|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 18, 2007 10:34:36 GMT -5
Why do you think they are translated differently?
|
|
|
Post by celebrity on Jun 18, 2007 11:19:49 GMT -5
I am never entirely sure what to do with an NIV. There are alot of Christians who love it and a few who really hate it. When it comes down to it, the basic question is. IS IT A BIBLE?
This question is really at the heart of it. Because evangelicals believe the Bible is inerrant, it couldn't possibly be wrong.
In which case, Any translation is perfect.
However, there are a few nitpickers who point to one scripture and say it's wrong. but what if the original is wrong. what than.
Should we stop believing in Jesus Christ. No.
We should accept that some person somewhere assimilate a doctrine which was obsolete and put it into the bible. Problem is now, ITS NOT INERRANT anymore.
aghhhhh!!!!
You see, it's a can of worms.
I predict this is how this discussion will turn out.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 18, 2007 18:42:07 GMT -5
Note that the righteousness of God doesn’t come by your faith, but is “by faith of Jesus Christ”. Now see Eph 3:12, Again, it is not through your faith, but “by the faith of him” Jesus Christ. NIV Rom 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, KJV Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: NIV Eph 3:12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. KJV Eph 3: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. This is more proof that the NIV is an apostate Bible. What's the significant difference between "by" and "through"? They both mean the same thing. If anything, the 17th century English is more confusing than the NIV, even though I like the NASB the most myself. You aren't saved by your faith, you are saved by grace alone (if you are saved at all). But you are saved THROUGH faith alone, apart from works, meaning that a person is justified at the point he first believes. I suggest that before you start another KJVO thread, you look at the past ones. Most, if not all of the KJVO arguments have already been examined.
|
|
|
Post by bounbough on Jun 18, 2007 20:07:41 GMT -5
Hi Josh, please see my post entitled "The Pure Word of God". Also, take a look at the track entitled "The Attack" by Jack.T.Chick at www.chick.com (it explains the history in more detail).
|
|
|
Post by blynn on Jun 18, 2007 21:10:52 GMT -5
bounbough, Not to change the subject but can you give me some really quick advice on how to approach a buddist with the gosple?I am getting ready to witness to some neighbors of mine.Im going to bring a pie over and she usually invites me in. Also, this woman suffers alot of physical abuse does that occure often where you live with these people?She comes right out on the porch covered with bruises and she doesn't try to hide them.It's almost like it's the norm for her.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jun 18, 2007 21:14:48 GMT -5
While I am a KJV preferred as my English translation, I think the debate is not over what English translation should be used, but rather what Greek MSS is the most accurate.
But to even compate the NIV to the KJV is in some sense a straw man argument, for one is comparing a 'dynamic' translation to a 'word to word' translation.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 18, 2007 22:25:21 GMT -5
BB, the bit about the verse about Joseph being Jesus' father is right on. I agree with you there, but that doesn't automatically imply that the NIV is "apostate" or that the KJV is inspired and to be used to correct the original manuscripts. I prefer the NASB to the NIV myself, although I am very accustomed to the NIV, because the NIV is a thought-for-thought translation and not a word-for-word translation.
There are times when the NIV is more accurate than the NASB - for example, it actually says God-breathed in 2 Tim. 3:16, whereas KJV and NASB simply say it is inspired or given by inspiration or something like that. Those renderings are actually further away from the true text than the NIV is at that point. So could I not make the same sort of isolated argument for the superiority of the NIV over and against the KJV? Besides, the Buddhist could deduce that 'father' in the NIV just means stepfather, because the NIV teaches the virgin birth of Jesus just as much as any other translation does.
Keep in mind that I am not making this argument. I am just applying your logic to your own arguments. Also - I am not going to get into this KJVO fiasco again if it's not necessary. We have all pretty well covered this topic on this board. I think that any person who is not already entrenched in the irrational mindset of the KJVO movement will see through it if they look through what has already been said.
|
|
|
Post by bounbough on Jun 18, 2007 22:26:26 GMT -5
Certainly, most Buddhists have their own priest. Buddhists identify with priests. In English, it is erroneously translated as ‘monk’, but the word in Thai for monk “PRA” means priest. Ask her if she has a priest, then ask her what he can do for her? Ask her if her priest can give her eternal life? Then tell her that you know a high priest called “PRA YEAH-SU” (meaning Jesus) who can really help her. If she shuts you out, then move onto the 5 main precepts of Buddhism: Just use these 3, it will do the job: 1. Don’t kill animals Ask her if she eats meat. 2. Don’t speak lies Ask her if she has ever lied? 3. Don’t drink alcohol Has she ever drunk alcohol?
So make her see that it is hopeless for any Buddhist to be saved or any religion for that matter. Tell her that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Buddha was a teacher. Other approaches: Buddha said just before he died “I know not where I go”. But Jesus said “I go unto my father”. Buddha said: “Find the way of salvation”. Jesus said “I am the way”
Then PM me your postal address and I’ll send you a free copy of “The Light of The World in Thai” (VCD by Jack.T. Chick) for her.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 18, 2007 22:45:56 GMT -5
Remeber the part in ‘minority report’ when the oracle said “Can you see”? I only saw that once in the theaters, like 5-6 years ago. What is this about? What are you trying to say? and as far as I am aware, Lucas is not a Christian, but where did you get this from?
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 18, 2007 22:47:41 GMT -5
Because the translators of the NIV were demon possessed!
If you ever go camping take one with you because the paper is great for starting a fire.
If you still use it after you have been shown the enormous amount of errors in it then you are an idiot.
NO!
Who cares what you like. What does God want you to use?
According to the Nutty Idiot's Version all Christians are dead.
'I no longer live'
Yes it does!
That's why you are messed up with all your doctrines.
It doesn't teach it as much as a KJB
Why would God want you to produce a 'bible' from manuscripts taken from Egypt? He did not allow Solomon to take horses from Egypt!
Put down your butter knife and pick up a sword!
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 18, 2007 22:59:03 GMT -5
Because the translators of the NIV were demon possessed! If you ever go camping take one with you because the paper is great for starting a fire. If you still use it after you have been shown the enormous amount of errors in it then you are an idiot. NO! Who cares what you like. What does God want you to use? According to the Nutty Idiot's Version all Christians are dead. 'I no longer live' Yes it does! That's why you are messed up with all your doctrines. It doesn't teach it as much as a KJB Put down your butter knife and pick up a sword! Man, you are beyond reason. This is what KJVO-ism does to a mind. I don't even hardly read the NIV anymore, and God's truth does not include the command to read the KJV exclusively and burn other versions, whether you think so or not, and no matter how many times you quote Psalm 12:6-7, to say it is talking about the KJV is pure eisegesis. Your paranoia is plain for all to see when you accuse the NIV translators of being demon-possessed. What evidence do you even have to make these claims? You say there are bunches of lists of "errors" in the NIV, but I've seen all kinds of these silly lists of "errors" and they are all just saying "well, they're different from the KJV here, here, here, here, here, here, ..., here, and here." The whole thing is an enormous circular argument because it assumes that the KJV is an infallible standard in order to prove that the other translations are flawed and that therefore the KJV is the right one. But it assumed that the KJV was the right one in the first place... hence this argument is viciously circular, and to be discarded. I am not so much asking these questions to you, but pointing these things out indirectly to others, so they can perhaps see through this nonsense. I suggest everyone else pray for Jonathan as he is clearly deluded with the absurd "arguments" of the KJVO movement, and has become very irrational.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 18, 2007 23:56:08 GMT -5
For nearly 400 years miracles have been wrought by the Lord as men of faith preached from the Authorized King James Bible. But I’ve never seen a sign or wonder following the word preached from an NIV (although I’ve only been in the ministry 5 years). First - what are the miracles that the exclusive use of the KJV has produced, and how do you know they were wrought because of the fact that the preachers were KJVO? Also, how do you know that no miracles have been wrought through the use of the NIV? What about somebody's salvation? That is a miracle of grace, isn't it? Can a person be saved from reading the NIV? And the KJV is not any more God's Word than any other far more accurate modern literal translation like the NASB. In fact, Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest who put together the Textus Receptus, had to piece together the last part of the book of Revelation by translating the Latin translation of the Bible into koine Greek, which produced a totally new and unique line of textual variants of that section of Scripture. How do you know this has anything to do with the translation they are using? How do you know this has anything to do with the translation they are using? The NIV is sufficient to refute Buddhism just as much as the KJV, NASB, ESV, or any other reasonably accurate translation. The reason Australians are lapping up Buddhism is because they are unregenerates, they are dead in their sins, they are unable to please God and they are simply moving after the lusts of the flesh and the so-called wisdom of the world. It has nothing to do with them being exposed to a modern bible translation as opposed to a 17th century one, and the burden of proof is on the KJVO's to show this is the exclusive reason for this apostasy if their argument concerning it is to stand. The KJV is no more God's Word than the NASB or another conservative modern translation. God's Word is not being "changed" with these newer versions. We are simply gaining more accurate insights into the original texts and manuscripts. What did they take out? If they took a verse out, then yeah, they are in trouble. But they aren't in trouble simply for using a different translation or creating it, assuming that it's not a liberal translation.
|
|
|
Post by bounbough on Jun 19, 2007 11:04:10 GMT -5
I am addressing street preachers here:
I met an old street preacher once who put it like this: The NIV is like a glass of water with a drop of poison in it. You won’t get sick drinking a few glasses; the water is good for you, some sick you pray for may recover, get saved, get to know God, but if you keep ingesting small doses of poison (heresy), you will go astray, just like those that were taken by the prosperity message. And then after awhile; perhaps at the end of your ministry, you’ll begin to wonder why you still can’t move mountains, or raise the dead, or do the ‘greater works’ that Jesus spoke of. Or why you feel weary and faint after only an hour on the knees. The KJV 1611 is the weapon of choice for combat. She’ll never miss fire on you, and she is tried and pure. Even Smith Wigglesworth and those you like to quote here like Spurgeon and John Wesley believed in God’s pure word. Look at the miracles that the Lord wrought by the modern day apostle Smith Wigglesworth? That alone should be testimony to God’s Word.
|
|
|
Post by bounbough on Jun 19, 2007 11:05:32 GMT -5
I apologize for removing my posts. I was struck down today with a mystery illness. I need to cover all bases, so incase I have said something amiss that has grieved the Holy Spirit, I am retracting most of my posts.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 19, 2007 11:34:40 GMT -5
Because the translators of the NIV were demon possessed! If you ever go camping take one with you because the paper is great for starting a fire. If you still use it after you have been shown the enormous amount of errors in it then you are an idiot. NO! Who cares what you like. What does God want you to use? According to the Nutty Idiot's Version all Christians are dead. 'I no longer live' Yes it does! That's why you are messed up with all your doctrines. It doesn't teach it as much as a KJB Put down your butter knife and pick up a sword! Man, you are beyond reason. This is what KJVO-ism does to a mind. I don't even hardly read the NIV anymore, and God's truth does not include the command to read the KJV exclusively and burn other versions, whether you think so or not, and no matter how many times you quote Psalm 12:6-7, to say it is talking about the KJV is pure eisegesis. Your paranoia is plain for all to see when you accuse the NIV translators of being demon-possessed. What evidence do you even have to make these claims? You say there are bunches of lists of "errors" in the NIV, but I've seen all kinds of these silly lists of "errors" and they are all just saying "well, they're different from the KJV here, here, here, here, here, here, ..., here, and here." The whole thing is an enormous circular argument because it assumes that the KJV is an infallible standard in order to prove that the other translations are flawed and that therefore the KJV is the right one. But it assumed that the KJV was the right one in the first place... hence this argument is viciously circular, and to be discarded. I am not so much asking these questions to you, but pointing these things out indirectly to others, so they can perhaps see through this nonsense. I suggest everyone else pray for Jonathan as he is clearly deluded with the absurd "arguments" of the KJVO movement, and has become very irrational. RHEMA SEEKER WROTE: Jonathan cannot even interpret the KJV correctly. And he is so full of pride he will not admit when he is wrong. For example: JONATHONS RESPONCE TO A BROTHER:Quote:Jonathan, I agree with brother Kerrigan. Everytime I read your posts my spirit has a terrible check within me. You lack graciousness and you appear unteachable. A lot of what you say comes across very haughty. I don't feel like you display the humility of Christ as a follower of Jesus should. Kerrigan's concerns, and my concerns, are serious, and you would do well to stop and consider for a second. I truly speak this in love. I truly do appreciate what you and Kerrigan are saying and I know where you are coming from. When I show Bible and people reject and continue to believe in what they feel or experience over the Bible, then that is when there is no more Mr Nice Guy. I give it to them plain and simple! Remember that the Apostle Paul was 'rude' in speech and his speech was 'contemptible'. RHEMASEEKER RESPONCE : Johnathon, I don't believe your understanding of the word RUDE here is the same that the Apostle was speaking of. He was speaking about his inability to be a great orator. 2 Corinthians 11:6, "But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things." 2399 idiotes {id-ee-o'-tace} from 2398; TDNT - 3:215,348; n m AV - unlearned 3, ignorant 1, rude 1; 5 1) a private person as opposed to a magistrate, ruler, king 2) a common soldier, as opposed to a military officer 3) a writer of prose as opposed to a poet 4) in the NT, an unlearned, illiterate, man as opposed to the learned and educated: one who is unskilled in any art This word RUDE he used, we actually get the ENGLISH WORD IDIOT from.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 19, 2007 14:34:07 GMT -5
EXODUS 20:10 - "THE" SABBATH OR "A" SABBATH?
KJV - But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:
NIV - But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.
The seventh day is The Sabbath -- not a sabbath. The is a definite article. A is an indefinite article.
Eph 2:15 - Commandments "in" ordinances or commandments "and" ordinances?
KJV - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
NIV - by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations
Commandments contained "in" ordinances, not commandments "and" ordinances.
Christ abolished these at the cross. If it is commandments "and" ordinances the Sabbath was done away with at the cross.
Col. 2:14-16 - Sabbath "days" or sabbath "day"?
KJV - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.
NIV - or a Sabbath day.
The NIV suggest the sabbath day (singular) or Ten Commandment Sabbath was blotted out.
Rev 22:14 - Do his commandments or "wash their robes"?
KJV - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
NIV - wash their robes
Do His commandments, "not" "wash their robes." This washing is man being saved by justification only. The Commandments call for sanctification also.
1 John 3:4 - Sin is "the transgression of the law" or "Lawlessness"?
KJV - Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
NIV - sin is lawlessness
What is sin? The Spirit of God tells us that sin is breaking God's Law and not anything else.
This is only the Bible location and definition of sin.
Isa. 8:20 - no light in them "or" no light of dawn?
KJV - To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
NIV - To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
Is Jesus light "or" dawn? And where is the light to be? "in them"! In them is left out of the NIV
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by celebrity on Jun 19, 2007 15:11:28 GMT -5
" Because the translators of the NIV were demon possessed!" a reply So when things can't be logically resolved, let's blame an invisible enemy. People hold the pens and the paper. Some times it aint about demon ridden people but people who are just confused Years ago, in my lost christianities class, My professor was talking about a book written about Paul but by one of his believers. The book was oddly written, it suggested paul was beheaded and out of his body issued forth MIlk rather than Blood. When the church fathers caught up with the writtter, they asked him why he did it. He answered, "FOR THE LOVE OF PAUL." Apparently, this guy wanted to represent paul in action and deed. He was a freak for doing it. But wanted paul to be remembered. Other have done the same just to be popular.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 19, 2007 16:39:12 GMT -5
THE DEITY OF CHRIST
Matthew 18:11
KJV - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
NIV - (omitted.)
Jesus' mission on earth is done away.
John 6:47
KJV - Verily, Verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting Life.
NIV - I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
Belief alone is not enough. Even the devils believe. The belief must be "on Jesus."
John 6:69
KJV - And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
NIV - We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.
All of the prophets were holy men of God. There is only one Son of the living God.
Ephesians 3:14
KJV - For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NIV - For this reason I kneel before the "Father."
"of our Lord Jesus Christ" is omitted". This leaves open the kneeling to Catholic Fathers.
Revelation 13:18
KJV - Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
NIV - This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Number of a man -- The pope.
Man's number -- A human number for all mankind. Revelation 13:16-17 tells of the Mark of the Beast. If it is the number of a man,[ the Mark of His authority "sunday". then those who accept the system of the pope have the mark. But if it is man's number (NIV) then all who are mankind receive the mark.
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 20, 2007 1:19:12 GMT -5
Well who else would attack the doctrines of hell, virgin birth, Deity of Christ etc? A man filled with the Spirit of God? I don't think so!
Blind, Blind, Blind!
Stay ignorant! (1 Cor 14:38)
You start attacking the KJB, I start attacking you and everyone else that attack God's Word!
Did you get this hogwash from James White?
Just thought I would let you know that Peter, Paul and even the Lord Jesus Christ all quote from a KJB!
The facts are there, you just don't like the facts!
HERE IS SOMETHING FOR ALL OF YOU THAT USE THE MODERN VERSIONS:
'Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.' (Matt 7:17)
"IF YOU SOW SPIRITUALLY PERVERTED 'BIBLES' YOU WILL REAP PERVERTS!"
Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 20, 2007 3:12:11 GMT -5
Well who else would attack the doctrines of hell, virgin birth, Deity of Christ etc? A man filled with the Spirit of God? I don't think so! Please tell me how the newer conservative translations "attack" these doctrines. So you are responding to my pointing out that your argument concerning the "error lists" in the modern versions is circular, by calling me blind? I wish it was that easy to answer my opponents in theological arguments. All I have to do is keep my eyes and ears shut and call him blind, I guess. So does it not bother you that so many of the arguments put out by the KJVO people are circular and fallacious? Or will you not admit that there is a circular argument in those error lists, even though it has been pointed out to you several times? Your irrationality shines through here. I did not attack the KJB... I have said this many times before - I am not against the KJB, but I am against KJVO-ism and its followers. There is a difference. The KJV is a fine translation, but it is inferior to some of the conservative modern ones. If that is an attack then I suppose I am "attacking the KJB", but I don't think very many people besides the KJVO's themselves would use such inflammatory language to try to evoke outrage at my words instead of just dealing with them and trying to actually respond without "blind" and "demon-possessed" namecalling. So are you denying that it is the truth? Yes, the first time I learned it was from White's book on the issue and some of his mp3s. Of course, this automatically leads you to denounce him as some kind of antichrist, but this is not something he made up. It is common knowledge (meaning not that most people know it, but that it is something commonly known within textual criticism). When I Googled the words "erasmus revelation", I got this page first: av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_re22_19.htmlIt is a KJVO site, and they admit that this is what happened. Erasmus translated the last few verses of Revelation by supplementing the Greek text with the Latin, because he didn't have all of the Greek text he needed. Are you serious? You know that the KJB wasn't published until over 1500 years after Jesus had ascended into heaven and Peter and Paul were dead, right? "Enough said" is the response given after it is pointed out that the error lists presented by KJVO's as evidence that the KJV is right and the newer versions are wrong is viciously circular. No acknowledgment is given that the argument is circular and no need is seen to correct this fallacious argument. The fact that Erasmus translated parts of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate is called "hogwash". It is not refuted, no attempt is even made to refute it. I guess I can just declare all of my opponents wrong by fiat, then, and this will be considered valid? Then I am told that Jesus, Paul, and Peter quoted from the KJV, which didn't exist until over 1500 years after they were all on earth. Finally, another circular argument is presented: Jonathan quotes Matthew 7:17 in order to try to prove the non-KJVO position wrong. But the very argument assumes that the non-KJV bibles are perverted in the first place. This verse does not say anything about bible versions, let alone KJVO-ism, and therefore the use of this verse to try to make a point about the subject is fallacious.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jun 20, 2007 4:32:43 GMT -5
LOL, I think he is pulling your leg
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 20, 2007 6:22:28 GMT -5
LOL, I think he is pulling your leg LOL, NO, I really believe he believes this.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 20, 2007 7:49:18 GMT -5
I CAN SEE WHY CHRISTIANS THAT STAY WITH THE NIV CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROPHECTIC TIMELINES.
Daniel 8:14
KJV - And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
NIV - He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings: then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."
Ezekiel 4:6 I have appointed thee each day for a year. Genesis 1:5 And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The KJV has 2300 years to give us the time prophecy to 1844. NIV has 2300 literal days, about six years. It destroys the doctrine of the investigative judgment.
Cleanse: to remove the sins. Consecrate: to set apart, to make sacred.
Psalm 77:13
KJV - Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
NIV - Your ways, O God, are holy. What god is so great as our God?
God's way is in the sanctuary, not just "holy" "The Subject of the sanctuary should be carefully examined, as it lies at the foundation of our faith and hope.
Daniel 9:26
KJV - And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.
NIV - After the sixty-two "sevens," the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
Messiah is Jesus Christ the Son of God. Anointed One could be anyone. Kings, prophets, priests, and the sick were anointed. NIV says the Anointed One will have "nothing." Jesus won the world by His sacrifice. He gained everything, for us.
Hebrews 10:21
KJV - And having an high priest over the house of God
NIV - and since we have a great priest over the house of God
Jesus is our High Priest; the Catholic Church has great priest. this translation is very Catholic based. I wonder?
The Catholic Priest p.78 Seek where you will, though heaven and earth, and you will find one created being who can forgive the sinner. Who can free us from the chains of hell. That extraordinary being is the priest, the Roman Catholic priest. Thou art a priest forever says the ordaining bishop, He is no longer a man. A sinful child of Adam, but an alter christus, another Christ… forever a priest of the most high with power over the Almighty.
Hebrews 9:12
KJV - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
NIV - He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
After Calvary Jesus ascended to heaven to the Holy Place to do His work. In 1844 He went to the Most Holy Place. He obtained redemption for us. NIV does away with 1844, entered for all (good and Bad). Obtained redemption for Himself.
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by bounbough on Jun 20, 2007 8:53:28 GMT -5
KJV MAtt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. NIV Matt 20:16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.
DOH!!!
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jun 20, 2007 9:45:44 GMT -5
Hebrews 9:12 KJV - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. NIV - He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. After Calvary Jesus ascended to heaven to the Holy Place to do His work. In 1844 He went to the Most Holy Place. He obtained redemption for us. NIV does away with 1844, entered for all (good and Bad). Obtained redemption for Himself. TrustandObey Brothers, I don’t use neither of these two versions of bible NIV or KJV. This said, given the examples , I reckon that the KJV seems generally better. However, I don’t agree at all with the last example . The NIV is theologically correct in saying that Jesus has entered in the Most Holy place and not only in the Holy place. Jesus has already entered in the MOST Holy place at the time the letters of the N.T were written , for ALL generations of Christians needed A High Priest that has entered in the Most Holy place. Jesus has entered in the MOST HOLY place not in 1844 but when He presented the blood to the Father for He has ascended and sat at the right hand of God. Is'nt the throne of God a Most Holy place? It is a very good thing that the NIV "does away with 1844". Jesus has not waited 1844 to gain us full redemption What's that : 1844 The truth is : ALL was accomplished, and He could present Himself before the Father in the Holy of holies
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 20, 2007 12:42:08 GMT -5
Believe in a False Bible, you get False interpretations. If the Lord used a donkey to talk to a mad prophet, the Lord can speak through the NIV to talk to sinners to get saved.
Those who want to grow in the Lord and know the Truth of Biblical Doctrine, the NIV must go.
The Bible says He went into the Holy place, not the Most Holy - Your interpretation is just a misunderstanding of Biblical prophecy the Sanctuary system and following The Bible to Interpret itself.
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 21, 2007 2:01:34 GMT -5
I am not going to continue to waste my time.
The Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal all.
Peter quoting the KJB
'I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.' (Psalm 16:8)
Notice how in the OT 'he is' is in italics. The translators added it under direct inspiration from God. It was not in the orginals.
Now Peter quoting it:
'For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.' (Acts 2:25)
No italics.
Peter was quoting from the KJB!
Paul quoting the a KJB
'I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.'
Now Paul quoting it:
'But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.' (Rom 10:20)
No Italics.
Paul was quoting from a KJB!
The Lord Jesus Christ quoting a KJB
'And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.' (Deut 8:3)
The Lord Jesus Christ quoting it:
'But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' (Matt 4:4)
No italics.
The Lord Jesus Christ quoting from a KJB!
God really does have a way of putting things together doesn't He?
What about Psalm 16?
11 verses.
v1 - 'Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.' v11 - ' Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.'
1611 - Preserve for evermore
God had His hand in the KJB!
Show me something like this in the perverted 'bibles'
And to finish it off...
I am a better Christian than all of you who read the perverted 'bibles'.
When I die I have a mansion waiting for me. You just have a 'room' or 'dwelling place'!
The evidence is there you have a free will to accept it or reject it. I am not forcing you.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 21, 2007 2:14:57 GMT -5
I put this in another thread.
You see how much you are missing from not reading the KJB...
The antichrist is known as the Son of Perdition:
'Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.' (2 Thess 3:3)
Check these verses out concerning Judas Iscariot:
'Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.' (John 13:26-27)
'He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.' (John 13:30)
S - O - P
Son - Of - Perdition
You won't find that in any of your perverted 'bibles'!
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jun 21, 2007 3:08:59 GMT -5
LOL @ the SOP view! The sop was normally a mouthful of bread dipped into the broth of the meal! Now since that was bread, maybe we can make some other theories up and this time have something to do with bread.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 21, 2007 6:29:18 GMT -5
I am not going to continue to waste my time. The Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal all. Peter quoting the KJB'I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.' (Psalm 16:8) Notice how in the OT 'he is' is in italics. The translators added it under direct inspiration from God. It was not in the orginals. Now Peter quoting it: 'For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.' (Acts 2:25) No italics. Peter was quoting from the KJB! Paul quoting the a KJB'I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.' Now Paul quoting it: 'But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.' (Rom 10:20) No Italics. Paul was quoting from a KJB! The Lord Jesus Christ quoting a KJB'And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.' (Deut 8:3) The Lord Jesus Christ quoting it: 'But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' (Matt 4:4) No italics. The Lord Jesus Christ quoting from a KJB! God really does have a way of putting things together doesn't He? What about Psalm 16? 11 verses. v1 - ' Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.' v11 - ' Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.' 1611 - Preserve for evermore God had His hand in the KJB! Show me something like this in the perverted 'bibles' And to finish it off... I am a better Christian than all of you who read the perverted 'bibles'. When I die I have a mansion waiting for me. You just have a 'room' or 'dwelling place'! The evidence is there you have a free will to accept it or reject it. I am not forcing you. Jonathon, first off I am a KJB Christian. Maybe not as radical as you guys. But come on! Now you are sounding worse than the catholics stating that PETER was the FIRST Catholic POPE. If you are to make a point, bring up good BIBLICAL proof.
|
|