Can you solve this one? Acts 13:20

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The texts differ and this apparent contradiction gave me fits for quite awhile. Either the King James Bible is correct and the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV or any other version based on the Westcott-Hort texts are wrong, or vice versa. So, which is it? Can you explain why your version is right and the other is wrong?


    It is a tough one, but try to give it a shot if you are interested.


    "Scholars That Cannot See "

    Acts 13:19-20

    The Authorized King James Holy Bible begins this section in Acts 13:16 with Paul in the city of Antioch being asked by the rulers of the synagogue to speak a word of exhortation. "Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. AND AFTER THAT HE GAVE UNTO THEM JUDGES ABOUT THE SPACE OF FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS, UNTIL Samuel the prophet."

    Notice the context is clearly speaking about the history from the time of the Exodus out of Egypt, 40 years in the wilderness, the dividing of the land by lot, and then he says he gave them judges for the space of 450 years till the time of Samuel. The critics argue that they did not have judges for 450 years, and so the KJB must be wrong.

    The reading found in the King James Bible is that of the Majority of all Greek texts, as well as E, P, Psi, and the Syriac Peshitta. It is also the reading of Tyndale, Geneva Bible, NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Luther's German Bible, the KJV 21st Century, Green's Modern KJV, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    The NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and all Catholic versions read very differently based on Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, C, and the Vulgate - the minority Alexandrian texts upon which most modern versions are based.

    The NASB, NIV remove the words "about the space of 450 years" from verse 20 and place them at the end of verse 19. The NASB, NIV read: "And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he distributed their land as an inheritance- ALL OF WHICH TOOK ABOUT 450 YEARS: and after these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet."

    When we look at 1 Kings 6:1 we read a different chronology and time period that seems to be in conflict with both readings as found in Acts 13. There we read: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD."

    There are many different "explanations" given for this apparent contradiction, and many erroneously criticize the KJB and its texts.

    So which Bible is the true word of God here? Both readings cannot equally be correct.
    Care to defend the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, New World Translation, etc.?

    Will Kinney
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just as a simple starting part ... by what authority have you decided that this is "erroneous criticism"?? It may well be valid criticism.

    You have a basic flaw in your argumentation. You are not looking for real answers. You started with a preconceived notion indicated by this statement. You are not prepared to objectively view the evidence that God has preserved for us. You are not prepared to accept any answer that shows that your preformed conclusion is wrong. That is bad argumentation and bad study habits. You should study to find the truth, not to support the notions of your own mind.
     
  3. Elk

    Elk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Mr. Kinney,
    I believe that when you see a phrase such as the one you speak of, in one Bible or not in another, that it is one of those phrases that appear in some "manuscripts" and not in others.
    There are variances, but they do not affect doctrine. Furthermore, if I see it in one Bible, and not in others, I just am more thankful for the extra information, considering that the weight, however, of that phrase should be considered in the light of not being in other manuscripts. But not that we discard it. For example, just because the "ending" of Mark 16 varies in other manuscripts, does not mean that we should throw it out or all the verses after verse 8 or 9 or so. On the contrary it would appear that various manuscripts lost the last page or if it was on a scroll, it was possibly ruined and lost. (My conjecture - grin) It does not mean that we should discard it.

    But as for your question. If it says that about 450 years, I definitely would take that as truth, but when you speak of judges, that could mean basically leaders that God implanted until prophets. Remember what true prophets said in those days, if they were sent by God...what they said held and came to pass.
    So, really who were the rulers when the Priesthood failed?

    As regarding judges...to add to the mix (grin)
    what about the first king that is named in the Bible...

    Judg 9:6
    6 And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.
    KJV

    A lot of people don't know that, but Abimelech was made king in the time of the judges.

    To me, this time period speaks of a people that did "right" in the sight of their own eyes, yes?

    And what did God do when the Priesthood failed? He sent prophets.
     
  4. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Larry, you said:

    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    ...many erroneously criticize the KJB and its texts.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as a simple starting part ... by what authority have you decided that this is "erroneous criticism"?? It may well be valid criticism.
    You have a basic flaw in your argumentation. You are not looking for real answers. You started with a preconceived notion indicated by this statement. You are not prepared to objectively view the evidence that God has preserved for us. You are not prepared to accept any answer that shows that your preformed conclusion is wrong. That is bad argumentation and bad study habits. You should study to find the truth, not to support the notions of your own mind."


    Larry, I decided the critics of the KJB text here are in error simply because I looked up a whole bunch of commentaries, apologetic sites and other articles dealing with this verse. I read through all their explanations and can easily prove them to be wrong and the KJB is the one that is right.

    Now, if you would care to address the apparent contradiction and defend the reading of your Nestle text, please do so and I will respond accordingly.

    I noticed you said you would bring to the other planet your Nestle text and the BHS Hebrew O.T. Tell me, Larry, do you accept these two textual sources as being inerrant or would you also correct, change, alter or amend the Hebrew text in any way? I will leave the Greek for another time.

    I'm interested to find out if you think your Hebrew text is inerrant and complete. If so, I would then have some follow up questions for you.

    But first, could you please tell us which reading here in Acts 13 is the correct one. God obviously did not inspire both equally, did He? It seems to me that either one is right and one is wrong, or they both are incorrect and we then have a flawed Bible containing errors.

    Thank you,

    Will K
     
  5. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Elk, I want to thank you for your comments. They do raise certain questions however. You said in part: "

    ------------------------------------------
    Dear Mr. Kinney,
    I believe that when you see a phrase such as the one you speak of, in one Bible or not in another, that it is one of those phrases that appear in some "manuscripts" and not in others.
    There are variances, but they do not affect doctrine."

    Elk, you are right about the varying manuscripts. However, this is the whole point. God did not inspire a multitude of conflicting readings. God only wrote one Bible. Many of these variants do affect doctrine and frequently the way in which different versions translate the same text results in false doctrines. I have many such examples of this.

    My question for you is: Do you believe there is any Bible on earth today that is the complete, pure, inerrant, inspired word of God?

    It seems to me your present position is that "it is all up in the air, who knows, maybe we have an approximation of what God probably said, let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best".

    Our fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are of no more value than pagan myths if they are found only in a multitude of conflicting "authorities", all of which contain errors, omissions, additions, and hundreds of verses that have very different meanings, based on very different texts. At what point does God start to tell us the truth? Didn't God promise to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away? Did He lie about this? What else did He lie about then?

    Will K
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then show them. Over and over, KJVO's have been trying to do this, and not one has been successful. For example, KJVO's say that the modern versions lack of "Alpha and Omega" early in Revelation changes doctrine, ignoring that the same phrase is found later in the book.

    Not today. The autographs are the original and are complete, pure, inerrant, and inspired. I do believe that even the texts used to translate the KJV had a few textual variants, so that kinda hurts your argument there. The KJV is most definitely not inerrant or complete. It was written by man, who tried their best to approximate English words to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. Even if there had been an uncorrupted text, the translaters would have been unable to make an EXACT translation. God's inerrant words were found int he original langugages, not in English.

    No - it's we know that we are awfully close to what God has said, so let us do research so we can reconstruct God's inerrant word.

    Absolutely not! The fundamental doctrines of our faith are found in virtually all of the documents, from Aleph all the way up to the TR. I stand confident in my faith in the fundamental doctrines. I don't need to be intellectually dishonest so that I feel better about my faith.

    When he inspired the specific writings that the authors wrote down.

    So, it is your perspective that the KJV is the perfect, preserved Word? What happened from 100 AD until the writing of the Bible? Did God hiccup?

    Jesus said that his words wouldn't pass away. Somehow, in the context, I fail to see how this refers to translations and manuscripts. It seems clearer to me that His Truth wouldn't pass away, and it hasn't yet.

    Will K [/QB][/QUOTE]
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you finally admit what the rest of us have known all along ... the your mind if your final authority. You do not "believe" the KJV and disbelieve the others because God showed it to you, but rather because your mind is convinced of itself. This is what we have said from day one, that KJVOs authority is their own mind.

    I haven't studied this out in full. In several weeks, I will be preaching from Acts 13 and I will take a look at it at that time. I don't need to defend any reading and the Nestle text is not mine.

    The Hebrew text of the BHS is the best text available. There are some places, as I recall, that there are emendations to be followed. It, like the Greek texts (TR, MajT, and ET) have not been perfectly preserved. In fact, the state of the Hebrew text is a good deal less certian in many places than the text of the Greek text. Most people don't discuss it because they don't anything about it. You don't have to know Greek to discuss it (unfortunately). You can't discuss Hebrew much at all without knowing it.

    Why?? What is your point?

    As I said, I will have opportunity to study this in a few weeks. I would recommend that you start with the Textual Commentary on teh Greek New Testament though. That would be the most logical place to begin and then branch out from there.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    Will, do you have a double standard?


    1850 KJV Ruth 3:15: Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.

    1611 KJV Ruth 3:15 ... and he went into the citie.

    could you please tell us which reading here in Ruth 3:15 is the correct one. God obviously did not inspire both equally, did He? It seems to me that either one is right and one is wrong, or they both are incorrect and we then have a flawed Bible containing errors

    There are many more of these differences between the various KJV editions.


    HankD
     
  9. Elk

    Elk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Will K,
    Thank you for your message.
    You reminded me of the verse Isaiah 63:9, regarding "the angel of his presence".
    Are you not so thankful for the Hebrew and Greek words that we have still today? If you look this up, you may find that the translation in most Bibles do not fully develop this phrase.
    For it really means The Angel of His Face.
    Today even worse some easy to read translations by pass it all together and just say "he".
    This removal just seems so deliberate.
    God bless you!
     
  10. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    When we have the original manuscripts then we can be sure.

    But until that time we must study and invest our lives in the lives of others.

    James 1:22-25, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does."
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most? I didn't find any... including the KJV that "fully developed" the phrase.
    I found a paraphrased translation in the "Message", NLT, and CEV. Not a "removal" per se but in my opinion an unwarranted interpretation disguised as translation.

    However, these aren't versions routinely attacked or defended in the debate between KJVO's and non-KJVO's. The NIV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV all have the words as found in the KJV.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOu will be comforted to know that "panim" often means presence. To come before the "panim" of someone was to come into their presence. This definition if given in BDB p. 816, definition,I2a (I say that so you can look it up if you think I am making this up).

    So the translations here have it right ... It was an angel from the presence of the Lord, or perhaps an angel that represented his presence to them. The word translated "angel" often means messenger. It could well have been pointing to the fact that God himself was with them. That seems to make the most sense so "he" (that dreaded translation you hate ... and I don't recommend) actually is correct. He was with them. But it should be translated "the angel of his presence" or "the angel of his face."
     
  13. Elk

    Elk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    OT:6440
    paniym (paw-neem'); plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun [paneh (paw-neh'); from OT:6437]; the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):


    KJV - + accept, a- before (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, propect, was purposed, by reason of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+-out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+down), with (-in, + -stand), X ye, X you.
    (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


    Greetings! Thanks for the message.
    My point in saying that is that I believe that if one fully defines this phrase, we would end up with...

    The Messenger of His Face.

    Which is His Face.

    Don't you think?
    God bless you!
     
  14. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You could ... but "angel of his presence" is not wrong, and in fact, the point is that his presence was with them there. That is why "angel of his presence" is a perfectly acceptable, even superior translation to "angel of his face."
     
  16. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just curious, because many times when the NT refers back to the OT and there is an apparent contradiction, it's because we base our OT on the Masoretic Hebrew text and the apostles were using the Greek Septuagint. Anyone know whether the events recounted in Acts 13:20 add up differently in the LXX?
     
  17. Elk

    Elk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Larry,
    Did you know that some manuscripts have instead of "Lord" in Jude 5, "Jesus"?

    God bless you!
     
  18. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    A partial list of some doctrinal errors in the modern versions (for Scott's benefit, and others too)

    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    Many of these variants do affect doctrine and frequently the way in which different versions translate the same text results in false doctrines. I have many such examples of this.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scott&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Then show them. Over and over, KJVO's have been trying to do this, and not one has been successful."

    OK, Scott. Here are just a few for now to consider, and I do have many more.

    Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

    Many preachers will stand in the pulpit or Christian authors will write books in which they say "The Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God." But what exactly are they referring to when they say this? There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agree with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. I can easily prove this and it is well noted by many atheists, Muslims and other Bible bashers on the internet.

    So, which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or has the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been somehow lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised?

    Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired words of God? Shouldn't we be saying, the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

    I believe, along with thousands of other Christians, that God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Bible.

    Modern versionists will say they are examining the evidence and trying to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His words into another language other than English.

    Some speak of the same general message and principles being found in all valid versions. Yet we can point out many direct contradictions concerning these basic principles.

    The "any bible will do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. (17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV - when compared to the KJB, NKJV, TMB.)

    Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB, ESV?

    The KJB, NKJV, NIV, RV say: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

    But the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast,then He Himself also went up".

    Or did Christ need a blood sacrifice to be purified from sin in Luke 2:22. The NASB, NIV say: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished". The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification. The child or the father did not give a sin offering to be purified.

    Is the Lord Jesus Christ the one who has "origens from ancient times" in Micah 5:2 as the NIV, RSV, NWT teach, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the KJB, NKJV, NASB have it?

    Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they flattered God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him yet not let Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot DECEIVE GOD!


    Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

    The NIV even perverts true doctrine when the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ, when He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

    In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 where God says (and ALL GREEK TEXTS read) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, NASB. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV actually says "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

    The NIV here teaches that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness "bible" (New World translation), and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

    Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

    There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.

    The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

    In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

    The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

    Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

    However when we get to the New KJV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.

    Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." I Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

    In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."


    God obviously does indeed take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.




    In 2 Peter 3:12 the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.


    God is "no respecter of persons", but the NKJV, NASB, NIV say God is not partial. Which one is the truth? The phrases do not mean the same thing. Exodus 4:11 "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?". "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.

    Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "respecter of persons" as a person who regards the external circumstances of others in his judgment, and suffers his opinions to be biased by them. In other words, God's dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality.


    The phrase "to accept the persons of men" or "to respect persons" does not mean, as the modern versions have translated it, "to show partiality" or "to show favoritism".

    Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He alone is our righteousness. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints". Versions that read just like the KJV are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Geneva of 1599, Green’s interlinear, Daniel Webster's of 1833, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB version.

    But the NKJV, NASB, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. So, which one is true?


    Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god." This is a false and preposterous statement in the NASB.

    Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?

    1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the NIV, NKJV too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

    Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, NKJV teach or is Judah unruly against God as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

    These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

    So if you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

    Wasn't there something written in the Bible that told us of the falling away from the faith in the last days?

    Has Satan changed in his hatred and opposition to the words of God?

    Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these last days and so now he can think more clearly?


    If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in scores of verses, many verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which they speak is true?

    If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

    Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? And if so, what are you referring to when you say this?

    Will Kinney
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Scott, I appreciate your honesty here.

    I asked you: "My question for you is: Do you believe there is any Bible on earth today that is the complete, pure, inerrant, inspired word of God?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scott answered: "Not today. The autographs are the original and are complete, pure, inerrant, and inspired. I do believe that even the texts used to translate the KJV had a few textual variants, so that kinda hurts your argument there. The KJV is most definitely not inerrant or complete. It was written by man, who tried their best to approximate English words to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. Even if there had been an uncorrupted text, the translaters would have been unable to make an EXACT translation. God's inerrant words were found int he original langugages, not in English."

    Scott this in interesting. You say only the originals WERE inspired and we do not have an inspired Bible today. You of course have never seen the originals, so you don't know what they said, right? Yet you claim the KJB text had variants and you don't believe it is the inspired word of God. How can you know this if you never saw the originals?

    I at least have faith that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words, but your present view is that God has failed to do this and that no translation can be inspired, in spite of the fact that the Bible itself shows us through many examples that a translation can be inspired.

    I at least appreciate your honesty in admitting that you do not think we have an inspired Bible today. Many others who hold your views try to tap dance around this issue or come up with the ludicrous idea that all the conflicting versions are inspired, as I have seen some post at this board.

    I sincerely hope God opens your spiritual eyes and gives you faith to believe He has kept His promises and His inerrant words are found today in the King James Bible - not for my sake, but for yours.

    Will K
     
  20. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    Larry, I decided the critics of the KJB text here are in error simply because I looked up a whole bunch of commentaries, apologetic sites and other articles dealing with this verse. I read through all their explanations and can easily prove them to be wrong and the KJB is the one that is right.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------Larry&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;-So you finally admit what the rest of us have known all along ... the your mind if your final authority. You do not "believe" the KJV and disbelieve the others because God showed it to you, but rather because your mind is convinced of itself. This is what we have said from day one, that KJVOs authority is their own mind."

    Larry, I hope you will excuse me here, but your reasoning seems to be really loopy. My final authority is the King James Bible as the preserved, infallible, inspired words of God - not my own mind. I see where you admit that you think the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in some places and you would change them when it suits your fancy - and You tell Me that I am my own authority?!?

    Anyway, I hope when you do have time in a few weeks or whatever, that you will come back and try to defend the Nestle text reading found in the NASB, NIV, ESV. I admit it is a tough one to crack, but I believe I can demonstrate that the WH texts are in error and the KJB is correct.

    I look forward to your response and to anyone else who would like to tackle this apparent contradiction.

    In His grace,

    Will K
     

Share This Page

Loading...