Bible Study KJV vs. NIV (& others)

[Solo]

D46,
Thanks for the study and hard work that you have done to give us a greater understanding of the scriptures that we have contained in the KJV.
Solo

 

[D46]

Thanks for the study and hard work that you have done to give us a greater understanding of the scriptures that we have contained in the KJV.
Solo

Thanks, Solo-I needed that. I don't want to put down anyone's belief in their particular bible as we will all obviously read what we want to read. I have deligently searched for the truth about textual criticism, translations and the versions past and present to get a better understanding of how we came to where we are today and who was behind it all and why. It's all as plain as the nose on your face to me although I realize many will not agree. That's ok, though. When I feel in my heart someting is true beyond any reasonable doubt and don't tell others, I am just as deceitful as the watchman who saw trouble coming and didn't blow the trumpet. I have blown the trumpet and now it's up to those that read, study and check out the sources for themselves to decide what's true. I stand convinced of my findings.

 

[Solo]

I am convinced as well. You have taught me much and I appreciate it. Grow ye not weary in well doing.
Thanks.

 

[AVBunyan]

If you are reading any bible other than the King James Bible you are reading a Catholic bible - if that doesn't bother you then go for it.

 

[seb]

It's good to see that someone here shares my views well done d46, even your links are great =)

 

[Georges]

KJV...if it was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles....it's good enough for me...... :-D

 

[Windozer]

KJV...if it was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles....it's good enough for me...... :-D

ROTFL.... This is your sense of humor right? The New Testament had yet to be written when Jesus walked this Earth.

 

[AVBunyan]

KJV...if it was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles....it's good enough for me...... :-D

ROTFL.... This is your sense of humor right? The New Testament had yet to be written when Jesus walked this Earth.

Windozer - Georges may be closer than you realize. Though Jesus was not holding a 1611 King James Bible in English Jesus read from the set of the manuscripts that the AV1611 King James Bible came from.

There are 2 lines of Bibles – one is pure and one is corrupt – it is that simple.
1. The Pure Line - The line that came out of Israel (OT) and Middle East/Antioch/Syria (NT).
2. The Corrupt Line - The line that came out of Alexandria, Egypt from the hand of Origen and his band of lost philosophers. This is the line the all Catholic versions came from. – Egypt!

So, if you have a NASV (or any rendition) or a NIV (or any rendition) or any other modern version other than a King James Bible (and no, no the NKJV) then you have a polluted book that is masquerading as a bible.

Yes, you can find some fundamentals in the modern versions but that does not mean they are the word of God. You can find a diamond in a septic tank but that doesn’t make the septic tank a jewelry store!

For the last 350 years or so the King James Bible, God’s pure words, have been responsible for all true revivals, true missionary work, powerful and productive preaching, and spiritual books and hymns.

The modern versions have produced mostly chaos and confusion, and have helped produce the fleshliest, ignorant, proud, and worldly, “saints†ever.

If you want to read a Catholic bible that attacks the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, justification, the second coming of Christ, and most other doctrines then have at it – I will not be able to change your mind – only God can show you…..if you are truly teachable. The truth is out there – just Google the key words and versions.

God bless 8-)

 

[Windozer]

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. AVBunyan

 

[AVBunyan]

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. AVBunyan

Same to you Windozer -
A little confused though - you have a NIV in your signature and I just "hammered" the NIV. :o :o :o

God bless 8-)

 

[D46]

For those even remotely interested in bible history there are some good links you can check out. Always back up what you read with Scripture and historical evidence.

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVers ... cforv6.htm

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/holland.htm#targ3

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbcdarks.htm

This last one will show you just what's been changed/omitted in the modern versions.

 

[AVBunyan]

For those even remotely interested in bible history there are some good links you can check out. Always back up what you read with Scripture and historical evidence.

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVers ... cforv6.htm

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/holland.htm#targ3

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbcdarks.htm

This last one will show you just what's been changed/omitted in the modern versions.

Nice links - I hope some "modern version" folks will look into these.

God bless 8-)

 

[Terral]

The Critical And Received Texts BOTH Contain Scribal Errors

Hi AV, George (mentioned):

Man-0-Man. Some of the things written on this thread are beyond imagination. The bit from George about the KJV being good enough for Jesus was FUNNY . . . ! Heh . . . However, you are making some bold statements here also

Windozer - Georges may be closer than you realize. Though Jesus was not holding a 1611 King James Bible in English Jesus read from the set of the manuscripts that the AV1611 King James Bible came from.

That is simply nowhere near the truth. Christ and the Twelve spoke in their Syrian dialect of the Aramaic that Israel had been using since their last captivity in 6 B.C. Note that Christ is speaking in Aramaic on the cross (Matthew 27:46). The NT writers wrote the accounts in Greek, because that was the language of commerce of that day like English is for today. The earliest letters of our New Testament are the Epistle from James and Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians in about 50 AD (give or take). That is twenty years after Christ ascended into the heavenly in Acts 1:9-11. The manuscripts from the Received Text (Antiochian) are all copies of the originals and are predated by the older Alexandrian manuscripts.

AV >> There are 2 lines of Bibles – one is pure and one is corrupt – it is that simple.
1. The Pure Line - The line that came out of Israel (OT) and Middle East/Antioch/Syria (NT).
2. The Corrupt Line - The line that came out of Alexandria, Egypt from the hand of Origen and his band of lost philosophers. This is the line the all Catholic versions came from. – Egypt!

Your statements here are filled with half truths. There is no such thing as any ‘pure line’ of manuscripts, as both the Critical Text and Received Text contain scribal errors. The fact that Catholics used either of these copies is meaningless, as that affected nothing about the manuscripts themselves. And, a majority of the verses in both manuscripts contain no differences at all. Therefore, you cannot toss either into the dumpster as ‘uninspired,’ because they read identically in a majority of the verses. Just look at the size of the New Testament and try to imagine that written onto parchment 2000 years ago. Then imagine scribes making copy after copy after copy and THAT is what the scholars have to work with in our modern times. You are trying to make a case for one set of scribes making all the errors in the copy process of many pieces of parchment, while their Antiochian counterparts somehow made none. Heh . . . the joke is on you . . . I have worked extensively with the Received and Critical Texts for decades and can testify that BOTH contain scribal errors and NEITHER is 100 percent accurate. You must be willing to do your own comparative study of both sets in order to arrive at your own conclusions about which way to take in each fork in the road. The best tool for that is a Greek / English Interlinear New Testament that shows the Greek and English together AND shows you each place where the manuscripts differ. Then you can compare ‘additions to omissions’ to begin to seeing a pattern of copy errors by the scribes. To claim that one set of manuscripts is superior is just nonsense . . .

AV >> So, if you have a NASV (or any rendition) or a NIV (or any rendition) or any other modern version other than a King James Bible (and no, no the NKJV) then you have a polluted book that is masquerading as a bible.

LOL. No sir. One place to begin reading on this topic is here ( http://www.pilgrimworks.com/trans.htm#conserv ), where many simple and technical points are explained in layman’s terms. I can agree with you that the NIV is a translation with an agenda, but to toss all modern translations into that pile is also nonsense. Most of your statements in this post do not warrant any reply at all. However, you make a statement here that seems out of place:

AV >> If you want to read a Catholic bible that attacks the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, justification, the second coming of Christ, and most other doctrines then have at it – I will not be able to change your mind – only God can show you…..if you are truly teachable. The truth is out there – just Google the key words and versions.

Where did you get the notion that your Bible teaches the “Deity of Christ?†Scripture says, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity DWELLS in bodily form.†Colossians 2:9. That means God was “IN†Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19) reconciling the world to Himself. There is only “ONE GOD†and “Christ Jesus†is the “one Mediator†between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5. “One God†= Deity and “Christ Jesus†= the Son of God. John 1:34, Romans 1:4, Revelation 2:18. You should be talking about the “Deity OF GOD,†and “His God and Father.†Revelation 1:6. Are you aware that the “Son of God†(Revelation 2:18) even has a “God and Father�?? What is the sense in going on about bad translations, when we cannot read our own Bibles properly? What does Paul say on this topic?

“. . . yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.†1 Corinthians 8:6.

Your ‘deity of Christ’ doctrine seems to teach “Two God’s†which is clearly NOT taught in anyone’s Bible. If your god has a â“God and Father,†then chances are you are practicing IDOLATRY by transforming our “one Mediator†into the “one God†of the same verse (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus Christ is most certainly the “Son of God†(John 1:34) and He NEVER changes (Hebrews 13:8).

In Christ Jesus the Son God,

Terral

 

[D46]

Where did you get the notion that your Bible teaches the “Deity of Christ?

Just where else are your going to find the teaching about the Deity of Christ? Tha's a foolish statement.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Notice how some new versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity. As anyone well knows, a young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin:


NRSV... young woman

REB...... young woman

NWT..... maiden

Daniel 3:25

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that Jesus Christ existed long before He was born in Bethlehem. Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan foolishness:


NIV....... a son of the gods

NASB... a son of the gods

NRSV... a god

LB........ a god

NWT.... a son of the gods

NAB..... a son of God


I Timothy 3:16

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


Notice how the King James is very clear in telling us WHO was manifest in the flesh: GOD was manifest in the flesh. We ALL appear in a body and are revealed in flesh when we are born into this world...that's a foolish statement. Now watch the new perversions throw God clear out of the verse:


NIV....... He appeared in a body

NASB... He who was revealed in the flesh

NRSV... He was revealed in flesh

LB......... who came to earth as a man

NWT..... He was made manifest in the flesh

NAB...... He was manifested in the flesh



Micah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


This is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the verse tells us that He had no beginning. Moses and David were "from ancient days" but, He is ETERNAL, or from everlasting, but not in most modern translations:


NIV....... from ancient times

NRSV... from ancient days

NWT.... from the days of time indefinite

NAB..... from ancient times (vs. 1)



Colossians 1:14

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:


NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins



Acts 8:37

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible either by omitting it or casting doubt in a footnote:


NIV....... entire verse missing

NRSV... entire verse missing

NWT..... entire verse missing

NAB...... omits entire verse, but re-numbers the verses so you won't miss it.


The NASB alters Scriptures which plainly teach the Deity of our Lord Jesus...

John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 (NASB)

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

In the King James, we find that Jesus is God's Son. In the NKJV, we find that He is God's servant. These are clearly not the same! The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant." So which one is correct here?

The solution is simple: look at the context in which it is used. In English, we have many words that can have more than one meaning. If a translator, going from English to another language, came across the word "bear," he would have a choice of meanings. But it wouldn't take rocket science to figure out which one to use.

If the passage described a man with a heavy burden, the translator would understand that the man is going to "bear," or "carry" the burden. If, on the other hand, the passage described a hairy beast climbing a tree, the translator would understand the correct meaning here applies to a forest-dwelling animal that will eat nearly anything it finds. It's not really very hard.

Now look at the Bible passage above. What is being discussed?

"children of the prophets"
"covenant which God made with our fathers"
"in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

It's clear, isn't it? The passage is talking about "children," and "fathers" and "seed." The word "pais" means "son." But the New King James translators chose "servant." Why? They were not alone. The New World Translation, created by the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus, translated this word "servant" also. So do the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

Could it be that these modern translators disagree that "pais" can be translated "son?" No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as "boy," "child" or "son" in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as "son" in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

One has to ask, why were these translators so determined to deny the deity of Jesus in this passage? Is this a Bible you can trust with your eternal destiny? Are any of the modern versions trustworthy? I think the evidence speaks for itself.

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/NASV.HTM

This link will take you to where you can purchase a DVD that tells of the history of the bible and is superb. Narrated by a Dr. Lampe, a biblilcal historian, it covers a lot ot territory and you won't absorb it all watching just once...highly recommended.

http://greatsite.com/featured-items-and ... -book.html

 

[Terral]

Jesus Christ Is The Son Of God. John 1:34, Rev. 2:18.

Hi D46:

Thank you for writing.

Terral Original >> Where did you get the notion that your Bible teaches the “Deity of Christ?

D46 >> Just where else are your going to find the teaching about the Deity of Christ? Tha's a foolish statement. (snip Isaiah, Daniel; neither are witnesses of Jesus Christ in the New Testament)

No sir. If you really thought so, then you would have quoted the remainder of my comments and offered something in return. Instead you are offering your verses of Scripture out of context. Your premise is that Jesus = God, which I have to make for you in light of the fact that you refuse to simply come out and say so. All of the witnesses in the New Testament agree that Jesus Christ is the “Son of God.†John 1:34.

D46 Quotes >> I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

D46 Commentary >> Notice how the King James is very clear in telling us WHO was manifest in the flesh: GOD was manifest in the flesh. We ALL appear in a body and are revealed in flesh when we are born into this world...that's a foolish statement. Now watch the new perversions throw God clear out of the verse: (snip translations. Use the Greek and man’s translations are not necessary . . .) (snip Micah. He is not a New Testament witness either)

Please . . . Paul has testified over and over again that Jesus Christ is the “Son of God†(Romans 1:4) and the “one Mediator†of 1 Timothy 2:5. God was “IN†Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19) reconciling the world to Himself. That is the extent of “God†in the flesh. No one has seen God at ANY TIME (John 1:18), but many were given to see the “Only Begotten Son of God†(John 3:18). You do not appear to know the difference between our “one God†and our “one Mediator†(Christ Jesus) of the same verse. 1 Timothy 2:5.

D46 >> Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

D46 Commentary >> Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:

Holy Molies . . . When do you get around to presenting some of your “Jesus = Almighty God†quotes? Oh, there are none in the whole Bible . . . Pasting four different translations to this thread is ridiculous.

D46 >> Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

D46 Commentary >> This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible either by omitting it or casting doubt in a footnote:

Paul’s ‘one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5) has NOTHING to with water. None of the ‘ones’ of Ephesians 4:4-6 are visible to the naked eye, including our ‘one baptism.’ Paul describes that in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and says we are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27) Himself. You are confusing the doctrinal components of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 4:23, etc.) with Paul’s “my gospel†(Romans 16:25) for us today. Those differences are explained here: ( http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=20385 ). Please head over there and let’s debate the topic.

D46 >> The NASB alters Scriptures which plainly teach the Deity of our Lord Jesus... (snip)

No sir. You have not provided anything remotely saying that Jesus = God, because none of those exist in any translation. We can agree that the Critical Text contains the error in John 1:18, but “NO ONE has seen God at any time . . .â€Â.

D46 >> JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

We can agree that the NIV is perhaps the most errant and devious translation ever perpetuated by men, but they did not include the phrase “Jesus is God†anywhere. That is your misinterpretation of Scripture. Everyone including Jesus Christ says He is the “Son of God†(John 10:36, Revelation 2:18). Since “Jesus Christ†(Revelation 1:1) the “Son of God†(Revelation 2:18) has “His God and Father†(Revelation 1:6), then obviously He is NOT His Own God and Father. How much more plainer can Scripture be on this topic??? You quote verses saying that God gave His Only Begotten Son, then you try to replace His God and Father with the Son of God. That is far more devious than anything done by the translators of the NIV.

D46 >> In the King James, we find that Jesus is God's Son. In the NKJV, we find that He is God's servant. These are clearly not the same! The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant." So which one is correct here? (snip nonsense)

Please . . . Jesus Christ is still the “Son of God†(John 1:34) in ALL THE TRANSLATIONS. Wake up and smell the sunshine . . . “The Almighty†(Revelation 1:8) and the “one God†(1 Timothy 2:5) is still “His God and Father.†Revelation 1:6. IF your god has a “God and Father,†then he is definitely NOT His OWN GOD AND FATHER.

D46 >> It's clear, isn't it? The passage is talking about "children," and "fathers" and "seed." The word "pais" means "son." But the New King James translators chose "servant." Why? They were not alone. The New World Translation, created by the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus, translated this word "servant" also. So do the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

You keep going on about “Deity of Jesus,†when that does not appear in any Bible anywhere. The term “theotes†(#2320 = Deity) is used one time and one time only in Colossians 2:9 and that does NOT say “Jesus = Deity.†Scripture shows “God IN Christ,†saying,

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.†Colossians 2:9.

“. . . namely, that God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.†2 Corinthians 5:19.

Your testimony agrees with God’s Word, when you say that the fullness of God’s Deity DWELLS “IN†Christ in bodily form. You cannot arbitrarily assign God’s Deity to the Son of God, because there is only ONE GOD (1 Timothy 2:5) and Christ Jesus is there in the same verse as the “one Mediator.†The Greek term “Mesites†(#3316) does not allow you to transfer the ‘one Mediator’ into the position of the “one God†OR the “men†for whom He “Mediates.â€Â

------------------

Mesities = ( http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/ ... -3662.html )

1) one who intervenes BETWEEN two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant

2) a MEDIUM of communication, arbitrator

-------------------

Christ is at the ‘right hand of God’ (Romans 8:34) making intercession for us as we speak. You cannot transform Him into His Own God and Father for whom He is making Intercession BETWEEN God and men. This topic is far too easy for you to be floundering around with the ‘Jesus is Deity’ business and those standing up for the “Deity OF GOD†might become offended . . . Our God and Father HAS NO GOD and He most certainly HAS NO FATHER like His “Only Begotten Son.â€Â

D46 >> Could it be that these modern translators disagree that "pais" can be translated "son?" No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as "boy," "child" or "son" in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as "son" in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

Very Good! You recognize Jesus Christ as the “Son of the Living God†(Matthew 16:16) like everyone else in the New Tesatment.

D46 >> One has to ask, why were these translators so determined to deny the deity of Jesus in this passage? Is this a Bible you can trust with your eternal destiny? Are any of the modern versions trustworthy? I think the evidence speaks for itself.

There is no such thing as the Deity of Jesus, unless you are talking about “Godhrist†(2 Corinthians 5:19). You are rambling on about the errors in the translations without realizing that you are making statements totally beyond the scope of ANY of their translations. Your problem is over an ‘interpretation’ of Scripture totally apart from any translation. Your Bible calls those passing around God’s Deity IDOLATERS and that means replacing our “one God†with ANYTHING or ANYONE. Jesus Christ is the “Son of God†(Revelation 2:18) and “The Almighty†(Revelation 1:8) is most certainly “His God and Father.†Revelation 1:6.

Thank you for writing,

In Christ Jesus the Son of God,

Terral

 

[D46]

You're a sick puppy, Terral, and can't see two inches in front of you or reason at all. You speak from both sides of your mouth and argue for the sake of arguing. You must be intently interested in a feud while I'm only interested in truth. You misconstrue most of what I said and proved. If you must quote someone don't do it and then snip things out as to make it look differently to everyone. You will be put on ignore, henceforth, as I have no desire to further continuing in dialogue with someone of your caliber.

 

[Georges]

KJV...if it was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles....it's good enough for me...... :-D

ROTFL.... This is your sense of humor right? The New Testament had yet to be written when Jesus walked this Earth.

Of course..... : I have a buddy who is a one-ness staunch KJV'er. You can't tell him anything different......Another joining our conversation, stated the above quote....Took me 5 mins before I could breath because it struck me as a funny line.

seriously, I use the blueletterbible.com link exclusively. I use the KJV first, but usually use the strong's concordance (how easy is it when it's a click away) to compare the English words to the Greek. There are times i think they use the wrong English word......

 

[Terral]

Heh . . . Sick Puppy. That Was Cute . . .

Hi D46:

Thank you for writing.

D46 >> You're a sick puppy, Terral, and can't see two inches in front of you or reason at all.

Did you run out of arguments? Please forgive, but you failed to “quote me >>†to give your words context to something in this discussion. You are supposed to use the PM system to call people names . . .

D46 >> You speak from both sides of your mouth and argue for the sake of arguing.

No sir. I quote your statements and offer opposing views using Scripture where you appear to be off. If your arguments had any substance, then you would be “quoting me >>†and refuting the error in my testimony, instead of complaining to the Mods. Did you find ANYTHING above out of place to quote and correct using Scripture? No? This side of the discussion would never leave such a long post against his positions standing to then write one of these little love letters calling you names. If you are out of arguments then just say nothing . . . and appear wise.

D46 >> You must be intently interested in a feud while I'm only interested in truth.

If that were the case, then you would be quoting me and pointing out the errors using Scripture apart from this finger pointing and name calling. I would like to offer comment on what you found errant in my testimony, but you did not find anything to write about. Please highlight the areas where we disagree and present your truth.

D46 >> You misconstrue most of what I said and proved.

That would be your job to prove in this discussion using Scripture. 2 Timothy 2:15. Do you see where I quoted your every word and offered a thoughtful reply? You present your side and I will present mine and the third party readers can judge US BOTH. Does that seem fair?

D46 >> If you must quote someone don't do it and then snip things out as to make it look differently to everyone.

Your post appears complete just above mine and everyone just read your comments. Your words were quoted exactly as they appear above and I gave my views against your precise statements to remove all doubt about the true context. Everyone can see that most of the quotes in my post above are several sentences long, but a few are single sentences like in this post. Everything in my reply is given in direct context to your own statements. You have total control over ‘your’ posts in this discussion and I have the same rights as you.

D46 >> You will be put on ignore, henceforth, as I have no desire to further continuing in dialogue with someone of your caliber.

Thank you very much and I thank you for doing your ‘name calling’ in the direction of someone else. If your doctrines cannot withstand the test of Debate, then perhaps you should try smaller game . . .

Thank you very much for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Windozer]

Windozer - Georges may be closer than you realize. Though Jesus was not holding a 1611 King James Bible in English Jesus read from the set of the manuscripts that the AV1611 King James Bible came from.

Terral...In reference to the above quote I considered the content to be so far out of line that it was not worth responding to. One does not get any where with someone who goes to those lengths, as has being confirmed by the attack that has been made on you here by calling you a lost puppy.

 

[Windozer]

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. AVBunyan

Same to you Windozer -
A little confused though - you have a NIV in your signature and I just "hammered" the NIV. :o :o :o

God bless 8-)

Don't let that confuse you pal. Hammer away all you want if you think it will do any good. It all boils down to who one accepts as an authority.

And at the end of the day I think it is import that one has the Grace and peace that comes from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as opposed to which translation one considers to be the right one.

May God Bless you too.