Bible Coruption.

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

Dang it, no one has answered my question.

IF the KJV is the only legitimate translation of the Bible, what about the poor sods who don't speak or read English? What are they - chopped liver? What are their "legitimate options" when it comes to translations?

They're doomed, we're all doomed -

God is too busy making sure none of the stars or planets fall on our heads it's not like he can muti task and make sure non english speaking peoples get to know what's going on in a book or something right :rainbow1:

(Non english speaking people arent really that importan't anyway are they? - Shsssssh I hope no one who can't speak english is reading this now!!!!!!!) ?

 

[McBell]

They're doomed, we're all doomed -

God is too busy making sure none of the stars or planets fall on our heads it's not like he can muti task and make sure non english speaking peoples get to know what's going on in a book or something right :rainbow1:

(Non english speaking people arent really that importan't anyway are they? - Shsssssh I hope no one who can't speak english is reading this now!!!!!!!) ?

So what is the "divine Path" of infallible Gods word leading up to the KJV?

 

[te_lanus]

There is a lot of annecdotal evidence to prove the existence of evil in the world - there are a great many people who have sold their souls to satan for fame fortune etc and got it - this is a known proven fact.

Please enlighten us where has this been proven. I could claim that of millions who got rich it's called the name it and claim it gospel, for example Kenneth Copeland

Science can't prove evil. Al-qaeda is seen as evil, But to their followers they are not, Apartheid is seen as evil, yet millions of South-Africans don't think so, Hitler is seen as evil yet millions of Germans accepted His view as Good.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. What is evil to you, might not be evil to me.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

So what is the "divine Path" of infallible Gods word leading up to the KJV?

No idea ask Angellous, I'm not that clever.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

Please enlighten us where has this been proven. I could claim that of millions who got rich it's called the name it and claim it gospel, for example Kenneth Copeland

I dont possess the neccessary powers of persuation to enlighten people but I can agree that Kenneth Copeland is not my homeboy or what I wold call a biblical Christian nor is the name it claim it thing biblical, thats pagan witchraft.

Science can't prove evil

.

Im not sure if I said science can prove evil, I will say that I doubt if science is even interested in reseraching such a thing. Although there is a branch of paranormal science that are researching the reality or lack thereof of spirts etc etc.

Al-qaeda is seen as evil, But to their followers they are not, Apartheid is seen as evil, yet millions of South-Africans don't think so, Hitler is seen as evil yet millions of Germans accepted His view as Good

.

True, even a great many Professing Christians fell for Hitlers mezmerizing powers in fact they simply started singing their hymns louder when they heard the screaming trains full of jews coming past on of a sunday morning.

However the bible says that the whole world will believe a lie IE that satan/the aniti-Christ is Christ - which can mean one of two things, either the whole world is really really really dumb, or satan is really really really good at making himself not look evil. I will leave that up to you to decide.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. What is evil to you, might not be evil to me.[/

Smacking a girl over the head with a fake broken arm cast, caving her head in with a hammer then raping her when she is dead seems evil to some of us but to Tedd Bundy it was a stroll in the park before coffee n muffins with his girl friend, who had no idea that he did this sort thing about 50 times before he got caught. Im kind of glad its not up to Tedd Bundy to decide what's evil and what isn't nor am I particulalry interested in any human beings estimation of what evil is and what it isn't. No man is the boss of me, let alone himself. God is the judge and he will judge. In fact if man is guilty in one area of Gods laws he is guilty of the whole lot, in other words every human being is a lieing, thieving, adulterous, murdering, blaspheming, God hating, so and so, and that's only 6 out of the 10 commandments covered. So who in their right mind would die to save pond scum like that? God did!

quote]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No idea ask Angellous, I'm not that clever.

:takeabow:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what is the "divine Path" of infallible Gods word leading up to the KJV?

The divine path of the KJV:

God - Textus Receptus [1510... Erasmus, six manuscripts] - KJV 1611 [revisions] - KJV of today

The path of other translations:

NT writers - textual transmission / copying [ongoing review of 35,000 texts] - committees seek earliest / best text - modern translations

 

[McBell]

The divine path of the KJV:

God - Textus Receptus [1510... Erasmus, six manuscripts] - KJV 1611 [revisions] - KJV of today

The path of other translations:

NT writers - textual transmission / copying [ongoing review of 35,000 texts] - committees seek earliest / best text - modern translations

Interesting, but you have only taken the Divine Path of the KJV back to 1510...
seems to me that it should go back all the way to the originals...
Right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Interesting, but you have only taken the Divine Path of the KJV back to 1510...
seems to me that it should go back all the way to the originals...
Right?

It's pretty difficult to trace the copies back farther than the tenth century. I don't think that a majority text can be traced back to the originals - it's the deviations that take us farther back in time, not the similarities.

 

[McBell]

It's pretty difficult to trace the copies back farther than the tenth century. I don't think that a majority text can be traced back to the originals - it's the deviations that take us farther back in time, not the similarities.

That is kinda my point.
If those who hold the KJV so dear cannot show how God preserved his word from the originals to the KVJ, they really do not have a leg to stand on, right?
I mean, that is the core of the argument, right, that God preserved his holy word from the originals to the KJV?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is kinda my point.

If those who hold the KJV so dear cannot show how God preserved his word from the originals to the KVJ, they really do not have a leg to stand on, right?

I mean, that is the core of the argument, right, that God preserved his holy word from the originals to the KJV?

Sorta.

Most KJV only folks haven't thought a second about the original texts. They may know that the KJV is a translation from Greek and that's about it - maybe they think that their Greek is original. Fewer would know about the Textus Receptus constructed by Erasmus.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

:takeabow:

Lol, whats that litte guy doing? Cute

Just for the record, I wasnt a KJV only guy until I read the information in this OP last week. I am now but. In fact I left the Bretheren Church I was attending because one of the Elders poo poohed this document based on the fact that he knew a professor who was clsoely linked to the NIV, who was evidently a lovely godly. I not doubtn that the elder is a nice manm too, I just fail to see what that has to do with the facts. As you can see I have been quite effected by this info - more "effected" than usual that is. :tigger:

You'll love this, I love the work of Ivan Panin, and I believed his New Testament was the most accuarte based on his numeric theories, but his version is littered with everything mentioned in this OP. And his work was built largely upon Westcourt and Horts work, in fact he spent 50 years working on his NT in greek and English. I was really bummed about that, becuase I thought the theory of numerics was sound, that it was a method God placed in his word to preserve it IE mathemtically.

Frankly I dont think there is much in the old testament that can be questioned given the throughness of the Devout Jewish Scribes and pharisees throughout history, would you agree with that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just for the record, I wasnt a KLV only guy until I read the information in this OP last week. I am now but. In fact I left the church Bretheren Chruch I was attending because one of the Elders poo pphed based on the fact that he new a professor who was clsoely linked to the NIV, who was evidently a lovely godly. As you can see I have been quite effected by the document - more "effected" than usual that is. :tigger:

I've got some real nice ocean front property I'd like to show you...

Or maybe a nice used car.

Heck, I'd throw in the car if you buy the property.

 

[McBell]

Lol, whats that litte guy doing? Cute

Just for the record, I wasnt a KLV only guy until I read the information in this OP last week. I am now but. In fact I left the church Bretheren Chruch I was attending because one of the Elders poo pphed based on the fact that he new a professor who was clsoely linked to the NIV, who was evidently a lovely godly. As you can see I have been quite effected by the document - more "effected" than usual that is. :tigger:

You'll love this, I love the work of Ivan Panin, and I belived his New Testament was the most accuarte based on his numeric theories, but his version is littered with everything mentioned in this OP. And his work was built largely upon Westcourt and Horts work, in fact he spent 50 years working on his NT in greek and English.

The author quoted in the OP thinks that if ANYTHING differes from the KJV that you are to toss it out in favour of the KJV.
Does this sound the least bit rational to you?

Given the above mentioned attitude, do you not wonder about the number of times that Christ is removed from the KJV?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I suspect he's being sarcastic.

It takes years of indoctrination to be strict KJV only.

 

[McBell]

I suspect he's being sarcastic.

It takes years of indoctrination to be strict KJV only.

I just wonder if he has ever turned the tables.
For example, has he taken the NIV and then compared it to the KJV and seen where the NIV has Christ mentioned where the KJV does not?

What is interesting is that one can make the exact same claims about about any version of the Bible, including the KJV, by merely claiming that X version is the standard by which to compare all other versions.

I wonder if he is aware of this fact?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I just wonder if he has ever turned the tables.
For example, has he taken the NIV and then compared it to the KJV and seen where the NIV has Christ mentioned where the KJV does not?

What is interesting is that one can make the exact same claims about about any version of the Bible, including the KJV, by merely claiming that X version is the standard by which to compare all other versions.

I wonder if he is aware of this fact?

I dunno.

The NIV has a textual theory that I don't understand. It follows variants without regard for anything, and sometimes uses rare texts that aren't even in critical editions of the NT. I actually had to go out and buy a NIV Greek version so I could make sense out of what they were doing.

Comparing the KJV to the NIV is apples to oranges.

 

[McBell]

Comparing the KJV to the NIV is apples to oranges.

That is my point.
Seems to me that the claim is that the NIV has to be a bad translation simply because it differs from the KJV.

So why can't the exact same be said about the KJV?

Because the KJV differs from Both the NIV AND the NASB is it TWICE as bad a translation?

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

I've got some real nice ocean front property I'd like to show you...

Or maybe a nice used car.

Heck, I'd throw in the car if you buy the property.

Well yeah I know you can mock me, but Im not really referring to the author, Im referring to the side by side comparison of My KJV and my Panin New Testament that took me four hours to do, it's all varifiablly correct as to what the author is pointing out in the OP. (if you ignore the "evil wicked" spin he puts on it, the point is valid) and yet not one person here has acknowledged the difference pointed out in the OP. WHY?. You just harp on with "snicker snicker - theres no true word of God dont you know anything?... tee hee hee...yah... I know get a load of this cretin!"

Its rather tired and childish. Stump up with some facts and give the talk fest/mock fest a rest.

In fact it cant be argued with. The only arguement to follow on from the OP is the arguemnet that the KJV is corrupt/wrong aswell. Ive heard a few of you bang on about that which is cool, but I would like to see you poste evidence of it because with out it I aint buying the ocean side property, but I'll take the free car.

I wonder if you aware that you have to stay on topic - the reality is you haven't even started on topic, let alone stayed on it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I just can't believe that a reasonable person would be convinced by the OP. I thought you were joking, so I was kidding around, too.

I think that the KJV is a beautiful translation, and better than most that I've read. But it's a translation of just a few texts. It doesn't consider about 30,000 other texts, including Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Siniacus.

The NIV is the most readable version - if you read the Bible out loud all the time like I do, the words are much smoother.

I think that the NRSV and the ESV are the most literal translations that follow the oldest texts. The Oxford annotated NRSV is the best study Bible, IMHO.