Bible Discussion: NLV Translation

NLV Translation
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

John
2004-09-18 11:01:44 EST
Pastor Dave and others is this a false translation?

Rom 13:8

Romans 13
8If someone has the gift of speaking words of comfort and help, he
should speak. If someone has the gift of sharing what he has, he should
give from a willing heart. If someone has the gift of leading other
people, he should lead them. If someone has the gift of showing kindness
to others, he should be happy as he does it.


Does not sound like the debt verse if you ask me.
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it\ufffds taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can\ufffdt afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-18 11:18:59 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:01:44 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:

>Pastor Dave and others is this a false translation?
>
>Rom 13:8
>
>Romans 13
>8If someone has the gift of speaking words of comfort and help, he
>should speak. If someone has the gift of sharing what he has, he should
>give from a willing heart. If someone has the gift of leading other
>people, he should lead them. If someone has the gift of showing kindness
>to others, he should be happy as he does it.
>
>
>Does not sound like the debt verse if you ask me.

Romans 13:8 doesn't say that, that's for sure. I
double checked it on www.biblegateway.com to make sure
you had labeled the verse correctly and sure enough, it
says what you quoted above. Yes, that is a false
translation, unless you got it from the same place and
they just have it mixed up with another verse, or it is
a misprint in the NLV itself.

I do not personally recommend any Bible based on the
corrupt Alexandrian Text.



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


"Prevent truth decay. Brush up on your Bible."



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John
2004-09-18 16:03:33 EST
> I do not personally recommend any Bible based on the
> corrupt Alexandrian Text.

Provide hard evidence that the Alexandrian Text is corrupted. Dont add
your own eiseges or personal opinion to it.
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-18 17:33:07 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:03:33 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:


>> I do not personally recommend any Bible based on the
>> corrupt Alexandrian Text.
>
>Provide hard evidence that the Alexandrian Text is corrupted. Dont add
>your own eiseges or personal opinion to it.

Am I your library? Is this not important enough to you
to research for yourself? It is the word of God, after
all. I will give you some information though.

Almost all modern versions of the Bible are based on
the Alexandrian Texts and they are worthy of your time
and research, if you're going to read a version based
on them. And modern English versions are NOT based on
the same texts as the KJV and a few others (which is
based on the Majority Texts), so don't let anyone tell
you that they are. I would suggest that you carefully
investigate these texts for yourself.

The biggest argument that these "pro-Alexandrian"
people use, is that they are older. Their next
statement (and you have to watch carefully), is that
they are "more reliable". Why? They answer, "because
they are older". That's right, that's all there is to
the "older and more reliable" argument that they use.
There is NO other basis for their "more reliable"
statement. None. It is a circular argument.

The fact remains, that in the way old days, copies were
made by hand (quite a process of copy and error
checking, which took years) and you had some "master
copies", for lack of a better term. More copies were
made off of these, etc., etc., until you had many
copies floating around. The problem is, that you can
only roll and unroll a scroll just so many times,
before it wears out and you can't use it anymore. But
that's ok, because you have EXACT copies. But even
these wear out, after a while, due to being opened and
read, or more copies being made from them.

Now while people like to make the claim that textual
errors crept into these copies, the fact is, that they
were checked by many and if even one little error was
found, the whole thing was thrown away and they would
have to start again. Once again, you should really
look into this process and how careful they actually
were. I'm not saying every scribe was perfect, but the
fact remains, that the Majority Texts have over 5,000
copies in existence and all agree 98% of the time and
as for the other two percent, it is a matter of the
spelling of a word, or the name of a town changed,
etc.. No doctrinal changes.

Anyway, it is the texts that were used, that would keep
wearing out and therefore, you would have newer copies
in existence, not way ancient ones. If you have a very
old copy, such as the Alexandrian Texts, that doesn't
tell you that it is a more reliable set of texts, but
rather, that they weren't being used. Therefore, they
still exist. Bear in mind, at that point in history,
they did not have the same excitement about
"originals", as we do today (probably because they had
no way to mass produce and retain them). Scribes were
so meticulous, that a certified copy was considered the
same as the original. When an original would wear out,
it was destroyed. Is it a surprise then, that the most
used texts would have copies that are for the most part
newer (although there are a few very ancient fragments
around and they do agree with the Majority Texts).

As for the Alexandrian Texts in question, they are NOT
many, but ONLY TWO texts.

The Vaticanus: Found in the Vatican Library, in 1481.
Omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106
through 138; Matthew 16:2-3; the Pauline Pastoral
Epistles, Hebrews 9:14 through 13:35 and the whole book
of Revelation. The Vaticanus does contain the
Apocrypha (red flag).

The Sinaiticus: This manuscript from which your NIV,
NASB, PHILLIPS, and almost every other modern version
you can think of besides the King James, the New King
James (for the most part), the LITV, the MKJV and the
ALT Bibles, was found in St. Catherine's Monastery near
Mt. Sinai in 1844 by Tischendorf. It was in a trash
pile and was about to be used to light the fireplace.
It contained nearly all the New Testament plus the
"Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas".
Red flag! Hello? :)

I won't even get into the erasure marks and changes
over the years, by different hands, even as late as the
12th century. Let us remember though, that these two
texts differ from each other in about 3,000 places in
the Gospels alone and I am not discussing spelling
errors and one of them (the Vaticanus) agrees with the
Majority Texts, instead of the other text (the
Sinaiticus), yet they use the Sinaiticus text.

The reality is, out of the available texts, almost all
modern versions are based almost completely on one
text, which is the one that disagrees most with the
Majority Texts and even other Alexandrian Texts.

Wescott and Hort promoted these Alexandrian Texts and
Hort worked on them. It is wise to examine what they
believed.


Hort:

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.
There are, I fear, still more serious differences
between us on the subject of authority, and especially
the authority of the Bible."

"But the book that has most engaged me is Darwin. My
feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship
and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"But you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist."

"I am inclined to think that such a state as Eden (I
mean the popular notion) never existed."

"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and
material counterfeit."

"The Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to
lead to the truth than the Evangelical. We dare not
forsake the sacraments, or God will forsake us."


Wescott:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry
bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three
chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal
history."


Hmmmm.... Interesting comments, huh?

So, I guess it all comes down to asking when God told
us to go to Egypt for His word. Egypt has always been
represented in Scripture as being evil, never of God.

Yes folks, the people have been deceived by these
texts, but it is no wonder. After all.....

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into
an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11:14

The argument of many people translating from them into
Bibles today, isn't valid at all. Many churches teach
false doctrine. Should we imitate them?

Now some may not agree with the Bible. But you must
admit that those who claim to be Christian should agree
with the Bible and therefore, when someone who
disagrees strongly with the Bible and is obviously
biased, is doing the translation, that should send up a
red flag. And when those who are biased against the
Bible and disagree with it, are actually promoting a
set of texts, that should send up a huge red flag. I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
This is why I trust the KJV . It was a translation
done from the Majority Texts ((there are other good
ones based on the Majority Texts) and accomplished by
47 scholars, who fluently spoke, read and wrote an
average of 11 languages each. Remember, they didn't
have a TV in those days, to take up their time and warp
their minds. :) They actually spent their time
studying and learning. And their work is impeachable
to this day. Even though many attack it, they do so
using the corrupt Alexandrian Texts and I'm sorry, but
that just doesn't cut it.

What you must do, is stop looking at this issue as
someone who understands the doctrines of Christianity
and imagine that you had never read the Bible at all
and were by yourself, reading it. What would your
image of Jesus be, considering that many of these
modern translations, based on the Alexandrian Texts,
omit words. For example, where the KJV used, "Lord
Jesus Christ" (which is in the Majority Texts, which
are over 5,000 copies strong), the Alexandrian version
will just say, "Jesus". Now that could change the
picture in the person's mind from the Lord which we
worship, to just a way cool teacher, could it not?

Look at the following example, in Matthew 1:25:

The KJV states that Mary gave birth to "her firstborn",
which tells you that she had other children.

The NIV simply says that she gave birth to "a son".

There's quite a difference there, since that leaves the
door open to a different belief regarding what the
Catholics call the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and
you might be influenced by a Roman Catholic priest
telling you that Mary was a "perpetual virgin". Again,
don't consider what you already know, but rather,
pretend that you don't know anything yet and are just
learning.

Remember, that if someone wants to make a counterfeit
copy of the texts, it has to be very close to the
original, or everyone will know right away that it is a
counterfeit. Why the omissions of the words, "Lord"
and "Christ" in many of these versions?

Remember, rat poison isn't all poison. It's mostly
good food (99% or more), with a very small percentage
of poison. Otherwise, the rat wouldn't eat it. Think
about that.

I guess what it boils down to for me, is that I would
rather take the time to learn the Elizabethan English
and go with what I know is a trustworthy version, based
on trustworthy texts and raise my level of education,
than to dumb down the Bible, to my current level of
education. After all, don't we applaud our children,
if they learn Shakespeare, saying it is a beautiful
English? Yet, when it comes to the Bible, older
English is a bad thing? That's hypocrisy.

Also, let us understand that with Elizabethan English,
the text of the original is more clear for us. For
example, in the KJV, you know when someone is speaking
to one person, or more than one. If it starts with a
"T" (thee, thou, thine), they are speaking to one
person. A "Y" means that more than one person is being
addressed (ye). Also, modern English can't carry over
the inflections in the original language, as well as
the Elizabethan English can.

There are other options though. I would research
different modern English translations and see what
they're based on, if a modern English version is what I
wanted.

I am not a "KJV only" person. I just haven't found
many modern English versions that I would consider
trustworthy and when dealing with God's word, I think
we had all better be very careful about which version
we choose to read. After all, this is God's written
word to mankind we are dealing with. It is of the
utmost importance!

I'm also not into beating anyone over the head, to try
to force them to see it as I do. But I do provide the
information, when someone discusses Bible versions.

You know what amazes me? We wouldn't let a preacher
get up and preach, who doesn't believe the Bible, or
teaches that evolution, as Darwin stated it, is how we
got here, or teaches against the deity of Christ, yet,
we line up and can't wait to get our copy of the Bible,
that was translated by Wescott and Hort, or from the
Nestle/Aland Greek Texts (which are based on the
Alexandrian Texts), or the UBS texts, or other people
and texts of this type and many words are left out,
including references to the deity of Christ and the
translators even reword the Creation account, to say,
"a day", instead of "the first day", or put notes at
the bottom, claiming it doesn't mean an actual day and
claim that it actually means "a span of time". Since
when is it a good thing to promote anti-Biblical
philosophy, within the Bible itself and reword it to
suit our own purposes? The fact that this is done, is
exactly that... a fact and yet, not only do these
Bibles sell like crazy, but Christians actually defend
them.

The fact that most people use them, these days, is
irrelevant. After all, look at how many were deceived
by Satan, even in the first century church. Most
people follow him. According to the logic of most
people being supportive of these texts (or supporting
the modern English versions translated from them), if I
were to follow him, I should be able to ask you why
you're not, since most people are.

Now, if you want proof of the influence of these
"modern day" Bibles, then start to question people on
what they believe (not stemming from this topic, so
you'll get an honest and unguarded response). I think
you will find that the majority of KJV users believe in
a literal Creation and believe the Bible to be the word
of God. I think you'll also find that most of the
"modern day" Bible users, question the Creation account
and hold a belief in evolution and that it was started
by God and don't think of a number of things in the
Bible as literally true. You see, the word of God has
been watered down enough, to where you could come to
that conclusion, in those versions. Now if that
doesn't tell you what you need to know, then what will?
As for me, I'll stick with what I know I can trust.

To put a final nail in the coffin of these modern
translations, let us have a look see at a couple of
verses that have been claimed to be contradictions by
many, using the KJV and the NIV as an example for
comparison. The argument is over whether Solomon had
forty thousands stalls, or four thousand stalls. You
see, the editors of the NIV decided that since they
believed that there was a scribal error there, that the
wording should be changed and so they "corrected" and
reworded it (as many modern translations have done).
They admitted this, so there is no dispute about that.
The reality is, that there was no contradiction to
begin with and careful reading of the KJV shows that to
be the case.

While at first it does appear to be a contradiction, it
isn't and the KJV is an accurate, literal translation
from the original Hebrew and not a "correct the Hebrew
version", in which translators sought to correct the
supposed scribal errors for them, as did the NIV.

Let's look at the relevant verses first, in the KJV.

"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
- 1 Kings 4:26 KJV

"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he
bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at
Jerusalem." - 2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV

Note the wording of 1 Kings 4:26. It says that Solomon
had (read carefully now and pay attention to the caps),
"forty thousand stalls of horses FOR his chariots".

Now, that means that he had forty thousand stalls that
would each hold one horse. It doesn't say how many
stalls he had total, nor does it say how many chariots
he had. He did have for each horse a stall though.
And he had forty thousand horses, it appears. Okay,
let's move on.


Now we read 2 Chronicles 9:25. It says that Solomon
had, "four thousands stalls for horses AND chariots".

Note that this is an entirely different statement. It
doesn't talk about stalls for his horses, but rather,
stalls for his horses when tied to a chariot.

Now when we think of a chariot, we think of one horse,
one chariot. In reality, larger chariots were used to
go into battle, each of which held ten men and was
pulled by ten horses. That means that four thousand
chariots had ten horses each, which is forty thousand
horses tied to four thousand chariots, requiring four
thousand stalls for the time in which the horses were
connected to the chariots. Since you have forty
thousand horses, when they were not connected to the
chariots, you would need forty thousand smaller stalls
for them, which would mean "forty thousand stalls of
horses FOR his chariots". That is a total of forty
four thousand stalls (forty thousand smaller stalls for
just horses and four thousand larger stalls for when
his horses were tied to his chariots), not a total of
forty thousand and not a total of four thousand and it
makes perfect sense, is logical and no contradiction is
found in the text.

Now let's read the "corrected" version in the NIV.

"Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses,
and twelve thousand horses." - 1 Kings 4:26 NIV

"Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in
the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem."
- 2 Chronicles 9:25 NIV

Now take careful note of the wording. First of all,
they changed it so both (1 Kings 4:26 & 2 Chr 9:25)
read, "four thousand", calling it a scribal error.
That change is the due to the translators of the NIV.
And notice that it reads, "twelve thousand horses",
instead of, "twelve thousand horsemen". That item is
due to the corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.

Also note that the word in 2 Chr 9:25 was changed from
"horsemen", to "horses". Also, the part about, "and
with the king" is omitted. These items are due to the
corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.

In the NIV, for example, it is obvious that there are
indeed contradictions and when you have people reading
a Bible with contradictions, due to corruption and
intentional word changing on the part of the
translators, it is no surprise that they would begin to
doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible and we all know
where that eventually leads. They are forced to make
excuses for the text and come up with crazy
explanations, that atheists know better than to accept
and it eats away at the believer, little by little.
Doubt festers, unless PROPERLY dealt with and that can
only be done with truth and not with crazy
explanations, or by stating that there are "scribal
errors", etc. If there's a scribal error there, where
else is there one?

So as you can see, it is versions like this (along with
translators who don't believe in the faithfulness of
the word of God and who think that somehow, for the
almost two thousand years before the discovery of these
Alexandrian Texts, that man did not have the true word
of God), that cause much of the divisions that you hear
of and see today.

Ever notice that now, instead of hearing, "Well, my
understanding of this passage is as follows...", that
instead, what you hear is...

"Well, my Bible says..."

"Oh really? Well, my Bible says..."

"Oh, really? Gee, my Bible doesn't say that at all."

"Hey, my Bible doesn't even have that verse."

How are Christian Bible students supposed to deal with
different Bibles, in the same Bible study,
contradicting each other? Maybe this doesn't seem like
a big deal to you, but who is to decide what is
important and what is not? How much corruption and
contradiction is okay with you, if any is? Let me tell
you something, if there is even one error in the Bible,
then I give up. I'm throwing it away. A God who
cannot keep His word straight and is subject to the
whimsies of man, is no God at all. He can create the
heaven and the Earth and raise His Son from the dead
and cannot keep His word straight? Please! Think
about it. I, for one, cannot believe in a set of
texts, calling them God's word, while they contradict
themselves. Either His word is true, period, or it is
not, period. I believe it is pure and using the KJV, I
have not run across one single supposed contradiction
that I have not been able to resolve, with proper
study. In the example I gave above, from the NIV,
there is an unresolvable contradiction.

And do you now think that no corruption of God's word
is contained in these modern versions? If you still
do, go into your NIV (if you use one, or have one) and
post here for me, Acts 8:37. Go ahead, I dare ya. :)

These are but a couple of examples. The list goes on
and on, believe me. And it isn't just the NIV, it's
many. I use the NIV as an example, because it is
probably the most popular of the modern English
versions.

So there are my arguments, based both on scientific
data and on theological thought. Hope this helps. As
for me, I'll stick with my trustworthy KJV, which has
always served me well and has never contradicted
itself, nor left out a verse. As I said, there are
modern English versions based on the Majority Texts. I
simply have not read those versions cover to cover and
can't speak for every verse, but they appear to be very
well done.



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


www.answersingenesis.org



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John
2004-09-18 22:50:17 EST
In article <vm9pk05a9j4k7gct7no919k8vqut35cn8h@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

> What you must do, is stop looking at this issue as
> someone who understands the doctrines of Christianity
> and imagine that you had never read the Bible at all
> and were by yourself, reading it. What would your
> image of Jesus be, considering that many of these
> modern translations, based on the Alexandrian Texts,
> omit words. For example, where the KJV used, "Lord
> Jesus Christ" (which is in the Majority Texts, which
> are over 5,000 copies strong), the Alexandrian version
> will just say, "Jesus". Now that could change the
> picture in the person's mind from the Lord which we
> worship, to just a way cool teacher, could it not?

This is very true, but it does not take away the diety of Christ.


>
> Look at the following example, in Matthew 1:25:
>
> The KJV states that Mary gave birth to "her firstborn",
> which tells you that she had other children.
>
> The NIV simply says that she gave birth to "a son".

I think this is a minor detail.

>
> There's quite a difference there, since that leaves the
> door open to a different belief regarding what the
> Catholics call the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and
> you might be influenced by a Roman Catholic priest
> telling you that Mary was a "perpetual virgin". Again,
> don't consider what you already know, but rather,
> pretend that you don't know anything yet and are just
> learning.

This is very true. KJV only people are dogged a bit, but they may make
a few points. But where you are wrong is by saying that one cannot
receieve salvation from a non KJV version.

KJV
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NIV
John 3:16 ? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only
Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life.

They both sound very similiar.


>
> Remember, rat poison isn't all poison. It's mostly
> good food (99% or more), with a very small percentage
> of poison. Otherwise, the rat wouldn't eat it. Think
> about that.
>

No the alexandrian texts are not teaching another gospel. If you want
another gospel, just go read a Mormon or a JW bible.



> I guess what it boils down to for me, is that I would
> rather take the time to learn the Elizabethan English
> and go with what I know is a trustworthy version, based
> on trustworthy texts and raise my level of education,
> than to dumb down the Bible, to my current level of
> education. After all, don't we applaud our children,
> if they learn Shakespeare, saying it is a beautiful
> English? Yet, when it comes to the Bible, older
> English is a bad thing? That's hypocrisy.


Exactly... Problem is way too many christians are dumbing down their
education. Many of them sell all their books back to the bookstore, and
only are in it for the degree.

>
> I am not a "KJV only" person. I just haven't found
> many modern English versions that I would consider
> trustworthy and when dealing with God's word, I think
> we had all better be very careful about which version
> we choose to read. After all, this is God's written
> word to mankind we are dealing with. It is of the
> utmost importance!

Then why do you compare the NIV to rat poison? Thats like saying one
cant get saved with the NIV translation. Thats like saying the NIV is
like the Mormons bible!

>
> You know what amazes me? We wouldn't let a preacher
> get up and preach, who doesn't believe the Bible, or
> teaches that evolution, as Darwin stated it, is how we
> got here, or teaches against the deity of Christ, yet,
> we line up and can't wait to get our copy of the Bible,
> that was translated by Wescott and Hort, or from the
> Nestle/Aland Greek Texts (which are based on the
> Alexandrian Texts), or the UBS texts, or other people
> and texts of this type and many words are left out,
> including references to the deity of Christ and the
> translators even reword the Creation account, to say,
> "a day", instead of "the first day", or put notes at
> the bottom, claiming it doesn't mean an actual day and
> claim that it actually means "a span of time". Since
> when is it a good thing to promote anti-Biblical
> philosophy, within the Bible itself and reword it to
> suit our own purposes? The fact that this is done, is
> exactly that... a fact and yet, not only do these
> Bibles sell like crazy, but Christians actually defend
> them.
>

Yes but you have no idea what a day may have meant at that time. Have
you ever studied Astronomy? If not, go take a class or use an
encylopedia! A day to Pluto is not a day to earth. A day to Mercury is
not a day to earth. God may have modified the earths orbit, gravational
pull, or orbit, so that a day may have meant a different thing besides
24 hours at that time? How is this hard to believe? I am not deceived
by Satan, I thus have some understanding of astronomy and science, which
may indicate that a day may have had a different meaning at one time.
Scientists are also saying that a day will have a different meaning 200
hundred years from know.


>
> Now, if you want proof of the influence of these
> "modern day" Bibles, then start to question people on
> what they believe (not stemming from this topic, so
> you'll get an honest and unguarded response). I think
> you will find that the majority of KJV users believe in
> a literal Creation and believe the Bible to be the word
> of God.

Of coarse the bible is the word of God and the only word of God. But
literal 24 hours I am not sure about. I am also not sure God did not
use micro evolution to create the world. I am 100% sure he did not use
Macro evolution. Scientists have found missing links, and have
discovered some micro evolution evidence by the study of insects.
Notice I said micro, and not Macro.


I think you'll also find that most of the
> "modern day" Bible users, question the Creation account
> and hold a belief in evolution and that it was started
> by God and don't think of a number of things in the
> Bible as literally true.

When the bible talks about stars falling from the sky in revelation, do
you take this literally? This is hyperoble. If you'd studied Astronomy
you'd know that a real star cannot fall to the earth.

I do not think whether solomon had 4,000 or 40,000 is a salvationist
issue. I do not think whether Solomon had a pet lizard or a pet spider
in his palace to also be a salvation issue.

> In the NIV, for example, it is obvious that there are
> indeed contradictions and when you have people reading
> a Bible with contradictions, due to corruption and
> intentional word changing on the part of the
> translators, it is no surprise that they would begin to
> doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible and we all know
> where that eventually leads. They are forced to make
> excuses for the text and come up with crazy
> explanations, that atheists know better than to accept
> and it eats away at the believer, little by little.
> Doubt festers, unless PROPERLY dealt with and that can
> only be done with truth and not with crazy
> explanations, or by stating that there are "scribal
> errors", etc. If there's a scribal error there, where
> else is there one?
>

Come on, even hank Hanegraaf is not a KJV only person. He has a quality
argument as to why being KJV only is unhealthy. I did not tape it, so I
cant comment on the exact sources and logic that he used.

>
> "Well, my Bible says..."
>
> "Oh really? Well, my Bible says..."
>
> "Oh, really? Gee, my Bible doesn't say that at all."
>
> "Hey, my Bible doesn't even have that verse."


Yes this is a problem.... I admit and why I reject the TNIV, the
Message,etc... The organization I worked at called me a Phairsee for
not wanting to get more liberal in my bible translations with the youth.

>
> How are Christian Bible students supposed to deal with
> different Bibles, in the same Bible study,
> contradicting each other? Maybe this doesn't seem like
> a big deal to you, but who is to decide what is
> important and what is not? How much corruption and
> contradiction is okay with you, if any is? Let me tell
> you something, if there is even one error in the Bible,
> then I give up.

Of coarse there are minor errors, but nothing major. The essentials
still remain in the NIV. One translation may call something this and
another that.

For example..

Pro 30:28

NIV
Prov. 30:28 a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in
kings' palaces.

KJV
28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.


What was it, a spider ot a lizard?


I'm throwing it away. A God who
> cannot keep His word straight and is subject to the
> whimsies of man, is no God at all. He can create the
> heaven and the Earth and raise His Son from the dead
> and cannot keep His word straight? Please! Think
> about it. I, for one, cannot believe in a set of
> texts, calling them God's word, while they contradict
> themselves. Either His word is true, period, or it is
> not, period. I believe it is pure and using the KJV, I
> have not run across one single supposed contradiction
> that I have not been able to resolve, with proper
> study. In the example I gave above, from the NIV,
> there is an unresolvable contradiction.

Tell me was it a spider or was it a Lizard? Am I corrupt for telling
you that it was a lizard? Am I a hypocrite because I say Solomon had a
Lizard?

>
> And do you now think that no corruption of God's word
> is contained in these modern versions? If you still
> do, go into your NIV (if you use one, or have one) and
> post here for me, Acts 8:37. Go ahead, I dare ya. :)

I have bible software and many translations. However my Handheld PC has
my most powerful softare. However I am using an old 68K version of
Accordance on my Mac.


Acts 8:36-38

NIV
Acts 8:36 ? As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and
the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
Acts 8:38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and
the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

KJV

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.

Oh my, oh my!!! I did not know this. I'll fire up my HPC soon and
check this in the Greek.



>
> These are but a couple of examples. The list goes on
> and on, believe me. And it isn't just the NIV, it's
> many. I use the NIV as an example, because it is
> probably the most popular of the modern English
> versions.
>
> So there are my arguments, based both on scientific
> data and on theological thought. Hope this helps. As
> for me, I'll stick with my trustworthy KJV, which has
> always served me well and has never contradicted
> itself, nor left out a verse. As I said, there are
> modern English versions based on the Majority Texts. I
> simply have not read those versions cover to cover and
> can't speak for every verse, but they appear to be very
> well done.

You may have a point on that verse. But please answer pro 30:28 and
tell me if Solomon had a Lizard or a spider...


John
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-19 09:09:30 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:50:17 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:

>In article <vm9pk05a9j4k7gct7no919k8vqut35cn8h@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What you must do, is stop looking at this issue as
>> someone who understands the doctrines of Christianity
>> and imagine that you had never read the Bible at all
>> and were by yourself, reading it. What would your
>> image of Jesus be, considering that many of these
>> modern translations, based on the Alexandrian Texts,
>> omit words. For example, where the KJV used, "Lord
>> Jesus Christ" (which is in the Majority Texts, which
>> are over 5,000 copies strong), the Alexandrian version
>> will just say, "Jesus". Now that could change the
>> picture in the person's mind from the Lord which we
>> worship, to just a way cool teacher, could it not?
>
>This is very true, but it does not take away the diety of Christ.

Uh, the word, "Lord" is what gives Him the deity, don't
ya think? :)


>> Look at the following example, in Matthew 1:25:
>>
>> The KJV states that Mary gave birth to "her firstborn",
>> which tells you that she had other children.
>>
>> The NIV simply says that she gave birth to "a son".
>
>I think this is a minor detail.

You didn't read what I wrote. You say here that YOU
think that it's a minor detail. I specifically noted
that YOU shouldn't think it, but should view it as
someone who has never read the Bible. Read the
paragraph at the top of this message, please.


>> There's quite a difference there, since that leaves the
>> door open to a different belief regarding what the
>> Catholics call the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and
>> you might be influenced by a Roman Catholic priest
>> telling you that Mary was a "perpetual virgin". Again,
>> don't consider what you already know, but rather,
>> pretend that you don't know anything yet and are just
>> learning.
>
>This is very true. KJV only people are dogged a bit, but they may make
>a few points. But where you are wrong is by saying that one cannot
>receieve salvation from a non KJV version.

Where did I say that? Honestly, do you actually read
what I write? Or do you use my messages as a way for
you to have a forum to make a speech? I specifically
stated... "As I said, there are other modern English
versions based on the Majority Texts. I simply have
not read those versions cover to cover and can't speak
for every verse, but they appear to be very well done."


>KJV
>16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
>whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
>NIV
>John 3:16 ? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only
>Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
>life.
>
>They both sound very similiar.

Why did you quote this verse? So what if they sound
similar. That doesn't mean there aren't differences
elsewhere.

The fact is, that they don't really sound the same.
The NIV leaves open the possibility of Jesus not being
"begotten" by the Father. It takes out the actual
"pregnancy/birth" thing. The KJV shines the light on
the fact that Jesus was God's BORN Son. His "natural
Son" if you will, although technically the pregnancy
took place by supernatural means, but it was by the
Holy Spirit's direct work in Mary and therefore, it is
different than just saying it was His one and only Son.

You know, whether you believe it or not, people have
actually used this verse from the NIV, to argue with me
that the Bible does not say that Jesus was God's
BEGOTTEN Son. This is what I'm trying to tell you.
Read these verses as if you had no idea what the Bible
says and THEN tell me how it reads. Blank your mind
and pretend you've never heard the truth. You are just
now reading it, or have only had that version to read
for a short time. Hmmmm... Now pretend that you live
in some small village in Africa and don't have a
church, nor a pastor, nor anyone to teach you what it
actually means. Hello?

Before you argue, remember, read what I write and stop
trying to think of an answer before absorbing what I
said. I'll repeat it... People *HAVE* used this
verse, FROM THE NIV, telling me that the Bible doesn't
claim that Jesus is God's Son by actual birth.

While you may think that's a bit twisted and I agree,
that does not change the fact that people do it. You
may state that all we have to do is point to this
verse, or that one, but then you begin to have to
debate it and people can be stubborn, when they WANT to
believe something and begin to argue that their
corrupted text is accurate.


>> Remember, rat poison isn't all poison. It's mostly
>> good food (99% or more), with a very small percentage
>> of poison. Otherwise, the rat wouldn't eat it. Think
>> about that.
>>
>
>No the alexandrian texts are not teaching another gospel. If you want
>another gospel, just go read a Mormon or a JW bible.

You keep putting words into my mouth. The words,
"another Gospel" were nowhere to be found in my
message.


>> I am not a "KJV only" person. I just haven't found
>> many modern English versions that I would consider
>> trustworthy and when dealing with God's word, I think
>> we had all better be very careful about which version
>> we choose to read. After all, this is God's written
>> word to mankind we are dealing with. It is of the
>> utmost importance!
>
>Then why do you compare the NIV to rat poison?

Because it is not the complete word of God, as I have
demonstrated and you have ignored.


>Thats like saying one
>cant get saved with the NIV translation. Thats like saying the NIV is
>like the Mormons bible!

You obviously like your NIV and that is more important
to you than the truth.

You also obviously like putting words into my mouth. I
told you in another message, that there's enough Gospel
in the JW Bible to get someone saved. That isn't the
point. Do you want them to learn falsehoods mixed in
with truth from that point on? The real question is
why is mixing falsehoods into a Bible okay with you?


>> You know what amazes me? We wouldn't let a preacher
>> get up and preach, who doesn't believe the Bible, or
>> teaches that evolution, as Darwin stated it, is how we
>> got here, or teaches against the deity of Christ, yet,
>> we line up and can't wait to get our copy of the Bible,
>> that was translated by Wescott and Hort, or from the
>> Nestle/Aland Greek Texts (which are based on the
>> Alexandrian Texts), or the UBS texts, or other people
>> and texts of this type and many words are left out,
>> including references to the deity of Christ and the
>> translators even reword the Creation account, to say,
>> "a day", instead of "the first day", or put notes at
>> the bottom, claiming it doesn't mean an actual day and
>> claim that it actually means "a span of time". Since
>> when is it a good thing to promote anti-Biblical
>> philosophy, within the Bible itself and reword it to
>> suit our own purposes? The fact that this is done, is
>> exactly that... a fact and yet, not only do these
>> Bibles sell like crazy, but Christians actually defend
>> them.
>>
>
>Yes but you have no idea what a day may have meant at that time. Have
>you ever studied Astronomy? If not, go take a class or use an
>encylopedia! A day to Pluto is not a day to earth. A day to Mercury is
>not a day to earth. God may have modified the earths orbit, gravational
>pull, or orbit, so that a day may have meant a different thing besides
>24 hours at that time? How is this hard to believe? I am not deceived
>by Satan, I thus have some understanding of astronomy and science, which
>may indicate that a day may have had a different meaning at one time.
>Scientists are also saying that a day will have a different meaning 200
>hundred years from know.

We are not talking about Pluto. We are talking about
Earth and Earth days. I know that it was a literal
day, because the Bible says so and to think otherwise,
is anti-Scriptural. There can be no doubt to anyone
who has studied their Bible carefully that it is seven
literal days. You are trying to leave room for
evolution and take what man says is science over God's
word. A scienTIST'S word does not automatically equate
to SCIENCE. Science is not people. It is science,
whether people do it right or not. See below.


>> Now, if you want proof of the influence of these
>> "modern day" Bibles, then start to question people on
>> what they believe (not stemming from this topic, so
>> you'll get an honest and unguarded response). I think
>> you will find that the majority of KJV users believe in
>> a literal Creation and believe the Bible to be the word
>> of God.
>
>Of coarse the bible is the word of God and the only word of God. But
>literal 24 hours I am not sure about. I am also not sure God did not
>use micro evolution to create the world. I am 100% sure he did not use
>Macro evolution. Scientists have found missing links, and have
>discovered some micro evolution evidence by the study of insects.
>Notice I said micro, and not Macro.

Microevolution is a fact of science, but insects from
insects, does not equal insects from a prebiotic soup.
That would be macroevolution. If God created what we
see from microevolution, you may not realize it, but
that would mean that He created in seven days. There
would be no room for dogs from non-canidae, because
that would be macroevolution. You may be trying to say
that these changes build up over time, but that is what
evolutionists claim macroevolution is. An accumulation
of changes brought about by microevolution. Yet no
such record exists and it cannot be observed, nor
tested by experimentation, nor is it a repeatable. All
REQUIREMENTS of science. Changes do not accumulate
with microevolution, to make a dog from a non-canidae
(macroevolution). That is a BELIEF, not SCIENCE.

Again, that is what macroevolution teaches and frankly,
there is no reason to believe things are billions of
years old. That conclusion is based on faulty dating
methods, which are based on faulty assumptions (yes,
that's right, assumptions). And there are no fossils
that say that man has ever been anything but man and no
one can show me a clear progression of fossils from one
kind to another. It simply doesn't exist.

I am well versed in this subject and have been battling
evolutionists in these news groups for five years. No
one, including scientists that post here (even
biologists) has been able to prove their case, nor
provide one single example of a progression of fossils,
from one kind to another, nor is one to be found
anywhere in the world and every single example you see
out there, can be torn down in about two minutes and
shown not to be what they claim and other scientists
disagree with them also. They state it as fact and
yet, they know it isn't. Even Lucy is now known to be
just a three foot high, tree dwelling monkey (which is
what creationists were saying all along), yet, it is
still taught in the books as an ancestor to man. Why?
Because they have nothing to replace it with and the
one thing the evolutionist will always demand of you,
is what you propose to replace it with. I.e., "We know
it's not true, but until you people provide a
replacement, we're going to keep teaching it, because
(and get this part) WE KNOW that the theory is true.".

They BELIEVE the theory (even though their supposed
proof turned out to be false, as it always does) and
so, they continue to teach falsehoods, because they
have nothing to replace it with.

I just had a guy a few days ago argue with me that
human embryos look like and are like the embryos of
other creatures in developing. And he stated that
human embryos have gill slits during their development.
This is based on a falsehood taught by Haeckel, who
provided drawings of different embryos in their
development stages. Of course, it turned out that it
was a fraudulent work and he was convicted as a fraud
by his own university in the 1870's. Yet it is STILL
TAUGHT TODAY in school text books and people still
believe it today. Those are not gill slits, they are
folds which later develop into the muscles, etc. of the
human ear. Nor do the embryos look alike at these
stages, but photographs showed they look quite
different from others and from what is shown in
Haeckel's drawings. But there is even a Christian
college that uses a supposedly Christian based science
text book and has these same drawings promoted as fact.

You have to make a choice whom to believe. God, or
man. It's that simple. Did you think God's word says
"let God be true and every man a liar" for no reason?
Does it not say, "EVERY MAN"? This means simply that
it doesn't matter who says it. If God says different,
then it is different, period, no questions asked, end
of story. To believe in evolution beyond
microevolution, which is an OBSERVED AND TESTABLE fact
of science, is to disbelieve God's word and what you
don't understand, is that it takes God OUT of the
equation. Read the following carefully, please.

Where does God say in Genesis, that it wasn't really
Him, it was evolution?

The fact is, God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let US MAKE".

And in Genesis 2:7, it states clearly that God was
directly involved...

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

"God formed man" And God, "breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life".

To believe in evolution, is to disbelieve the Bible.
And while theistic evolutionists put God's world above
God's word, the fact is, that I do not believe that
they can be Christians if they do not believe in the
Creation, as it is stated in the Bible.

Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation and
believing in the Creator. When Paul and Barnabas
preached to those worshipping nature, they said to
them; "...turn from these vanities unto the living God,
which made heaven and earth and the sea and all things
that are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.

Any statements about God and evolution being compatible
are built on a faulty premise, which is that one can
believe in Christ and in evolution. Scripturally, that
isn't possible. And anyone who says it is, is trying
to twist the first chapter of Genesis to cover whatever
they want to believe about Him, so long as they believe
He existed and died on the cross, etc.. But that's the
wrong question and frankly, evolutionists are great at
getting people to ask the wrong questions. The real
question is, What does it mean to believe in Jesus
Christ?". Believing in Jesus Christ also means
believing in what He said AND what the Bible (the WHOLE
Bible) says about Him.

So what does it say about Christ? After all, who is
He? Well, the Bible says He's the Creator.

John 1:1-3

1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
3) All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.
14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now if He's the Creator, then He knows how it happened.
So the question then becomes, what did Jesus consider
"the beginning"?

In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to Adam and Eve as the
beginning of humankind. Theistic evolutionists will
try to tell me that I'm misreading the Bible and I'm
just inserting my interpretation. Talk about
misreading the Bible! Where does Jesus say, "Once man
and ape split off from a common ancestor and finally
developed into modern humans, then Adam and Eve..." ???
You see, it's the evolutionists who are misreading the
Bible and twisting it. I'm simply reading it as it's
written.

Jesus also told us that Moses was speaking about Him.
And note what He said...

John 5:45-47

45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye
trust.
46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed
me: for he wrote of me.
47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye
believe my words?

Now notice the last verse. If we don't believe what
Moses wrote about Him, then how can we believe what He
says? That's a very powerful statement.

So what did Moses write of Him? Well, a number of
things. Right now, we're going to focus on the
relevant passages. But let's understand first, that it
was Christ who was dealing with Moses. It was Christ
who spoke to Moses. It was Christ who followed them
out there...

1 Corinthians 10:1-4

1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in
the sea;
3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and
that Rock was Christ.


And what did Christ say about the Creation to Moses?

Exodus 20:8-11

8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates:
11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it.

Speaking of this seven day period (six days and the
Sabbath) and keeping the statement about this six days
in the context in which it is quoted from, did God
command man to work six millions years and rest for one
million years? No. It's clear that He is talking
about six literal days of Creation, when the passage is
taken in context. In order to make it anything other
than six literal days, they have to rip it out of its
context, which is the Sabbath day rest.

He said "six days". Now either those who state that
Jesus is their Saviour believe Him, or they don't,
thereby denying Him, period. Anything else they say,
is adding to the Bible, since the Bible says, "six
days". Theistic evolutionists can speculate about the
"six days" all they want, but that's all they have, is
speculation. Those who try to make it into millions of
years have the big problem Scripturally.

The fact is that "In the beginning, God created"...

And He did it in six days and said He did it in six
days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed that and
referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8 and in other places.

Going back to Genesis, it is important to note
something about the word usage there in the original
language (Hebrew), when speaking of the seven days of
creation. The numerical adjective "first", for
example, also means, "united", which demonstrates that
it was seven united days, not seven days spread apart
by billions of years. And the original Hebrew word for
"day" ("yom"), is never used to mean anything but a
literal day in the Bible, when a numerical adjective is
present (first, second, third, etc.). Are we to
believe that this is somehow the one and only exception
and that God would start out His word with a deception?

Now people will try to tell me that God used language
that "ignorant, primitive man could understand".
That's ridiculous! First off, man was a lot smarter
then, than we give him credit for. Language, for
example, gets much more complex the farther we go back
and it has taken scholars decades to even begin to
decipher some of them. The Egyptians had batteries
thousands of years ago, etc.. Secondly, what is so
hard to understand about God saying... "First there
were animals, including apes and God brought man forth
from these apes". No, it isn't difficult at all to
tell man in that time, that we came from apes.
Theistic evolutionists may claim that man wouldn't
understand the mechanisms involved. Well, even if
everything was created in six days, as the Bible says,
man still wouldn't understand the mechanisms involved.
In fact, we still wouldn't now, so what's the
difference? No, that is a misleading statement by the
theistic evolutionist.

The Bible also makes it clear that no one died before
Adam.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22

If that isn't true and man existed before Adam, then
the whole concept of Jesus as our Saviour is
ridiculous, since God would be holding everyone since
Adam responsible for their sin and no one before that.

And what about the other humans alive at the time, if
Adam was not the first man?

And why would we need a Saviour, if evolution is true?
Man is an animal and is simply acting as God made Him
to act. Like an animal.

If there is no original sin from one man, then where is
the need for a Saviour? Yet the Bible makes it clear
that we do need a Saviour and that Jesus is, "the last
Adam".

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made
a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit." - 1 Corinthians 15:45

As atheist Richard Bozarth said... "Evolution destroys
utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life
was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve
and the original sin and in the rubble, you will find
the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not
the Redeemer... and this is what evolution means, then
Christianity is nothing."

I think he summed it up pretty well. Now if only folks
who state they are Christians and believe in evolution,
were honest with themselves. They claim that man came
from ape, yet the Bible tells us that Jesus was "the
last Adam", not, "the last ape".

What theistic evolutionists believe cannot possibly be
reconciled with Scripture and it makes Jesus a useless,
made over monkey, without the ability to be a
sacrifice.

The Bible tells us that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam...

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned:" - Romans 5:12

The Bible tells us that Jesus believed in Adam and Eve
and after all, He should know, He was there.

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them
male and female," - Matthew 19:4

And now, notice the next verse. While the
evolutionists try to put millions of years into the
Creation (which Genesis 1 & 2 doesn't support), what
did Jesus say about it?

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them
male and female." - Mark 10:6

Not just "the beginning", as if it were millions of
years ago, but rather, the beginning OF THE CREATION.
And where is that account found? In Genesis. Jesus
knew this, of course, as did those who were listening
to Him. They read the Scriptures and knew what they
said. Here, Jesus is confirming the absolute truth of
the Creation account, found in Genesis. Adam and Eve
were there, right from go, just like all other life,
separated only by a few days. And Jesus tells us that
it happened that way. Remember, in Mat 19:4, He
said... "Have ye not READ...". Now, is He talking
about Darwin's book here? No. As I said, He is
confirming the Genesis account.

And let us note that Genesis cannot simply be the
creation spread out over billions of years. Look at
the order in which things happen. It contradicts what
evolution says. What did the plants and grass and
"herb yielding seed" from Day 3 on, waiting for the Sun
to appear, millions of years later, on Day 4? They
require the Sun to survive.

So what conclusions can logically be drawn from this?
Well, it seems to leave us with three options:

1) Jesus was right and knew what He was talking about,
since He was there and it was done through Him. That
is the logical conclusion to draw from the text of the
Bible itself.

2) Jesus believed in the Creation, as described in
Genesis, but He just didn't know modern science, which
of course, means that He couldn't have been there at
the Creation and the Bible is lying about that. This
would disqualify Him as our Saviour, since our Saviour
has to be free from sin and error and therefore,
there's no point in theistic evolutionists saying that
they believe in Him as such.

3) Jesus was intentionally lying about who He was, or
intentionally misleading the people, even though He
knew evolution was reality, which of course,
disqualifies Him as Saviour and means that the concept
of original sin is a lie, which, once again, means that
God lied about it in His written word to mankind. And
no, the argument about them not being able to
understand it, is not a valid argument, as I pointed
out and even if He did say something like that in the
New Testament text, it would still mean that He lied to
Moses in Genesis. How can a liar be our Saviour?

You see, no matter what they do, they cannot escape
these facts. Either Jesus was right, or He was wrong,
or He was lying. One of those three. If it's the
first, then they are liars, when they claim to believe
in evolution and call Jesus their Lord and Saviour. It
simply cannot be. They may not have seen that and if
it was unintentional on their part, then so be it. But
now they know, since they read this message. As the
Lord Jesus Christ said...

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not
had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin."
- John 15:22

And there is no more excuse for it. Now it is sin to
anyone who continues to believe in that, because now
they know better.

They do what they want, but their way is the way that,
"misreads the Bible" and it is the theistic
evolutionist who must resolve the problems that his/her
belief brings to the table.

As for me, I have a hard time believing anyone is
saved, who says that they believe in Jesus as His Lord
and Saviour and evolution (at least once they realize
what the Bible actually says), when in order to do so,
they must call Jesus a liar, or ignorant and try to
convince me that it's okay to say that they believe the
end and yet, they reject the beginning. As I said,
Genesis 1 & 2 do not allow for evolution. So my advice
to theistic evolutionists, is to pick a side, because
they can't pick both. Not with any integrity. They
are incompatible. I hope they'll pick the side with
God. The Bible is clear about this matter.

The funny part is, that science actually lines up with
the Bible. Man started in Africa, for example. And
instead of them questioning how long ago that happened,
they choose to accept what unbelievers say and question
the Bible's time line. They may say they're not doing
that, but they are.

It is hypocrisy. Theistic evolutionists are out to
please men, rather than God. They claim to believe in
a virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?

Using one of the examples above, Jesus turned water
into wine immediately. He didn't say, "Okay, now, let
it ferment and in a few months, come back and we'll
pick the wedding celebration up again and have some
more wine.". He did this miracle immediately. He
healed people immediately. He did not say, "Okay, I
know the problem is still there, but just believe and
check in with your doctor every few days, get some
treatment and you'll see it start to go away in a
while.". No, He healed immediately. He raised the
dead. The "I AM" demonstrated His absolute power over
nature, yet the universe could not be created in six
literal days? All of the sudden, God is limited?

Tell me, where does the Bible say that man evolved from
ape? They can say that it isn't a scientific book, but
that's just a red herring and it doesn't solve any of
the problems their belief has. They still have the
problems I mentioned above and the fact is, that the
Bible is accurate when it touches on matters of
science, so they need to pick a side, because they
can't have it both ways and if they claim that they
can, they are only trying to fool themselves. I know
it and now, you know it too. Make a choice.

"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15


>> I think you'll also find that most of the
>> "modern day" Bible users, question the Creation account
>> and hold a belief in evolution and that it was started
>> by God and don't think of a number of things in the
>> Bible as literally true.
>
>When the bible talks about stars falling from the sky in revelation, do
>you take this literally? This is hyperoble. If you'd studied Astronomy
>you'd know that a real star cannot fall to the earth.

Of course. What does that have to do with anything? A
Jew in that day would have known that the stars were
not literal, nor would the Sun going dark and the Moon
turning to blood be literal. This was symbolic
language which was also used in the Old Testament, as
symbolic language. Have you not studied your Old
Testament? That does not mean that the universe took
billions of years to create. Did God plant Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden and say, "Now you just wait
here, because I've planted some trees that will bear
fruit and you have to wait for them to grow.". Did God
put Adam and Eve in the Garden as infants? No, He
placed them there as fully grown adults. Did the
Garden of Eden take years and years to grow? Of course
not. So why would the universe be any different? God
demonstrates His power to make things happen quickly,
but when it comes to this one issue, hey, let's believe
evolutionists who trust atheistic science over God. (:


>I do not think whether solomon had 4,000 or 40,000 is a salvationist
>issue. I do not think whether Solomon had a pet lizard or a pet spider
>in his palace to also be a salvation issue.

You're missing the point. It was INTENTIONALLY CHANGED
by the translators. Is THAT the CORRECT approach to
translating God's word? What else did they change?
And if there's falsehoods in those verses, where else
are there falsehoods and why would you want a Bible
with ANY falsehoods? Why is it okay with you, to mix
falsehoods in with God's word? I'm sorry, but I do not
understand that at all.


>> In the NIV, for example, it is obvious that there are
>> indeed contradictions and when you have people reading
>> a Bible with contradictions, due to corruption and
>> intentional word changing on the part of the
>> translators, it is no surprise that they would begin to
>> doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible and we all know
>> where that eventually leads. They are forced to make
>> excuses for the text and come up with crazy
>> explanations, that atheists know better than to accept
>> and it eats away at the believer, little by little.
>> Doubt festers, unless PROPERLY dealt with and that can
>> only be done with truth and not with crazy
>> explanations, or by stating that there are "scribal
>> errors", etc. If there's a scribal error there, where
>> else is there one?
>>
>
>Come on, even hank Hanegraaf is not a KJV only person. He has a quality
>argument as to why being KJV only is unhealthy. I did not tape it, so I
>cant comment on the exact sources and logic that he used.

I don't care what Hank is and what you need to do, is
get off your "KJV only" bashing platform and read what
I wrote, instead of what you wish I said. I never said
I was "KJV only". In fact, I said the opposite. But
to you, if one is not "KJV only", then they absolutely
have to like corrupted Bibles like the NIV, or you're
going to call them "KJV only" people anyway and start
to bash them.


>> "Well, my Bible says..."
>>
>> "Oh really? Well, my Bible says..."
>>
>> "Oh, really? Gee, my Bible doesn't say that at all."
>>
>> "Hey, my Bible doesn't even have that verse."
>
>
>Yes this is a problem.... I admit and why I reject the TNIV, the
>Message,etc... The organization I worked at called me a Phairsee for
>not wanting to get more liberal in my bible translations with the youth.

You need to reject the NIV.


>> How are Christian Bible students supposed to deal with
>> different Bibles, in the same Bible study,
>> contradicting each other? Maybe this doesn't seem like
>> a big deal to you, but who is to decide what is
>> important and what is not? How much corruption and
>> contradiction is okay with you, if any is? Let me tell
>> you something, if there is even one error in the Bible,
>> then I give up.
>
>Of coarse there are minor errors, but nothing major. The essentials
>still remain in the NIV. One translation may call something this and
>another that.

Okay, so, "the essentials" is all you want, while you
have to check verses, to make sure they aren't a
falsehood. That's a real nice approach to the word of
God. (: Make sure to share that version with all your
friends and make sure not to tell them what's going on,
but rather, just tell them what a great version it is,
while you promote honesty in the Christian walk. (:


>For example..
>
>Pro 30:28
>
>NIV
>Prov. 30:28 a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in
>kings' palaces.
>
>KJV
>28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
>
>
>What was it, a spider ot a lizard?

Specifically? I believe Gecko, or Stellio. It catches
spiders and flies. That could be a mistranslation,
which is why I say that no translation is perfect. The
difference is, it is unintentional and is a single word
about a lizard/insect. A translation of a lizard is
quite different from removing words from the Bible and
leaving perpetual virginity open and intentionally
changing numbers and leaving out the word "Lord" and
leaving out whole verses altogether. How does that
equate to what I've demonstrated with the NIV?

What you're doing here, is rather than dealing with the
truths about the verses I provided, is to try to find
some way to pick apart the KJV, in an effort to take
the light off of what has been revealed about the NIV
and others like it.

You are also ignoring the facts presented about the
underlying causes of it all, which is the Alexandrian
Text it is taken from and the fact that Wescott and
Hort are the ones who made it so popular and that some
of the people that work on these versions, hold
heretical beliefs and make sure that they are reflected
in these versions. You ignore that altogether.


>> I'm throwing it away. A God who
>> cannot keep His word straight and is subject to the
>> whimsies of man, is no God at all. He can create the
>> heaven and the Earth and raise His Son from the dead
>> and cannot keep His word straight? Please! Think
>> about it. I, for one, cannot believe in a set of
>> texts, calling them God's word, while they contradict
>> themselves. Either His word is true, period, or it is
>> not, period. I believe it is pure and using the KJV, I
>> have not run across one single supposed contradiction
>> that I have not been able to resolve, with proper
>> study. In the example I gave above, from the NIV,
>> there is an unresolvable contradiction.
>
>Tell me was it a spider or was it a Lizard? Am I corrupt for telling
>you that it was a lizard? Am I a hypocrite because I say Solomon had a
>Lizard?

No, not at all. Again, a lizard/spider is not the same
as taking out the word "Lord" and the fact is, that
Geckos catch spiders, so it was an easy one to miss.
We have lots of them down here and they get into our
houses every now and then. They don't hurt you and
what's funny is, if you try to catch them, their bodies
are so soft, that you can't hang on to them and if you
catch them by their tails, it comes right off and they
run and later grow a new one. :) That's why when it
discusses "catching it in the hand", the KJV
translators may be right after all, since a spider can
be caught in the hand, but a Gecko is one hard little
sucker to catch by hand. In fact, I've never been
successful without a towel or something to throw over
it and even then, it will usually escape while you're
trying to pick it up with the towel. As for doing it
by hand, they're very fast and it's kind of like trying
to chase down a chicken and catch it and then pick it
up. :) Even with a towel, it's about a 30% chance that
you'll actually catch it on the first shot. Usually,
it gets away and you have to wait until you see it
again. You don't just walk over and pick them up,
which is why I said, the KJV translators may have
caught the idea of the word more properly. :)


>> And do you now think that no corruption of God's word
>> is contained in these modern versions? If you still
>> do, go into your NIV (if you use one, or have one) and
>> post here for me, Acts 8:37. Go ahead, I dare ya. :)
>
>I have bible software and many translations. However my Handheld PC has
>my most powerful softare. However I am using an old 68K version of
>Accordance on my Mac.
>
>
>Acts 8:36-38
>
>NIV
>Acts 8:36 ? As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and
>the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
>Acts 8:38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and
>the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
>
>KJV
>
>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.
>
>Oh my, oh my!!! I did not know this. I'll fire up my HPC soon and
>check this in the Greek.

In what Greek? If you're going to go to the
Nestle/Aland, or the UBS, or something to that effect,
they are based on the corrupt text and won't have it
either. Yet note the importance of the words in v37,
which is found in the Majority Texts, which are over
5,000 strong. Even you must admit omitting that v37
changes the reading and deletes the required condition
for baptism. Again, it doesn't matter if it's
elsewhere. It's what the new reader thinks that
counts. Why should they have to struggle along,
without this knowledge, until they figure it out at
some later point? Why not have it right there and
then. Was God's word not written, "so that you may
believe"? What if some think it contradicts what the
church has been saying (because those words are
missing) and put down the Bible? Especially those who
choose to study at home and don't attend church, since
they are just beginning to read the Bible, but they
know what the churches claim? Think that's ridiculous?
It has already happened many, many times. Or they end
up in some heretical doctrine, which has happened due
to corrupt texts. Wescott and Hort are two examples,
although they did it in reverse. They believed in
heresy and then when the Sinaiticus was found, they
promoted it, since it made their heresy look more
credible (including the Mariolatry spoken of, which was
admitted to, remember?). Now think of that verse ("a
son", vs "only begotten Son"). There is your proof of
what I'm saying about these versions, which are based
on corrupt texts and had not Wescott and Hort promoted
them, we wouldn't be seeing all of these corrupt
versions out there now.

As I said, their argument is circular. These
Alexandrian Texts are more credible. How do we know
they're more credible? Because they're older. Why use
older texts? Because they're more credible.

Hey, why not believe that Christians have not had a
true Bible for all of these centuries and that we only
now have the right set of texts. Yea, that makes
sense. (:


>> These are but a couple of examples. The list goes on
>> and on, believe me. And it isn't just the NIV, it's
>> many. I use the NIV as an example, because it is
>> probably the most popular of the modern English
>> versions.
>>
>> So there are my arguments, based both on scientific
>> data and on theological thought. Hope this helps. As
>> for me, I'll stick with my trustworthy KJV, which has
>> always served me well and has never contradicted
>> itself, nor left out a verse. As I said, there are
>> modern English versions based on the Majority Texts. I
>> simply have not read those versions cover to cover and
>> can't speak for every verse, but they appear to be very
>> well done.
>
>You may have a point on that verse. But please answer pro 30:28 and
>tell me if Solomon had a Lizard or a spider...

I did that. :) Tell me, do the two examples equate?



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our
data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study. ...The history of most
fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much
the same as when they disappear; morphological change I
usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave Oldridge
2004-09-19 10:28:53 EST
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:v6qqk0hcfc02rpur1r4jto8q79na3gg0dp@4ax.com:

> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:50:17 -0700, John
> <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:
>
>>In article <vm9pk05a9j4k7gct7no919k8vqut35cn8h@4ax.com>,
>> Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What you must do, is stop looking at this issue as
>>> someone who understands the doctrines of Christianity
>>> and imagine that you had never read the Bible at all
>>> and were by yourself, reading it. What would your
>>> image of Jesus be, considering that many of these
>>> modern translations, based on the Alexandrian Texts,
>>> omit words. For example, where the KJV used, "Lord
>>> Jesus Christ" (which is in the Majority Texts, which
>>> are over 5,000 copies strong), the Alexandrian version
>>> will just say, "Jesus". Now that could change the
>>> picture in the person's mind from the Lord which we
>>> worship, to just a way cool teacher, could it not?
>>
>>This is very true, but it does not take away the diety of Christ.
>
> Uh, the word, "Lord" is what gives Him the deity, don't
> ya think? :)

Nope. People called temporal rulers "Lord" all the time in those days.
The scripture that most clearly establishes Jesus' deity is John 1. It's
pretty hard to misconstrue that and the only translations that do so are
REALLY outright travesties.

>>> Look at the following example, in Matthew 1:25:
>>>
>>> The KJV states that Mary gave birth to "her firstborn",
>>> which tells you that she had other children.

Actually, this does not imply that she had other children (though there
is little reason to speculate that she did not and other passages do
state that Jesus had a brother named James). The RCC tends to get all
eclectic about the virgin birth and have done so for some centuries now,
even making up one of the few doctrines that have been promulgated under
the aegis of papal infallibility...

But Jerome's Vulgate reads as follows, so it's not particularly an RCC
thing:

Mt 1:25 et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et
vocavit nomen eius Iesum

Note the primogenitum. It was the Vulgate that gave the KJV its reading,
since, it was the Vulgate that was used to assemble the TR. Byzantine
texts tend to support this reading, too, whereas older manuscripts do not
(though clearly Jerome had one in his day that did).

Of course simple logic dictates that, if Mary was a virgin when she
conceived Jesus (as scripture teaches), then He was her firstborn.

>>> The NIV simply says that she gave birth to "a son".

>>I think this is a minor detail.

> You didn't read what I wrote. You say here that YOU
> think that it's a minor detail. I specifically noted
> that YOU shouldn't think it, but should view it as
> someone who has never read the Bible. Read the
> paragraph at the top of this message, please.


>>> There's quite a difference there, since that leaves the
>>> door open to a different belief regarding what the
>>> Catholics call the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and
>>> you might be influenced by a Roman Catholic priest
>>> telling you that Mary was a "perpetual virgin". Again,
>>> don't consider what you already know, but rather,
>>> pretend that you don't know anything yet and are just
>>> learning.
>>
>>This is very true. KJV only people are dogged a bit, but they may
>>make a few points. But where you are wrong is by saying that one
>>cannot receieve salvation from a non KJV version.
>
> Where did I say that? Honestly, do you actually read
> what I write? Or do you use my messages as a way for
> you to have a forum to make a speech? I specifically
> stated... "As I said, there are other modern English
> versions based on the Majority Texts. I simply have
> not read those versions cover to cover and can't speak
> for every verse, but they appear to be very well done."
>
>
>>KJV
>>16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
>>that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
>>everlasting life. NIV
>>John 3:16 ? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only
>>Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
>>life.
>>
>>They both sound very similiar.
>
> Why did you quote this verse? So what if they sound
> similar. That doesn't mean there aren't differences
> elsewhere.
>
> The fact is, that they don't really sound the same.
> The NIV leaves open the possibility of Jesus not being
> "begotten" by the Father. It takes out the actual
> "pregnancy/birth" thing. The KJV shines the light on

And there is no real excuse for the NIV doing this, since all Greek
versions, the Vulgate and even Wescott-Hort, agree on this point.

There is such a thing as too much nitpicking, though, and unless someone
is trying to base a heresy on such differences, not much point in
blasting away at people as if they are lost for reading a weak or faulty
translation.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.


John
2004-09-19 18:35:17 EST
In article <v6qqk0hcfc02rpur1r4jto8q79na3gg0dp@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

> I did that. :) Tell me, do the two examples equate?

Yes your argument on evolution is sound. I believe in Micro, but do not
believe in Macro. The earrth was formed in literal 7 days. Unless of
coarse we get into the "gap reconstruction hypothesis" But please not
today....


Okay

My pastor pointed out something to me today. He suggested that you read
the front section of your KJV. It said that the KJV was made to make
the bible simpler and smaller than the latin version. "The translators,
of the KJV bible, state that it was not their purpose "to make a new
translation...but to make a good one better."

KJV only people regardless of whether or not you claim to not be one,
usually do not look back at the original language, but only to the KJV.
The NIV was made to make the scriptures simpler, just like how the KJV
was once. The NIV is a beautiful text. You should try reading it
sometime. If it is corrupted, I wonder why God is using it in thousands
of churches, and many are being saved using it.

John
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!

John
2004-09-19 18:39:45 EST
Dave does a good job at blasting away my translation. He compares it to
rat poison, which is like saying its another gospel and if I read it, I
will die! I know if I drank rat poison I'd suppose I would die. Dave
needs to reread waht he says sometimes. But his argument on evolution
is right on. I cant say anything else on it. Dave is right.

John


>
> There is such a thing as too much nitpicking, though, and unless someone
> is trying to base a heresy on such differences, not much point in
> blasting away at people as if they are lost for reading a weak or faulty
> translation.
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it\ufffds taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can\ufffdt afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Dave Oldridge
2004-09-19 21:41:53 EST
John <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1095633584.qOpCzR6vU9oEsN1lPL0vDA@teranews:

> Dave does a good job at blasting away my translation. He compares it
> to rat poison, which is like saying its another gospel and if I read
> it, I will die! I know if I drank rat poison I'd suppose I would die.
> Dave needs to reread waht he says sometimes. But his argument on
> evolution is right on. I cant say anything else on it. Dave is
> right.

Pastor Dave does not HAVE an argument on evolution. What he has is a
bunch of dogmatic statements that presuppose a view of scripture and its
place in Christian worship that has never been that of the Church and is,
in fact, tantamount to making an idol of the written works of men.

However, in his zeal to defend the KJV, he is often quite accurate as to
the failings of other translations. Still, the KJV is failing for the
same reason the Vulgate ultimately did. It's written in a language
almost nobody speaks any more. Which will ultimately render it a tool
for scholars rather than a useful Bible for the masses.

NO translation is perfect, of course. My own personal preference is the
New Jerusalem Bible, which started out as a translation from original-
language materials into modern French and from there into English.
French being my second language, I'm usually able to spot French idiom
when it does crop up, which, to be honest, I've not seen in the English
version.

But when it really comes down to a debate about what a particular passage
actually says, I will consult every ancient manuscript, the Vulgate or
the LXX (if it's an OT passage) and any original-language materials of
good provenance that I can find. The trouble is, just knowing what
something says, in the dead letter of the words, is not enough. Some
passages are meant to serve one purpose, others another. NO
interpretation of ANY passage, however, can be a valid reason for bearing
false witness, which is what young-earth apologists, in my experience,
inevitably end up doing.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron