in the direction that will be a real revelation.  God is able to help us if we let him.  

LOL, what makes the NASB a "corrupt" version?

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
2 hours ago, User said:

Are you opposed to the NASB and NIV?

Very much so.

Here is a good place to start your investigation.  The Calvary Pandan Bible Presbyterian Church has a website with books you can download and read on your smart phone or computer whenever you wish.

Go to this link and download the book "Beyond Versions".  Excellent book and good place to start.

Books

Posted
4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Very much so.

Here is a good place to start your investigation.  The Calvary Pandan Bible Presbyterian Church has a website with books you can download and read on your smart phone or computer whenever you wish.

Go to this link and download the book "Beyond Versions".  Excellent book and good place to start.

Books

I don't play these games. It is not my job to go make your argument for you. 

You made the claim, you can either back it up or you can't. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, what makes the NASB a "corrupt" version?

 

Good question.   You would be amazed when you find out.

Check this out:

Beyond+Versions.pdf

If you want to know a little, go to chapter 8 page 73 in the book Beyond Versions.

3 minutes ago, User said:

I don't play these games. It is not my job to go make your argument for you. 

You made the claim, you can either back it up or you can't. 

 

I'm not playing games my friend.   It is very simple to go to the link and read it for yourself.  Go to the pdf file and read pages 78 to 81 which gives clear examples from the New American Standard Version.   I tried to copy it with the computer but it won't copy it.  It is part of a pdf file that won't allow copying.  It would be very difficult to try to read and write all the information letter by letter.  Much easier if you could simply click on the link and read it.  What is the problem with doing that?   If you really want to know the truth just click on it and read it.  Only takes a couple minutes.

Posted
2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I'm not playing games my friend.   It is very simple to go to the link and read it for yourself. 

Nope. Feel free to copy and paste the most relevant portions and your arguments. Or not. I don't care. Its just a baseless assertion here otherwise. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, User said:

Nope. Feel free to copy and paste the most relevant portions and your arguments. Or not. I don't care. Its just a baseless assertion here otherwise. 

 

I am simply trying to help you.   Honestly, I tried to copy so I could paste it, but it doesn't copy to the clipboard.  It is some kind of pdf file that doesn't copy.  I could get the book out (which is out of print and likely quite valuable) and sit here and try to type every letter and word from those pages.  But why would you want to make it so difficult to show you when all you have to do is click on the link and read the pages I said?   

You have to be a little flexible and help yourself to.  I went to the trouble of finding the link and posting it.  But you want me to spend an hour typing out each word for you instead of you just clicking on it.  That doesn't make much sense.  Maybe you don't want to know.

Beyond+Versions.pdf

 

Edited by blackbird
Posted
1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I am simply trying to help you. 

I don't need your help. I have studied both the KJV and NASB. I find your claim to be outlandishly absurd. 

If you don't want to offer an actual argument, that is on you. Its just a baseless assertion. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
Just now, User said:

I don't need your help. I have studied both the KJV and NASB. I find your claim to be outlandishly absurd. 

If you don't want to offer an actual argument, that is on you. Its just a baseless assertion. 

 

This is the honest truth.

I will try to give a brief summary of the problems.  If you want the details, you will have to make a little effort yourself.

1.  The NASV attacks the eternal preexistence of Christ by tampering with Micah 5:2

2.  The NASV weakens the assertion of our Lord's virgin birth.  

3.  The NASV attack our Lord's divine goodness by deleting the word "good" from Matthew 19:16-17.

4.  The NASV attacks our Lord's bodily resurrection in Luke 24:40.

   This important testimony to our Lord's physical resurrection is removed from the text and dismissed to the margin in some editions, and put in parenthesis in others, showing doubt of its authenticity.

5.  The NASV attacks the salvation exclusive to Christ, in John 6:47

6.   The NASV attacks Christ's sonship of God in John 6:69.

7.    The NASV denies Christ's title "Son of God" in John 9:35.

  These are a few corruptions.  There are more.

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, User said:

I have studied both the KJV and NASB

8.   The NASV denies that Christ is "Lord".

9.   The NASV attacks our Lord's incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16.  God was manifest in the flesh.  This is an important verse to prove Jesus is God corrupted in modern versions like the NASV.  It is an important verse when dealing with cults like the JWs.

10.   The NASV attacks the total inspiration of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16.

11.   The NASV attacks our Lord's ascension in Luke 24:51.

Conclusion

The NASV entertains serious doubts about or Lord's divine Sonship of God, His incarnation and Lordship, His Divine goodness and His bodily resurrection.

The NASV attacks the doctrine that salvation is exclusive to Christ alone.

The NASV is a CORRUPT VERSION.

-  from the book Beyond Versions

 

Edited by blackbird
Posted
5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

7.    The NASV denies Christ's title "Son of God" in John 9:35.

Since this is the only one you actually offered something specific for... 

The NASB doesn't deny anything. It is simply one of the most accurate word-for-word translations from the original manuscripts. 

Using Son of Man doesn't deny Christ's title either, nor is that what anyone was doing in the NASB version. That is a silly presumption. Especially when 9:35 is titled as Jesus Affirming His Deity. And the continuing verses 36 though 41 clearly affirm that as well. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, User said:

Since this is the only one you actually offered something specific for... 

The NASB doesn't deny anything. It is simply one of the most accurate word-for-word translations from the original manuscripts. 

Using Son of Man doesn't deny Christ's title either, nor is that what anyone was doing in the NASB version. That is a silly presumption. Especially when 9:35 is titled as Jesus Affirming His Deity. And the continuing verses 36 though 41 clearly affirm that as well. 

 

No, I gave you a number of places and verses that show the corruption.

Clearly the NASV change in John 9:35 from "Son of God" to "Son of man" in the NASV is a major change.  It is obviously a denial that Christ is the Son of God which shows his deity.  What other verses say does not change the fact that this is a major corruption.

Posted
8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

9.   The NASV attacks our Lord's incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16.  God was manifest in the flesh.  This is an important verse to prove Jesus is God corrupted in modern versions like the NASV.  It is an important verse when dealing with cults like the JWs.

How is this attacked here? The NASB version says revealed instead of manifest. 

Explain the corruption here:

NASB:

Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was [m]vindicated [n]in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

KJV:
 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, User said:

Especially when 9:35 is titled as Jesus Affirming His Deity.

In fact the NASV denies his deity by changing it from Son of God to son of man.  A son of man does not show his deity.  This should be quite obvious.   Every man is a son of man.  Only God is a Son of God as in the KJV.

Posted
2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I gave you a number of places and verses that show the corruption.

Clearly the NASV change in John 9:35 from "Son of God" to "Son of man" in the NASV is a major change.  It is obviously a denial that Christ is the Son of God which shows his deity.  What other verses say does not change the fact that this is a major corruption.

No, you made a list of assertions... no real explanation. 

Do you have a problem with the V vs the B key on your keyboard?

No, it is not obviously a denial. I just explained why. You ignored that. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
1 minute ago, User said:

How is this attacked here? The NASB version says revealed instead of manifest. 

Explain the corruption here:

NASB:

Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was [m]vindicated [n]in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

KJV:
 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Again, the modern version removed "God was manifest in the flesh" and change it to "he who was revealed in the flesh".    So God is removed from the verse.  This is a very important verse in the Bible that has been changed and corrupted by modern versions.  Removing the word God is a clear attack on the word of God.

Posted
Just now, blackbird said:

In fact the NASV denies his deity by changing it from Son of God to son of man.  A son of man does not show his deity.  This should be quite obvious.   Every man is a son of man.  Only God is a Son of God as in the KJV.

That doesn't deny his deity. For crying out loud, that is not the only verse that shows Jesus is divine either, and AGAIN, the section is titled Jesus affirms his diety and the following verses go on to say that. 

The Son of Man goes back to the way Jewish people used that phrase in that time to associate with the Messiah. Daniel 7:13 and 9:25

Hell, even the KJV version translates it at Son of Man in Daniel 7:13. 

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen about Bible translations. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Again, the modern version removed "God was manifest in the flesh" and change it to "he who was revealed in the flesh".    So God is removed from the verse.  This is a very important verse in the Bible that has been changed and corrupted by modern versions.  Removing the word God is a clear attack on the word of God.

Nothing has been removed. The NASB is just a more accurate word for word translation from the original manuscripts. 

Are you now saying KJV never uses the word "He" when referring to God? 

What silly nonsense. 

Even in the KJV in John 9, in the following verses after 35, it uses "he" and "him" when referring to God. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted

There are several possible reason for these changes in modern versions.

1.  Modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts such as the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.  The KJV is based on the age old Received Text which was used for almost 1,900 years.  The modern versions use of corrupt manuscripts was only in the past 150 years or so.

2.  The method modern version editors and translators used was often the dynamic equivalence method, which means they wrote the verses in how they think it should be worded.  In other words in man's words, not God's wording.  They are condemned by the verses in Revelation chapter 22 where the warning speaks about those who add or subtract from God's word.  They have added and subtracted from God's word.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, User said:

That doesn't deny his deity. For crying out loud, that is not the only verse that shows Jesus is divine either, and AGAIN, the section is titled Jesus affirms his diety and the following verses go on to say that. 

The Son of Man goes back to the way Jewish people used that phrase in that time to associate with the Messiah. Daniel 7:13 and 9:25

Hell, even the KJV version translates it at Son of Man in Daniel 7:13. 

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen about Bible translations. 

 

It doesn't matter what other verses say.  If some verses have been changed and corrupted, then that means the whole Bible cannot be trusted.  You need to do some studying on this issue.  God gave us only one Bible translation, not hundreds as we have today.  Based on corrupt manuscripts and corrupt editors, heretics, and people who did not believe God preserved his word for 1,900 years.

Posted
13 minutes ago, User said:

No, you made a list of assertions... no real explanation. 

Do you have a problem with the V vs the B key on your keyboard?

No, it is not obviously a denial. I just explained why. You ignored that. 

If you want to know more about this, there is detailed book with extensive researched information called "New Age Bible Versions" by G. Riplinger.  It is available to read online as well.  Just type in a search window New Age Bible Versions archive.org and you should find it.  Or you can order a copy from AV Publications website or some other used book website such as alibris.ca

Posted
2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It doesn't matter what other verses say.  If some verses have been changed and corrupted, then that means the whole Bible cannot be trusted.  You need to do some studying on this issue.  God gave us only one Bible translation, not hundreds as we have today.  Based on corrupt manuscripts and corrupt editors, heretics, and people who did not believe God preserved his word for 1,900 years.

Yes, it certainly does matter what other verses say. You are cherry picking verses out and making declarations about the motives of the authors behind the NASB that other verses clearly contradict. 

The funny thing is that it is the KJV that the authors took more creative liberty with in some spots, which is why the NASB is a more accurate word for word translation. 

God did not give us the KJV. The books of the bible were not found written in old English... 

 

Just now, blackbird said:

If you want to know more about this, there is detailed book with extensive researched information called "New Age Bible Versions" by G. Riplinger.  It is available to read online as well.  Just type in a search window New Age Bible Versions archive.org and you should find it.  Or you can order a copy from AV Publications website or some other used book website such as alibris.ca

So far, what you have offered is a bunch of garbage. I have no desire to go read anything else you are pushing. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,855
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Hannani
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...