Sword Or A Butterknife?

[nymusicman]

I have an NIV/KJV Parallel Bible. I see these two translations side by side everyday, and they basically say the same thing. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the Life, No one comes to the Father except through Him. In some points where the King James is a weaker translation, the NIV helps out ALOT. Besides that, I can actually read the NIV. Such as that passage in 2Corinthians that I just plain can't read in King James...

2Corinthians 6:11-13 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

I read over that about 5 times, and still had NO clue what this was even talking about... But it's not really that big of an issue... To me, the best Bible in the world is the Bible you READ!

I'm a little curious, Why do you believe the KJV has weak areas? Was that something you Pastor told you? Or a friend? Or a Deacon? I just can't possibly understand how a youth can compare to texts he knows nothing about and call one weak and one strong. Have you studied this issue? Have you listened to KJVO speakers defend the KJVO position? I'm sorry, but this just baffles me, as to how in the world any person not fully studied on both positions would know the KJV has weak text and the NIV is absolutely secure in everything it says. DUH. Okay, I'll calm down and get off this horse now.

As far as the verse you don't understand, may I suggest a Websters 1828 or 1917 edition dictionary. 1828 Is better, but either of those two would suffice. When you know the meanings of the words a whole to world will open up to you in the Word of God. By the way, both of these dictionaries are easily accessible and searchable via the internet.

[Alimantado]

Let me give a few reasons why you should definitely not' date=' under no circumstances be an NIV man.... First of all Zondervan (Seller and copyright holder of NIV) is owned by NewsCorp Intl., owner of Fox networks and Harper Collins Publishing... Harper Collins publishes Anton La Vey's Satanic Bible... The conclusion we can draw from this is, every time a NIV is bought, we are encouraging the company that sells the satanic bible to grow.[/quote']
Not to wade into the versions argument, but very few books or products of any kind would pass this kind of test.

In the UK, the copyright holder of the AV is The Crown. Accordingly, only Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press are are allowed to print the AV. Both of these publishers have also printed works by the likes of Richard Dawkins. And of course the universities these publishers are part of have educated many notable atheists/evolutionists/communists etc etc. They also conduct a lot of research the average Christian wouldn't take kindly to, such as stem cell research.

So best not to buy UK editions of the AV?

[nymusicman]

I apologize, I did not know that these were the only two sources of AV's in the UK. That's a real shame. If I lived in the UK, I would probably still try to avoid (just me personally, I'm not telling anybody what to do) buying from these sources, but I do understand that ridiculous shipping prices would probably make that very hard. It's also disappointing because Cambridge puts out some aboslutely beautiful Bibles. Sometimes I also forget that here in America we have more opportunity to choose to buy from a variety of businesses without worrying about the material coming from overseas.

I think that there are even still more reasons to stay away from Newscorp material other than just the Satanic Bible. I will leave that to each individual's own discretion though.

[Alimantado]

No need to apologise, Nymusicman. I was just using that as an example of how difficult it would be not to inadvertently support some kind of 'dodgy' institution through what you buy/patronise. I realise it wasn't your main point, anyway.

[Guest Guest]

I'm a little curious, Why do you believe the KJV has weak areas? Was that something you Pastor told you? Or a friend? Or a Deacon? I just can't possibly understand how a youth can compare to texts he knows nothing about and call one weak and one strong. Have you studied this issue? Have you listened to KJVO speakers defend the KJVO position? I'm sorry, but this just baffles me, as to how in the world any person not fully studied on both positions would know the KJV has weak text and the NIV is absolutely secure in everything it says. DUH. Okay, I'll calm down and get off this horse now.

As far as the verse you don't understand, may I suggest a Websters 1828 or 1917 edition dictionary. 1828 Is better, but either of those two would suffice. When you know the meanings of the words a whole to world will open up to you in the Word of God. By the way, both of these dictionaries are easily accessible and searchable via the internet.

I haven't studied this at all and have no knowledge in this area??? Wow, I didn't know that!

Seriously dude, I know a thing or two about the KJVO argument. And trust me, I've heard just about every argument that KJVOs have come up with. It just doesn't make sense, it's illogical, and childish to me. And yes, the KJV has weak points, just as EVERY other version does. Some more than others. And it's absurd to say that the NIV is absolutely secure in everything it says. It has it's weak points just as every other version.

And as a side note... I'd rather just read my Bible by itself, rather than have to whip out a dictionary for every two words I read.

[nymusicman]

I haven't studied this at all and have no knowledge in this area??? Wow, I didn't know that!

Seriously dude, I know a thing or two about the KJVO argument. And trust me, I've heard just about every argument that KJVOs have come up with. It just doesn't make sense, it's illogical, and childish to me. And yes, the KJV has weak points, just as EVERY other version does. Some more than others. And it's absurd to say that the NIV is absolutely secure in everything it says. It has it's weak points just as every other version.

And as a side note... I'd rather just read my Bible by itself, rather than have to whip out a dictionary for every two words I read.

Okay, the sarcasm was fair. I shouldn't have flipped out like that on a forum, I'm sorry. If you have truly heard every argument and know the whole story, I just don't see how it doesn't make sense to you. A manuscript in use every day will wear out, one that is never used will not wear out. God promised to preserve his Word for all generations. Now the way I see it, if the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable and in spots they completely disagree with the KJV and each other (hence, weak points as you say) then every Christian from we'll say 1200 (just playing with numbers here) to the 1870's did not have the true Word of God. And we must sort through all the ancient texts to figure out what the true word of God says.

In Genesis Chapter 1, was it the first day, the second day, etc... or a first day, a second day, etc... Did God really make the world in six days? (I use this example because this is the one that got me all rattled about the issues.).

Now we have an example of different Bible arguments just starting in the first chapter of the whole Bible. I guarantee, we can go through each and every chapter and find something along these means.

Nobody, not a single person has ever proven the King James wrong or has proven a single contradiction that cannot be accounted for in the King James. There are several that can be pointed out in the modern versions, i.e. who did kill Goliath anyway?

I just think that if you are going to take God at his Word and his Word (modern versions included in this example) says that he has preserved it from the generation of David, forever. Psalm 33:11 says "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations" (i.e. every single one). God has given us the toughts of his heart, that is his Word, and the only way for every generations after the time of Christ to have God's pure Words, the ones that are tried and true, is via the Majority Text (or Textus Receptus, or Byzantine Texts, or whatever you want to call them). If you say it was the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus than God is a liar, because at least four or five generations (probably way more) have not known God's true Word. The very Word that could stand the test of fire, which I believe after 400 I would say the King James has done and after 2000 years +/- 90 years the Byzantine texts have done.

Personally, I don't see how information like this doesn't make sense.

[Guest Guest]

Okay, the sarcasm was fair. I shouldn't have flipped out like that on a forum, I'm sorry. If you have truly heard every argument and know the whole story, I just don't see how it doesn't make sense to you. A manuscript in use every day will wear out, one that is never used will not wear out. God promised to preserve his Word for all generations. Now the way I see it, if the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable and in spots they completely disagree with the KJV and each other (hence, weak points as you say) then every Christian from we'll say 1200 (just playing with numbers here) to the 1870's did not have the true Word of God. And we must sort through all the ancient texts to figure out what the true word of God says.

In Genesis Chapter 1, was it the first day, the second day, etc... or a first day, a second day, etc... Did God really make the world in six days? (I use this example because this is the one that got me all rattled about the issues.).

Now we have an example of different Bible arguments just starting in the first chapter of the whole Bible. I guarantee, we can go through each and every chapter and find something along these means.

Nobody, not a single person has ever proven the King James wrong or has proven a single contradiction that cannot be accounted for in the King James. There are several that can be pointed out in the modern versions, i.e. who did kill Goliath anyway?

I just think that if you are going to take God at his Word and his Word (modern versions included in this example) says that he has preserved it from the generation of David, forever. Psalm 33:11 says "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations" (i.e. every single one). God has given us the toughts of his heart, that is his Word, and the only way for every generations after the time of Christ to have God's pure Words, the ones that are tried and true, is via the Majority Text (or Textus Receptus, or Byzantine Texts, or whatever you want to call them). If you say it was the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus than God is a liar, because at least four or five generations (probably way more) have not known God's true Word. The very Word that could stand the test of fire, which I believe after 400 I would say the King James has done and after 2000 years +/- 90 years the Byzantine texts have done.

Personally, I don't see how information like this doesn't make sense.

No KJV contradictions? really?

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

???

Besides that, are you aware of how many texts were available to the KJV translators in the Early 17th century?

[RayJr]

If you read gen 22:1 in context, you will see that it is actually was talking about God testing Abraham not tempting Him to do something wrong.

[nymusicman]

No KJV contradictions? really?

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

???

Besides that, are you aware of how many texts were available to the KJV translators in the Early 17th century?

If you read gen 22:1 in context' date=' you will see that it is actually was talking about God testing Abraham not tempting Him to do something wrong.[/quote']

Now that, that question is answered, yes I am aware of how many texts the King James translators had available, including the Vaticanus, which they openly rejected, unlike out genius scholars today, who have accepted this heresy to the Word of God.

[RayJr]

:clap: :goodpost:

[Guest Guest]

Still haven't answered the question as to the contradiction, actually... It's still a contradiction, even with the context included. Temepted is tempted. Whether or not God really was testing Abraham(which He was), the King James is very much so in error saying tempted in Genesis 22:1. A mistake it may be, it's admittedly an honest mistake. The word for testing and tempting is the same word in Hebrew and in Koine Greek. The King James translators didn't take context into account in this instance. Most modern translators took the context into consideration:

NIV
Genesis 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

NASB
Genesis 22:1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."

NLT
Genesis 22:1 Some time later, God tested Abraham?s faith. ?Abraham!? God called.
?Yes,? he replied. ?Here I am.?

NCV
Genesis 22:1 After these things God tested Abraham's faith. God said to him, "Abraham!"
And he answered, "Here I am."

There are plenty of other places in the King James that had poor translation work as well. Such as in Luke 14:26.

And how is the Vaticanus a heresy???

[RayJr]

no its not tempted also means tested and when used in context you should understand that.

We only use the KJV here on this website, we do not use those books here.

Strongs
H5254
???
n

[Guest Guest]

no its not tempted also means tested and when used in context you should understand that.

Care to use commas, please? It took me a little bit before I even understood what you said here... just a side note.
And tempting and testing do NOT mean the same thing

tempting - An attempt to get someone to sin with the intention of harming or destroying the faith of the temptee (something satan does)

testing - A trial to see if the one being tested will remain faithful. Intention of growing faith, which will happen if the test is passed. But if the test is failed, it may or may not end up that the one tested chooses sin.

We only use the KJV here on this website' date=' we do not use those books here.[/quote']

Sorry, I was just referencing other Bibles to prove a point. Whether or not you use those bibles, they translate the same message in this context.

[nymusicman]

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,tempt

According to our trusty Webster's 1828, definition 5.

5. In Scripture, to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof.

God did tempt Abraham. Gen.22.

Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God. Deut.6

.

God promised to preserve his Word, not our English language. This means if we are to understand his Word in the English language we should study and know a little of how people in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries thought.

[RayJr]

What can I say? You have to read more than one verse, to get the meaning. tempted means the same as tested in this context. I don't know what else to say your making it harder than it has to be.