"valid" versions

Streach your Love:

1 Peter 4:7-8 (NIV):
7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.
8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Now that is a strech -- covering a multitude of sins!

 

It is in the King James version bible.
Translated from the real unaltered texts: Massoretic text old testament
Majority text (callled textus receptus) New Testament
Modern versions mostly have corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt mixed in them and are about 5% error in important places.

King James chose the best linguistic scholars in England, from English universities. There were commitees of them that compared what each man translated and a consensus arrived at. To you it may look impossible to accurately translate, but to those linquisitic scholars they knew they could get an accurate translation. This makes the King James version the best translation of the unaltered texts. But it is in middle English. The amount of middle english that an ordinary person would have trouble with is small and in relatively unimportant places.
The problem between the King James and mostly all of the modern versions is not the translation ability of the translators. The modern versions use mostly the authentic texts, but they also mix corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt with the real texts. This means that at least 5% of the modern versions is not what the original author wrote. No matter how well you translate it, the modern versions will be not inspired in 5% of important places. Gnostic heretics in Alexandria Egypt, in the 4th century, took it upon themselves to mutilate the scriptures. Adding, deleting, and changing the text in important places. Those corrupted texts were written on the most expensive parchiaments and stored in the dry climate of Alexandria, so the parchiaments lasted longer. That is one of the reasons the corruptions were added.
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/kingjamesbible.asp

 

No they are not.
Corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts, vaticannus and Sinaiticus are mixed in most modern versions making 5% of them not the inspired Word of God.
Gnostic heretics in the 4th century corrupted the scriptures in the Alexandrian manuscripts, adding, deleting and changing words.
The real texts are the massoretic text of the Jews, Old Testament
The majority text or textus receptus (byzantine) New Testament
The king James version is translated from these unaltered real texts.
That makes the King James version the real bible, inerrant, inspired.

 

Pentecostalism is not a cult.
All the full gospel churches, that believe in the entire New Testament are pentecostal, [Assemblies of God, church of God, church of God in Christ]
Those are valid Christian churches teaching real salvation and the gifts of the Holy Spirit with the speaking and praying in other tongues as set forth in the New Testament.
[United Pentecostal has gone into error denying the trinity, and believing that you need to speak in tongues to be saved; that is not true.]
The three denominations in brackets, teach real salvation and believe that the non tongue speaking Christian denominations that preach real salvation are real christian denominations, however they lack the faith necessary to appropriate the gift of tongues, and the other gifts of the Spirit. They don't teach the full gospel.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

If you want only salvation and to be ignorant of a deeper walk with the Lord, then let you be ignorant.
But you won't have prophesy, or tongues with interpretation in your services. You will miss the faith building of praying in tongues and won't see that many miracles of healing or excorcisms or other miracles either, except for just a few.
If your denomination has chosen not to believe in these things then they won't be happening at your church.
They are appropriated by FAITH. They are available to the church and the believer that has faith to receive them.

 

Well written post...too bad your source is fiction.

 

rbell to post #22: // Well written post...too bad your source is fiction. //

Amen, Rbell.

For example: // This makes the King James version the best translation of the unaltered texts. But it is in middle English. //

1. The King James uses the most obviously ADDED-TO TEXTs. The TR is something like 5% thicker than the Critical Texts.

2. The language of the KJV translation language is called 'early Modern English'. The actual KJV now used is is Modern English.

// King James chose the best linguistic scholars in England, from English universities. //

3. They were all From the Church of England: some of the interesting doctrines of the CoE:
3a. infant baptism
3b. persecution of the 'Baptist heresy'
3c priest hood of the priests
By contrast, the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003) was translated by Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. - mainstream modern Protestants

The source:

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/kingjamesbible.asp

is a well-known comic book writing & publishing house.

4. Ed's advise: get your doctrine from sound sources (preferring self-study) NOT form comic houses.

 

Apologies to the poster. I deleted this thinking it was in another thread.

Please forgive me.

C4K
Roger

 

In the Forum for Baptists only:
Bible Versions/Translations

In the Poll for Baptists only::
Versions that are Invalid:

at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=21

Here is the question asked:
Which of the following versions are invalid?

Here is the responses of 126 persons thus far:
---------------------------------------------------- ------------
KJV1611 Edition -------------------------- 7.94%
KJV1762 Edition -------------------------- 7.94%
KJV1873 Edition -------------------------- 7.94%
Geneva Bible of 1587 -------------------- 11.11%
NASB = New American Standard Bible -- 19.84%
ESV = English Standard Version --------- 20.63%
NIV = New International Version -------- 25.40%
---------------------------------------------------- ------------
The Message by Peterson -------------------- 61.90%
Reader's Digest Bible -------------------------- 70.63%
NWT = New World Translation --------------- 80.95%

The bottom 3 Bibles are rejected by 60% of the voters or more.
The top 7 Bibles are accepted by 74% of the voters or more.
This clearly denotes that any group of Brothers/Sisters can figure out which are the valid Bibles and which are the invalid Bibles.

 

I'm sure the folks which identified the various editions of the KJV and the Geneva version didn't know the meaning of the word "invalid".Either that,or they were just joking around.

I guess some of the valid versions would be the NET Bible,NLTse,HCSB,REB,NRSV and TNIV among a galaxy of others.

 

I suspect you are right. But I was limited to ten in my survey.

 

I did inadvertantly leave out the word, "respectively" in my original post on the subject, but overlooked this when I caught the typo of the word "demonization," when I intended denomination. Pentecostalism was my example of a denomination. I have no great basic fundamental difference with the 'old' Pentecostals, or "classic" Pentecostalism, apart from some points of interpretation. The A/G and Ch. of God, are examples of this group.

I have far more issues with parts of the so-called "Charismatic Movement" or "Neo-Pentecostalism," mostly from a Biblical standpoint, particularly as to the 'new revelation-ism' that some are espousing I am not quite ready to move this facet of Pentecostalism, from 'denomination' to 'sect' but I am very close. At best, IMO, it is a sort of vagarity.

Point is, whether or not I agree with 'classic Pentecostals' as to their intrepretation of Spiritual gifts, and some other doctrinal points, the overall point of view that group would espouse, as well as my own view, would consider that 'revelation has ended' with the completion of the canon.

There are factions of Pentecostalism, which do not consider that revelation has ended, and that there is 'extra-Biblical revelation' ongoing. This is a variation on the New Age teaching and Biblical teachings combined into one amalgamation, that is neither fish nor fowl. While I have yet to personally run into any that espouse that there is a possibility for additional revelation on par, or even exceeding that with the 66 books of Scripture, I do assure you that there are such around. This is a definite fundamental difference, and not just 'interpretational' difference, as with 'classical' Pentecostals, that I have.

A denial of the 'Trinity', such as by United Pentecostals, and/or 'Oneness' theology, qualifies fully as "cult" as nothing else in my four point division, will suffice. I grant this is not a perfect dividing scheme, by any stretch.

Again, I do apologize because the post was less than clear.

Ed

 

I'll repost another version of it.
You want other references try these websites:
http://www.scourby.com/whykjv.htm
Shows why the KJV today is essentially the same as the original 1611 version. There are no revisions of the KJV, only editions to upgrade spelling, use more modern english and correct a few minor textual errors.
The RSV and Niv are not revisions of the KJv, like they claim to be. They have mixed in them the corrupted manuscripts vaticannus and sinaiticus from Alexandria.
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

Repeating what I said about Jack Chick:
I know (suspect) that the roman catholics that are pretending to be protestant [Pretending to be saved] that use these boards, will speak against Chick no matter what evidence he has.
According to the coucil of Trent, anyone that believes he has assurance of salvation is a heretic. A real catholic is not allowed to believe he is saved, even if he is one of their undercover agents pretending to belong to another religion.
They need to do what it says in Revelation and come out of Babylon.
Citizens of Rome no matter what country they live in.

a passage from the reliable old Protestant classic, The History Of Protestanism by Rev. J. A. Wylie, page 412, Vol. 11:

"There was no disguise they (the Jesuits) could not assume, and therefore, there was no place into which they could not penetrate. They could enter unheard the closet of the Monarch, or the Cabinet of the Statesman. They could sit unseen in convocation or General Assembly, and mingle unsuspected in the deliberations and debates.
"There was no tongue they could not speak, and no creed they could not profess, and thus there was no people among whom they might not sojourn, and no church whose membership they might not enter and whose functions they might not discharge. They could execrate the Pope with the Lutheran, and swear the Solemn League with the Covenanter."

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/199/0199_01a.asp

 

The NIV has never claimed to be a revision of the KJV.Where did you get that idea?It was a brand-new translation when it came out.There are similarities at times in some of the most conspicuous places but the NIV stands alone as does the HCSB,and ISV for example.

 

Pure,unadulterated bunk.Bring on better arguments than this variety.

 

We have been hearing for a while that the RCC has a network of spies, who among other things watch us through our televisions. I am sure that some of them are monitoring our keystrokes as we post here.

Catholics, posing as baptists, lying about Chick. I more suspect that Jack Chick is a Catholic who publishes such absurd materials that people take serious issues lightly and mockingly.

 

Hey, ya'll quit talkin' 'bout ol' Jack! He, and John Grisham, are my favorite fiction writers! After all, who could....


(INTERRUPTION: long beep)

The following is a broadcast of the Jack Chick Emergency broadcast system. Please stay tuned for unofficial, though entertaining, information:

NEWS FLASH: I've just been handed this report...C4K, Pastor Larry, and Blackbird are actually Catholic Cardinals. Dr. Bob's agent has issued a denial of all earlier charges...apparently, he is a St. Louis Cardinal.

I tracked down the IP addressesof these individuals...there seems to be some disturbing developments here...

• C4K commutes to the Vatican every morning, and posts from there.
• Blackbird has Cajun leanings...and is thus affiliated with Louisiana, so he must be Catholic.
• Pastor Larry was found residing in my television, monitoring my activity.

This concludes the broadcast of the Jack Chick Emergency Broadcast system. Had this been an actual emergency, Pastor Larry would have crawled out of your TV set, hit you with a rosary, and genuflected your hide all the way down to the confessional



nothing like the spiritual gift of sarcasm....

 

The only preacher I would think might have revelation in his teachings on par with scripture, that I know of, is Smith Wigglesworth, the apostle of faith. [There is nothing in the bible that indicates that there are no more apostles, or prophets or miracle workers; these offices should continue to the end of the age.]
I read his teachings and everything is according to scripture; his wife taught him to read and the only book he ever read was the bible.
He raised several from the dead, had a really large healing ministry and was by all accounts apostle rated.
Ever increasing faith is I suppose is his most popular collection of teachings.
Today there are false brethren faking the miracles. Peter Popoff is an example of this. The antichrist system has been faking the miracles with fake healing preachers. It is easy to fake miracles of healing with modern technology. There are also real miracles that happen by fake preachers, and they are deceptions of the devil. [I have read of spiritualist healers that don't even believe in God and they can do real healing miracles. In the field of parapsychology an energy transfer from healer to patient can be filmed by a technique called Kirlian photography.--non christians can heal by the laying on of hands, and science has verified it.] So even if healings really happen it does not mean the guy is right with God.
You must judge a preacher by what he is saying and see if it matches scripture or not to see if he is a real man of God. Jesus said false prophets would work miracles.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
[Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, --I don't trust any of these guys] Hearing Robertson say repeatedly how the pope is doing God's work; I sure don't trust him.] Benny Hinn got his ministry from Kathryn Kuhlman and Alberto Rivera said she was a catholic spy for sure. --I sure don't trust Hinn.]

 

S.W. was a fraud.He was a pioneer who laid the groundwork for people you denounced.Todd Bentley could have taken lessons from him.Mr.W. started all the quakery that is so pervasive now.

Why you admire him is beyond me.Aren't there sound men of God you could have read more of?

I trust you will burn your library of S.W.'s stuff.

 

My HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003) is a VALID English Translation. The HCSB contains the inerrant Written Word of God. In the HCSB you can see how to be Saved (including justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. - elements of the Salvation Jesus brings to us.)\

The HCSB is 100% pure, preserved by God, Written word of God. All valid English Translations are each and collectively the inerrant Written Word of God.

If you find a supposed 'conflict' within or among the Valid English Versions -- God did not put it there; the Holy Spirit can help us figure out what is right.

 

Taken from an article by Robert Stewart:
In approaching the NIV, I read in the Preface that the Greek text used
was "an eclectic one". The word "eclectic" had me looking for my
Dictionary. I found that the word "eclectic" means "chosen from
various sources".
Pick and mix, in other words.
I wrote to the International Bible Society to enquire about the
"eclectic" text of the NIV. Ralph Earle advised me that the Greek
text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible
Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text. I
subsequently discovered that this modern UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic"
text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New
Testament.
My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial
Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria
Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops,
former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector
Magnificus" of the Gregorian University,
As I did, it slowly dawned on me that, working on a theory first
propounded by Westcott and Hort in 1881, the translators of most of
the modern Bibles had deserted the traditional New Testament text of
the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and
peculiar readings of a handful of obscure manuscripts, primarily (but
not exclusively) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

These minority readings, chosen from various sources, had been
introduced into the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text
under the supervision of the most prominent Roman Catholic Greek
Scholar in the world.
That was from an article by Robert Stewart.
The catholic church is behind the modern versions, they are trying to shoot down the protestant bible the KJV and replace it with the corrupted text versions. All catholic bibles have the Alexandrian texts mixed in. Jack Chick said that the protestant bible colleges are infiltrated with catholic teachers, pretending to be protestant and they are turning future protestant preachers away from the KJV and have been doing it for decades. They say the original greek meant something else, but they are using the corrupted Alexandrian greek and tricking the students, by not using the KJV greek, majority text.
When eusebius, was chosen by Constantine to pick out texts for 50 bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church he chose to mix the corrupted Alexandrian texts in with the majority text. Because he did not believe in the trinity and none of the Alexandrian texts had 1John 5:7, the main trinity verse, in the majority text. The KJV 1Jn. 5:7 is missing from mostly all modern versions. --the gnostic heretics in Alexandria that corrupted the Alexandrian manuscripts did not believe in the trinity either.
Ruppert Murdoch, the publisher of the NIV, is a pornographer.

More from Robert Stewart:
There is abundant historical evidence that Gnostics produced corrupt
manuscripts in Alexandria. In 1945/46 no less than thirteen Gnostic
bound volumes were discovered at Nag Hammadi, near Chenoboskion, in
Egypt, which contained more than fifty Gnostic sacred writings and
scriptures including, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel
according to the Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Both
Clement and Origen refer to, and quote from, these apocryphal and
corrupt Gnostic scriptures in their own writings.
The Byzantine text, of which the KJV is translated, can be trace back to the first or second century, long before the Alexandrian text was corrupted and came into existence.
Greek scholar Wilbur N Pickering has researched this claim and reveals
that: "Byzantine readings are recognised (most notably) by the
Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second
century [AD 100-150]; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus,
and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half [AD 150-199]; by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all
heavily) in the first half of the third century [AD 200-250]; by
Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of
Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half [AD 250-299]". ("The
Identity of the New Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980;
p 75)
There again, he might have in mind the "oldest and one of the most
excellent of the versions" (to quote Scrivener) which is the
translation of the Greek into Syriac called the Peshitta. Paul's
missionary base was at Antioch, in Syria, and the Syriac-speaking
Christians had the Scriptures translated into their own language. It
is universally acknowledged that the Peshitta is a translation of the
Byzantine text and, according to church historians (Eusebius and
others), the Peshitta dates from c AD 150. Terence H Brown confirms
that "the Syriac version was older by two centuries than the Nestorian
heresy (AD 431)".
[The above is referring to the first Peshitta. There was a centuries later translation also called Peshitta.]
"I know of no reason to doubt that the Byzantine text is in fact the
form of text that was known and transmitted in the Aegean area [Asia
Minor and Greece] from the beginning". ("The Identity of the New
Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980; p 229. ISBN
0-8407-5744-1)

The King James version is translated from the original unaltered texts. Massoretic text of the Jews old testament and Byzantine [textus receptus] New Testament. [See Brittanica online, --massoretic text.]

The modern versions have corrupted manuscripts vaticanus and sinaiticus mixed in them and are 5% unreliable in important places.