KJV vs. NIV

DD,

Quit calling me a liar. Satan is the accuser of the Brethren.

Please show me where I said I produced a manuscript that proves what you said.

 

Never mind, DD.

I will do the homework for you. Here are the only links where I have mentioned manuscripts and in none of these have I stated I produced evidence that the reading in question was in a manuscript.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3334/12.html#000173
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2770.html#000004
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2911/3.html#000034
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2925/2.html#000028
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2929/3.html#000040

 

You mean REPOST what Doc already has shown about a dozen times? OK I will, but you have already proven you will just lie again once I prove it. Now, everyone will know you are a liar, well, they already do, but this will be more proof.

Lie #1

The question the whole time was which manuscript contained the reading. You claimed you answered it, but you did not.

First, you came in and claimed that William had answered the question. He did not, and you refused to answer Doc's question because you knew you had LIED.

The links you provided are FULL of statements from YOU and your wife stating that YOU had answered the question.

The question has always been: What manuscript contains this reading.

Once again, you desperately tried to post the links first, hoping that I wouldnt do the work and find your statement.

Your lying spirit seems to know no bounds. I would expect better from someone claiming to be my "elder". You are no elder, sir. I can respect my elders. I have yet to see the first respectable thing about the things you say and claim.

 

Now, there ya see, Dr Bob...

In Desiderio's last post above you he blatantly lies about statements I have not made; calling me a liar. Is this showing grace to other posters?

And Dr. Bob, btw, I have never said I was KJVO, only that I feel the KJV is more accurate. I do use many different versions in my studies; as I have posted in previous threads.

Just so you don't get the idea that I am KJVO

 

It appears that no one in the last thread was willing to address this issue, so I am not opening this up to them. I want to open it up to the rest of the board.

Is kaiper estin a typo in the TR, or is it an authentic reading in the KJV?

What are your thoughts?

Desiderio, I have not lied when answering this question. I said I believe God preserved His Word in man's heart and included it in the KJV. Shall I post where that is?

 

LOL.....read the threads. How many times does he claim he "answered the question"?

THis is sad.

 

DD, you heavily attacked standingfirminChrist because you are MV onlyist.

 

DesiderioDomini, DesiderioDomini! Leave standingfirminChrist alone!

 

standingfiriminChrist, Maybe I'm missing something, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Does this have something to do with what Dr. Cassidy said?

As I said, when I clicked on the link on the report sent to the moderators it said the link is no longer any good. That tells me it has already been edited out--probably by C4K.

As for your information on manuscripts I know not what you are trying to do.

It is well known that in certain cases verses have been added to try to harmonize certain portions of the Bible, such as the gospels. One such example is where Jesus said, Get thee behind me Satan. It is thought by many scholars that since it said it in one gospel, the other ought to reflect the same thing. Therefore it was added. Without it, the Bible still carries the same message.

Have you actually read all the way through an MV such as the ESV, NASB, NIV? If you will read all the way through, you will find out that none of these, in particular are watered down in the slightest. In fact, the whole point of the translations is to bring forward the history of the Jewish race through the birth and Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who gave his life for our sins. My NIV says it. My NASB says it and my ESV says it and none of them beat around the bush about their message.

I must say that I have to side with Dr. Bob and say that I too wish the KJVO myth were eliminated from the board. It would be MUCH more peaceful here.

Let me clarify one thing. NONE of us hate or attack the King James Version, particularly the 1769 version. It is a VERY accurate translation, but it does have its limitations. Those are, many, many words are not used the same today so a youngster reading it will misunderstand many of the verses.
Second, many cannot read the archaic English because they didn't grow up reading it like I did.

Even though I grew up reading the KJV and still do on occasion, I find myself gravitating toward an MV simply because when I'm tired it is SOOOOOO much easier to understand.

My favorite, the NASB due to its Word-for-Word translation, second favorite ESV, which is closer to reality with just enough Word-for-Word and a little dynamic mix to make it more understandable.

There is simply NO, NONE, NADA scriptures that say that we will have one and one only translation in English and that we must all learn 17th century English in order to read it.

If we go for time and use, then the Latin Vulgate wins hands down.

Nobody can yet answer me what Bible was the 100% word-for-word translation that people claim the KJV to be, before the year of 1611.

If the Bishop's Bible was adequate, then why another translation?

And I suppose that English just happened to be selected as the lucky language to win the prize of having the only correct version. After all according to Lifeway, we are translating about 200 versions in different languages every year. If this is true, I can guess that they don't all use the Majority Text.

I have NO problems with KJV preferred or Majority Text preferred. I will not speak for Dr. Bob, but I have a feeling he is the same way. It is the "ONLY" that is unbiblical.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2925/3.html#000036

Philip, here is the link to the offensive thread. I cannot understand why you cannot get to it when my wife and I both have clicked the link several times and it takes us directly to the offensive post.

 

Oh, by the way, if the Received Text is not in error, which of the three versions are you talking about?

If you believe that the KJV or the Received Text is 100% word-for-word accurate without fault, then you have to be KJVO, because that means that no other translation is 100% word-for-word accurate.

If you are truly NOT KJVO, then post it and I will commend you for not pushing the KJVO myth.

 

I honestly could not locate it. I edited it. Please go back and check it so that you will see that I'm editing both sides fairly.
Phillip

 

Philip, thank you for editing that post, but the last line still has that slander toward me.


If you read my posts, you will not find the lies that DD is continuing to levy at me in this thread as well.

 

I see once again that SFiC has redirested the attention so as to draw the focus away from his lies, and draw attention to those calling him a liar.

Rather than whining about being called a liar, why not actually address the issue which caused you to be called a liar? Perhaps you are just that, and you should repent of lying?

Did that even cross your mind? Do you even look for a SECOND that you may be wrong?

It seems that you feel your position is above question. What a great Joseph Smith theology!

 

Also, on the last page in the thread you and I are currently chatting in, you will find that I have attested that I am not KJVO. I do believe the KJV is more accurate, but I do study using many versions.

I have three different Bible software programs I use. e-sword, SwordSearcher, and BibleWorks 7. I use many different versions in this software.

NIV, NASB, ESV, GNV, BBE, yes, KJV as well, but many more beside those.

 

Philip, here is an example of the many versions I have on my pc. Luckily, on the Hebrew and Greek, when I hold my mouse over them, they show me the meanings of the words, otherwise I would not load them.

`~d"(a'h'(-la, h'a,Þbiy>w: hV'_ail. ~d"Þa'h'(-!mi xq:ïl'-rv,a] [l'²Ceh;-ta,( Ÿ~yhiól{a/ hw"“hy> •!b,YIw: WTT Genesis 2:22` jvqw 10 FTT Genesis 2:22ASV Genesis 2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

CSB Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man.(a

ESV Genesis 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made(1 )into a woman and brought her to the man.

GNV Genesis 2:22 And the ribbe which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man.

KJG Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a (1 )woman, and brought her unto the man.

KJV Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. {made: Heb. built}

LXE Genesis 2:22 And God <1> formed the rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam. {1) Gr. built}

NAS Genesis 2:22 And the LORD God (1)fashioned into a woman (a)the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

NET Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God made(66 )a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

NIB Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib {Or part} he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

NIV Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib {22 Or part} he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

NKJ Genesis 2:22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

BGT Genesis 2:22 kai. wv|kodo,mhsen ku,rioj o` qeo.j th.n pleura,n h]n e;laben avpo. tou/ Adam eivj gunai/ka kai. h;gagen auvth.n pro.j to.n Adam


VUO Genesis 2:22 et aedificavit Dominus Deus costam quam tulerat de Adam in mulierem et adduxit eam ad Adam

 

there are many more that I have as well, that I have to admit I have not learned how to use yet. such as the morphology books

 

Is ignorance of the law an excuse for breaking the law? You may be shown grace and mercy, but it's still sin.

BTW, DD, I think that the posts you are referring to may have been posted by William C. and not SFiC. Although, in another thread, I do believe that SFiC was accused of lying, it was about something different.

 

HoG,

I posted his statements, and there have been several more.

Doc has posted them many times. He claimed he had answered the question, his wife got on and claimed he answered the question. Many times between them, they claimed to answer the question.

The question was what manuscript contains the reading.

So far, he has not done so. How is this not lying?