User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 1 minute ago, blackbird said: Actually public schools teach children or teenagers to use contraceptives if they are going to have sex. Using the words sexual immorality to try to counter what is taught by public schools is a very weak way to counter that. Secondly, people that use the modern versions do not believe the actual words in the modern versions are infallible and inerrant. There are countless new versions that differ in countless way. People that use them will tell you there is no absolutely infallible Bible. So why would they accept your interpretation of sexual immorality any more than some leftist interpretation? They wouldn't Since there is no inerrant Bible according to users of modern Bibles, nobody can claim they have the absolute true understanding. Neither the KJV or the NASB are written to counter what teenagers are taught in school. This is what parents are for and this is what adult mature Christians who read and understand the Bible are for, as well as having a good church body and spiritual leadership in the Church are for. You have now moved the goal posts from claiming the NASB is "corrupt" and nefariously changed words from what the KJV says to making some argument about how they don't do well to counter public schools. What do you based your secondly assertion on? Here I am, a person who loves the NASB version of the Bible, and I believe in the infallibility of it. So... now what? I imagine the people who take issues with the infallibility of the Bible are the same ones who do so regardless of it if were the KJV or NASB versions. Having different versions is very easily explainable. There is a scale from word for word translation to conveying the meaning. What next, are you going to be mad that they have children's animated Bibles that are written for little kids to understand in short easily understood stories? Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 22 minutes ago, User said: No, I have been studying this for my entire life. I give you sound arguments based on facts, logic, and reason. Sadly you have been lied to and deceived. Many church people and members today are deceived. That is easy to prove by looking at their practices. They reject many things in the Bible. We have churches that have women elders, women ministers, gay ministers, lesbian ministers. Churches that don't absolutely oppose abortion, MAID, same-sex marriage. Some preach a social gospel, and are more concerned with socialist politics than the gospel and new birth. Some preach very superficial sermons and avoid more controversy as much as possible. They don't believe in an infallible, inerrant Bible either. That is part of the problem. They are under demonic deception. Edited January 2 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 15 minutes ago, User said: You have now moved the goal posts from claiming the NASB is "corrupt" and nefariously changed words from what the KJV says to making some argument about how they don't do well to counter public schools. I am explaining the consequences of not believing in an infallible, inerrant Bible in churches and Christianity today. Apostasy is rampant. If people don't have a real Bible, they are not going to grow in faith in the same way as people who believe in an infallible, inerrant Bible. I can hold my KJV Bible and know it is God's inerrant, preserved actual words. " 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 KJV I can believe every word in my KJV Bible is God's word. He promised he would preserve it. It is based on the Received Text which has been the words of God for nearly 1,900 years. Modern versions like the NIV and NASB are based on a few corrupt manuscripts and not strictly the Received Text and cannot be trusted. Where was the Bible for the past 1,800 years if we have to suddenly abandon the Received Text and accept the modern versions that changed the words in thousands of places in the past 140 years? Edited January 2 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) All the modern versions are part of Satan's plan to attack the word of God. That is one of Satan's and the demon's main objectives. The best way to weaken Christians is to destroy or undermine the Bible and their faith in it. In the Bible, that began back in Genesis ch3 when Satan uttered his first words to Eve, "yea hath God said" questioning God's word. With the proliferation of all the modern version based on corrupt manuscripts he has been making a lot of headway. Also modern versions are in many ways Roman Catholic Bibles. There are many changes that actually support RC doctrines. We haven't even begun to discuss that. Edited January 2 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 7 hours ago, User said: Neither the KJV or the NASB are written to counter what teenagers are taught in school. This is what parents are for and this is what adult mature Christians who read and understand the Bible are for, as well as having a good church body and spiritual leadership in the Church are for. You have now moved the goal posts from claiming the NASB is "corrupt" and nefariously changed words from what the KJV says to making some argument about how they don't do well to counter public schools. What do you based your secondly assertion on? Here I am, a person who loves the NASB version of the Bible, and I believe in the infallibility of it. So... now what? I imagine the people who take issues with the infallibility of the Bible are the same ones who do so regardless of it if were the KJV or NASB versions. Having different versions is very easily explainable. There is a scale from word for word translation to conveying the meaning. What next, are you going to be mad that they have children's animated Bibles that are written for little kids to understand in short easily understood stories? I am just watching a youtube video that gives some very strong evidence that the KJV is produced under the clear direction of God. This is an amazing video. It is in fact demonstrating something miraculous. You need to watch it yourself. There is too much to it to put in a few sentences on here. You have to see it for yourself. It is called The 1611th Mention of LORD (And Why It's a Really Big Deal) Bing Videos Incidentally, while this video and what it reveals if in fact true is interesting information, it is not the reason I believe the KJV is the true inerrant Bible. There are many other sound reasons I believe the KJV is God's only inerrant word in English. The books, articles, and information on the subject I have read over the last 40 years convinced me. I praise God for giving me this information by his grace through the decades. I understand the difficulty you might have in accepting this and I will pray that you are able to see the light on it. There are also videos on youtube that delve into this. One interesting one you might consider is called New World Order Bible Versions. You can type that on a search line with the word youtube and you should be able to find it. We are living in the last days and it should come as no surprise that God's word has been under Satanic attack for a long time. God's word was forbidden for the common people down through the middle ages by the Roman Church and the King James Bible was also condemned and forbidden by the Roman Church. Edited January 2 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 6 hours ago, User said: Here I am, a person who loves the NASB version of the Bible, and I believe in the infallibility of it. This is odd for a number of reasons. People and churches that use modern versions generally claim only the "original" manuscripts are inerrant or without error. That means they believe all Bibles we have are imperfect. The fact there are hundreds of different English versions and hundreds of revisions of them and there are differences between them means their producers did not believe in an infallible Bible. What makes you think your version is infallible and not the NIV (New International Version)? What makes your NASV or NASB infallible? I think I already explained the King James Version is the only version based on the Received Text which is supported by over 5,000 copies of original manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, and lectionaries while the modern versions take their lead from the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts used by the two heretics in 1881 to produce their corrupt revised Greek New Testament. Modern versions followed this corrupt Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort. From it later were produced what is called the critical text used by Nestle Aland and United Bible Societies texts and from these came the modern versions in the 20th century. These corrupt manuscripts differ with the Received Text in thousands of places and the corrupt manuscripts even differ with each other in many places. So it all boils down to whether you accept a version based on a small handful of corrupt manuscripts versus the KJV which is based on the Received Text which is supported by something around 98% of the extant manuscripts. The small number of corrupt manuscripts also apparently come from an area or place called Alexandria and could have been also corrupted by early heretics in that part of the world. It might also explain why that handful of manuscripts were not used by the early church and down through the centuries. We need to ask why they were suddenly pulled out of the Pope's library and a monastery in the 1800s and used to replace the Received Text by the two heretics Westcott and Hort. You need to read the history of these two men and what they were involved in during the late 1800s. Why did they hate the KJV and Received Text? But the Received Text came from a wide area of different places where the early church grew. So there is the fact of where the manuscripts came from to also consider. The book I told you about, New Age Bible Versions, goes into many things such as the men behind the modern versions, the manuscripts that were used, and many other factors. You need to seriously study that book. It is written by someone who studied the subject and worked on the book for six years. A very scholarly person and book. I hope you research this book and other related facts. You can find many articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society website as well. Another website with many articles is the Jesus is Savior website. You can Google King James Bible defended and look for that website. May God bless you as you research this subject. I understand you love the NASB and have probably become very attached to it emotionally. But you should not let that deter you from seeking the truth. Truth is more important than feelings or emotions as you know. May God bless you as you dig into this and I hope you do. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 11 hours ago, blackbird said: Sadly you have been lied to and deceived. Many church people and members today are deceived. That is easy to prove by looking at their practices. They reject many things in the Bible. We have churches that have women elders, women ministers, gay ministers, lesbian ministers. Churches that don't absolutely oppose abortion, MAID, same-sex marriage. Some preach a social gospel, and are more concerned with socialist politics than the gospel and new birth. Some preach very superficial sermons and avoid more controversy as much as possible. They don't believe in an infallible, inerrant Bible either. That is part of the problem. They are under demonic deception. Nope. You can't articulate what this lie or deception was or is. The fact that we have a liberalization of the Church with their rejecting fundamental doctrines in Christianity is not because bible translations exist like the NASB since the NASB did not fundamentally change any of the scriptures those doctrines are based on. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 11 hours ago, blackbird said: I can believe every word in my KJV Bible is God's word. Except... it isn't. The KJV is an ENGLISH translation of the original manuscripts known at the time. It is no more the literal word of God than the NASB is. In fact, the NASB is more literally word for word than the KJV is. I too, can believe in the infallibility of The Bible, and still read the NASB. By the way, I also have a KJV. I read the NIV. You seem hung up on conflating the infallibility concept of The Bible with translations. They are not the same thing at all. There are hundreds of languages in the world, not everyone reads the old English... so guess what, there will be various translations where the English is not a one for one to those other languages. *GASP* This is such a silly argument you are making. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 11 minutes ago, User said: Nope. You can't articulate what this lie or deception was or is. I am surprised you would say this. I just gave you a couple relatively long posts explaining a number of things the articulate the problems. I described in a fair amount of detail the source of the modern versions versus the source of the KJV. It appears you did not bother to read the last three posts I made above. We are living in the last days when the Bible predicted there would be a falling away. The falling away from Biblical doctrines and practices by the church is one aspect. The falling away from the inspired, preserved word of God, the KJV, is another part of the falling away. Funny you would acknowledge the falling away of churches, but not the falling away from the preserved Bible itself. Guess you don't think Satan and his demons are capable of deceiving men about the Bible itself. Well, I explained in detail how that happened from the 1800s with Westcott and Hort., the two heretical Church of England clergymen by their hate of the KJV and their deception with a few corrupt manuscripts they used. They were involved in the occult and mysticism with the Ghostly Guild and also held heretical doctrines. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 11 hours ago, blackbird said: All the modern versions are part of Satan's plan to attack the word of God. That is one of Satan's and the demon's main objectives. The best way to weaken Christians is to destroy or undermine the Bible and their faith in it. And you have yet to offer any real argument for how this is an attack on the word of God, let alone some plan of Satan... Just silly nonsense. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 1 minute ago, User said: Except... it isn't. The KJV is an ENGLISH translation of the original manuscripts known at the time. It is no more the literal word of God than the NASB is. In fact, the NASB is more literally word for word than the KJV is. I too, can believe in the infallibility of The Bible, and still read the NASB. By the way, I also have a KJV. I read the NIV. You seem hung up on conflating the infallibility concept of The Bible with translations. They are not the same thing at all. There are hundreds of languages in the world, not everyone reads the old English... so guess what, there will be various translations where the English is not a one for one to those other languages. *GASP* This is such a silly argument you are making. You missed the main points entirely. Of course the KJV is an English translation BUT it is based on the Received Text. The modern versions are not, but were produced with corrupt manuscripts. I already described this in a fair amount of detail. I am talking about the English translation of the Bible. Other languages may have used the Received Text as well which would make them trustworthy. Particularly other language Bibles made before the last couple hundred years would like have used the Received Text. The point is, which you appear to have missed or ignored, is the fact God promised to preserve his words, that is, actual words, not ideas. "18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 KJV "6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6, 7 KJV We know the KJV is the Holy Scripture or words of God that he promised to preserve because it was accurately translated from the Received Text. Thus the KJV is a trustworthy copy in English of the original manuscripts, which no longer exist. The New Testament was written in Greek and copies of these originals were made and distributed around to various places in the early church. Copies of lectionaries or sermons that preachers made were also examined because they quoted the earliest copies of manuscripts. The modern versions like the NIV and NASB are not word for word translations as the KJV is. They are what is called dynamic equivalence. They are reworded and are editors and modern heretics thoughts of what they think the Bible should say in English. That is why they are called dynamic equivalence translations. The modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The Vaticanus manuscript was retrieved from the Pope's library and the Sinaiticus manuscript from a monastery in the Sinai desert in the 1800s. They are corrupt and differ with the Received Text in thousands of places. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 7 minutes ago, User said: Just silly nonsense. Who was Frank Logsdon? Do some investigation. " Evangelical pastor and Bible conference speaker Frank Logsdon was a respected evangelical pastor and Bible conference speaker. He pastored Moody Memorial Church in Chicago and Central Baptist Church in London, Ontario. He was also the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB), but later renounced any connection to it1 Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 9 minutes ago, User said: And you have yet to offer any real argument for how this is an attack on the word of God, let alone some plan of Satan... There is a massive amount of information on this subject. You need to do some studying. This website has a lot of information concerning Westcott and Hort, the two heretics behind the modern versions. KJV and the Proffessor Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 18 minutes ago, User said: And you have yet to offer any real argument How about this: "THE DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF WESTCOTT, HORT, AND OTHERS Westcott and Hort Were From the Anglican Church of England 1. Westcott's Views: He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following: "No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." 2. Hort's View: …Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." 3. Hort's View: He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man. "I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly agrees." 4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.” "I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” 5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort from his séance club he writes: “As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now, not in one form, but in many.” Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions. For example, notice the following: 6. Hort believes in the Sacraments. Colossians 2:18 NASB KJT “Taking his stand on visions he has seen.” Note: The NASB also adds the word "visions" which is not in any Greek manuscript. “Intruding into those things which he hath not seen. 2 "I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, p. 99) 7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts. "Fighting and dancing ... I hope the church of the future will foster." "There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things. That time has happily gone by.” 8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend. "I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, P. 233) 9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary. "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50) 10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith. A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.” B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.” C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly Father.” D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.” E. Blasphemy - "There is no direct reference to the idea of purchase or ransom ... or to the idea of sacrificial atonement ... [The] lamb without blemish [is] the Passover lamb and not the Lamb of God. [He admits] Objections might be taken to his views, especially on the doctrine of atonement, if it existed.” F. Ransom to Satan, but not to God. "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the Father." (The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p. 428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976). 11. Westcott on Baptism. "The remission of sins has always been connected with Baptism, the Sacrament of incorporation ... We are placed in relation to God by Baptism.” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p.160). 12. Hort concerning Sin and Hell. “The second death is probably a combination of the Deluge (Flood) and Sodom…It stands between the Garden of Eden and the Manna ... Finite sin cannot deserve infinite punishment.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol.1, p.118). 13. What NIV Editors, Armstrongism, and Jehovah's Witnesses think about Hell. They all agree! unquote Views-Complete-4a-and-b.pdf Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 5 hours ago, blackbird said: What makes you think your version is infallible and not the NIV (New International Version)? What makes your NASV or NASB infallible? Your notion of infallible is wildly different from what is commonly understood as infallible. That is like saying if there is a typo when the print up some new KJV Bibles then *GASP* The Bible is not infallible! The whole thing is a lie! Um... no. The NASB and NIV are translations off the same manuscripts as well as earlier versions as what the KJV is. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 33 minutes ago, User said: some plan of Satan... Certainly is. quote CHAPTER THIRTY The Necromancers A cannon ball, in the form of a new and altered Greek New Testament text, was catapulted in the 1880's by two pirates, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; it carries its doctrinal deathblow into the laps of unsuspecting Christians holding translations of this text. These new versions exhibit deep trenches in the text as a result of this barrage. Qefts in the content include the ascension, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, New Testament salvations (e.g., Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the thief on the cross) and an army of other victims. These two swashbucklers approached the written word with a sword much like the soldier who pierced the side of the living Word. The sound of a 'New World Religion' echoes back from these sounding boards framed with the theories and philosophies of Westcott and Hort. The body of standard Christian reference works affirm their pivotal and powerful role in this war of words. Scanning the major works will document the singularity and paramountcy of their role. John R. Kohlenberger, spokesperson for Zondervan, (publisher of the NASB, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, NIV, and RSV) is author of a Hebrew/NIV Interlinear, as well as, Words about the Word: A Guide to Choosing and Using Your Bible. He discloses: Westcott and Hort. . .all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present. . .have 398 • NEW AGE VERSIONS adopted their basic approach. . .[and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text.i He goes on to salute Westcott's, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, saying,"This century old classic remains a standard. "2 Christians may not return the salute, but ask why the work of esoterics are "standards" and "classics" for the body of Christ. Baker Book House, publisher of half-a-dozen modem translations, also prints a bible selection guide entitled, The King James Version Debate. Author D.A. Carson admits: [T]he theories of Westcott and Hort. . .[are] almost universally accepted today. . .It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out some things and added a few others. Subsequent textual critical work accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars. . .hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt.3 The error of their textual theories and their recent abandonment by many scholars, in spite of Carson's last comment, will be discussed in a later section. In spite of this increasing elbowroom, their revised Greek text is still almost a mirror image of that used to translate the NIV, NASB, and all other new versions. Dr. E.F. Hills, Princeton and Harvard scholar, impresses, the ''New International Version. . .follows the critical Westcott and Hort text."4 Philip W. Comfort's recent Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament concedes: But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory. . .this has troubled certain textual scholars. . .5 Even abbreviated histories of the canon, in reference works like Halley's Bible Handbook and Young's Concordance observe, "For the English speaking world the work of B.F. Westcott has proved of abiding worth. "6 "The New Testament Westcott and Hort THE NECROMANCERS • 399 Greek texts, which, in the main, are the exact original Bible words. . ."7 J. H. Greenlee's Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964, p. 78) adds: The textual theories of W-H underhes virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism. Scholarly books, articles and critical editions of the Greek New Testament are slowly abandoning the readings of Westcott and Hort in their 'Newest' Greek texts. Yet the pews are piled high with the W-H offerings like the NIV, NASB and Living Bible. Wilbur N. Pickering, author of The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), pp. 38, 42, 96, 90) reveals: The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. (Colwell) The two most popular manual editions of the Greek text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W-H text. Why is this? Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the death blow [to the KJV and the Greek Text which was used for the previous 1880 years]. Subsequent scholarship has tended to recognize Hort's mistake. The W-H critical theory is erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it [Nestle's-Aland, UBS etc.], as well as those versions based on such texts [NIV, NASB, Good Newsfor Modern Man, NEB, L.B., etc.] H.C. Hoskier's A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelism 604 (London: David Nutt. 1890), Introduction, pp. cxv-cxvi) and Codex Bmd Its Allies—A Study and an Indictment. (2 vols. London: Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1914) notes: The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as 'the true text', and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text. . .These foundations must be demolished. unquote --New Age Bible Versions, chap. Thirty. pages 397 - 399. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 10 minutes ago, User said: The NASB and NIV are translations off the same manuscripts as well as earlier versions as what the KJV is. You don't appear to understand what this all about at all. I tried to explain the KJV is based on the Received Text which is supported by the vast majority of copies of manuscripts. The modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts pulled out in the 1800s. If you don't want to read anything, that is your choice. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 23 minutes ago, User said: The NASB and NIV are translations off the same manuscripts as well as earlier versions as what the KJV is. That is completely false. I already explained that numerous times. This essay goes into the few corrupt manuscripts which modern versions are based on. You will have to go to this link if you want to learn about it .maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM The Contents are: Chapter Headings Introduction Three Witnesses Against the "Oldest and Best" Herman Hoskier John William Burgon Prebendary H. Scrivener Various Board Members SINAITICUS Antiquity Penmanship Correctors Readings Examined Five Famous Uncials VATICANUS Omissions Genesis Psalms The Lord's Prayer 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Hebrews To heal the broken hearted HORT ROME Infiltration The Firstborn By Himself Catholic Error 1 Timothy 3:16 Conclusion Edited January 2 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 27 minutes ago, User said: The NASB and NIV are translations off the same manuscripts as well as earlier versions as what the KJV is. No they're not from the same manuscripts. As this conclusion says: YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING ERROR OF THE MOST DEADLY NATURE quote Conclusion Note to my readers If you are trusting a new version of the Bible, please consider the monumental evidence to the fact that the whole result of a translation based upon the Oldest and Best Manuscripts, is deceit and departure from the faith "as it was once delivered to the saints". The inevitable result is apostasy. If at this moment you have feelings of anger and resentment; this indicates that the spirit of error is at work. Horts ghastly prophecy is being fulfilled. The power and influence of the occult is at work, seeking to destroy your faith. Someone cries, "the new versions are easier to understand!" I agree that this is so; but an honest appraisal of the evidence shows indisputably that you are understanding error of the most deadly nature. In order that the devil may have a one world religion, the doctrine of the Deity of Christ must be destroyed. Having pictured the Lord of Glory, the Prince of Peace, the Creator of the Universe, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father, as being simply one of a number of religious leaders, the stage is set for the destruction of the soul, and the soon to be destroyed Church of the antichrist to be set up. Question - do YOU want to be part of that which is on its way to perdition? "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 THAT NAME IS JESUS! Copyrighted May 1989 All capitals within the quotations have been provided for emphasis by C.J.C. . maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM#Conclusion Edited January 2 by blackbird Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, blackbird said: That is completely false. I already explained that numerous times. This essay goes into the few corrupt manuscripts which modern versions are based on. You will have to go to this link if you want to learn about it If you cannot articulate what makes these other manuscripts corrupt, in your own words, without telling me to go read for myself, then it isn't much of an argument. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, blackbird said: No they're not from the same manuscripts. As this conclusion says: Yes, both NASB and KJV use the same manuscripts for the Old Testament, the NASB also includes Dead Sea Scrolls. The NASB uses earlier manuscripts for the New Testament, which were not found or available to the writers of the KJV. If anything, the NASB is the far more accurate translation. 2 hours ago, blackbird said: The modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts pulled out in the 1800s. What makes them corrupt? Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, blackbird said: Certainly is. OK, finally, looking at this book, this is one author's opinion that Biblical scholars highly criticize. It comes down to this: these are not new age or attempts to modernize language in some evil, conspiratorial way to alter the texts. We simply have found more and older manuscripts than what was available at the time of the KJV translation. And to the point I have made here, the changes you are pointing out are hardly anything significant at all. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, blackbird said: Who was Frank Logsdon? Do some investigation. You do some investigation. What is the point you wish to make about him here? Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, blackbird said: There is a massive amount of information on this subject. You need to do some studying. Nope. This is your argument. It is not my job to go out and prove it for you. Quote
eyeball Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 21 hours ago, User said: So far, what you have offered is a bunch of garbage. I have no desire to go read anything else you are pushing. You're going to burn in Hell for the same reason MAGA cancelled the Cheney's. For not toeing the line and staying the course. Shouldn't Christianity be more like the modern right wing notion of the Big Tent where everyone unites around a common cause against sinners, disbelievers and above all else lefties? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
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.