Is the bible still complete and intact?

[Edward]

Lo, how do thee understand thy words?. Tho is to complicated for thee.

I think I got that right.

I still believe its a plank and not a beholdeth tho mote.

Shalt thou not read thine own God's words? For verily it is written that my words shall not pass away...so shouldest thine affectations to be enamoredest of same be focusedest on the samest wordseth?



I liketh the King James versioneth for was I weanedeth on the sameth. Lol...

 

[th1b.taylor]

Video or no video the word of God is being corrupted in these new versions and that's a fact..

PLEASE READ THIS.

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
   
   Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

http://jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

I am very sorry to be one to tell you this but number five, the only one I test is absolutely false and even Wikipedia agrees it is false. The New Testament (the 27 God inspired Commentaries on His Bible) is translated from the best Greek Manuscripts. God is keeping the NASB true and it is one of the transcriptions you are, recklessly, lumping together, brother.

 

[turnorburn]

The KJV has been my bible from the start well before the bickering started, how the baloney started about it being hard to understand was and is someones idea of a bad joke, its never been hard for me to understand.. and you Bill, even you said "It is the version I verbally quote from, the transcript is beautiful."

 

[turnorburn]

Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?
Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!

The chart below illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was replaced with a text assembled by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in the nineteenth century and used as the basis for the English Revised Version, which nearly all modern translations closely follow.

The text shown here is the King James Version. Words, sentences, or entire verses in strikethrough illustrate portions that have been removed from the text underlying the KJV New Testament. Not all modern versions are the same. Sometimes the ESV will include a word the NIV doesn't, or the NASB might omit a phrase the NIV and NRSV both retain, etc... but for the most part, the examples below represent nearly all of the popular modern versions. (Psudeo-KJV versions such as the NKJV are far more subtle and are a different case. See the articles section for NKJV examinations.)

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

 

[turnorburn]

Got things to do...

 

[Chopper]

It's interesting to me that the Book of Enoch was never considered Canon. Jude mentioned it. I have read it even though it was tough reading. Enoch told of the source of cosmetics for women and other facts that wouldn't go over in any generation. Perhaps I'll google the Book of Enoch to see why it wasn't Canonized. Anyone know??

 

[Roro1972]

I am very sorry to be one to tell you this but number five, the only one I test is absolutely false and even Wikipedia agrees it is false. The New Testament (the 27 God inspired Commentaries on His Bible) is translated from the best Greek Manuscripts. God is keeping the NASB true and it is one of the transcriptions you are, recklessly, lumping together, brother.

hey bill can you explain how they came to remove the word God in Matt 6:33 I just can not see it being better by God being removed.

 

[Roro1972]

It's interesting to me that the Book of Enoch was never considered Canon. Jude mentioned it. I have read it even though it was tough reading. Enoch told of the source of cosmetics for women and other facts that wouldn't go over in any generation. Perhaps I'll google the Book of Enoch to see why it wasn't Canonized. Anyone know??

I do know but I read it and Jasher and feel I learned a few things

 

[Free]

hey bill can you explain how they came to remove the word God in Matt 6:33 I just can not see it being better by God being removed.

This is begging the question. It isn't a matter of things being removed to make the translations better, it's a matter of making the translations more accurate based on the best manuscript evidence. Some things in the KJV just shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[Obadiah]

The KJV has been my bible from the start well before the bickering started, how the baloney started about it being hard to understand was and is someones idea of a bad joke, its never been hard for me to understand.. and you Bill, even you said "It is the version I verbally quote from, the transcript is beautiful."

Did anyone seriously say they didn't like it because it was hard to understand? I must have missed that. In fact, did anyone even seriously say they didn't like it? I missed that too. Some of us are just being truthful about what it actually is, and I don't believe anyone put it down as a bad thing. Most of us just don't worship it as a lot of KJV only people do.

I actually had a guy I used to go to church with with tell me that the KJV was god. And I verified that he meant that exactly as it sounded. The King James Version of the Bible was actually and literally his god. He supported that by quoting John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." According to him since the KJV is the only inspired word of God (at least in his mind he seems to believe this), and it says "...the word WAS God" he concludes that the paper and ink physical book that he holds in his hand is literally and physically his god. The pastor of the church wouldn't flat out agree with him, but also and tellingly wouldn't refute what he said either. He simply played the coward and kept silent when asked to mediate and take a stand as the representative of that church's doctrine on this subject. I no longer fellowship with either of them. At least one of them is an idolater and possibly the pastor as well.

Oh, and by the way, the bickering over this started long before any of us were born so there is no way you can claim the KJV was your bible "well before the bickering started"!

 

[Free]

Video or no video the word of God is being corrupted in these new versions and that's a fact..

PLEASE READ THIS.

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
   
   Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

http://jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

Even if that is true, you're saying that God can't use heretics for his purposes. But really it's called poisoning the well. What matters are the manuscripts themselves, not who compiled them.

 

[th1b.taylor]

hey bill can you explain how they came to remove the word God in Matt 6:33 I just can not see it being better by God being removed.

Brother, an honest study of how and why both the KJV and the NASB will be very educational. The King James, the version I verbally quote is a thought for thought version and the New American Standard is as close to a word for word version as can be done translating from Koine Greek into Modern day English.

Now, please be honest when you ask questions like this and do not, in the future, use the same tactics I used against Christians when I was an atheist. You have just tried to position yourself for a slam dunk and were you dealing, here, with the typical, unstudied, say so Christian, your next post would have slammed me to the deck.

As it is, I have studied and you have left yourself defenseless but I am no longer that man that wants the victory you are lusting for that would have been false and false is not of our Christ!

The word, more correctly, English Translation of the Name of Yhwh, God was not omitted and the Thought for Thought Translation, the King James, is, in no manner the standard for a Word For Word Translation.

Now let me explain something to you as a friend to a friend. I was overseas for fifty-four months of my my eight year military career and I live among Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Argentineans and an assortment of others in my neighborhood.

Let's use my Grandfather's native tongue for this lesson about translation. If I told my grandfather it was raining cats and puppy dogs outside he would have laughed a6t my Texan use of the English Language. On the other hand translating this into a word for word translation in German and walking in from the rain, I should then use it, I would not draw a single chuckle but someone, almost, certainly would look out the door to see if dead pups and kittens were laying on the ground outside the door.

By, exactly, the token, if Herr Fischer were to walk up and he said Hello and in respose you asked him what's up or what's happening [Vas est loose in German (sp?)] and he translated t5he standard German answer into English he would say, "The dogs are happening! Now you would looki at him like he has spent all his marbles somewhere but none of them here.

Word for word translation is, at it's best, troublesome to accomplish and on the other4 end of that scale, thought for thought, we find the King James Authorized and in it's first printing it said "Thou shalt commit adultery." There is a great deal of trouble translating any version from Ancient (No longer in use) Hebrew, Koine Greek and a couple of other languages that we find parts of the scriptures written in.

GOOD GRIEF! What are we to do then? There are a few old farts like myself that use many versions in our study and then, along comes one like yourself! The best any of us can, possibly do is to discuss, read the scriptures, listen and wait for the Holy Spirits leading as we pray and discuss.

But we must never use Satan's tactics and try to destroy one another, our purpose is to build one another up! May God bless this to your heart.

 

[Roro1972]

This is begging the question. It isn't a matter of things being removed to make the translations better, it's a matter of making the translations more accurate based on the best manuscript evidence. Some things in the KJV just shouldn't have been there in the first place.

if everyone is ok with these omissions then I must leave it alone
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7174

 

[Roro1972]

Brother, an honest study of how and why both the KJV and the NASB will be very educational. The King James, the version I verbally quote is a thought for thought version and the New American Standard is as close to a word for word version as can be done translating from Koine Greek into Modern day English.

Now, please be honest when you ask questions like this and do not, in the future, use the same tactics I used against Christians when I was an atheist. You have just tried to position yourself for a slam dunk and were you dealing, here, with the typical, unstudied, say so Christian, your next post would have slammed me to the deck.

As it is, I have studied and you have left yourself defenseless but I am no longer that man that wants the victory you are lusting for that would have been false and false is not of our Christ!

The word, more correctly, English Translation of the Name of Yhwh, God was not omitted and the Thought for Thought Translation, the King James, is, in no manner the standard for a Word For Word Translation.

Now let me explain something to you as a friend to a friend. I was overseas for fifty-four months of my my eight year military career and I live among Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Argentineans and an assortment of others in my neighborhood.

Let's use my Grandfather's native tongue for this lesson about translation. If I told my grandfather it was raining cats and puppy dogs outside he would have laughed a6t my Texan use of the English Language. On the other hand translating this into a word for word translation in German and walking in from the rain, I should then use it, I would not draw a single chuckle but someone, almost, certainly would look out the door to see if dead pups and kittens were laying on the ground outside the door.

By, exactly, the token, if Herr Fischer were to walk up and he said Hello and in respose you asked him what's up or what's happening [Vas est loose in German (sp?)] and he translated t5he standard German answer into English he would say, "The dogs are happening! Now you would looki at him like he has spent all his marbles somewhere but none of them here.

Word for word translation is, at it's best, troublesome to accomplish and on the other4 end of that scale, thought for thought, we find the King James Authorized and in it's first printing it said "Thou shalt commit adultery." There is a great deal of trouble translating any version from Ancient (No longer in use) Hebrew, Koine Greek and a couple of other languages that we find parts of the scriptures written in.

GOOD GRIEF! What are we to do then? There are a few old farts like myself that use many versions in our study and then, along comes one like yourself! The best any of us can, possibly do is to discuss, read the scriptures, listen and wait for the Holy Spirits leading as we pray and discuss.

But we must never use Satan's tactics and try to destroy one another, our purpose is to build one another up! May God bless this to your heart.

Im sure you have more biblical knowledge than I do. I compare the versions to each other and when I see Jesus and God removed it is Less clear than when Jesus and God are in the verse. I hope that i am not using Satans tactics by comparing todays bible to each other side by side to determine which I prefer. I prefer the version where God and Jesus not omitted from verses.

 

[Chopper]

Did anyone seriously say they didn't like it because it was hard to understand? I must have missed that. In fact, did anyone even seriously say they didn't like it? I missed that too. Some of us are just being truthful about what it actually is, and I don't believe anyone put it down as a bad thing. Most of us just don't worship it as a lot of KJV only people do.

I actually had a guy I used to go to church with with tell me that the KJV was god. And I verified that he meant that exactly as it sounded. The King James Version of the Bible was actually and literally his god. He supported that by quoting John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." According to him since the KJV is the only inspired word of God (at least in his mind he seems to believe this), and it says "...the word WAS God" he concludes that the paper and ink physical book that he holds in his hand is literally and physically his god. The pastor of the church wouldn't flat out agree with him, but also and tellingly wouldn't refute what he said either. He simply played the coward and kept silent when asked to mediate and take a stand as the representative of that church's doctrine on this subject. I no longer fellowship with either of them. At least one of them is an idolater and possibly the pastor as well.

Oh, and by the way, the bickering over this started long before any of us were born so there is no way you can claim the KJV was your bible "well before the bickering started"!

Over the years, I have basically stuck with the KJV in the pulpit. When I was teaching a class, especially a "New Believers Class" or a Sunday night prayer/Bible study I occasionally used the NIV. When using the NIV, I would point out some errors as compared to the KJV in the text that I was teaching. Now, at the last Baptist Church that I was the Pastor, we were in fellowship with the "General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC) Many of the Pastors were KJV only. They made it tough on Pastors who used other translations.

Wow, I don't think I ever heard of someone referring to the KJV as God. I can see where someone might take John 1:1 as meaning God, but I believe that the person who said that, either didn't have a good grasp on the whole counsel of God, or that was only the beginning of some pretty weird doctrines.

 

[reba]

Is any translation 100% perfect?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How about this one?

Yes, I know, I'm always trouble.
But I don't know what else to do?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Im sure you have more biblical knowledge than I do. I compare the versions to each other and when I see Jesus and God removed it is Less clear than when Jesus and God are in the verse. I hope that i am not using Satans tactics by comparing todays bible to each other side by side to determine which I prefer. I prefer the version where God and Jesus not omitted from verses.

But brother, removed from where?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Is any translation 100% perfect?

No mam!

 

[th1b.taylor]

How about this one?

Yes, I know, I'm always trouble.
But I don't know what else to do?

Rollo,
You are a bad, bad, boy! LOL! LOL! lol! Please forgive me and Rollo, my brother, LORD.