Wrong Numbers in the Modern Versions

Yes, there is a "day" 23 HR, 56 min, 4.091 sec.
There is still a "day" of exactly 24 hours.
There is a day of 48 hours (a 24 hour day like
01 April 2004 will last somewhere on the earth
for 48 hours.
Other days are: 8 hours, 12 hours.
And then there is the 1,000 year day of 2 Peter 3:8!

Interesting, you mention an eror of .0655

Postribulationists will not let me add 7 years
to their 1,000 yeras. This is only .07 difference
(similar to the .0655, at least when rounded )

BTW on that laver the .0655 error is 3.5" not 1/3"

Will: "It is hardlyl consistant, therefore to
frame an inprecisie objective tagianst the
Bible's alleged imprecision."

Likewise to avoid inconsistancy,
I'll not believe your assumption in my
NIV Bible, for you are a sinner.

I promised if you explained the pi problem
I'd tell you what God revealed to me about the
2,000 v. 3,000 bath problem. You tryed three
differenet explanations. The one about
approximation is most correct.
here is what i found out;
The 2k/3k bath problems is of no concern in
the eternal struggle for the souls of men.

This, of course, proves that Hod has preserved His
perffect, inspired, inerrant written word
of God in all English versions (individually and
collectively). There is no variation between
versions that God has a problem with (there are
some that people have a problem with).

 

Learn something new everyday. For the sake of the KJVO's we must "sweep it under the rug" so that it won't be known. It might destroy their theological foundation.

If we didn't "sweep it under the rug" they wouldn't have anything to preach about anymore.

 

Here is an interesting note in the SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE at 1 Corinthians 10:8.

Scofield was taken hook line and sinker by the heretical philosophy of textual criticism in his day. It is true that it would be difficult for mere men to preserve the Scriptures intact down through the centuries. But this is the point which many people fail to realize. Who was in control of preserving the Scriptures? Man or God?

Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The preservation of the Scriptures took place through the priesthood of believers, but it is obvious that in order for our Lord to keep His promise to preserve His Words that He had to be in Sovereign control. Our great God, the Spirit of Truth, whose understanding is infinite, has preserved His Words intact in the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the Traditional Received Greek Text for the New Testament, which underlies our King James Version.

Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, don't let these modern versions shake your faith in God's perfect preserved Word.

 

I wonder if some GBO's said this in 1611?

 

Will Kinney wrote:

------------------------------------------------

In reply, I write:

"Will, I do not defend the NASB translators, their preface, their marginal notes, nor all of their theology. Only the actual English Text is the complete, infallible, inerrant, pure words of God. That is what I believe in all matters of faith and doctrine.

I do not believe the NASB translators themselves were inspired in the same way as the Prophets and Apostles, and I do not agree with all of their thoughts or conclusions found in the Preface.

God bless,

Larry"


Would my statement be any less vaild than Will's? It would express my belief (and I cite just as much proof in my statement as Will does).

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

It was men who added the verse numbers not God. They were never there originally. If one were to follow your reasoning then they we would not have verse numbers today.
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

I think you are misunderstanding the "numbers" being spoken of, not only on this thread, but the book by Noah Hutchings "God The Master Mathmetician". Have you actually read this book, or at least this chapter to which was quoted from? I have this book. This is not speaking of chapter or verse numbers as you assume it to be, but exactly what the whole topic of debate on this thread is about, and to what Bro. Will so wonderfully has shared.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
LarryN quoted:

"Will, I do not defend the NASB translators, their preface, their marginal notes, nor all of their theology. Only the actual English Text is the complete, infallible, inerrant, pure words of God. That is what I believe in all matters of faith and doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------

LarryN,

Is it then safe to assume, that all those long standing verses of scripture, that were and still are understood by God's people, as being God's preserved and pure word of God that have been put in footnotes, you believe are not to be believed as God's preserved word? What if one version has it in a footnote, but then another version, based upon the same underlying text has included it? What then is it? Is it God's preserved word of truth, or not, based upon your belief stated in the above quote?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

I think you're missing the intended humor (i.e. sarcasm) in my post. I do not believe that ONLY the NASB is God's Word. I was just using it for effect.

If you'll notice, I just took Will Kinney's reply to myself, and substituted "NASB" where he had written "King James Version". My point was/is that without a single shred of evidence presented to back up either statement, why would substituting "NASB" for "King James Version" make either statement any more valid than the other?

On another note, by disassociating his beliefs from those expressed by the translators (e.g. Will states that he doesn't defend any of their thoughts or writings in footnotes, the preface, etc.- isn't he demonstrating a double standard? After all, KJVO's are very quick to attack the thoughts or writings of MV translators which they have placed in footnotes, prefaces, etc. Why are these "fair game" in MV's, but not in the KJV?

 

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
LarryN quoted:

After all, KJVO's are very quick to attack the thoughts or writings of MV translators which they have placed in footnotes, prefaces, etc. Why are these "fair game" in MV's, but not in the KJV?
--------------------------------------------------


LarryN,

Because the modern versions have put God's preserved words of truth in footnotes casting doubt upon the reader of those versions, as to what indeed God has said and preserved.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, You are aware that the original AV1611 had roughly 8,000 footnotes, many of which expressed uncertainty over the text in question they referred to (the translators themselves were basically saying "we're not exactly sure that we're translating this correctly") or that provided alternate readings that they deemed equally acceptable? These original footnotes are now usually omitted from modern editions, but facsimiles of the original are readily available.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


LarryN,

This issue has to do with two different underlying texts. One is that of the modern versions, now called the "majority text" and the "recieved text (TR)" which was at one time called the majority text, which underlines the KJV. These two differ greatly, and it is why we see the many differences between the KJV and most modern versions. It is this fact alone, that is the problem, and that many here like to avoid discussing. I continually see those who approve of the modern versions, to bring up irrelevent things, such as your last post. It is totally irrelevent to the truth in this very important matter. My KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking people, and I can trust that it is indeed the very words of God to me and my life/walk 100% with no doubt whatsoever. Sadly, this cannot be said of the numerous modern versions out there that have put a stumblingblock of doubt before the little children as to what indeed God has said and preserved. My KJV does not have footnotes that cause me to doubt whether God has said something, or not. Sorry, but the argument many of you try to make is totally irrelevant, yet you all continue to make it seem as though it is. Is this being done to give yourselves the excuse you need to condone something you all know in your heart is not right? Are you all actually condoning corruptions that have been done to God's holy and pure word of truth? Why do you do this? Why? Do you not love God's truth enouph to stand strong for it, and to warn others of those that have corrupted/altered it?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle wrote:

Absolutely. Unequivocably. That's why I'm opposed to the cancer known as KJVOism that reared its ugly head in IFB circles around 35 years ago, and which continues to needlessly, divisively separate brothers and sisters in Christ.

Michelle wrote:

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

LarryN,

Did not Jesus say that he did not come to the world to bring peace, but rather division? One will always find division between the truth and the lie. They both cannot be right, and to believe that all versions are God's preserved word of God is compromising the truth. It is compromising truth that has been long understood as God's pure and preserved word of truth to his people with the alterations that have been done to it.

You called my argument a strawman issue. This couldn't be further from the truth, unless you deem the truth unimportant. Please quote to me from these versions

you quoted:
Substitute NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc here, and the sentence would ring equally true

our Lord's prayer. How about quoting Mark 9:24, Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43, Luke 23:42, John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, John 1:27, John 3:13, John 6:69, Acts 3:13, Acts 8:37, Romans 9:5, 1 Corinth.15:47, Ephesians 3:9, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 3:16, Rev. 1:11. These are but of few of those things which have corrupted God's word of truth, and these being in relation to the Deity of Christ. The critical greek text that the modern versions are translated from, weaken the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. There are many more other alterations not here alluded to. Please, from all those versions you mention in the above quote, please take the time to post each and every verse, from each of these versions, so that all may get a clear view of the differences, and the impact upon the reader. What, do you say it does not matter, that Christ's Deity is still shown in these versions? I wonder then, which would be the one blessed of God, and which one would not? Take this to the Lord in humble prayer, and he will show you, as he has shown me, and many others. Here is a verse of scripture that is very relevant to this and I will end this post with this:

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps.11:3)

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle wrote:

Oh good, another list of verses that *purport* to display the alleged superiority of the KJV over other versions. I could get bogged down in a pointless verse-by-verse comparision (with you & other KJVO's using the text of the KJV itself as the ultimate basis of comparison, rather than the original Autographs); or I could in turn provide you with a listing of verses in MV's that no less capably "prove" their superiority over the KJV; but why bother- you'd refuse to acknowledge that.

How about focusing on the equally pointless "truth" that the KJV repeatedly "omits" the name of Jesus, compared to many MV's? Why, the word "Jesus" appears in the KJV only 942 times, whereas it appears 947 times in the NASB, and a whopping 1,404 times in the recent NLT (a paraphrase). Could I make a claim that the KJV translators were somehow trying to delete the name of our Lord and Saviour?

Such comparisons can cut both ways, when taken to unwarrented conclusions.

 

Good point, which is why I believe that NO VERSION OR TRANSLATION is GOd's preserved word. Rather, they're translations of the same.

The only way to be consistent in that thought is to believe then that the source texts of the KJV have been altered from the earlier manuscripts, since the KJV source texts don't appear on the scene for hundreds of years AFTER the earlier texts.

Whether one source text is "weaker" or "stronger" in regards to Christ's deity is not the point. If the KJV source texts are shown to have altered the texts from the earlier source texts, then, even if that alteration strengthens the deity of Christ, it is still wrong to make such an alteration, since we're forbidden as Christians from doing so.

Again, you refer to alteration. Earlier source texts cannot alter later source texts. However, later source texts can alter earlier ones. The KJV source texts are later.

Version-onlyism, whether that be KJVonlyism, NIVonlyism, or any other onlyism, borders on idolatry, and is a sin. One cannot be a fundemantal Christian and be engaged in versionolatry, since doing so violates Christian fundamentals.

 

Michelle: " My KJV is the preserved word of God for
the english speaking people, and I can trust that
it is indeed the very words of God to me and
my life/walk 100% with no doubt whatsoever.

My HCSB is the preserved word of God for
the English speaking people of the 21st
Century, and I can trust that
it is indeed the very words of God to me and
my life/walk 100% with no doubt whatsoever.
And i can say this without dissing your Bible.

Michelle: " Sadly, this cannot be said of the numerous
modern versions out there that have put a stumblingblock
of doubt before the little children as to what indeed God
has said and preserved.

I rebuke you in the Name of Jesus for demeaning His Holy
word in my Modern Version: the HCSB. I call for you to
repent from saying evil against God's Written Word: the
Holy Bible, my HCSB.

Michelle: "My KJV does not have footnotes that
cause me to doubt whether God has said something, or not."

My KJV does have footnotes which illustrate the vast
multiple-layered truths of an opnipotent God who is
NOT limited by attemts to let Him have one and only one

 

As does my AV1611 facimile reprint. And some of those foot(marginal) notes agree with the modern versions. Furthermore, it is definately more honest to let people know about variations in manuscripts than it is to hide the variations.

 

Michelle, you keep bringing up the subject of different mss. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH IS RIGHT OR WHICH ISN'T?

There's less difference between the "families" of mss than there are between the various mss within the same "family". For example, each of the four Gospels differs significantly from the others in its narration of the same events. But we believe each of them is Scripture, don't we? And in the OT, did Jehoiachin begin reigning at age 8 or at age 18?

These differences weren't discovered by us; they've been known for thousands of years! The common explanation is that these are different accounts written by different people with differing points of view or differing sources of info. We *MUST* apply the same explanations to the differing mss, or use a DOUBLE STANDARD.

Sorry, Michelle, the mss issue is just another poor excuse tried by the KJVOs and proven by SCRIPTURE ITSELF to be a dud. KJVO is still a myth.

 

Michelle, it's as if you're trying to prove the earth is flat by taking us up in a rocket to see for ourselves, then blaming the curvature we all see upon the window glass, although the view from that same glass before the rocket was launched was perfectly flat. Now, you hafta find a new excuse to explain away what we all(including yourself0 plainly see through that window.

You point out the "alterations" found in another version such as the NIV, which differs from the KJV, but you CANNOT prove the KJV is right & the NIV is wrong. Just saying, "It aint the KJV" will NOT do! While doing this, you ignore the very plain differences between narrations of the same events that are found within every version of Scripture. These differences are NOT anything new; they've been known & commented on by various writers since the very beginnings of the distribution of Scripture! These differences WITHIN many mss are far greater than those BETWEEN the various mss, but you choose to try to prove KJVOism by citing differences between the mss. Do I hear "straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel"?

Michelle, I suggest you quit believing the baloney those KJVO authors such as Riplinger or Ruckman write until you check out the VERACITY of their statements. You may be in for a pleasant(or UNpleasant) surprise! I think you MEAN well, but you've read too much hooey from those KJVO authors, as your statements reflect a lot of their stuff. Please take time to see WHO'S telling the TRUTH!!