Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Bible Highlighter]

Bible Highlighter, why do you put " I believe we are to love all others and speak in love, despite our correction of another’s false beliefs" in your "signature" paragraph, yet continually violate it with your combative posts? You don't "speak in love", period.

On a foggy night, if I warned a person (perhaps even argued with them) to not drive over the bridge that was greatly damaged beneath (that they could not see) I would be striving to protect their souls in love. The Bible talks about how we are to hate every false way. Granted, that does not mean I hate the person. I believe we are to love the person and yet hate the false way. So my attack against the false way (my criticism against false beliefs or the false way) can be misunderstood as a lack of love when in reality it is my pleading for folks to obey God's Word in love.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm ignoring most of your reply, but this stood out: "There is nothing to prove. It's obvious. Even sin and still be saved Eternal Security Proponents know that Genesis 19 is talking about Sodomy or homosexuality. To say so otherwise is to be really way off in left field somewhere."

Why can't you understand the difference between the two? The people in Genesis 19 were angry. Genesis 19:4-7, "Before they could lie down to sleep, all the men—both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom—surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can take carnal knowledge of them! Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. He said, “No, my brothers! Don’t act so wickedly!” Then (pious) Lot offered them his two virgin daughters!

Homosexuals are men that love each other. It's like the difference between rape and intercourse.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Your words are not clear.

Are you saying that the Sodomites wanted to:

(a) Gain actual knowledge from the angels? or
(b) To have intimate sexual relations with them by some kind of forced homosexual means? or
(c) Sell them ice cream? or
(d) Talk about sports?​

Maybe your new to the faith or studying the Bible, but it's pretty common knowledge that the word “know” or “knew” is sometimes used in relation to two parties having sex.

Here is an example:

Genesis 4:1 says:

“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived,
and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.”​

Why else would Lot be willing to send out his two daughters to them instead?

 

[Grailhunter]

I agree with you Grail with the exception of God's name. El is not a name rather it is Hebrew for God, as Theos is in Greek. YHWH was His name in Hebrew, and yes like you said it it called the Tetragrammaton. God does not have multiple names, although He does have many titles, YHWH was selected by Him personally and is His only name listed in the Bible.

A little more to add.
The Strong’s is great, especially for the money. Over 95% accurate. It’s errors, are linked to its direct association with the KJV so it inherits all that, and then also the modifications to the Bible.

That last 5% are categorical. When they removed God’s name (YHWH) from the Bible, and replaced it with God or LORD or both, that accounted for nearly 6,000 modifications in the Old Testament alone….not counting the rearranging of words to make the sentences read correctly. So the Strong’s has a lot of references for the word God instead of His name.

In the actual scriptures they very seldom just referred to Yahweh as God, for a very good reason. The Hebrew language is not made up of lower case and upper case letters….just upper case….and the word for God…Yahweh….and the word for false gods….and the word for goddess is the same. So that is why they didn’t like just using God to reference Yahweh.

The other errors are associated with Christianity’s attempt to put a devil and hell in the Old Testament. They did not understand why the devil – Satan was not more apparent in the Old Testament…They could not find a scripture where Yahweh or the prophets warned people about the devil – Satan. They could not find a scripture where Yahweh or the Prophets threatened or warned people about hell in the Old Testament.

In the study of how false beliefs that occurred long ago and have staying power, this is classic and well known. A very interesting study. Satan is not called a devil in the Old Testament and this really confused them. How could it be that Satan was not called the devil in the Old Testament but so clearly a devil in the New Testament?

It was just too much for them! So they went back to the Old Testament and started to insert him….Lucifer into Isaiah….words that they could translate serpent they made it dragon or jackal(s) to dragon. In numbers where his advisories incited King David to number his army…..they got a lot of mileage out of that….Hebrew word for Satan has been translated accuser or advisory.

This went on for centuries. I guess they never thought to get with the Jews about the Hebrew Bible….Why would they do that! LOL Why not ask them about the devil and hell. Well as it turns out the Israelites of the Old Testament did not believe in a devil or a hell and consequently they still do not believe it today. So they do not believe there is a devil that tempts people or a place of torture.

So don’t throw away your Strong’s, its errors, that are categorical are very few, it is just that there is a lot of words in those categories. Very easy to keep track of or annotate.

And we were talking about El as a general name for Yahweh. The name El was very useful because they could get away with using it. So if they wanted to name a shrine or an altar or a town, or even a person after Yahweh they could use this name. For example El-paran, El-elohe-Israel, El-beth-el, and Elisabeth and Elijah are a good examples. El is a name for Yahweh but it means God, but the only true God and it would be completely correct to call it a title.

 

[OzSpen]

See post #254, post #255, and post #256 as a warm up. I actually have 101 reasons why the King James Bible is the Word of God, but I have not made a complete professional write up with verses on all my reasons yet.

See post #254, post #255, and post #256 as a warm up. I actually have 101 reasons why the King James Bible is the Word of God, but I have not made a complete professional write up with verses on all my reasons yet.

BH,

You have not given reasons why the earliest MSS, based on Alexandrian texts, are closest to those of the original writings and thus there was less time to copy, to accumulate variants.

The Textus Receptus (TR by Erasmus) - basis for KJV NT - was compiled centuries later in 1516, thus providing many more opportunities for errors in the text to accumulate. There were compiled editions of the Byzantine text a century earlier than the TR.

The dating of the Alexandrian texts is closer to the original writings, thus giving them less opportunity for changes to be made to the text.

Oz

 

[Bible Highlighter]

BH,

You have not given reasons why the earliest MSS, based on Alexandrian texts, are closest to those of the original writings and thus there was less time to copy, to accumulate variants.

The Textus Receptus (TR by Erasmus) - basis for KJV NT - was compiled centuries later in 1516, thus providing many more opportunities for errors in the text to accumulate. There were compiled editions of the Byzantine text a century earlier than the TR.

The dating of the Alexandrian texts is closer to the original writings, thus giving them less opportunity for changes to be made to the text.

Oz

First, older does not automatically mean something is better. For example: If there was a gnostic manuscript teaching a false religion before the birth of Christ, it would not be more accurate spiritually just because it is older than any later writings of New Testament Scripture. So the whole... “older is better” claim is not a good argument. Second, David H Sorenson provides compelling evidence that the principal manuscripts, foundational to virtually all modern Bible versions—Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus—are not ancient. They, in fact, are of recent origin. Sorenson's book presents powerful evidence that Codex Sinaiticus was actually produced in 1840 and that Codex Vaticanus is no older than the medieval era, with modifications likely made in the 19th century. I managed to get a copy of it before Amazon did not provide any more stock of the book. If you can pick it up, it's definitely an eye opener. Three, the evidence that I presented in my posts to you should be reason enough to abandon your faith in Modern bibles instead of blindly clinging to the words of scholars who are obviously lying to you that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older and better. I presented two posts with 9 doctrines that are altered (for the worse and not for the better) in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the KJB. My third post proves that all your Modern Bibles today that are based on the Nestle and Aland Greek New Testament text was supervised by the Vatican and one of its editors is a Catholic cardinal. If you need further proof that the Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome, you can check out page 21 on the following PDF document of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

So in conclusion: Yes, I did provide reasons that the scholars you are listening to are simply lying to you about the age of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. My posts should have made this evident that they are simply lying.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A little more to add.
The Strong’s is great, especially for the money.

One no longer needs to buy the Strong's Concordance anymore. BlueLetterBible provides the Strong's on their website where you can search key phrases and or words for free.

Make sure you select the desktop version at the bottom of the page (if it is not selected), and then AFTER you do a search on a word, you will notice that there are toolbars at the top of the website with one of them saying Strong's. Select it, and then the Strong's numbers will appear for your search entry. You can click on the Strong's numbers for a particular word and look at every time that word appears in the Hebrew (OT), and Greek (NT).

Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So if you are against the Catholic church, you will favor the one and only Bible that is not influenced by Rome and that is the King James Bible.

You so funny.

Most do not know that all Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

Here it is straight out of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in it’s 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…

Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

I am going to repeat the text and highlight the key points.

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”​

So…

#1. The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies.
#2. Following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies
#3. It has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. (Note: What is the word “it” referring to in this sentence? This could be referring to the text and it is the basis (foundation) for new translations and revisions (Modern Bibles)).
#4. The text is the basis for new bible translations made under their supervision (the Vatican) which marks a significant step in regards to inter confessional relationships. Why does it mark a significant step? Because Carlo Martini (A Catholic cardinal) is an editor on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text.

In fact, let's check out the Nestle and Aland Critical Text page at Wikipedia called:

“Novum Testamentum Graece”

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

Scroll down the page, and you will see pictures of Nestle, and Aland.
Note: Nestle worked on the Critical Text years before Aland.
Kurt Aland is the one who worked on the Critical Text involving the Vatican. How so?

Notice the highlighted words in the pic below.

Carlo Maria Martini.

If you were to zoom in and look at the picture below Kurt Aland:

Again, who is Carlo Maria Martini?

As I said before, he is a Catholic cardinal.

Source:
Carlo Maria Martini - Wikipedia

Important Note: JUST CLICK ON THE LINK FOR CARLO MARIA MARTINI MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

But wait. There’s more. Let’s look at Kurt Aland again. I circled his picture below for you to see him. You can see his name next to his picture.

Now in this photo, you can see Kurt Aland with the pope:

Why?

Because of this:

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

Source:
Nestle and Aland Critical Text - 27the Edition.

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Yes, I am aware that this is an older book by the Catholic Church. But it is still fairly recent (a decade or two ago).

But why bring this up?
See my next post.

Side Note:

Please keep in mind that I am aware that Catholics now have a Catholic version of the KJB (that includes the Apocrypha).
But this came out recently in September of 2020 (Which I believe is yet another change in tactics or strategies of the Vatican).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So if you are against the Catholic church, you will favor the one and only Bible that is not influenced by Rome and that is the King James Bible.

You so funny.

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are taking about the scriptures, one of the Bibles or what they believed back then?

When I speak of the Scriptures, I am talking about how they exist in their current form (i.e. the Holy Bible) of which you think has errors in it. If it has errors in it, then it cannot be the Word of God because everything God does is perfect.

I did not say that. Be careful. God has interacted with man and have give wisdom and revelation for 2000 years.

My apologies. I reread what you wrote and it appears that you are saying that God interacted with man for the past 2,000 years. I thought you were claiming the opposite of that. But I simply misread what you wrote there. My apologies on that one.

Noah did not have the Incarnate Word or Jesus to interact with, and therefore his experience with God was different. Nobody is being commanded to build a boat to avoid a global flood today. So you are confusing different epochs or periods of time with body of believers throughout time. Different time means different instructions and it can even mean a different way of how God communicates to us. For God has written two tablets of stone with His own finger for the Israelites. But God is not doing that today. God communicates to us today by His Word (the Holy Bible). To not understand this in my opinion means one has not had an actual spiritual experience with our Lord Jesus Christ in seeking forgiveness of one's sins according to the Bible and seeing His Word become alive to them. To doubt the Bible means one never really had faith in it to begin with or they fell away from the faith because of some tragedy or false teaching. I don't know your situation or case, and so I cannot say. It's not really my place to say, either. Only God can be your judge ultimately. I am just a messenger of His Word and I am merely relaying to you what it says. If you don't accept all of His Word, that is on you. But that is a dangerous place to be if you do. For nobody who desires to follow Jesus and His Word will speak against the Word. You appear to mock the idea of the Bible being the one and only way for GOD to communicated to us. If God wanted to communicated some other way, then the Bible is not really necessary.

Again idolatry. The Bible is not God. Nothing on this earth is infallible. Faith in the Bible...HMMM....You might try faith in God. And God can communicate with us in many ways.

Okay. You seem to have a problem like many in understanding what idolatry is. If we follow God's instructions that is not idolatry. If God is telling you about Himself in His Word and you believe it, that is not idolatry. So if I follow the Holy Bible in what God desires for my life... that is not idolatry. If I cherish God's words because they are the expressed mind of God, that is not idolatry. For example: One day, a woman receives a letter from her fiancé who lives and works in another country. After she reads the letter she cherishes the words that her fiancé has written and she loves him more because of his touching words that are an expression of his love and heart towards her. But if she started to talk to the letter, kiss it, and take the letter out on dinner dates, then there would be a problem (with the letter being an idol). Most King James Bible Only Christians believe that God is a spirit being and that He is to be worshiped. They generally do not bow before the King James Bible or kiss it, and nor do they think it is the entirety of God's existence or being. They think the Bible is the expressed thoughts or words from GOD. But to say that God's words are in error is simply an attempt at trying to re-write what God said. One either fully believes God's words or they don't believe them (Meaning they are a bible agnostic and not that they are agnostic in general).

Also, to have faith in the Bible means that you are having faith in GOD because God ultimately wrote the Bible. To deny this is to deny the plain and basic teaching of the Bible. Hence, why you fall into the general consensus by fundamental Christians that you are a Liberal. It's because you are being liberal with the text (that is unnatural or not as God intended it to be).

Mostly if there is any questions I translate the manuscripts myself.

But you did not grow up speaking in Bible times speaking, reading, and writing Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek to be any kind of real expert on these languages. You are only guessing as recent scholars were guessing many times. We can only trust that GOD preserved His words perfectly for us today that would have the marks of the divine nature upon it. I believe that this book is the King James Bible for many reasons. 101 reasons to be exact.

 

[Jim B]

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

Unbiased link, right? You must be joking. One obviously biased source is your authority?

How about this instead...

The NIV was published to meet the need for a modern translation done by Bible scholars using the earliest, highest quality manuscripts available. Of equal importance was that the Bible be expressed in broadly understood modern English.

A team of 15 biblical scholars, representing a variety of evangelical denominations,[5] worked from the oldest copies of reliable texts, variously written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Each section was subjected to multiple translations and revisions, and those assessed in detail to produce the best option. Everyday Bible readers were used to provide feedback on ease of understanding and comprehensibility. Finally, plans were made to continue revision of the Bible as new discoveries were made and as changes in the use of the English language occurred.

Textual basis

The manuscript base for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.[21] The manuscript base for the New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.[22] The deuterocanonical books are not included in the translation.

Translation methodology

The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts whose goal was to produce a more modern English language text than the King James Version. The translation took ten years and involved a team of over 100 scholars[23][24] from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian.[25]

The NIV is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought or literal and phrase-by-phrase translations.[26]

Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding passages that have traditionally been difficult to translate. Familiar spellings of traditional translations were generally retained.

2011 Revision

Professor of New Testament Studies Daniel B. Wallace praised the 2011 update, calling it "a well-thought out translation, with checks and balances through rigorous testing, overlapping committees to ensure consistency and accuracy, and a publisher willing to commit significant resources to make this Bible appealing to the Christian reader." The Southern Baptist Convention rejected the 2011 update because of gender-neutral language, although it had dropped some gender-neutral language of the 2005 revision. Southern Baptist publisher LifeWay declined the SBC's censor request to remove the NIV from their stores. While the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod rejected its use, some in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) believe many of the translations changes are right and defensible.[44]

Professor of New Testament Studies Rodney J. Decker wrote in the Themelios Journal review of the NIV 2011:[45]

By taking a mediating position between formal and functional equivalence (though tending, I think, closer to the formal end of the spectrum), the NIV has been able to produce a text that is clearer than many translations, especially those weighted more heavily with formal equivalence ... If we are serious about making the word of God a vital tool in the lives of English-speaking Christians, then we must aim for a translation that communicates clearly in the language of the average English-speaking person. It is here that the NIV excels. It not only communicates the meaning of God's revelation accurately, but does so in English that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. It is as well-suited for expository preaching as it is for public reading and use in Bible classes and children's ministries.

NIV introduction, from wikipedia (My emphases)

Unlike Bible Highlighter's clear KJVO agenda, this is a far fairer description.

 

[Jim B]

When I speak of the Scriptures, I am talking about how they exist in their current form (i.e. the Holy Bible) of which you think has errors in it. If it has errors in it, then it cannot be the Word of God because everything God does is perfect.



My apologies. I reread what you wrote and it appears that you are saying that God interacted with man for the past 2,000 years. I thought you were claiming the opposite of that. But I simply misread what you wrote there. My apologies on that one.




Okay. You seem to have a problem like many in understanding what idolatry is. If we follow God's instructions that is not idolatry. If God is telling you about Himself in His Word and you believe it, that is not idolatry. So if I follow the Holy Bible in what God desires for my life... that is not idolatry. If I cherish God's words because they are the expressed mind of God, that is not idolatry. For example: One day, a woman receives a letter from her fiancé who lives and works in another country. After she reads the letter she cherishes the words that her fiancé has written and she loves him more because of his touching words that are an expression of his love and heart towards her. But if she started to talk to the letter, kiss it, and take the letter out on dinner dates, then there would be a problem (with the letter being an idol). Most King James Bible Only Christians believe that God is a spirit being and that He is to be worshiped. They generally do not bow before the King James Bible or kiss it, and nor do they think it is the entirety of God's existence or being. They think the Bible is the expressed thoughts or words from GOD. But to say that God's words are in error is simply an attempt at trying to re-write what God said. One either fully believes God's words or they don't believe them (Meaning they are a bible agnostic and not that they are agnostic in general).

Also, to have faith in the Bible means that you are having faith in GOD because God ultimately wrote the Bible. To deny this is to deny the plain and basic teaching of the Bible. Hence, why you fall into the general consensus by fundamental Christians that you are a Liberal. It's because you are being liberal with the text (that is unnatural or not as God intended it to be).



But you did not grow up speaking in Bible times speaking, reading, and writing Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek to be any kind of real expert on these languages. You are only guessing as recent scholars were guessing many times. We can only trust that GOD preserved His words perfectly for us today that would have the marks of the divine nature upon it. I believe that this book is the King James Bible for many reasons. 101 reasons to be exact.

Oy vey! The King James Bible (and all English Bibles) are -- ready -- translations. They are not the originals; they are the work of fallible men. Additionally, The King James Bible was created for one reason only -- are you ready for it? -- to satisfy King James, a secular king. It is not the word(s) of God.

 

[Grailhunter]

One no longer needs to buy the Strong's Concordance anymore. BlueLetterBible provides the Strong's on their website where you can search key phrases and or words for free.

Make sure you select the desktop version at the bottom of the page (if it is not selected), and then AFTER you do a search on a word, you will notice that there are toolbars at the top of the website with one of them saying Strong's. Select it, and then the Strong's numbers will appear for your search entry. You can click on the Strong's numbers for a particular word and look at every time that word appears in the Hebrew (OT), and Greek (NT).

Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

Thanks very much.
I did know about the blue Letter but had not tried the desktop feature.

 

[Grailhunter]

Most do not know that all Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

Here it is straight out of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in it’s 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…

Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

I am going to repeat the text and highlight the key points.

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”​

So…

#1. The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies.
#2. Following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies
#3. It has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. (Note: What is the word “it” referring to in this sentence? This could be referring to the text and it is the basis (foundation) for new translations and revisions (Modern Bibles)).
#4. The text is the basis for new bible translations made under their supervision (the Vatican) which marks a significant step in regards to inter confessional relationships. Why does it mark a significant step? Because Carlo Martini (A Catholic cardinal) is an editor on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text.

In fact, let's check out the Nestle and Aland Critical Text page at Wikipedia called:

“Novum Testamentum Graece”

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

Scroll down the page, and you will see pictures of Nestle, and Aland.
Note: Nestle worked on the Critical Text years before Aland.
Kurt Aland is the one who worked on the Critical Text involving the Vatican. How so?

Notice the highlighted words in the pic below.

Carlo Maria Martini.

If you were to zoom in and look at the picture below Kurt Aland:

Again, who is Carlo Maria Martini?

As I said before, he is a Catholic cardinal.

Source:
Carlo Maria Martini - Wikipedia

Important Note: JUST CLICK ON THE LINK FOR CARLO MARIA MARTINI MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

But wait. There’s more. Let’s look at Kurt Aland again. I circled his picture below for you to see him. You can see his name next to his picture.

Now in this photo, you can see Kurt Aland with the pope:

Why?

Because of this:

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

Source:
Nestle and Aland Critical Text - 27the Edition.

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Yes, I am aware that this is an older book by the Catholic Church. But it is still pretty recent in history.

But why bring this up?
See my next post.

Have not had an opportunity to look at those Bibles

 

[Grailhunter]

When I speak of the Scriptures, I am talking about how they exist in their current form (i.e. the Holy Bible) of which you think has errors in it. If it has errors in it, then it cannot be the Word of God because everything God does is perfect.

God did not do any Bible, nor did He sign off on any Bible. God did not do it, so perfection is not even a issue. Nothing perfect in this world.
The funny thing is, can you find in the Bible where Christ told the Apostles to write anything down.
Errors.....The KJV is literally famous for spelling errors over the years. Then it was translated from faulty sources. It did not even have a chance.

Okay. You seem to have a problem like many in understanding what idolatry is.

Idolatry
extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.

Webster's
1.: the worship of a physical object as a god

2: immoderate attachment or devotion to something

Right in one!

If we follow God's instructions that is not idolatry.

He told us to study the Old Testament not worship it. And of course no one in the New Testament called their writings scriptures.

So if I follow the Holy Bible in what God desires for my life... that is not idolatry.

This is not that! LOL It is your reverence of a specific book, not the scriptures....a book. I like the NASB....the NIV....the HCSB.... but if someone finds an error in them or prefers another Bible....It is not going to have much of an effect on me. You like the KJV, so do I, just not for study. I bet I own more KJV's than you do. I have a collection....at one time the largest and most beautiful Bible I owned was a table top illustrated KJV from the early 1900's.

They think the Bible is the expressed thoughts or words from GOD. But to say that God's words are in error is simply an attempt at trying to re-write what God said. One either fully believes God's words or they don't believe them (Meaning they are a bible agnostic and not that they are agnostic in general).

See, I feel that way about the manuscripts....Bibles are God's Word twice removed. People like things set in their lap. Accepting someone else's translation. I do like the older King James Versions that say...The Authorized King James Version. LOL Authorized by who?! I am partial to the Gideons. Translations are re-writing what God said....literally. Questioning if someone believes in God's Words....is rude. Saying that you know the only true Bible....is rude. You can say you think... With all the evidence of the errors in the KJV, your faith is misplaced.....place your faith in God.

I think it a good idea to translate scriptures yourself....but I am not going to say that, You do not fully believe, unless you translate scriptures! You are not gettine the true Word of God unless you translate scriptures! You don't love God if you don't translate scriptures!

I accept Bibles for what they are worth....the more accurate the better. If I recommend any it is because they are more accurate and easy to read. No perfection....just less errors.

Also, to have faith in the Bible means that you are having faith in GOD because God ultimately wrote the Bible.

Are you envisioning God with a pen?

But you did not grow up speaking in Bible times speaking, reading, and writing Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek to be any kind of real expert on these languages. You are only guessing as recent scholars were guessing many times. We can only trust that GOD preserved His words perfectly for us today that would have the marks of the divine nature upon it. I believe that this book is the King James Bible for many reasons. 101 reasons to be exact.

Yes, I am a student of Christian History and times. Religion lead by the uneducated....what did Christ say about the blind leading the blind? What you have is a religion of the King James Version....a religion of a book.

 

[Truman]

Bibles are aids meant to assist imperfect beings in getting to know the perfect God, Yahweh-Elohim, aka Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
My experience is that different translations have strengths and weaknesses, though all of the ones I've read have the same message.
I've learned to ask and allow the Holy Spirit to lead me into what the word He wants me to understand at any given time, means. This has been a process and a journey. Which I am still on.
For me, I find the KJV difficult at times to understand and as I see no reason for this, I seldom read it anymore. Shalom.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus said abide in me and my words. Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.

Ya got to believe that! Do you hate your mother and father?....Do your slaves obey you?

Well, I believe that in order for a Christian to either accept and or understand John 15:7, Matthew 4:4, Luke 14:26, and Ephesians 6:5 in what they say, they need to confirm that they are born again. This would be:

(a) Being born again of Water
(b) Being born again of the Holy Spirit.​

Jesus said,

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5).​

I believe that when you believe the Bible is perfect and without error and it is the one and only holy book for all matters of faith and practice, you are born again by water (as mentioned in John 3 by the Lord Jesus). When you believe Jesus is your Savior (John 1:12-13), and you believe the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He was risen the third day according to the Scriptures, whereby you will then naturally seek forgiveness with Jesus over your past life of sin saying the words “Lord Jesus” (Romans 10:9, Romans 10:12-13), you will be born again spiritually. By doing the above things genuinely … it will become more real to you than anything else on the planet. The Bible will be the truth to you. Jesus in what He says according to what it says in the Bible is all that will be the guiding factor in your life.

However, if the Bible is not 100% the truth to a person, I would say that they are not saved and they are still in spiritual darkness and in the devil’s kingdom justifying sin (of some kind) as if it was normal. They have not taken that step of faith yet to truly see.

In other words, a true believer or Christian will say… I was blind and now I see (with no doubts). For there are nominal Christians who have not acted in faith in what God’s Word says and they keep the Bible at a distance. They honor God with their lips but their hearts are far away from God.

Spiritual discernment to understand any biblical topic is simply not possible if we have not submitted to Jesus as Lord and we reject the Bible as truth. In short, a person is not even qualified to understand anything spiritually in the Bible if they are not abiding in God and His words and they don’t believe the Bible is the truth. They are simply in spiritual darkness still. They are still in the grip of the devil or the enemy and they need to be set free by believing God’s Word by faith. For without faith, it is impossible to please Him (God) (See: Hebrews 11:6).

Biblical Proof that the Communicated Word of God (the words in the Bible) is likened unto water:

Ephesians 5:25-27

“...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”​

Psalms 119:9

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.”​

Biblical Proof we are born again by the Communicated Word of God (the words in the Bible):

1 Peter 1:23-25

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”​

In the next chapter, we read:

1 Peter 2:2-3
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”

Another thing that GOD has guided me to do is: Seek, knock, and ask.
If we don't understand a verse or passage, we should ask the Lord for help in understanding it, and we should seek out tons of Christian articles that talk about that verse or passage. Keep reading until God gives you the answer and the whole counsel of God's Word harmonizes beautifully together on the matter. It may be the 100th article or a YouTube video. Pray and seek but do not doubt what God's Word says when you don't understand it (and you think it may be an error in the Bible). For God cannot error. God wrote the Bible and not men.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Unbiased link, right? You must be joking. One obviously biased source is your authority?

How about this instead...

The NIV was published to meet the need for a modern translation done by Bible scholars using the earliest, highest quality manuscripts available. Of equal importance was that the Bible be expressed in broadly understood modern English.

A team of 15 biblical scholars, representing a variety of evangelical denominations,[5] worked from the oldest copies of reliable texts, variously written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Each section was subjected to multiple translations and revisions, and those assessed in detail to produce the best option. Everyday Bible readers were used to provide feedback on ease of understanding and comprehensibility. Finally, plans were made to continue revision of the Bible as new discoveries were made and as changes in the use of the English language occurred.

Textual basis

The manuscript base for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.[21] The manuscript base for the New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.[22] The deuterocanonical books are not included in the translation.

Translation methodology

The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts whose goal was to produce a more modern English language text than the King James Version. The translation took ten years and involved a team of over 100 scholars[23][24] from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian.[25]

The NIV is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought or literal and phrase-by-phrase translations.[26]

Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding passages that have traditionally been difficult to translate. Familiar spellings of traditional translations were generally retained.

2011 Revision

Professor of New Testament Studies Daniel B. Wallace praised the 2011 update, calling it "a well-thought out translation, with checks and balances through rigorous testing, overlapping committees to ensure consistency and accuracy, and a publisher willing to commit significant resources to make this Bible appealing to the Christian reader." The Southern Baptist Convention rejected the 2011 update because of gender-neutral language, although it had dropped some gender-neutral language of the 2005 revision. Southern Baptist publisher LifeWay declined the SBC's censor request to remove the NIV from their stores. While the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod rejected its use, some in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) believe many of the translations changes are right and defensible.[44]

Professor of New Testament Studies Rodney J. Decker wrote in the Themelios Journal review of the NIV 2011:[45]

By taking a mediating position between formal and functional equivalence (though tending, I think, closer to the formal end of the spectrum), the NIV has been able to produce a text that is clearer than many translations, especially those weighted more heavily with formal equivalence ... If we are serious about making the word of God a vital tool in the lives of English-speaking Christians, then we must aim for a translation that communicates clearly in the language of the average English-speaking person. It is here that the NIV excels. It not only communicates the meaning of God's revelation accurately, but does so in English that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. It is as well-suited for expository preaching as it is for public reading and use in Bible classes and children's ministries.

NIV introduction, from wikipedia (My emphases)

Unlike Bible Highlighter's clear KJVO agenda, this is a far fairer description.

Any person seeking for the truth will simply look at the verses and see a wrong pattern going on that favors the Catholic Church. As I stated before, the Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text (of which all Modern English bibles today are based on) was under the supervision of the Vatican and had a Catholic cardinal as one of the editors. I have provided irrefutable proof of this.

As for the NIV: Even Original Onlyists I have talked will admit it is a bad translation and that we should stop bringing it up. So not everyone even in your own camp would agree with your blind liking of the NIV. Granted, again, I don’t have a problem with a person reading a Modern Bible, they just should not make it their final Word of authority. Why? Because it will not be the same NIV in a few years from now. It is never settled. I have also shown that the NIV has corrupt doctrines, as well.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thanks very much.
I did know about the blue Letter but had not tried the desktop feature.

You are most welcome. If you are using a smartphone or tablet, you can switch to desktop version with the button at the bottom of the page.
After doing a search on a verse number or bible word, you can click on the verse reference to the side and a window will pop up to show you the Strong numbers, too. But I like clicking on the Strong’s button at the top after I do a search. It seems more natural for me to do that.

 

[Grailhunter]

Well, I believe that in order for a Christian to either accept and or understand John 15:7, Matthew 4:4, Luke 14:26, and Ephesians 6:5 in what they say, they need to confirm that they are born again. This would be:

(a) Being born again of Water
(b) Being born again of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said,

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5).

Do you have a pop up indicator for born again?
Again the cult people are going to come up and ask, "Are you really born again?" "How do you know?" "Are you really lead by the Holy Spirit? How do you know?"
or "How do you know you are saved?"

Anyway, people believe different things about baptism. Some believe it has no spiritual connection. That it is merely a public display of Christian obedience. Same thing goes for the Bread and Wine ritual and foot washing. I do not recommend being baptized by these people.

I am ordained and at Bible Camp I would baptize adults and children. And this is how it went. I would explain to them that during the Baptism, they would die in Christ. The person that went down in the water would not be the spiritual person that came up. And we would discuss John the Baptist and how the Bible says that He was baptising for the remission of sins. And I would explain the difference between that Baptism and their baptism. Both removed sins. But when you are born of water and of the Spirit it is a new birth spiritually and nothing that you did before would be remembered by God. Clean slate.

So then they would read the Apostles Creed out loud and I would Baptize them in the river or lake in the name of Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe that when you believe the Bible is perfect and without error and it is the one and only holy book for all matters of faith and practice, you are born again by water

LOL The one and only....born again by water and spirit is baptism.

However, if the Bible is not 100% the truth to a person, I would say that they are not saved and they are still in spiritual darkness and in the devil’s kingdom justifying sin as if it was normal. They have not taken that step of faith yet to truly see.

Well it is not for you to say they are not saved.....more cult talk. Believe my way or you are not saved....! If they had a hand book that would be in there.

In other words, a true believer or Christian will say… I was blind and now I see (with no doubts). For there are nominal Christians who have not acted in faith in what God’s Word says and they keep the Bible at a distance. They honor God with their lips but their hearts are far away from God.

It looks like you honor the book and give lip service to God. The way you wording this is that the average Christians or all other Christians do not have as much faith as you.

In short, a person is not even qualified to understand anything spiritually in the Bible if they are not abiding in God and His words and they don’t believe the Bible is the truth.

Again is there a pop up indicator for this or a gauge? Are you the only one qualified to determine that?

They are simply in spiritual darkness still. They are still in the grip of the devil or the enemy and they need to be set free by believing God’s Word by faith. For without faith, it is impossible to please Him (God) (See: Hebrews 11:6).

Oh my, are you sure you are not a cult leader? The scriptures are truth....but even the manuscripts have errors and that is how you know they have not been tampered with...it was a big temptation for copiers to correct manuscripts....the leaven in the scriptures must remain. You can deny the errors but that is fantasy, not faith. God is real, you do not have to fantasize to have faith.

If we don't understand a verse or passage, we should ask the Lord for help in understanding it, and we should seek out tons of Christian articles that talk about that verse or passage.

Any time you are dealing with scriptures you should be praying...But try looking at the actual scriptures. If you do not understand a Bible verse(s) go to the manuscripts, go to source. You can learn a lot from that.

 

[Josho]

I use the NKJV and find nothing wrong with it. Although, when I get a Scripture from the Holy Spirit it comes in the form of the KJV. I think that is because that was the version I used for the first 12 years of my Christian life, so the wording is burned into my system.

My NKJV, still uses the measurements and weights in old English, I wouldn't mind seeing things like that updated in an Updated KJV.