niv or kjv- which is right

[Jay Barker]

Ok, let me try to answer these questions. You are very defensive of new versions, lest you wouldn't have spent so much time attacking those that reject them. Next, you say I didn't respond to "facts" regarding Erasmus 5-11 manuscripts? What facts are those? What are your sources to prove what you say is even true?

Butero,

I realize this will ultimately be a waste of time as far as YOUR OWN VIEW is concerned, but I am more than willing to demonstrate using KJV Only sources where possible to demonstrate what I

[Jay Barker]

BUTERO:

Next, do I believe the King James Bible alone to be the Word of God. I believe the TR to be the Word of God. I also believe the King James Version Bible is the only translation in English that used the TR exclusively. The TR has also been translated into Spanish and other languages, so they are equally the Word of God. I do not believe any other English translation other than the King James Version is the Word of God. They may contains portions of the Word of God, but they also contain errors and leave out portions of verses.

JAY:

I

[Jay Barker]

On the basis I have seen the error for myself. The King James Bible is my standard. If they contradict anything in it, to me it is error. The reason people like yourself are evidence to me new versions are of the devil, is because you claim you are not attacking the KJV, yet you spend so much time attacking KJO supporters. As I stated, it is obvious why I would fight so hard to defend my position. I don't trust the reliability of new translations. On the other hand, what motivates you? If the KJV is the Word of God, why do you fight so hard for people to accept new versions?

JAY:

You know full well this is a falsehood. I have not

[Jay Barker]

BUTERO:

You tell me the NKJV is based on the TR, but you are the only person who I have encountered that makes that claim. Also, even if it were true, why would I use it? I have no problem with the Authorized Version, and most of the time now I use the 1611 Version. I understand them just fine, and don't need a more modern version.

JAY:

Well, let

[Jay Barker]

Next, you bring another argument I have never encountered. Which TR is the right one? What evidence do you have to prove that there was more than one and that they contradicted each other? Secondly, why should I believe your sources?

JAY:

The fact you

[Guest Cephas]

Hello Cephas,

My feeling is that while we likely will have little in common when it comes to doctrine, we will still hopefully be able to carry on civil conversations and learn something about how others look at the Bible.

I would give a hearty nod of approval to that statement. While I don't agree with all you post, at least you seem willing to remain civil and hear the other point of view without 'unintended' negative remarks. (I phrase it that way, because all of us tend to put unintended negativity in things at times. It's in our natures and can't be helped. but Intended snide, or negative remarks are another matter) I can respect that, and carry on a respectful conversation, even if we never find a point of agreement.

[Times]

A person asked a pastor this question: "What is the best version of the Bible to read?"

The pastor answered: "I don't know which version is the best, but I know which is the worst."

"Yeah." Answered the questioner. "Which one?"

The pastor quietly answered:"The UNREAD one."

[Jay Barker]

I already did cite what is meant by "gender neutral." It means taking the word he when refering to God and making it say God. No it is not accurate to make any changes in the text. The purpose was clear. Feminists didn't like the idea of God being presented as male, so they simply changed the text. I want NO CHANGES to my Bible. I want an accurate translation. While the WCC may not have come with guns and confiscated KJV Bibles and replaced them with these new abominations they called a Bible, the fact they were accepted was reason enough for me to separate myself. That may not be important to you, but absolute accuracy matters to me.

It comes down again to a matter of trust. I trust the TR and not the manuscripts, regardless of how old they are, used by those that wrote the new translations.

JAY:

This hardly qualifies as

[Jay Barker]

Why should I trust you to be telling me the truth over Gail Riplinger? Also, why should I assume she is wrong in what she says, simply because a KJO defender finds problems with her argument?

I understand your position, but here is my additional problems with your arguments. First, it is you that has decided which arguments you accept as having the most merit. To you, it is those that support the new translations. I do not agree. Secondly, even if you do know Greek, and have COPIES of documents like the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, no original copies of the TR exist today, at least to my knowledge. I also have nobody to ask from the early church what their Bible contained, since they are no longer alive. What I am left with is people that support the TR saying it was the accepted Bible of the early church, and people like yourself rejecting that ascertion. What proof do you have you are correct and those supporting the TR are wrong?

JAY:

There is a such thing as faith and there is a such thing as BLIND faith, and it shines clearly here, Butero. Did you check out her information or footnotes? You

[Jay Barker]

But what manuscripts? Are they original copies of the TR? If not, why would I trust them anymore than new translations? What my argument boils down to is, why should I believe what you are saying is a fact? You don't have an original copy of the TR. You can't find a person that was alive from the first century church to tell you what their Bible looked like. That verse you mentioned that supposedly denied the virgin birth is one of the dumbest arguments I have seen yet. It does no such thing. That is the same type of straw argument people that try to prove there are errors in the Bible bring up to discredit it as being the Word of God. I will tell you what I tell them. I take the Bible as a whole. I take it in context. There are no true contradictions, only apparent ones to the unlearned and carnal minded. By the way, I didn't know Erasmus. Was he a friend of yours? Did he tell you personally how he edited it? Also when you say edited, do you mean changed or compiled?

JAY:

But Butero, this argument cuts BOTH ways. You have nobody from the first century to tell you that an NIV reading is corrupt, either. The entire flimsy basis of your position in seen in this: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE A TEXT THAT DID NOT EXIST UNTIL 1516 TO BE THE INFALLIBLE TEXT? That