Bible Study LOTS of Reasons Why the NIV is NOT a False Bible

[Blazin Bones]

What is unedifying is the way you suggest Vic isn't being fair. I can read any translation, and it will tell me we're are not to get upset when others slip. We are to check ourselves first, that can be found in Matthew 7.

 

[asb4God]

How about YOU can the tiresome rhetoric and argumentive attitude? It's growing very old very quickly.

Actually, I don't find there to be any fairness when he attacks my objective arguments as "tireseome rhetoric" and "argumentative," and yet gives his friends a free pass.

What KJO folks tend to do is get very emotional when their arguments are dealt with adequately. I have yet to see any KJO folks in the 5 or 6 threads say anything at all objective with respect to this issue.

I have tirelessly demonstrated the falsity of every KJO claim thus far and this tweaks some folks. I understand it. I am melting down a sacred cow. But we need to be fair if we are going to rebuke each other, especially when the rebuke is just silly and emotional.

Scott 8-)

 

[PHIL121]

I guess since I got saved by reading The Living Bible, some would say I'm not a Christian. :roll:

Of course, some might say the same thing because I never dunked my head under water :roll:

 

[Blazin Bones]

How about YOU can the tiresome rhetoric and argumentive attitude? It's growing very old very quickly.

Actually, I don't find there to be any fairness when he attacks my objective arguments as "tireseome rhetoric" and "argumentative," and yet gives his friends a free pass.

What KJO folks tend to do is get very emotional when their arguments are dealt with adequately. I have yet to see any KJO folks in the 5 or 6 threads say anything at all objective with respect to this issue.

I have tirelessly demonstrated the falsity of every KJO claim thus far and this tweaks some folks. I understand it. I am melting down a sacred cow. But we need to be fair if we are going to rebuke each other, especially when the rebuke is just silly and emotional.

Scott 8-)

Talk about a non sequtir. There are 121 passages that the NIV has mistranslated. Look at the greek and hebrew. In order to call those charges incorrect, the responsibility is on you to prove such, not them. What I'm trying to figure out is who your trying to glorify. You mentioned yourself 5 times, and God 0.

 

[asb4God]

Talk about a non sequtir.

You comfortable with the way you used that phrase??

There are 121 passages that the NIV has mistranslated. Look at the greek and hebrew.

If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed that I have looked at the Hebrew and Greek. (Ooops, I used the word I - thrice!.) Having looked at the Hebrew and the Greek, and having translated two passages in the last week to demonstrate the failure of the KJV, I am quite confident that it is the KJV which is mistranslated. Now, if you are so confident that it is the NIV which is mistranslated, please present to me your best test verse and I will show you objectively why it is translated as it is.

In order to call those charges incorrect, the responsibility is on you to prove such, not them.

And I have already done so - twice. I have already demonstrated that it is a bogus charge with no basis in reality. Now the onus is on those who would claim the KJV to be superior to demonstrate the validity of their claims. I have done my part and now it is your turn. Remember, it is you who have claimed that there are 121 mistranslations in the NIV. Prove it! With even one stinkin' verse.

What I'm trying to figure out is who your trying to glorify. You mentioned yourself 5 times, and God 0.

Now you're just being ridiculous. First, I could easily find post after post by you and level this same silly charge. Are you for real? Second, all I'm attempting to do is defend the NIV and, hence, those of us using it from the baseless charge that we are somehow lesser Christians - if Christians at all - for using this, as it has been called elsewhere, "false Bible." A little education is also my goal so that you will understand just how ridiculous these charges of mistranslations are.

The challenge sits out there waiting to be accepted. Certainly, if you all are so thoroughly convinced of the rightness of your claims, then please demonstrate it.

Scott 8-)

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

How about YOU can the tiresome rhetoric and argumentive attitude? It's growing very old very quickly. :-?

Perhaps asb4God is slipping in his tactfulness, however; (this is not an excuse) but perhaps the reason asb4God is starting to seem argumentative because the major proponents of the KJV have yet to provide any viable objective truths that prove the NIV is such a terrible and evil translation.

In any event, I think it is important for us all to remember the reason for discussing such a topic:
To discover the truth
To edify God
To bring glory to God

What is not and should not be the intent, or goal, of this topic is to bring glory to oneself and to “proof one is right.â€Â

So come on people lets try to show more Christian love toward each other ok.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Talk about a non sequtir.

You comfortable with the way you used that phrase??[

Sure am. You demand proof, yet still have 121 charges yet to be refuted. 2 examples does not negate 121. You're the one with the burden to find fault with their charge.

If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed that I have looked at the Hebrew and Greek. (Ooops, I used the word I - thrice!.) Having looked at the Hebrew and the Greek, and having translated two passages in the last week to demonstrate the failure of the KJV, I am quite confident that it is the KJV which is mistranslated. Now, if you are so confident that it is the NIV which is mistranslated, please present to me your best test verse and I will show you objectively why it is translated as it is.

Look at the 121 examples provided. If 2 examples is enough to compel you in favor of the NIV, then so be it. 121 examples is much more persuasive.

And I have already done so - twice. I have already demonstrated that it is a bogus charge with no basis in reality. Now the onus is on those who would claim the KJV to be superior to demonstrate the validity of their claims. I have done my part and now it is your turn. Remember, it is you who have claimed that there are 121 mistranslations in the NIV. Prove it! With even one stinkin' verse.

They have, 121 times. That's not to say the KJV is perfect, because there is no such thing as a perfect translation. However, there is areason why even Zondervan and other bible producing groups call the NIV a thought for thought Translation.

Now you're just being ridiculous. First, I could easily find post after post by you and level this same silly charge. Are you for real? Second, all I'm attempting to do is defend the NIV and, hence, those of us using it from the baseless charge that we are somehow lesser Christians - if Christians at all - for using this, as it has been called elsewhere, "false Bible." A little education is also my goal so that you will understand just how ridiculous these charges of mistranslations are.

I'm sure you could, afterall, there are 5000 of them to sift through, there have to be some times I've slipped. However, I'll glady tell you that when I argue scripture, God is the one I seek to glorify, and I am sure to make that Known. If I do slip, then God's word compells you to tell me, as Solo has. 8-) Thanks Solo.

If you haven't read some of my other previous posts, I've called out the brothers of our faith who trash those taught through an NIV. However, that doesn't give us the right to insult them. We are taught to Rebuke them in Love, not just because we want to be right, which is the message that is ringing loud and clear through your posts. That may not be your intent, but I'm not the only one who has been mislead by your words.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

I'll agree that the NIV is probably not the greatest translation but to say that it is false is not correct. No, Bible is one hundred percent error free. They are all translations of the orginal Greek and Hebrew text so, there is bound to be some information lost in translation.

My personal Bible favorites are:

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

and

The Concordant Literal Old/New Testament

 

[asb4God]

Let's address this idea of yours that the burden is on us to disprove statements you make about the 121 verses.

Now, if all you had said was "There are 121 verses in which the NIV and the KJV differ in translation," and then you listed those 121 verses, you would have nothing more to prove. The statement stands on its own merits. Yes, the two translations do, in fact, differ in these places.

But, what you have instead done is to say that those 121 verses are "mistranslated" in the NIV. To that, YOU have the burden of proving. To say the NIV has "mistranslated" is to suggest not only a better translation, which you have implied by showing the KJV translation, but you have the burden of proving WHY you believe the KJV translation is better. Get it? You are making a statement that you cannot ultimately prove and so you shift the burden of proof onto us. It doesn't work that way in any academic discussion. If you've spent one day in college then you know with certainty that what I am saying is true.

YOU have stated the NIV is mistranslated in these locations. Prove it.

Not one of you KJO/KJP folks have yet done that. My challenge awaits a willing soul to prove it.

Scott 8-)

 

[Blazin Bones]

The issue of Mistranslation lies in the fact that the NIV does not include all manuscripts in it's translation. The KJV utilizes all possible manuscripts.

The common rebutal is in the fact that the NIV provides these parts missing in the foot notes. They mention that these verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts. However, the oldest doesn't make it the best. The KJV provides these verse that are found in the majority of manuscripts. This is where some draw the claim of mistranslated. This is also why I stand with the NASB. They do add the controversial passages, but they keep them bracketed, and also add the foot notes. I feel this is the most effective way to translate.

In addition, it has been made clear that the NIV has shortened certain passages. This too is grounds for mistranslation, however again, most cases of shortening arealso related to omission, and goes back to the last paragraph.

As for your challenge, I've never challenged that the NIV can not be used to establish doctrine. Therefore I have no reason to argue the point.

 

[cly]

I'm not going to argue with you folks simply because I don't have the knowledge required to argue with you. I do, however, want to remind you that the Bible says (regardless of translation) that we are to love and respect one another. It irks me to see people get this upset over things like this. (I'm not saying that Bible translation isn't important, but should it really split us this much?) Therefore, I've got a few verses for you, and I'm putting them here in the two translations in question.

NIV Translation (because it's right in front of me at the moment)

Colossians 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

KJV Translation

Colossians verse And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
2 Timothy verse And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

 

[D46]

There are many errors and ommissions in quite a few of the modern version with the NIV and NASB being among the top ten worse. For instance in the KJV it is written...

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The NIV says...Mark 1:2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way.

This is a lie...it is NOT written in Isaiah but in Malachi 3:1

Malachi 3:1 (KJV) Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

1Timothy 3:16 (KJV) 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.

NIV...1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

Appeared in a body? We ALL have appeared in a body???

Let's go to another one. How about Luke 2:33...

Lu 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The NIV says...Luke 2:33 The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

I don't believe Josehp was Jesus' father. This takes away from the diety of Christ and the virgin birth.

Ok, another...Colossians 1:14 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Does the NIV, NASB, etc have something against the blood of Christ?

COLOSSIANS 1:14 In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.(NIV)

Where's the blood? What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Revelation 1:11 (KJV) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 1:11(NIV) Which said: Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.

Where is God's announcement of being from the beginning, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last? The NIV, NASB, etc., leave it out. There is a warning for taking away from the preserved word of God.

2Corinthians 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Corinthians 2:17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God. (NIV)

There's abig difference between corrupt and "peddle" wouldn't you think? This is not even touching the tip of the iceberg with these corrupt modern versions. The verses are either omitted, changed or explained away in the margin as "not found in the oldest and best MSS". Strange no one ever tells you who or what the MSS are. I confronted a salesman at a local bookstore about several versions to ask why that statement was in the NIV, NASB, etc but not in the KJ bible. He couldn't answer so, I gave him a few historical notes and links to check out as to what they were as he had never heard of the Sianiticus or Vaticanus, which are the very MSS these corrupt modern version are talking about.

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote: "If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."

This is the crux of the matter; does God preserve that Word which He originally inspired? And if so, to what extent? Is it merely the concepts and basic message that is kept intact; or does preservation, as inspiration, extend to the words themselves? I believe God has the capability of preserving his words and they were not preserved in the modern Origen and Clement backed bibles sold today which have the brand of Westcott and Hort all over the inside.

Are we doomed to hell for reading the NIV, NASB, NLT NAB, CEB, NEV, etc? I don't think so but, why read Dick and Jane when you can read Shelly and Keats or Shakespeare? I prefer the unadulterated word of God which comes only from the King James Bible.

 

[D46]

...also eliminated via a marginal note are Mark 16:9-20...eleven whole verses of scripture gone. I have a 1978 version of the NIV that has this in the text but explains it away in the margin below as "The two most reliable early MSS do not have Mark 16:9-20." We already know what these two are...heretical endorsements from Gnostics out of Egypt and found in trash can at the foot of Mt. Sinai and the other covered with dust in the Vatican. Now, there's two works I'd really put a lot of trust in. :roll:

Also missing is 1 John 5:7...
1John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Again, the NIV explains it away with a note-"This verse not found in the oldest and best MSS." The old devil has really had a heyday with this and other versions. Either omit it or explain it away and cast doubt as to the validity of the scriptures. Way to go, Lucifer...you've done well with your deceit. "Yea, hath God said..."

 

[Vic C.]

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The NIV says...Mark 1:2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way.

This is a lie...it is NOT written in Isaiah but in Malachi 3:1

I had forgotten about that. :-?

 

[D46]

Another NIV blunder...

(NIV) 2 Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.


(KJV) 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

David slew Goliath...not Elhanan.

 

[cubedbee]

Another NIV blunder...

(NIV) 2 Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.


(KJV) 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

David slew Goliath...not Elhanan.

Actually, another clear example of the KJV translators adding their own material to the Bible.

Pick up your KJV Bible, and if it's a decent printing, you will notice that there are many, usually minor, words throughout the Bible that are either italicized or in [square brackets]. The introduction of your Bible should tell you that these words were not in the original manuscripts, but were added by the translators to make the translation more clear.

Now, let's quote the KJV from an online translation that includes the bracketed words. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Sa/2Sa021.html#19

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

So why did the KJV translators add this phrase? Besides the fact that we know David killed Goliath, this same man Elhanan is talked about in 1 Chronicles 20:5, and that verse really does say "the brother of" in the original manuscripts.

So, we have a descrepancy between the Hebrew manuscripts of 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel. That it is universally agreed upon. The two translations are just taking different approaches.

The NIV translates the 2 Samuel manuscript as it reads, and puts a footnote about 1 Chronicles. The KJV manuscript adds to the 2 Samuel translation, taking the info from Chronicles and inserting it into the 2 Samuel verse. Doesn't the first approach seem much more honest and much more respectful to the original Scriptures, written in Hebrew?

 

[asb4God]

Doesn't the first approach seem much more honest and much more respectful to the original Scriptures, written in Hebrew?

Yes. Yes it does. :D

Trying to explain this to KJV-types is almost like trying to hold sand in your hand because the KJV only argument is ALWAYS circular in reasoning. They cannot get past the faulty reasoning to the honest intellectual debate. It is not possible.

Oh, well. It is fun to educate nevertheless. So, let's keep doing it.

Part of the problem is that KJO folks start at this starting point: The KJV is the standard by which MVs are judged.

The rest of us, educated and trained in Greek, Hebrew, translation, exegesis and the like, start at this starting point: The Greek and Hebrew ancient documents are the standard by which ALL versions are to be judged.

Only in this way is the KJV and the NIV and others placed on a level playing field and judged by the same standard. This is a level of logic which escapes those with a priori biases and no real education in logic, research, scientific study and the like. And who said education was optional?! :o

Instead we get statements like this: "those that understand the scripture as the holy Spirit interprets."

You can't argue against that. It is ethereal. It has no meaning. It has no objectivity. It's like saying "the problem of inner-city poverty can be best solved by Saturn is a planet."

Scott 8-)

 

[asb4God]

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The NIV says...Mark 1:2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way.

This is a lie...it is NOT written in Isaiah but in Malachi 3:1

I had forgotten about that. :-?

Silliness.

In almost EVERY version other than the KJV it says "Isaiah," not "the prophets." Why do you suppose that is??? Wait, I'll tell you...it's in the Greek. I looked it up just last night. What I did not do was look in my aparatus to determine what ancient texts had "Isaiah" and when those texts were written, which, in reality, wouldn't much matter anyway would it, as KJV folks have already - on these fora - determined that those ancient texts are bad, bad I tell you, bad texts! because - and we're back to the circular reasoning - because they are not 9th Century Byzantine, but 3rd Century "corrupt" texts.

Now, there is another issue here. Often OT quotations in the NT are conflations of various OT texts. So, yes, "prophets" would be true in the strict sense because Mark 1:2 is dealing with a conflation, but "prophets" is a later reading than "Isaiah" and less justifiable considering all that we (or most of we) know about ancient documents and text criticism.

In sum, to call it a "lie," while dramatic and full of rhetorical flourish, is to be simply ignorant of the many issues surrounding this verse, its transmission and translation.

Scott 8-)

 

[D46]

1 Chronicles 20:5 (KJV) And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

This is what my bible says of 1 Chronicles 20:5 with no italisized words about Goliah or of his brother. And of 2 Samuel 21:19....

2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV) And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Either way you slice it, no indication of Elhanan slaying Goliath. Here's Poole's commentary on this subject.

2Sa 21:19
Ver. 19. Elhanan. The brother of Goliath the Gittite: the relative word brother is not in the Hebrew text, but is fitly supplied out of the parallel place, 1Ch 20:5, where it is expressed. And such defects of relatives are not unusual in Scripture. Thus the word wife is understood, Mt 1:6; Joh 19:25; and father or mother, Mr 15:40,47, compared with Mr 16:1; Lu 24:10; and son, Mt 4:21; Mr 2:14; Joh 21:15; and brother, Lu 6:16, compared with Jude 1:1. Although the place may be and is otherwise rendered, Elhanan, the son of Jaare-oregiro, slew Beth-halachmi, or Lahmi, (as he is called by way of abbreviation, 1Ch 20:5, which is very frequent in the Hebrew tongue,) who was (which words are frequently understood in the Hebrew text) with (so eth is oft rendered, as hath been noted before) Goliath the Gittite, i.e. in his company, bred up with him to the war, and related to him as his brother. Or, he slew Beth-halachmi, a Goliath (or another Goliath) of Gath, or the Gittite. So the name of the giant was Beth-halachmi, who may be here called Goliath, not only for his near relation to him, being his brother, but for his exact resemblance of him in feature, or in stature and strength, or in courage and military skill; as John the Baptist was called Elias for the like reason. Peradventure also, after the death of the first and famous Goliath the Gittite, 1Sa 17:1-58, that name was either given to him by others, or taken by himself.

The rest of us, educated and trained in Greek, Hebrew, translation, exegesis and the like, start at this starting point: The Greek and Hebrew ancient documents are the standard by which ALL versions are to be judged

OK, Aristotle...which Greek have you studied? Aleph1, Aleph 2 or 3, or perhaps Westcott and Hort, Griesback, Erasmus, Lachman or Nestles-Alands(if so, which edition between 1 and 26?) Maybe even the Aland/USB version. Since there are no originals, which one? Maybe if you were as educated as you perceive yourself to be, you may even have learned something from the Textus Receptus. Some people are a legend in their own mind! :-?

The Alexandrian mss have been proven to be corrupt and faulty for longer than any of us have been alive. Unless of course, one still clings to the fallacies of the Western boys from Egypt who were Gnostics and didn't believe in the diety of Christ one whit. If your heros are Philo, Plato, Origen, Clement then you may very well be on your way to the New Age movement so prevalent in the corruptions of the NIV and other Aleph and B translations. The "great philosophers" were the heros of Origen and Clement.We are asssuredly moving toward this New Age rapidly when man is elevated above God and the man of sin will be revealed. It's prophecy and no one can deny it.

Speaking of elevating man, Plato indicated that God made "mortal creatures" to be like Gods. Clement believed the aim of the Gnostic was to become like God. And Origen once said"...the end of life then...is the progressive assimilation of man to God."

Enough said, I'm going to enjoy Friday evening!

 

[asb4God]

OK, Aristotle...which Greek have you studied? Aleph1, Aleph 2 or 3, or perhaps Westcott and Hort, Griesback, Erasmus, Lachman or Nestles-Alands(if so, which edition between 1 and 26?) Maybe even the Aland/USB version.

Actually, Theophrastus, what you have listed is not a Greek which one would study. One can study Classical Greek, Koine Greek or modern Greek, such as one would study if traveling to the Greek Isles. So, to answer your off-base question: Koine Greek.

Since there are no originals, which one?

Now you are speaking of the ancient Greek MSS? No, there are no "original" manuscripts, what we call "autographs," but there are a series of documents created at different times and in different places. What the KJO person must do is to discount those documents which do not support their a priori prejudiced view. That is an intellectually dishonest and inferior position to take.

Maybe if you were as educated as you perceive yourself to be,

Actually, I am exactly and precisely "as educated as (I) perceive" myself to be.

you may even have learned something from the Textus Receptus.

I know exactly what the Textus Receptus is. What would you have had me learn from it that I have apparently not??

Some people are a legend in their own mind!

And others, like me, take a sober judgment of themselves and are not intimidated and threatened by those whose insights are different from their own, especially when coming from a place of greater education and understanding.

I have yet to find even 1 KJO or KJP person on these fora who are able to make a clear and objective case for KJO which agrees with anything the rest of us understand as modern scholarship.

The Alexandrian mss have been proven to be corrupt and faulty for longer than any of us have been alive.

That statement alone evinces a profound ignorance of the nature of ancient documents, their transmission and translation. I have dealt with this point elsewhere and I will leave the research to you.

Unless of course, one still clings to the fallacies of the Western boys from Egypt who were Gnostics and didn't believe in the diety of Christ one whit. If your heres are Philo, Plato, Origen, Clement

"Ad hominem" attacks, such as what you are doing by discounting these various men, only weaken your argument inasmuch as it is not in any way relevant who these people were. What is relevant is what the ancient MSS say and our determination as to how they came to say what they say.

then you may very well be on your way to the New Age movement so prevalent in the corruptions of the NIV and other Aleph and B translations. We are asssuredly moving toward this New Age rapidly when man is elevated above God and the man of sin will be revealed. It's prophecy and no one can deny it.

Prophecy as you see it. I guess we are all privileged to be in the presence of the one who is able to discern it all so clearly. Do you see the problem here?

Speaking of elevating man, Plato indicated that God made "mortal creatures" to be like Gods. Clement believed the aim of the Gnostic was to become like God. And Origen once said"...the end of life then...is the progressive assimilation of man to God."

That is all smoke screen. It is irrelevant to the discussion. I know you KJV folks don't understand this, but I've already cleared this up for you above.

Enough said, I'm going to enjoy Friday evening!

And I wish you well.

Scott 8-)