Forget the KJB. Is there any version that you believe is perfect?

That's true, you did. And I even quoted it. My bad. Got lost in all the posters.

So, you don't believe the Bible, not just the KJB.

That's what that thread was about.

Want to prove the Bible wrong because of contradictions you can't reconcile? Begin a thread.

Moving on.

 

Can you read the words actually written in the KJV (your preferred, but it is the same in every translation) and honestly say that Luke is saying Heli was the father of Mary and not the father of Joseph?

[Luke 3:23-24 KJV] 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, 24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,

 

You bear false witness with your bogus, false allegations. You continue to put words in the mouths of others that they do not say.

 

Not true, just your false summation of my answer to your "Excluded Middle" fallacy.

No, this thread is about you sowing discord among Christians by deliberately misrepresenting their beliefs.

No, sir. I want to prove your thesis of Biblical Perfection nonsense because of contradictions YOU can't reconcile!

 

No, but that's the best that I can come up with, for now.

Because I trust that the Bible is God's word to me as His child, then whenever I come upon "contradictions" in my studies, instead of outright rejecting them, I simply accept that the Lord had a reason for transmitting it to men in this fashion;

For example, a similar thing could be said regarding Judas' death...
Did he hang himself ( as Matthew 27:3-10 states ) and the chief priests purchase the field that he hanged himself in, or did he purchase the field and fall headlong and his bowels gush out, as Acts of the Apostles 1:18 states?

I accept what is written, and then I trust Him to show me how to resolve things.

I agree that that is what the words state, my friend.

However, just as John 3:16 seems to state that God loves everyone ( despite Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5-6 and several others "contradicting" it ) and per 1 Timothy 2:4 He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth ( despite Romans 9:14-24 "contradicting" it )...
I see more in the details when it comes to those apparent contradictions.

In other words, God doesn't create the contradictions in our finite ( and needing-to-be-renewed-by-His-word ) minds..
We approach them in our studies, and He then, over time, shows us how to resolve them.:)

 

Says the man who in the next breath writes:

 

"false allegations"? Here's @atpollard

 

@atpollard :
To develop this theory ( you decide, as it's just my own private observation ) further:

Since Mary became part of Joseph's house by marriage and she then began to be identified by her husband's house line, then when the account in Luke tracks "Joseph" back through Nathan to David, it's actually tracking Mary back, but not directly mentioning her...

But she was technically identified with Joseph ( for two shall become one flesh, Mark 10:8 ).
Something else to consider, at least in my opinion.

 

Translation: "you continue exposing the uncomfortable truth which most will not say out lout, that they don't believe any Bible, not just the KJB, and I hate that".

 

THE SUM:

To the simple and fair question:

We got:

@Salty basically discreetly ducked the question, sensing the danger of revealing his hand.
The rest also just ducked and kept on making the issue about the KJB, when it wasn't, as best exemplified by @Logos1560.

No one's beliefs were misrepresented. All the above, and a whole bunch of you that didn't have the stones to answer a fair question, don't fully believe any Bible, anywhere, in any tongue, in any age, and the insistence on limiting the conversation to the KJB serves to hide the uncomfortable truth that you don't believe the word of God (which expression in the scriptures is rarely, if ever, a reference to original autographs) is error-free: plain and simple.

 

Your post reflects the absence of truth. Which bible did I say was my go to bible? NASB. Did I say a bible needs to be "perfect" without corruption? Nope, that is you bogus claim, Sir.

 

The question, yet again, was not about your "go to" Bible; and yet again, you know it.
At least the guys that answered had the stones to answer.

 

Sir, you have highlighted a bogus understanding of scripture. The Holy Spirit leads according to His understanding of the will of God. Both versions say the Holy Spirit communicates with "groanings."

 

Now this poster attempts disparagement to push bogus views. How charming. Our current bibles contain corruptions. Those that deny this obvious truth are agenda driven and fail the test of the spirits.

 

Jesus is that Word. not the KJV!

 

Infallibility means that the translations are all able to give to us what the Lord intends us to know!

 

Actually you are misrepresenting me. I did not focus on the KJV at all in my post. And I NEVER ONCE said I do not believe the Word of God. That was not the question that you asked.

You are twisting things, taking things out of context, and you somehow have this notion that translations are inspired. They aren't. God directly told the translators what to write? Do you believe that?

You should read some articles about the KJV Translators Preface to the Reader: What a 400-Year-Old Bible Preface Can Teach Us about Translations | The Logos Blog

They did not hold as high a view of their work as you hold. They admit they were not inspired nor infallible. Only the original authors were.

We can be reasonably sure that we know what the originals said and intended. Do we know with 100% certainty that we have the 100% exact reading of the originals? Of course not. That does not equate not believing the Word of God. Rather, it shows that we have great faith that God has preserved His message to us.

 

No, you are me.

I quoted your answer and said that the "REST" (hence excluding you) focused on the KJB.

 

So there are NO differences between the 1611/1769 and 1873 Kjv?
ALL of ther TR Greek texts read exactly the same?