Which is the true Bible

[D4Christ]

... They may be older, but that does not make them accurate at all. Scribes did make mistakes and usually those mistakes were corrected and the previous mms with the error is destroyed.

So, other than the method by which they were found, which we know is disputed... and the fact that other older scriptures were also found and given to other seekers such as Donati and Uspenskij (which were not discovered in a trash can) what proof do you have that the older manuscripts are not accurate?

Is there something you know about the dating of the ancient texts that is flawed? Or perhpas are the text radically different from the scriptures we ascribe to today? My research has revealed 20 verses in question......out of thousands.

 

[D4Christ]

I noticed a tiny asterisk mark (*) next to Colossians 2:9 in the NLT. I looked to the bottom to see what the footnote said... "Greek in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Do you see what is happening here? To make everybody happy, the NLT Bible-corrupters completely removed "Godhead" to appease the liberals, but then they've also placed the truth in a little footnote in an attempt to appease conservative protestants.

Godhead means divinity not trinity
<O:p</O:p

"Godhead:The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him. "Godhead" is thus the Saxon equivalent of the Latin "Divinity," or, as it is now becoming more usual to say, "Deity." Like these terms it is rendered concrete by prefixing the article to it. As "the Divinity," "the Deity," so also "the Godhead" is only another way of saying "God," except that when we say "the Divinity," "the Deity," "the Godhead," we are saying "God" more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call "God."

<O:p</O:p
The word "Godhead" occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (Acts 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9), and oddly enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek words, to theion theiotes, theotes.
<O:p</O:p
To theion means "that which is Divine," concretely, or, shortly, "the Deity." Among the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of "the Divine Being," and particularly as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by Paul (Acts 17:29) in an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in which it is flanked by the simple term "God" (ho Theos) on both sides. It is obviously deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into which it is brought with the term "man."…
<O:p</O:p
Neither of these terms, "Divinity," "Deity," occurs anywhere in the King James Version, and "Deity" does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) either; but the Revised Version (British and American) (following the Rhemish version) substitutes "Dignity" for "Godhead" in Rom 1:20. Of the two, "Dignity" was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. "Deity" was introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be emphasized….
<O:p</O:p
The Greek term in Rom 1:20 is theiotes, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by "Godhead." What Paul says here is that "the everlasting power and Godhead" of God "are clearly perceived by means of His works." By "Godhead" he clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by "God." By coupling the word with "power," Paul no doubt intimates that his mind is resting especially upon those qualities which enter most intimately into and constitute the exaltation of God; but we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term--all of God's attributes are glorious….The substitution for "Godhead" here of its synonym "Divinity" by the Revised Version (British and American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive renderings to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly than "Godhead" in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication which is so strong in theiotes….
<O:p</O:p

It is theotes which occurs in Col 2:9. Here Paul declares that "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ "bodily." The phrase "fullness of the Godhead" is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood...
<O:p</O:p

The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level… Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term "Godhead," in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert--that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term "God," dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism."
<O:p</O:p
Benjamin B. Warfield

 

[AKJVReader]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.0 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20110809;19230000"><meta name="CHANGED" content="20110809;19381000"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H6 { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> Philippians 2:6 - The King James Bible clearly proclaims that Jesus Christ did NOT consider it robbery to be EQUAL with God. Yet the Amplified version echoes the same deception as the NIV...that Jesus couldn't GRASP equality with God. Folks, someone's wrong here. You've basically got one of two choices to make as far as "WHICH BIBLE?" to accept today.



<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.0 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20110809;19230000"><meta name="CHANGED" content="20110809;19381000"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H6 { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style>

 

[Free]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.0 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20110809;19230000"><meta name="CHANGED" content="20110809;19381000"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H6 { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> Philippians 2:6 - The King James Bible clearly proclaims that Jesus Christ did NOT consider it robbery to be EQUAL with God. Yet the Amplified version echoes the same deception as the NIV...that Jesus couldn't GRASP equality with God. Folks, someone's wrong here. You've basically got one of two choices to make as far as "WHICH BIBLE?" to accept today. <meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.0 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20110809;19230000"><meta name="CHANGED" content="20110809;19381000"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H6 { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style>

Yes, someone is wrong. Both renderings are saying the same thing.

 

[AKJVReader]

You are referencing Chick!? :bigfrown One has to be really nitpicking to dismiss the NKJV, MKJV and the other translations put out by Green, Young's Literal... not to mention Tyndale and Wycliffe.

I cant believe you typed that. Chick is a Christian ministry that has helped many people find the Lord Jesus Christ. So they cant be trusted?

Ok about the NKJV, it is plain on Chick's site where the errors are in it. And i could find many other websites. However here is a great sermon:

"What would you think of someone who said, that "the message of the cross is foolishness"? And what would you say if they told you to "hate the double-minded"? This is exactly what the New King James Version says in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Psalm 119:113!

In this study we look at the NKJV, and compare it to God's holy word, the King James Bible. You will be shocked at how the NKJV perverts vital doctrines in the scriptures. The NKJV even goes so far as to change Exodus 3:14 to read identical to the wording in the 2001 Catechism of the Catholic church!!

The NKJV destroys the prophecy spoken by Noah in Genesis 9:26. They cover up the reason for Satan's fall in Ezekiel 28:6-10. And the NKJV translators remove the command to follow Christ and God, and instead tell their readers to "imitate" God and Christ!

If you use a New King James Version, I ask you to please listen to this VERY important message! The NKJV is nothing more than another attempt by Rome to replace the bible of the Protestant Reformation, the KJV.

Sound too radical? Please note that the NKJV is published by "Thomas Nelson", who also print many Catholic books!

You will also see referrence to the "NU text" in the footnotes of the New Testament books. The N means the "Nestle's" Greek text, and the U stands for the "United Bible Society" Greek text. Both of these texts are made under the Vatican's supervision!"

Doctrines of Devils in the NKJV - SermonAudio.com

How is this nitpicking? The word of God should be more important to us Christians?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Why are there unicorns in the KJV and why, in some verses, do they have more than one horn?

 

[handy]

So the proper question isn't something like "why did the NIV omit Acts 8:37?" The proper question is "What did Luke write?" We don't want to omit 8:37 if Luke wrote it. Nor do we want to add it if he didn't write it. No matter how orthodox the verse may be we don't want to add it if it wasn't written by Luke.

This bears repeating.

 

[handy]

You are referencing Chick!? :bigfrown

I cant believe you typed that. Chick is a Christian ministry that has helped many people find the Lord Jesus Christ. So they cant be trusted?

I find this ironic as even David J. Stewart puts Jack Chick on the "wolves" list...right up there with C.S. Lewis.

(Realize that this is off topic...but nonetheless decided to throw it in the mix.)

Now...totopic

The fact that the manuscripts were found in the garbage is important.

As has been mentioned "older" doesn't necessarily mean "more accurate" and TrustGzus makes the premier point...that which is "older" isn't necessarily "most accurate", it's what is closest to what Luke (or any of the other inspired writers of the original texts) wrote that we need to be concerned about.

I don't think we need to view the KJV as the only "true" Bible out there, although it is certainly a good translation. But, there are other very good translations as well, and when one uses a variety and checks out older manuscripts and such, the original message does indeed shine through.

 

[jasoncran]

i hate to be non english speaker and come to the lord and not have the kjv.

please. if the bible has good sources for translation then what does it matter.

no bible is perfect, each of them will have issues.

 

[reba]

God may will have used King James in 1600 but guess what it is not 1600 any more...

I love the KJB it is the text i use most often. It is not infallible they made corrections from the beginning...

Praise the Most High God we have different translations, the blessing we have today with the internet and the ease of printing etc. Shall we not glory in all that is true and wonderful that He has given us.

God did not NEED King James, get a grip. I stand on the Word of God . Not of any translator. These folks who have convinced themselves the have found the secret key!

 

[ronniechoate34]

God may will have used King James in 1600 but guess what it is not 1600 any more...

I love the KJB it is the text i use most often. It is not infallible they made corrections from the beginning...

Praise the Most High God we have different translations, the blessing we have today with the internet and the ease of printing etc. Shall we not glory in all that is true and wonderful that He has given us.

God did not NEED King James, get a grip. I stand on the Word of God . Not of any translator. These folks who have convinced themselves the have found the secret key!

So, you don't believe that God wanted us to have His words in any kind of a pure form. Is that right?

 

[jasoncran]

paul and the lord spoke english?

 

[EricTheBaptist]

The one true Bible is the original Hebrew Bible. I don't care about what anyone says.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

God may will have used King James in 1600 but guess what it is not 1600 any more...

It is not infallible

Besides the fact it contradicts the original Bible. I mean it says "Thou shalt not kill" when the original Hebrew Bible says "Thou shalt not kill without just reason" because of this slight change in words every Atheist out there will tell you God is a hypocrite.

 

[jasoncran]

The one true Bible is the original Hebrew Bible. I don't care about what anyone says.

while i am not kjvo,but kjvp. i have a hebrew tanakh that is translated from hebrew to english(kjv era) that is from the same masoretic text.

word for word the same as the ot in the kjv. my grandparents used that tanakh and spoke hebrew. grandpa taught. it was good enough for them.

 

[reba]

So, you don't believe that God wanted us to have His words in any kind of a pure form. Is that right?

I dont have a clue where this came from? Are you saying the KJB is pure?

We have the Hebrew Didn't Jesus speak Arabic? Luke Greek? Paul was versed in a couple languages.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Will some one please help me to understand this? There are many people here who call the Bible the Word of God, and yet they don't seem to believe that they actually do have the Word of God available to them.


How can this be? Either we have the Word of God or we don't. If it's only a mixture the Word of God and the words of men that we have then how can we trust any of it?


I'm confused.

 

[Chris]

I think a lot of the bibles are ok. I personally like the New international version. I steer clear of the Message as i think it looses something in its translation. the KJV is too hard to read.


My personal opinion Holy books are ok even some of those Apocrypha books are too like in the catholic bible.

I have never understood why Enoch is not included. It is in Ethiopian bibles. Try something you can understand easy enough and the lord will speak to you through it. if you find that one it is the correct one for you. He has privided many right ones for many people to understand.

 

[reba]

Will some one please help me to understand this? There are many people here who call the Bible the Word of God, and yet they don't seem to believe that they actually do have the Word of God available to them.


How can this be? Either we have the Word of God or we don't. If it's only a mixture the Word of God and the words of men that we have then how can we trust any of it?


I'm confused.

Your not confused your working to cause confusion. I have read enough of your posts .....

 

[ronniechoate34]

Your not confused your working to cause confusion. I have read enough of your posts .....

Is this how you help people to understand things, by attacking them?


That's not very helpful.


Does anyone else care to help me understand this? I'm truly confused. Why would I make that up?


Would some one please help me to understand this? There are many people here who call the Bible the Word of God, and yet they don't seem to believe that they actually do have the Word of God available to them.


How can this be? Either we have the Word of God or we don't. If it's only a mixture the Word of God and the words of men that we have then how can we trust any of it?