Bible Historicity

(Jordan;64080)
KJV was made (or published) in the year 1611.ESV is made (or published) in the year 2001.What did God say about removing bible verses? (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19)You're telling me to calm down, when I'm not even hyper. In fact I'm in a good and smile mood. Sometimes it makes me wonder if you are saying some things just to avoid seeing the Truth.
LOL... what in the world does the date the bibles were published have to do with anything? Hint: nothing. Remember, Jesus did not speak Elizabethan English!! LOL... there is nothing especially holy about writing that was written by some British guys in the late 1500's and early 1600's.Which version of the King James do you read? I highly doubt that it is the 1611 version, at least based on what I have seen you post. So which version of the King James Version is THE correct version? The one published in 1611? Or the one you probably read, from 1769? So which version is THE version to have and to read?Now I think that the KJV was a good version, especially considering what the original translators had to work with as far as Greek manuscripts go... God has surely blessed their efforts, and some of my favorite teachers used the KJV, John Bunyan, John Gill, and Charles Spurgeon for instance, so I have nothing against the KJV per se. I do have something against people who want to try and force me to read the bible of their choice though. The circular reasoning and hypocrisy that comes from the KJV only people is, at times, unbelievable.They often ASSUME that the KJV is THE correct version, and then any time some other version of the Bible differs from it, then it is wrong, it has "added to God's word" or "removed from God's word". This is called "circular reasoning" and it is irrational. Its entirely possible that the KJV added or removed words from God's word. But the very thing we need to find out is, which version is best? We can't decide this by arbitrarily assuming ahead of time that the KJV is in fact the best version, and then reject any version that differs from it, because we have assumed that the KJV is THE standard by which all other bible translations must be measured. So just because another version differs from the KJV, it does not mean that they "subtracted from God's word", perhaps the KJV translators unknowingly or accidentally added words that were not in the original manuscripts, or maybe they added words from the family of manuscripts they used, but we have since learned that those manuscripts are not the best or most accurate manuscripts.In any case, do not be fooled by the lists the KJV only people out out "proving" that other translations "tamper with God's word". You might want to ask them WHICH KJV it is that proves other version have tampered with God's word? Often, the KJV only person will not even be aware that they do not even use the 1611 version of the KJV, instead they use a much later edition, the 1769. The 1611 is very difficult to read and uses a great deal more archaic language and archaic spelling then the 1769 version does. For instance, Consider the following from the 1611 KJV:Joh 1:7-39 KJV-1611 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue. (8) Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light. (9) That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world. (10) Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (11) Hee came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not. (12) But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue on his Name: (13) Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among vs (& we beheld his glory, the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father) full of grace and trueth. (15) Iohn bare witnesse of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that commeth after me, is preferred before me, for he was before me. (16) And of his fulnesse haue all wee receiued, and grace for grace. (17) For the Law was giuen by Moses, but grace and trueth came by Iesus Christ. (18) No man hath seene God at any time: the onely begotten Sonne, which is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him. (19) And this is the record of Iohn, when the Iewes sent Priests and Leuites from Hierusalem, to aske him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And hee answered, No. (22) Then said they vnto him, Who art thou, that we may giue an answere to them that sent vs? What sayest thou of thy selfe? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wildernesse: Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the Prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent, were of the Pharises. (25) And they asked him, and said vnto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet? (26) Iohn answered them, saying, I baptize with water, but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not, (27) He it is, who comming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to vnloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Iordane, where Iohn was baptizing. (29) The next day, Iohn seeth Iesus comming vnto him, and saith, Behold the Lambe of God, which taketh away the sinne of the world. (30) This is he of whom I said, After me commeth a man, which is preferred before me: for he was before me. (31) And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therfore am I come baptizing with water. (32) And Iohn bare record saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heauen, like a Doue, and it abode vpon him. (33) And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said vnto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, & remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost. (34) And I saw, and bare record, that this is the sonne of God. (35) Againe the next day after, Iohn stood, and two of his disciples. (36) And looking vpon Iesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lambe of God. (37) And the two disciples heard him speake, and they followed Iesus. (38) Then Iesus turned, and saw them following, and saith vnto them, What seeke ye? They said vnto him, Rabbi, (which is to say being interpreted, Master) where dwellest thou? (39) He saith vnto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth houre."Now here is the 1769 version of the KJV on the same passage:Joh 1:7-39 KJV (7) The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. (8) He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. (9) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (15) John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (16) And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. (17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. (29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (30) This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. (31) And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (32) And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. (33) And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (34) And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. (35) Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; (36) And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! (37) And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. (38) Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? (39) He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour."having said how much I respect the KJV, here is a "list" .... a partial listing... of King James Version translation errors:Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing.We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. Unjustified Additions to the KJV Derived From Latin Vulgate, Not in Greek TextThese additions should be omitted from the KJV:Matthew 27:35 "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This verse appears properly in John 19:24.John 8:9-10 Delete: "being convicted by their own conscience . . . unto the last . . . alone . . . and saw none but the woman . . . those thine accusers." The Greek properly reads: "But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left with the woman being before him. Jesus lifted himself up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'"Acts 9:5-6 "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him . . . ."Acts 10:6 "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"Acts 10:21 "which were sent unto him from Cornelius"Acts 21:8 "that were of Paul's company" Romans 13:9 "Thou shalt not bear false witness" Romans 16:20 "Amen" Colossians 1:14 "through his blood" Hebrews 2:7 "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" Hebrews 11:13 "and were persuaded of them and embraced them" Hebrews 12:20 "or with a dart shot through" 1 John 2:23 "(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" is placed in italics in the KJV. The Greek Text omits this portion entirely.1 John 5:7-8 "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these thee are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" As previously explained, this is not part of the original Greek text.Revelation 1:8 "the beginning and the ending" Revelation 1:11 "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and . . . which are in Asia" Revelation 1:20 "which thou sawest" Revelation 2:17 "to eat of" Revelation 5:4 "and to read" Revelation 5:14 "four and twenty . . . him that lives forever and ever" Revelation 11:1 "and the angel stood" Revelation 12:12 "the inhabiters of" Revelation 14:5 "before the throne of God" Revelation 15:2 "over his mark" Revelation 16:7 "another out of" Revelation 16:14 "of the earth and" Revelation 21:3 "and be their God" "blessings,Ken

(tomwebster;64114)
I also prefer the KJV and a Strong's; in fact I use a KJV Companion Bible, edited by E.W. Bullinger. But we also need to be aware of the fact that the Strong's has been published by a number of publishers and some are much better than others. Also, it is important to have knowledge of the structure used in Scripture and the fact that Greek Grammar does not always translate to English very well and the grammatical differences do not always show up in the Strong's. If the reader does not have some knowledge of Greek grammar, checking other versions can be useful. Some of you might want to check out a site like: http://www.biblicalgreek.org/
Yes, I agree. I use the The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1984 edition, with Greek, Hebrew and Chaldee dictionaries, published by Nelson publishers. This is the last version before new publishers came in and edited it and changed the meaning of some of the Greek, Hebrew and Chaldean words. Even the online version of Strong's is different in some translations. Older versions of Thayer's are good, too. So, yes, we do need to be very careful and make comparisons to older translations, then use good judgment as to what makes sense and what does not. Also use the accompanying Greek and Hebrew Lexicons to trace original meanings and translations.What ever Bible translation we choose, the best are always going to be the ones that are directly translated from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek languages. The opening pages of most Bibles will tell you who published it and how it was translated. And yes, also knowledge of Hebrew and Greek prime root words, sentence structure, and etymology is also very helpful. Of course, all these things come with time. But anyone can do this.Then most importantly, never read the Bible with your own preconceptions. Let the Holy Spirit guide and teach you how to read the passages. Never assume you understand anything until you've read passages over and over again, gone into the original languages and compared them to other passages to see if certain meanings are comparable. In most cases, the Bible teaches you and tells you the meanings of certain figures of speech, symbols and metaphors. So we need to understand the WHOLE bible, not just parts of it. The answers are there. Afterall, this is God's grand instruction manual to us, is it not?And Jesus said to his disciples, he must go so the Comforter/Teacher/Holy Spirit would come to them and instruct them in all things. We need to listen to "The Teacher". We cannot read and understand the Bible without "revelation knowledge" from God.Kim

(Dad of 3;64194)
...So does everyone basically agree that the KJV is the best to use in general, not just in debating Mormons?
KJV still the best, even for debating Mormons about Mormonism. Why? Cause KJV has been proven to be the best translation in number of years, even today. It's almost 4 Centuries old. God's Words already found fault in that religion.

(Dad of 3;64194)
I'll try to address the responses individually where needed.To KKBOLDT: I'm very well versed in what Mormons believe and have been researching this for about 10 years. They have their playbooks ready, yes, but I know them, too, and can counter them without much trouble. I've read most of their standard works except the entire KVJ and I have a quad somewhere around here, too. I even have a photocopy of the 1830 version of the BOM, which is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against them because it shows all of the original errors, grammatical and otherwise. When shown to be a literal translation of the plates, that the printer didn't change anything of importance, and that their god (small G) and his word is the same, always and forever, it creates a real problem for them. I also bought a BOM student manual, which has proved very valuable because the teaching manuals are really the only place to find the church's position on any given topic.To EPISTEMANIAC: I own a well-worn copy of the Farkas and Reed book: Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors. It's the best resource I own, because it goes to the heart of the matter, unlike Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, which is full of good information, but is too lengthy and dense for quick reference. I'd like to own a copy of the Mormons Answered Verse by Verse book, just to see how best to respond to the "other sheep" verse from John 18 I believe it is. Thanks for the comment about humility. I know what I know and what I know most is that I don't know much. I try to keep an open mind until I have all the information I can get before making a decision.Now what is the Strong's part of the KJV? A breakdown of terms and possible meanings, I assume. I know that words like the German todensucht doesn't really translate into English well and to say it's "longing for death" may be a simplification, but that's as close as one can get. The same would go for Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, I assume.So does everyone basically agree that the KJV is the best to use in general, not just in debating Mormons?
I dont think anyone could disagree with that Dad of 3 we may personally prefer different bibles but you need something that is always the same easy to cross reference and every Morman has access to easily and can check you out. If you use this link you will see what I mean about a Strongs (but first read below) http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm#searchClick on Word and phrase in the box type in any word or phrase from scriptureIn this case lets try "Angel" click search ....Its brings up every verse in the KJB that uses the Word "Angel"...Now see the little tiny number by each Word? when you click on that little number it takes you to the original Word in the Hebrew or Greek and its meaning ...much like a dictionary ... In this case We see "angel" # 4397mal'ak Pronunciation mal·äk' (Key) Part of Speech masculine nounfrom an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy Outline of Biblical Usage 1) messenger, representativea) messenger angelc) the theophanic angel So we can see Angel is a messenger /a represenitiveThere are sometimes more than one Word used in Hebrew and Greek that is translated the same in English So sometimes you will see a verse has the same English word ... but a different number ...try the Word AdamYou will see Gen. 2:19 Adam is word number 120 click and read the meaningclick your back arrow ...Now if you look in verse Gen.2:21 you will see Adam is number 121..click on the number .. the meaning is completely differentNow look at the root word above right. (H120) that will tell you they are connected If you put all the Words from both numbers together with Root Words from both you almost get a picture Adam can either mean A man or mankind (men)Adam means red (show red in the face i.e. blush) Its also a great help if your looking for a particular verse but cant remember where it is just put in a word or phrase and scan the verses till you find what you are looking for.

("Dad of 3")
Now what is the Strong's part of the KJV? A breakdown of terms and possible meanings, I assume. I know that words like the German todensucht doesn't really translate into English well and to say it's "longing for death" may be a simplification, but that's as close as one can get. The same would go for Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, I assume.So does everyone basically agree that the KJV is the best to use in general, not just in debating Mormons?
You can go to this e-sword web site to download a free KJV bible with Strong's concordance. You only have to put your pointer over the word and the Strong's translation/definition pops up. The software is safe to use without spyware or other stuff that freeware stuff often has. I built all our computers around this house and only put in the software I wanted and am very picky that not just anything goes on them because a lot of software uses too many resources.The KJV is certainly my most favorite, tried and true translation as already mentioned. And it has the benefits of being the translation to use for freeware such as the type I pointed out without resorting to expensive Bible programs that are only lining someone else's pockets but probably are no better.

(tim_from_pa;64198)
You can go to this e-sword web site to download a free KJV bible with Strong's concordance. You only have to put your pointer over the word and the Strong's translation/definition pops up. The software is safe to use without spyware or other stuff that freeware stuff often has. I built all our computers around this house and only put in the software I wanted and am very picky that not just anything goes on them because a lot of software uses too many resources.The KJV is certainly my most favorite, tried and true translation as already mentioned. And it has the benefits of being the translation to use for freeware such as the type I pointed out without resorting to expensive Bible programs that are only lining someone else's pockets but probably are no better.
I like esword also and use it all the time. It has a great place for notes and has many different translations available for cross-reference. The one thing I have noticed though is the Strong's is not the full version, so I also still use my Strong's by Hendrickson quite often. And my KJV Companion Bible edited by Bullinger.After using esword for a while I ordered the full CD from esword, which you can get for a $15.00 donation. You can download esword from there web site with a large variety of Bible version, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, maps, etc. for free, but it takes a while to download some of them because they are big files. The cd is faster.If anyone is interested in learning some Greek http://www.biblicalgreek.org/ is an interesting site.THE COMPANION BIBLE PDF FILES are available for free download at: http://companion-bible.com/ Again these are big files and take a while to download. If you purchase a Companion Bible do not get the Condensed version or the pocket version, they are not as good as the full version: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...&Go.x=18&Go.y=9

We have E-Sword loaded, too, at home. My husband loves it! For quick reference, I like to use the blueletterbible.org. for translation comparisons and quick searches.Kim

On another related point: is the Nicean Conference a reliable standard for having chosen the books that are included in the Bible? (quote)Yes, we now know in this modern age the books that weren't included are for the most part available to read. There is really little that we are not told in the scriptures, Some were left out because they were considered to have been altered or inaccurate in some minor details, others because they were repeats, some were details of historical facts but not necessary to scripture, others like some of the Apocrypha were more in depth details of events that we are told in scripture. But it is quite complete in its current form. Remember God says he has foretold us all things that means all important things we need to know. Its been the same plan from Gen. to Rev. and the Apostels and the prophets knew it God didnt suddenly decide he had forgot a whole book whether the Mormons think so or not, do they thinlk God that inadaquite?Dont know if you have read this but maybe you can use it with someone http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/sttestimony.php

(kkboldt;64117)
Yes, I agree. I use the The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1984 edition, with Greek, Hebrew and Chaldee dictionaries, published by Nelson publishers. This is the last version before new publishers came in and edited it and changed the meaning of some of the Greek, Hebrew and Chaldean words. Even the online version of Strong's is different in some translations. Older versions of Thayer's are good, too. So, yes, we do need to be very careful and make comparisons to older translations, then use good judgment as to what makes sense and what does not. Also use the accompanying Greek and Hebrew Lexicons to trace original meanings and translations.What ever Bible translation we choose, the best are always going to be the ones that are directly translated from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek languages. The opening pages of most Bibles will tell you who published it and how it was translated. And yes, also knowledge of Hebrew and Greek prime root words, sentence structure, and etymology is also very helpful. Of course, all these things come with time. But anyone can do this.Then most importantly, never read the Bible with your own preconceptions. Let the Holy Spirit guide and teach you how to read the passages. Never assume you understand anything until you've read passages over and over again, gone into the original languages and compared them to other passages to see if certain meanings are comparable. In most cases, the Bible teaches you and tells you the meanings of certain figures of speech, symbols and metaphors. So we need to understand the WHOLE bible, not just parts of it. The answers are there. Afterall, this is God's grand instruction manual to us, is it not?And Jesus said to his disciples, he must go so the Comforter/Teacher/Holy Spirit would come to them and instruct them in all things. We need to listen to "The Teacher". We cannot read and understand the Bible without "revelation knowledge" from God.Kim
EXCELLENT points!!Though not true in an absolute sense, eg it's saying that intentionally over states the case, the best bible to get is one you actually read!!blessings,Ken

Well, the best bible ever use is the one the uses the Byzantine Texts. The ones that uses the Alexandrian Texts are the ones that clearly hates Christ... So they twist His Words.

I haven't read yet the few new pages since I first read first page so forgive me if my comments already made. Why bother debating them if they not want listen.(Jesus didn't goto debate the pharisees?, tho he did answer when they came to him.)Just because there is one translation of BkofMormon doesn't mean smith translated it more correctly than the bible translations/translators. Where are the original language tablets or copies?Do they put BoM above or below Bible?(As for other mormon texts didn't Jose Smith say BoM comes before all other Mormon docs & covs?)If they say its not translated correctly they have to provide a "truer" translation of the verse. (If they give their own individual interp then are they better than all others?)What do they support/base their points with other than/if not Bible/KJV.Mormon ("mor(e)+mon") comes from NT Roman(s) ("rom(e)+man"). Bk of Mormon names are seemingly all similar alterations of KJV names: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alt-origins/message/275(exlcd some more recent additions like Ether - ephesians? etc.) bible is the One highest/truest of all books, (what's theirs?) (Quality not quantity.)While 72/70 is found in biblical eg (septuagint,) sanhedrin, table of nations, etc, 72/70 is also found in heathen eg 72 duodekans of zodiac/hidden planets of theosophy, 72 kustis, 72 conspirators vs Osiris, (septuagint), etc.Go by the Hebrew number of books.I found (& still alot) similar when faced with issues of "trinitarian vs unitarian" (on thechristadelphians forum) and "do gentile christians have to keep saturday-sabbath/commandements" (on messianic judaism group), (and witnessing).The trinity one was solved for me by being aware when reading bible and so I happened to find undeniable verse(s) affirming trinity/deity of JC.The sabbath/comms one was much resolved for me by looking up & objectively reading/analysing/studying relevant chapters, though the issue is not wholly clear due to "complexity" of the whole issue.Search, study, read bible daily, ask, councils (like C of Jerusalem), interpret scripture with scripture, listen bible-on-tape, resources (tables, word-pics, classic books/studies, creeds, Chuck Milser, lexicons, etc), faith.The whole Law is summed up in 2 (love Lord, love neighbour). What is the simplest summary words/verses/creed of biblical christianity? that might perhaps be some relief to not knowing all / in progressively reading(learning)as to versions:I not sure but perhaps most versions is modern english? what about older/non-english translations?living Word is Jesus. ask Lord/pray(er). holy spirit. spirit of the law. what would Jesus say/Jesus see thru you?"We are the only bible most non-christians will ever read":fruits, living-, changed lives, love, joy, power/signs/miracles/healing, testimony, spirit of law.The un/righteous lives of the translation(s) translator(s)Wyclif, Coverdale, Luther; Gnostics.Aside from comparing versions with versions &/or with original language texts/lexicons (which is a drag/pain), also, scriptures interpret/backup scriptures (&/or context). (There is also the oral message come down thru the ages from Jesus thru apostles thru christian believers to you and me. And perhaps we have an equivalent of rabbis/authorities?)I exhaustively analyse/study the english text (&/or argument of person debating) word by word for any/all possible meanings.what version do they think is most historically/actually reliable?2 issues: version you & mormons dis/agree on, &/or interpretation/translation/meaning you dis/agree on?as to bible (not version(s)) actual historicity/reliability there is tons more evidence than book of mormon....

(tim_from_pa;64087)
There is a lot of controversy which translation is better, but whether or not it is written, the KJV is a most marvelous translation to last all these years. And although it has its rough spots, was translated with no denominational ax to grind.The issue I have with most other translations is the fact that man "copyrights" these translations and when I have a web site that quotes long passages of scripture, I do not appreciate that I must ask permission from man to quote supposedly God's word. Maybe because it is not God's Word any longer for God would see to it that such blasphemy would not go on in His Name.The KJV is in public domain.And lastly, here's probably one of the most important things I noticed about the KJV translation. It was made in the same time in history as the 3rd overturn of the throne of King David. (Ezekiel 21:27). It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is".Many other translations incorrectly translate the word "overturn" in Ezekiel 21:27 to "ruin". Ruin implies a termination, whereas overturn (Or "overthrow" in the Strong's concordance) are synonyms that basically mean a change in order. God clearly promised an eternal lineage and operation of this earthly throne, not a ruin.BTW, I measured my blood pressure yesterday and it was 121/75 (Not bad for a 49-year-old) (Insider knowledge.)
I agree, the KJV has served God's people very very well for a long time....as far as having no axe to grind, that is not exactly true, first because no one is neutral, no one is without bias.... but secondly, it is a matter of historical fact that the King of England did not like the version of the Bible that was most popular with the people at that time, namely the Geneva Bible. "While other English translations failed to capture the hearts of the reading public, the Geneva Bible was instantly popular. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions appeared. For forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of the home. Oliver Cromwell used extracts from the Geneva Bible for his Soldier's Pocket Bible which he issued to the army." (The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation, By Gary DeMar) The King did not like the translation, and he liked the notes in the margin even less, especially those that called into question some decisions made by kings, because apparently no one had any right to ever question the motives and actions of a king! "A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshiping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom." (ibid) Thirdly, that there was indeed an axe to grind, the translation committee was made up entirely of members of the Church of England, this means that this influenced them as they did their translation work, how could it not? The Church of England was the only allowed church in England at the time, they were against the Puritans on the one hand, and the Roman Catholics on the other, this too had to influence them as they did their work. They did a great job, don't get me wrong, but they did not work in a historical vacuum. As far as the copyright deal goes, I agree, somewhat, but, on the other hand, the bible says a workman is worth his wages, I think the people who took time off their regular jobs to help on translation committees should get paid, after all, they probably have families to feed, and if they are not getting paid from their regular job because they are devoting time to studying the manuscripts and making decisions regarding the proper translation of the Holy Bible into English, and very very important job, then they ought to be paid for their time. Also, it costs something to print the bibles, and to put covers on them, whether they be paper, cardboard or leather. In any case, the printing process is not free, so there is nothing wrong in paying for this aspect as well. What I do not like is the publishing companies getting rich off God's word long after these costs have been paid off.As far as the KJV being public domain, that is true, except in England. "In most of the world, the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds perpetual Crown copyright to the Authorized Version. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, HarperCollins and the Queen's Printers have the right to produce the Authorized Version." (wikipedia)Further, on this point, there are numerous other bibles that are in public domain as well, The World English Bible, The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible, The Sacred Bible, etc...I don't know about whole " 3rd overturn of the throne of King David" issue.... but as far as "It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is"." you still have to ask..... which KJV is "meant to be eternal"? The 1611 version/edition? The 1769? The American King James Version?As far as choosing a bible only if it correctly translates (In your opinion) one word in one verse, that seems a little shaky.... if... IF that is what you are saying..... or to put it another way, if one's theological system depends on a a certain translation of one single verse in the bible, that system might not have enough biblical support. Doing my own checking on the use of the word "overthrow" I found "‏עַוָּה‎ [See Stg: ]ʿawwāh: A feminine noun indicating a ruin, an overturning. It indicates the overthrow of something, turning it into rubble so that it no longer exists or functions (Ezek. 21:27[32])." (Complete Word Study Dictionary, The)"1577b †‏עַוָּה‎ (ʿawwâ) ruin." (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament)while Strong's does indeed indicate "overthrow", "to ruin" is an acceptable translation as evidenced above. The translations I read seemed pretty well equally divided on "ruin" versus "overthrow", with some translators choosing "injustice", which does not seem to fit the context of the discussion at all..... in any case, if a kingdom is cast into ruins, it is overthrown, and if it is overthrown, it is cast into ruin. The Modern King James Version puts it like this: (MKJV) Ruin, ruin, ruin, I will appoint it. Also this shall not be until the coming of Him whose is the right. And I will give it to Him." "Eze 21:27 I will overturn - I will utterly destroy the Jewish government. Perverted will I make it. Heb. perverted, perverted, perverted I will make it." --- Clarke"21:24–27 “Therefore” introduces the fundamental reason for Judah’s exile: “open rebellion” against God. The “profane and wicked prince of Israel” is a reference to Zedekiah (v. 25); he would lose his crown, and the kingdom of Judah would end (v. 26). The crown would be held in reserve until “he comes to whom it rightfully belongs” (v. 27). This messianic prophecy echoes the words of Gen 49:10, which depicts the Messiah as a future King (see also Ps 2:6; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 37:24; Zech 6:12–15). Zedekiah would be dethroned and humiliated (vv. 25–27), and his kingdom, including Jerusalem, would be a ruin (v. 27).39—New American Commentary21:24-27. God then pronounced judgment on the people (v. 24) and the prince (vv. 25-27). Because of open rebellion, Jerusalem’s people would be taken captive. They felt secure in their city, but they would be forcibly torn from it and dragged in chains to Babylon.The profane and wicked prince of Israel was King Zedekiah. Because he violated his oath of allegiance to Babylon, he would be deposed. Zedekiah was stripped of authority (his turban and crown were removed), blinded, and imprisoned for life in Babylon (2 Kings 25:4-7). The once-proud king was humbled (the exalted will be brought low). The lowly (“poorest people of the land,” 2 Kings 25:12) who were allowed to remain took his place in managing the land for Babylon.The right to rule in Israel was taken from Zedekiah, and the land was destroyed. Ezekiel’s triple use of ruin stressed that Israel’s throne was to be absolutely desolate. It will not be restored until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to Him I will give it. This prophecy recalls Genesis 49:10, which speaks of “the scepter” in the line of Judah. The line of David would not be restored till the righteous, God-appointed King would come. There were no valid claims till Christ rode into Jerusalem to claim His rightful rule (cf. Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:1-11; Rev. 19:11-16; 20:4). Christ will fulfill Ezekiel’s prophecy; He will be the King of Israel.—Bible Knowledge Commentary"Eze_21:27It shall be no more - Or, “This also shall not be;” the present state of things shall not continue: all shall be confusion “until He come” to whom the dominion belongs of right. Not Zedekiah but Jeconiah and his descendants were the rightful heirs of David’s throne. Through the restoration of the true line was there hope for Judah (compare Gen_49:10), the promised King in whom all power shall rest - the Son of David - Messiah the Prince. Thus the prophecy of destruction ends for Judah in the promise of restoration (as in Eze_20:40 ff)." --- BarnesThanks for sharing your interpretation of this passage with me, looking itno it further, I got a chance to study an area of Scripture I do not study often.Blessings,Ken

(epistemaniac;64292)
(tim_from_pa;64087)
There is a lot of controversy which translation is better, but whether or not it is written, the KJV is a most marvelous translation to last all these years. And although it has its rough spots, was translated with no denominational ax to grind.The issue I have with most other translations is the fact that man "copyrights" these translations and when I have a web site that quotes long passages of scripture, I do not appreciate that I must ask permission from man to quote supposedly God's word. Maybe because it is not God's Word any longer for God would see to it that such blasphemy would not go on in His Name.The KJV is in public domain.And lastly, here's probably one of the most important things I noticed about the KJV translation. It was made in the same time in history as the 3rd overturn of the throne of King David. (Ezekiel 21:27). It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is".Many other translations incorrectly translate the word "overturn" in Ezekiel 21:27 to "ruin". Ruin implies a termination, whereas overturn (Or "overthrow" in the Strong's concordance) are synonyms that basically mean a change in order. God clearly promised an eternal lineage and operation of this earthly throne, not a ruin.BTW, I measured my blood pressure yesterday and it was 121/75 (Not bad for a 49-year-old) (Insider knowledge.)
I agree, the KJV has served God's people very very well for a long time....as far as having no axe to grind, that is not exactly true, first because no one is neutral, no one is without bias.... but secondly, it is a matter of historical fact that the King of England did not like the version of the Bible that was most popular with the people at that time, namely the Geneva Bible. "While other English translations failed to capture the hearts of the reading public, the Geneva Bible was instantly popular. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions appeared. For forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of the home. Oliver Cromwell used extracts from the Geneva Bible for his Soldier's Pocket Bible which he issued to the army." The King did not like the translation, and he liked the notes in the margin even less, especially those that called into question some decisions made by kings, because apparently no one had any right to ever question the motives and actions of a king! "A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshiping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom." Thirdly, that there was indeed an axe to grind, the translation committee was made up entirely of members of the Church of England, this means that this influenced them as they did their translation work, how could it not? The Church of England was the only allowed church in England at the time, they were against the Puritans one the one hand, and the Roman Catholics on the other, this too had to influence them as they did their work. They did a great job, don't get me wrong, but they did not work in a historical vacuum. As far as the copyright deal goes, I agree, somewhat, but, on the other hand, the bible says a workman is worth his wages, I think the people who took time off their regular jobs to help on translation committees should get paid, after all, they probably have families to feed, and if they are not getting paid from their regular job because they are devoting time to studying the manuscripts and making decisions regarding the proper translation of the Holy Bible into English, and very very important job, then they ought to be paid for their time. Also, it costs something to print the bibles, and to put covers on them, whether they be paper, cardboard or leather. In any case, the printing process is not free, so there is nothing wrong in paying for this aspect as well. What I do not like is the publishing companies getting rich off God's word long after these costs have been paid off.As far as the KJV being public domain, that is true, except in England. "In most of the world, the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds perpetual Crown copyright to the Authorized Version. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, HarperCollins and the Queen's Printers have the right to produce the Authorized Version." (wikipedia)Further, on this point, there are numerous other bibles that are in public domain as well, The World English Bible, The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible, The Sacred Bible, etc...I don't know about whole " 3rd overturn of the throne of King David" issue.... but as far as "It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is"." you still have to ask..... which KJV is "meant to be eternal"? The 1611 version/edition? The 1769? The American King James Version?As far as choosing a bible only if it correctly translates (In your opinion) one word in one verse, that seems a little shaky.... if... IF that is what you are saying..... or to put it another way, if one's theological system depends on a a certain translation of one single verse in the bible, that system might not have enough biblical support. Doing my own checking on the use of the word "overthrow" I found "‏עַוָּה‎ [See Stg: ]ʿawwāh: A feminine noun indicating a ruin, an overturning. It indicates the overthrow of something, turning it into rubble so that it no longer exists or functions (Ezek. 21:27[32])." (Complete Word Study Dictionary, The)"1577b †‏עַוָּה‎ (ʿawwâ) ruin." (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament)while Strong's does indeed indicate "overthrow", "to ruin" is an acceptable translation as evidenced above. The translations I read seemed pretty well equally divided on "ruin" versus "overthrow", with some translators choosing "injustice", which does not seem to fit the context of the discussion at all..... in any case, if a kingdom is cast into ruins, it is overthrown, and if it is overthrown, it is cast into ruin. The Modern King James Version puts it like this: (MKJV) Ruin, ruin, ruin, I will appoint it. Also this shall not be until the coming of Him whose is the right. And I will give it to Him." "Eze 21:27 I will overturn - I will utterly destroy the Jewish government. Perverted will I make it. Heb. perverted, perverted, perverted I will make it." --- Clarke"21:24–27 “Therefore” introduces the fundamental reason for Judah’s exile: “open rebellion” against God. The “profane and wicked prince of Israel” is a reference to Zedekiah (v. 25); he would lose his crown, and the kingdom of Judah would end (v. 26). The crown would be held in reserve until “he comes to whom it rightfully belongs” (v. 27). This messianic prophecy echoes the words of Gen 49:10, which depicts the Messiah as a future King (see also Ps 2:6; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 37:24; Zech 6:12–15). Zedekiah would be dethroned and humiliated (vv. 25–27), and his kingdom, including Jerusalem, would be a ruin (v. 27).39—New American Commentary21:24-27. God then pronounced judgment on the people (v. 24) and the prince (vv. 25-27). Because of open rebellion, Jerusalem’s people would be taken captive. They felt secure in their city, but they would be forcibly torn from it and dragged in chains to Babylon.The profane and wicked prince of Israel was King Zedekiah. Because he violated his oath of allegiance to Babylon, he would be deposed. Zedekiah was stripped of authority (his turban and crown were removed), blinded, and imprisoned for life in Babylon (2 Kings 25:4-7). The once-proud king was humbled (the exalted will be brought low). The lowly (“poorest people of the land,” 2 Kings 25:12) who were allowed to remain took his place in managing the land for Babylon.The right to rule in Israel was taken from Zedekiah, and the land was destroyed. Ezekiel’s triple use of ruin stressed that Israel’s throne was to be absolutely desolate. It will not be restored until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to Him I will give it. This prophecy recalls Genesis 49:10, which speaks of “the scepter” in the line of Judah. The line of David would not be restored till the righteous, God-appointed King would come. There were no valid claims till Christ rode into Jerusalem to claim His rightful rule (cf. Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:1-11; Rev. 19:11-16; 20:4). Christ will fulfill Ezekiel’s prophecy; He will be the King of Israel.—Bible Knowledge Commentary"Eze_21:27It shall be no more - Or, “This also shall not be;” the present state of things shall not continue: all shall be confusion “until He come” to whom the dominion belongs of right. Not Zedekiah but Jeconiah and his descendants were the rightful heirs of David’s throne. Through the restoration of the true line was there hope for Judah (compare Gen_49:10), the promised King in whom all power shall rest - the Son of David - Messiah the Prince. Thus the prophecy of destruction ends for Judah in the promise of restoration (as in Eze_20:40 ff)." --- BarnesThanks for sharing your interpretation of this passage with me, looking itno it further, I got a chance to study an area of Scripture I do not study often.Blessings,KenYet you say modern versions are better? Ones that attack Christ and hates Him, so they twist His Words. The fact is God will never allow men to copyright His Words, because He knew men loves darkness over light. I guess I'll put the bottom quote for emphasis.(Jordan;64251)
Well, the best bible ever use is the one the uses the Byzantine Texts. The ones that uses the Alexandrian Texts are the ones that clearly hates Christ... So they twist His Words.

(Dad of 3;64194)
To EPISTEMANIAC: I own a well-worn copy of the Farkas and Reed book: Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors. It's the best resource I own, because it goes to the heart of the matter, unlike Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, which is full of good information, but is too lengthy and dense for quick reference. I'd like to own a copy of the Mormons Answered Verse by Verse book, just to see how best to respond to the "other sheep" verse from John 18 I believe it is. Thanks for the comment about humility. I know what I know and what I know most is that I don't know much. I try to keep an open mind until I have all the information I can get before making a decision.Now what is the Strong's part of the KJV? A breakdown of terms and possible meanings, I assume. I know that words like the German todensucht doesn't really translate into English well and to say it's "longing for death" may be a simplification, but that's as close as one can get. The same would go for Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, I assume.So does everyone basically agree that the KJV is the best to use in general, not just in debating Mormons?
Hi again.. thanks for the sane, reasonable discussion The Strongs is not actually part of the KJV at all. "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, generally known as Strong's Concordance, is a concordance of the King James Bible (KJV) that was constructed under the direction of Dr. James Strong (1822–1894) and first published in 1890. Dr. Strong was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary at the time. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text." (wikipedia) Note that Strongs is not itself the Bible, and while you personally may not miss this point, some forget that it is the Bible that is inspired and infallible, and not the Strong's Concordance.You make an excellent point with your example of that German word.... even so-called literal or "word for word" translations are not perfectly word for word, for instance the KJV has many words in it that do not appear in the original manuscripts, and they let you know what words they are by putting those words in italics, well, at least they do in some editions of the KJV.I do not agree that the KJV is the best... and you can easily cross reference numerous translations of the bible that have concordances just like the Strongs which is for the KJV, while other translations have concordances, the NASB does, and so does the ESV. Incidentally both of these versions of the bible are available as freeware bible programs as well... the NASB is available through the Lockman foundation at http://www.lockman.org/download/index.php and the ESV is available free at http://www.sdsoftware.org/default.asp?id=7791.... though the concordances are not free, as far as I know, Strongs was first published in 1890 and is now public domain.... but remember that buying one of these concordances may not necessarily be a bad thing... good Christian men spend a great deal of time and effort on these works and deserve to be paid for their labors, after all, Strongs used to have to be purchased, just like you would have purchase a KJV bible or Strongs concordance in print today. The differences over various bible translations comes down to deciding which family of manuscripts is best. The KJV only folks say that the Textus Receptus manuscript family is better, while those who favor the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NNAS, NIV, ESV, etc etc use the Majority or Alexandrian family. "The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, creating a challenge in handling so many different texts when performing these comparisons. The King James Version (or Authorized Version) was based on the Textus Receptus, an eclectic Greek text prepared by Erasmus based primarily on Byzantine text Greek manuscripts, which make up the majority of existing copies of the NT. The majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition. There remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. These include the editors of the Hodges and Farstad text and the Robinson and Pierpoint text." (wikipedia)however, the issue in deciding which family of manuscripts is best cannot be decided, as some people do, by arguing in a circle like this:the King James Version is the best version,it is based on the textus receptus,therefore, since the KJV is best, the textus receptus is best.This type of irrational argumentation first does not realize that we cannot presume and assume that the KJV is in fact the best, that is what is to be decided.... we can't presume to know ahead of time what it is we are seeking to find out.... and it fails to answer the question: why is the textus receptus best? To answer these questions, which deal with textual criticism, you may want to visit http://www.solagratia.org/categories/view/KJVOnlyism and/or http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html for more on these issuesor http://www.kjvonly.org/other/demystify.htmRemember also that the bible is clear, everybody is a sinner and deserving of death, therefore the translators of the KJV were also un/righteous, sinners as despicable in God's eyes as Wycliff or Luther or anyone else, outside of the grace of God and the covering blood of Jesus atonement.... the translators of the KJV had this to say about themselves:Romans 3:9-18 (KJV) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 6:23a (KJV) For the wages of sin is death;"So it is not the lives of those who have translated that the Bible that matters as much as asking: was their translation accurate? Even a sinner can tell you that 2+2=4, and so also, a sinner can rightly translate a Greek word into an English word. Furthermore, I encourage you to continue to debate as long as you think it profitable, after all, this is what Paul did... Acts 17:1-3 (ESV) Ac 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” Acts 17:16-23 (ESV) Ac 16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. Acts 18:4 (ESV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks." And we are commanded to "debate" such people by the very same Scriptures that tell us to go out and preach the word to everyone, we are supposed to know both what and why we believe what we do...1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"We are also not to cast our pearls before swine, so discernment needs to be utilized as well, if you feel you have said all that you can say, and they are still resistant to God's word, take a break. It doesn't mean you have to stop talking to them forever, just keep studying, keep researching, maybe God will lead you to some information that could be exactly what they need to hear, which God will use to open their blinded eyes and soften their hardened hearts. After all, this is what it took for us, people praying for us (don't neglect this for your Mormon friends!!) and people sharing God's word with us, explaining... reasoning.... defending..... why we must believe in Jesus alone to save us from our sins.There is no authoritative oral tradition passed down from the times of the original apostles, the only ones who believe this way, as far as I know, are Roman Catholics, and they have no way to prove their claims, no one who believed such a thing could prove their claim. How could you prove that an oral "saying" has passed down unchanged from the time of the apostles? We do have teachers, God the Holy spirit has promised them to the church, but we must compare everything anyone says to the Scriptures themselves. Anything that someone might teach which is contrary to what is written, it must be rejected.Comparing English words with it's Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic equivalents is very important to do, whenever you can, not that you have to go through doing this for every word, but the fact is, there are some words that you can derive fuller meaning from looking at the original language, and since we love God's word, it is a labor of love, and not a pain at all.IMHOblessings,Ken

Jordan, can you show me a verse in the KJV that says that God will never allow His word to be copyrighted? If you can't, and lets face it, you can't, then all you are doing is spouting man's reasoning and man's tradition, in this case, a tradition of those who adhere to the KJV only. You can't find the words "the KJV is the only faithful representative of the bible" anywhere within the pages of the Bible. And..... As soon as you can provide one instance of a modern version of the Bible saying exactly and explicitly that it "attacks" and "hates Christ", and remember, I need exact verses, not your interpretations of verses, then I will believe it. Until then, I see no reason to suppose that your opinion, in this matter is true. And it is just opinion, just like your signature lines which makes no use of God's word at all, no offense. And I see no reason whatsoever why your opinion in this matter is somehow automatically better than my opinion. You say that the modern versions twists Christ's words, I doubt it, thats just your opinion, and the traditions of man passed down among the advocates of the KJV only crowd. Oh sure, you may be able to copy and paste lists from KJV only sites of where the KJV and other versions differ from one another, thats easy to do. But this proves nothing. Just because the KJV might differ from other versions, it doesn't mean that the KJV is the right or correct translation. Maybe the KJV is the translation that has got it wrong? In any case, you will never prove your point by simply listing where the KJV differs from other versions, because the only thing that this proves is.... well... lol.... that the KJV differs from other versions!!! And that is not too profound a point at all!!blessings,Ken

(epistemaniac;64548)
Jordan, can you show me a verse in the KJV that says that God will never allow His word to be copyrighted? If you can't, and lets face it, you can't, then all you are doing is spouting man's reasoning and man's tradition, in this case, a tradition of those who adhere to the KJV only. You can't find the words "the KJV is the only faithful representative of the bible" anywhere within the pages of the Bible. And..... As soon as you can provide one instance of a modern version of the Bible saying exactly and explicitly that it "attacks" and "hates Christ", and remember, I need exact verses, not your interpretations of verses, then I will believe it. Until then, I see no reason to suppose that your opinion, in this matter is true. And it is just opinion, just like your signature lines which makes no use of God's word at all, no offense. And I see no reason whatsoever why your opinion in this matter is somehow automatically better than my opinion. You say that the modern versions twists Christ's words, I doubt it, thats just your opinion, and the traditions of man passed down among the advocates of the KJV only crowd. Oh sure, you may be able to copy and paste lists from KJV only sites of where the KJV and other versions differ from one another, thats easy to do. But this proves nothing. Just because the KJV might differ from other versions, it doesn't mean that the KJV is the right or correct translation. Maybe the KJV is the translation that has got it wrong? In any case, you will never prove your point by simply listing where the KJV differs from other versions, because the only thing that this proves is.... well... lol.... that the KJV differs from other versions!!! And that is not too profound a point at all!!blessings,Ken
II Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.Psalm 116:11 - I said in my haste, All men are liars.Hate to break that up, but men hates God, therefore they will copyright claiming their own. You can't see that men has a hidden agenda.Firstly, I just did on [url="http://www.christianityboard.com/bible-historicity-t9376.html]Page 1[/url] of this very thread.Secondly, I am no KJVO person, but I believe this is the one last before all that corruption from the Modern Version did to God's Words.

(Jordan;64563)
II Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.Psalm 116:11 - I said in my haste, All men are liars.Hate to break that up, but men hates God, therefore they will copyright claiming their own. You can't see that men has a hidden agenda.Firstly, I just did on [url="http://www.christianityboard.com/bible-historicity-t9376.html]Page 1[/url] of this very thread.Secondly, I am no KJVO person, but I believe this is the one last before all that corruption from the Modern Version did to God's Words.
Hate to break it to you, but the KJV is copyrighted in the United Kingdom, does that mean that the KJV is evil too, or is it just evil in United Kingdom? "In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds perpetual Crown copyright to the Authorized Version. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, HarperCollins and the Queen's Printers have the right to produce the Authorized Version." (wikipedia)Second, I am very glad that you are not KJVO, why not let persons like myself alone, and say that versions like the NASB and the ESV are good bible translations? Or do you get to decide which translations are good and which aren't for everybody else? Do you get to decide which translations are "modern" and which aren't? If so, I thought that we had left the Roman Catholic Church and no longer had a Pope Could you provide a list of approved versions?blessings,Ken