The World's Fastest Bible Memory Plan

I have seen this is a number of web sites and it is funny every time!

 

Personally I'm getting tired of it.
What doctrine is changed by the 'omission' of these
verses?
(Note you have to know what the doctrines of
your church are and how they were derived.
Most people who damn my NIV Bible don't bother
to even learn or teach their own churche's doctrine).

 

I agree Ed. I wonder who gets more pleasure from Christians making fun of the Bible, regardless of the translation, God or Satan?

 

Nobody said "damn the NIV". And your paint brush about folks who dislike the NIV is too broad for you to accurately wield.

 

Aren't chapter and verse divisions man made anyway?

 

Have you read these verses from a TR-based English translation? First, you will find that they are mostly NOT crucial theological proof texts (of course, the main exception is 1 John 5:7, which should be considered separately). To wit, Acts 28:29 --

And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. ​

Second, you will find all but a couple of the 11 Gospel examples do appear in parrallel passages or elsewhere in the New Testament. To wit, Mark 4:23 is word-for-word exactly the same as Mark 7:16 --

If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.​

So what's going on here? Were the 'conspirators' so stupid as to omit verses that weren't really damaging to their (evil?) purposes while leaving intact many perfectly clear doctrines, AND neglectful of removing those same phrases from similar accounts? This must be evidence of one of the worst executed vandalisms of all time.

 

Here's one doctrine that totally changes by the omission of Acts 8:37--it's called baptismal regeneration. By the omission of Acts 8:37, this passage teaches baptismal regeneration.

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[f] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. (NIV)

1. Acts 8:36 Some late manuscripts baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Footnotes are useless--why not put the verse in the text? It makes more sense there:

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:36-38) (KJV)

This portion of Scripture are the strongest verses refuting the doctrine of infant baptism. Without verse 37, that portion teaches that you are saved by baptism (baptismal regeneration)

Changing the Word of God, does change doctrines.

 

People who use the KJV as their Bible version of choice have taught Baptismal Regeneration regardless of what the NIV says.

 

What he said.

 

Got your jollies yet?

:BangHead:
:tonofbricks:

:sleep:

 

I can read all those verses in my NASB....in the text.

 

I apologize. I assumed you were against all MV's. I'm a little touchy on that subject.
:1_grouphug:

 

Actually some one did. I did.
my statement was about: //Most people who damn my NIV Bible
... // I didn't say anybody here fit that condition.
I didn't say anything about anybody here.
I described a shoe -- if it fits wear it.
If it don't fit, find some Crocs.

And your paint brush about folks who
dislike the NIV is too broad for you
to accurately wield

I respectfully disagree.
I've done a poll, you know

 

The Lady Linda64: //Changing the Word of God, does change doctrines.//

Why would anybody make their doctrine hinge on
one and only one passage? Seems to me
that half the passages on the subject show
"baptismal regeneration". adding one to the numbers
passages isn't going to mean anything. BTW, I do
not believe in the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration",
but I do note that about half of the passages on
Baptism, taken out of context do teach
"baptismal regeneration". One needs to study one's whole
Bible and believe the Whole Written Word of God,
not split hares* about individual passages.

*yes, that is 'split hares' not 'split hairs'

 

I do not agree that the omission causes this passage to teach baptismal regeneration since believing that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" alone is NOT sufficient for salvation (you must also believe that He was crucified and died, rose again alive, was a worthy sinless sacrifice, and born of a virgin). I think it is possible that an individual could believe that Jesus was the Second Person of the Gofhead without actually accepting Him as personal Savior. And since the eunuch was an adult, I don't see how the lack of verse 37 would allow for infant baptism either.

I did write that they "mostly" don't affect doctrine, and the "main" example was 1 John 5:7, leaving room for others. But I find submitting the entire list of 'missing' verses somewhat intellectually dishonest (know as 'Kitchen Sink-ing'). Really there are only a very few worthy of discussion.