KJV The Received Text

[KC02]

I have a question for JW:

Since the KJV and NIV can't both be God's Word "at the same time" since they have some differences, how about the Septuagint? Following your (ill)logic, the scrolls Christ used can't be the Word of God, either, since there are clearly differences in the KJV and Septuagint (and we know the standard is th KJV, not those Scrolls).

If you would like to add the "for English speakers only" clause -- well that is silly. Does God sanction just one version for each language of the world? Or did He take a special liking to English?

Your doctrine is at least borderline heretical, if not a complete pack of lies because NO VERSION of the Bible supports your claims and invented "principles."

[Botz]

John...thanks for the reply.

I will not quote everything, as some of the re-posts from people are getting rather long with just a small comment at the bottom.

You seem to deliberately skirt the issue on one point in particular that I make...but in fairness I will answer your questions or your observations.

I like (personal preference) the KJV...I believe the KJV...I see it has some parts that have a peculiar and unhelpful word order...I see a few other places where some words could be improved upon to give a meaning nearer to what is being said, and I see a few places where there are mis-translations and the word Easter is one of them...whether deliberate or not I am unsure...but it is strange, and it is inconsistant and I reject it because it does not hold up to the rest of Scripture...and as my judge and witness in this I would actually use the KJV itself.

There are no perfect bible translations that I know, but admitting this does not mean I don't believe what is written in their pages (unless they are UNFAITHFULLY TRANSLATED with an agenda inspiring people and not the HOLY GHOST)..it means in what I wrote in the first paragraph.

My question to you is...would you believe the KJV if you knew there was an error in the 10 commandments through a simple printing error, and where it said 'Thou shalt commit adultery' you would not believe that would you...rather you would know that it was a man made error...it would not suddenly give you carte blanche to commit adultery...because you know from the rest of the word of G-d that it is not right to do so....you might even ADD to your Bible the word 'NOT'.

Thank you for your reply. In Him. Botz

______________

[jmwhalen]

As to Shiloh's comments, why did God wait as long as he did to make his Word available in any given language as he did? I don't see this as much of an argument either. Why did he wait so long to inspire men to make the 66 books that make up the cannon our Bible?

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing.

Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions?

It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy.

Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?

____________-

One point at a time(Is. 28:10)-

"Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?"

To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."?

1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post).

2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11:

I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:.

- "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22

Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19).

Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?:

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

-I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof).

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12

To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!?

"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17

Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!??

-Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument

Who said their "opinion" was inspired?

-"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51

Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant.

The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God.

The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation.

Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question)

Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism.

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5

"Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15

No, we are all in "the same company:

"in good company":

The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith":

Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2).

Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah.

Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham.

Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers.

Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote.

Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained).

Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder.

_______

Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21).

Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters..

Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism.

King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD.

Welcome to the club!

As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"!

Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible."

To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument).

None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God.

And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us.

"...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25

" If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7

"The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts."

Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help!

Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...."

The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God.

The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation.

"Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?"

By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew?

How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:?

"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."

He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"?

Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"?

Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke?

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

You are being deliberately obtuse. The issue under consideration is your claim that the KJV is perfect. When asked for evidence that this so, you cannot or will not do so. Instead, you choose to obscure the discussion with irrelevancies and insult without cause or provocation anyone who disagrees."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves," 2nd Timothy 2:24,25. You must be a very lonely person.

______

Obtuse? Its called debating. I dismantled your premises, the "supporting walls" of your argument. That is how we come to the truth.

"KJV is perfect"? Perfect "what"? Word of God? What is "the KJV.?" Irrelevancies? Asking you by what infallible standard you are judging the KJB is not perfect?

How do you know that the KJB is not perfect, if you have no standard, much less an infallible standard, by which to judge it.

You, sir, are in a logical fallacy trap, and you know it. This is why you will not identify this infallible standard by which you allegedly judge/assess the KJB is not perfect. You will be forced to name a, by your own presuppostions, fallible standard to infallibly "prove" that the KJB is not perfect. And this you cannot do, nor will you do. And thus, the enigma of your on record statement that you believe the word of God is inerrant, but you/we don't know what this "inerrant word of God" of yours is, continues.

Tell everyone on the board how you were able to come to the conclusion that the KJB is not perfect. With what source authority you compare it? Tick, tick, tick,,,,,, The originals? Nahhhhh!

As they say in Texas Hold 'Em, you have deuce/seven unsuited-fold-don't go all in.

Your volley.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

You assert the KJV is perfect. The burden of proof is on you. Unfortunately, you cannot. Instead, you resort to insults and obfuscation. In debate, this is known as argumentum ad baculum, the appeal the the club. That's not scholarship- that's bigotry. Present your evidence or withdraw your assertion.

________

Throwing a tantrum? Does the KJB have errors? Yes or no.

In Christ,

John M,. Whalen

You were the one that made the claim the KJV was perfect. How about you prove your claim rather than attacking me? I don't think you can. As a matter of fact, you are wrong.

_______

(bold/underline my emphasis)

"As a matter of fact, you are wrong."-Rufus

Boy, I guess you showed me.

"Hint: 'Because I say so' is not evidence."-Rufus

Because you say I am wrong, Rufus, is not evidence that I am wrong.

1. Again, he is asked a simple question, "Does KJB have errors?", and he "punts", much like he punts on my continuing questioning him to identify this mystical, enigmatic, "has no name", illusive "word of God" that is "inerrant." And he refuses, and we all know why: He has no final authority-he is it. He is a "free agent."

He will not go on record on this board to state the KJB has errors, because he does not have any standard , much less an infallible standard, by which to make this judgment, i.e., to judge the KJB.

Remember, after weeks of posting, no one knows what Rufus believes is the "inerrant word of God), by which to judge the KJB. He has never identified it. And if he does identify this standard, He knows I will "pick his argument apart", for he is caught in a logical fallacy trap="game, set, match ".,right Rufus? How does it feel to have your argument systematically dismantled by a "simplistic", "swinheaded" "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13) man such as myself?

"It is simplistic as well as swineheaded to assume that any English translation other than the KJV of 1611 is invalid." -Rufus

Is "swineheaded" in "the modern English"?

________________________________________________

2. "....God's Word (which, by the way, I do believe to be inerrant; don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Are these your words, Rufus? Or, how about these:?

"He who asserts must prove. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who insist the KJV is perfect. Go ahead, prove it."-Rufus

"...How about you prove your claim... ?" -Rufus

"Answer, if you can."-Rufus

Fine. Now, you asserted that "God's Word" you "believe to be inerrant." Therefore, by your own argument(not mine),which is on record for all to see, "the burden of proof is on those who insist that" God's Word "is perfect." Go ahead , prove it, i.e., that "God's Word...is inerrant." After all, "He who asserts must prove." Prove that "God's word is inerrant" -

"How about you prove your claim " that "God's word is inerrant."? "Answer, if you can." We will wait.

Perhaps you should make a "correction", a "revision", to your "original" post(s)?(play on words)

___________-

Rufus is now on record: He agrees that the KJB has no errors. Thank you Rufus!

"..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Of course, I have no choice but to to presume what you believe, because you have told no one on this board what you believe. Therefore, I presume, since you will not tell us:

1. You have no final authority, and

2. The KJB has no errors(Notice I am waiting for him to either agree or disagree with this "assertion". He knows I have him in a logic/ reasoning trap of his own making, based on his own "argument." He won't answer this)

3. All "versions" are the word of God-he is a subjectivist

"..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Here is your opportunity:"Tell us plainly"(John 10:24) what you believe? You have told us what you don't believe-how about showing some "spine/backbone/vertabrae", and tell us what you do believe? Seem pretty "simple" to me-after all, I am "simplistic" according to you.

Let's listen to Rufus's next post/answer(loosely used here), and get even more confused. I suspect we will receive more of the mantra: "... We cannot tell."(Mark 11:33)

_________________________________________________________-

Bonus question:Just how do you go about proving to someone that Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day(1 Cor. 15:1-4)? After all, "He who asserts must prove", and "How about you prove your claim "...that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:..."? Or perhaps you cannot, since it is "according to the scriptures", which you seemingly cannot figure out what the scriptures are?

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

"...How long halt ye between two opinions?..." 1 Kings 18:21

in Christ,

John M. Whalen

[jmwhalen]

I have a question for JW:

Since the KJV and NIV can't both be God's Word "at the same time" since they have some differences, how about the Septuagint? Following your (ill)logic, the scrolls Christ used can't be the Word of God, either, since there are clearly differences in the KJV and Septuagint (and we know the standard is th KJV, not those Scrolls).

My comment: The Septuagint? Please provide the Scriptures that assert that any NT authors considered the Septuagint "Scripture", including the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter and verse. Where did the NT writers they say they believed and read a Greek text over their Jewish OT? Tell all of us why would a Jew back then would read a Greek text instead of their own orthodox text? Strange.......Again: Now why would a Jew, especially the author, be reading from a Greek OT text (even if there was one) instead of the Hebrew text that the Jews have always read from? Strange indeed.

Please define what you mean by "the Septuagint".

Please define what you mean by "the word of God." Is that "the word of God"/Scripture as in "given by inspiration of God" and is thus perfect, inerrant, etc.? Is that Scripture originally given by inspiration of God, but is now replete with boo-boos, "mistranslations", mistakes and errors, but we can still call it THE SCRIPTURE because, well, because we can? Either way, please provide the Scriptures that supports your argument.

I wish one of you arm-chair textual-critics "experts" on "the" Greek would come up with some Scripture that supports "the NT authors considered a TRANSLATION (your Greek Septuagint,if you will) Scripture" , for that would debunk the false idea that "no translation is Scripture - inspired, perfect, inerrant, etc.". The NT authors made plain reference to Scripture as the very "word of God" to be obeyed and received as the "very word of God" and not as "the word of men".

Quote:

The reader is cautioned, therefore, that there is really no such thing as the Septuagint. One must pay particular care to the context in which the term is used, even by the same writer - and even in the present book! Unfortunately, some writers use the term carelessly and equivocally, and the inevitable confusion that results from such ambiguity has led Septuagint scholars to call for standard terminology. This may be easier said than done, however, for the ambiguities of the term go back to antiquity.

Is the above a quote from some borderline heretical,rabid KJVO "nutcase" running around a building saying "the Word is God" (which is true - see John 1:1)? No, it is not such a quote. This is from Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva in "Invitation to the Septuagint" which you should read.

I wait with great expectation for you Scriptural proof of your assertion.

2. If you would like to add the "for English speakers only" clause -- well that is silly. Does God sanction just one version for each language of the world? Or did He take a special liking to English?

My comment:Silly? Is that your "opinion" of what you "think God should do", or what He should have done, or what He did?

Prior to Calvary, the LORD God limited his word (1 OT) to 1 group of people for the whole world

[jmwhalen]

(bold my emphasis)

We do have a LORD God of reason(Is. 1:18). The law of non-contradiction:

KJB:

[KC02]

Don't blow a fuse Brother JW. I am not one that is easily impressed with wordiness. I do admire your enthusiasm and passion. I need more of that!

Here we go again! (Please note I will not play Bill Clinton's game: define this and that ) I will be very glad to answer your questions and to prove that your claims are off-the-wall nonsense.

My comment: The Septuagint? Please provide the Scriptures that assert that any NT authors considered the Septuagint "Scripture", including the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter and verse. Where did the NT writers they say they believed and read a Greek text over their Jewish OT? Tell all of us why would a Jew back then would read a Greek text instead of their own orthodox text? Strange.......Again: Now why would a Jew, especially the author, be reading from a Greek OT text (even if there was one)

[Guest shiloh357]

I believe shiloh357 pointed this out in an earlier post: what's interesting is that you don't hear about claims for the divine inspiration of the KJV before February 2nd,1833. That was when no less a person than Joseph Smith completed his 'correction' of the KJV, calling it a translation. The claim of the Mormon church since has been that that version of the KJV came directly from God to Joseph Smith. It's interesting that the mainline Mormon church won't print it. You have to go to the Reorganized Latter-day Saints to find a copy.

To this day, there is a dispute over the 66 books that make up the Biblical cannon. You can trace that back to a certain calendar year as well. There is nothing in the scriptural text that states that only the 66 books we accept as the cannon are all that should be there, or that there aren't some books that don't belong. You even see a couple of references in the Bible to extra-Biblical works. In spite of that, we likely all believe the 66 books are the complete Bible. Why? Why don't we accept the 7 additional Apocryphal books the Catholics have in their Bible, or the additional 14 books that were originally in the 1611 King James translation Bible? What about other disputed books, like the one some countries have included that further discusses Adam and Eve after the fall? We accept this without question. What is the difference?

There is plenty of internal evidence, in fact there is enough evidence for anyone willing to be convinced, that the 66 books we have are the correct cannon. None of the apocryphal books meet up with the obvious standard of infallibility and neither do the other pieces of literature that the Bible mentions in passing. Your mistake is assuming that we have no real evidence to shows that we have discovered the canonicity of the 66 books.

You are using the same old argument you have used before. Since you can't provide actually evidence that hte KJV is "inspired," you want to fall back on the idea that there is no more evidence for the inspiration of the biblical text than there is for your belief in the inspiriation of the KJV, which is really fallacious argument.

You claim that you simply believe "by faith" that it is so. However, biblical faith is always evidentiary. Our "faith" in the inspiration of the Bible and that the current 66-book canon contains those which are inspired is not without evidentiary basis, especially internal evidence.

[Botz]

John...thanks for the reply.

I will not quote everything, as some of the re-posts from people are getting rather long with just a small comment at the bottom.

You seem to deliberately skirt the issue on one point in particular that I make...but in fairness I will answer your questions or your observations.

I like (personal preference) the KJV...I believe the KJV...I see it has some parts that have a peculiar and unhelpful word order...I see a few other places where some words could be improved upon to give a meaning nearer to what is being said, and I see a few places where there are mis-translations and the word Easter is one of them...whether deliberate or not I am unsure...but it is strange, and it is inconsistant and I reject it because it does not hold up to the rest of Scripture...and as my judge and witness in this I would actually use the KJV itself.

There are no perfect bible translations that I know, but admitting this does not mean I don't believe what is written in their pages (unless they are UNFAITHFULLY TRANSLATED with an agenda inspiring people and not the HOLY GHOST)..it means in what I wrote in the first paragraph.

My question to you is...would you believe the KJV if you knew there was an error in the 10 commandments through a simple printing error, and where it said 'Thou shalt commit adultery' you would not believe that would you...rather you would know that it was a man made error...it would not suddenly give you carte blanche to commit adultery...because you know from the rest of the word of G-d that it is not right to do so....you might even ADD to your Bible the word 'NOT'.

Thank you for your reply. In Him. Botz

I used to have a set of the Bible on tape narrated by Alexander Scorby. I was reading along with it one time, and noticed he made a mistake and left a verse out. I have a newer set now, without that mistake. That doesn't mean I think he did that intentionally, and I haven't turned away from listening to the Bible on tape. Printing errors are possible, but that is not the same as a translation error, so I agree with your point there.

__

Brother Botz,

Could you explain verse 21 in Matthew chapter 17 in the NIV to me? Thanks/

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Here is the NIV version in context...

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.{"a}

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

The {a} refers to a footnote that states....

{a}..Matthew 17:20 Some manuscripts include. 21 'But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.'

The KJV says of the appropriate reference...

20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

The lesson both versions/translations teach me is to develop faith, and to expect to see G-d move and act even in encountering a stubborn demonic spirit when and if ones life-style as a Believer is liberally sprinkled with prayer and fasting.

Conversely what is being said is that you will encounter the same difficulties that the disciples displayed in this passage if your faith vascillates, and you do not have a constant prayer and fasting life-style.

As a matter of note...I do not use the NIV, I find it a rather baffling translation, and I do not like the style of the wording. I think the comparison table you put up with the KJV against the NIV demonstrates this to some extent....

[jmwhalen]

As to Shiloh's comments, why did God wait as long as he did to make his Word available in any given language as he did? I don't see this as much of an argument either. Why did he wait so long to inspire men to make the 66 books that make up the cannon our Bible?

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing.

Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions?

It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy.

Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?

____________-

One point at a time(Is. 28:10)-

"Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?"

To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."?

1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post).

2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11:

I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:.

- "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22

Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19).

Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?:

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

-I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof).

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12

To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!?

"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17

Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!??

-Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument

Who said their "opinion" was inspired?

-"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51

Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant.

The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God.

The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation.

Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question)

Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism.

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5

"Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15

No, we are all in "the same company:

"in good company":

The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith":

Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2).

Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah.

Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham.

Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers.

Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote.

Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained).

Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder.

_______

Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21).

Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters..

Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism.

King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD.

Welcome to the club!

As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"!

Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible."

To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument).

None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God.

And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us.

"...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25

" If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7

"The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts."

Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help!

Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...."

The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God.

The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation.

"Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?"

By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew?

How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:?

"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."

He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"?

Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"?

Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke?

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

You are being deliberately obtuse. The issue under consideration is your claim that the KJV is perfect. When asked for evidence that this so, you cannot or will not do so. Instead, you choose to obscure the discussion with irrelevancies and insult without cause or provocation anyone who disagrees."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves," 2nd Timothy 2:24,25. You must be a very lonely person.

______

Obtuse? Its called debating. I dismantled your premises, the "supporting walls" of your argument. That is how we come to the truth.

"KJV is perfect"? Perfect "what"? Word of God? What is "the KJV.?" Irrelevancies? Asking you by what infallible standard you are judging the KJB is not perfect?

How do you know that the KJB is not perfect, if you have no standard, much less an infallible standard, by which to judge it.

You, sir, are in a logical fallacy trap, and you know it. This is why you will not identify this infallible standard by which you allegedly judge/assess the KJB is not perfect. You will be forced to name a, by your own presuppostions, fallible standard to infallibly "prove" that the KJB is not perfect. And this you cannot do, nor will you do. And thus, the enigma of your on record statement that you believe the word of God is inerrant, but you/we don't know what this "inerrant word of God" of yours is, continues.

Tell everyone on the board how you were able to come to the conclusion that the KJB is not perfect. With what source authority you compare it? Tick, tick, tick,,,,,, The originals? Nahhhhh!

As they say in Texas Hold 'Em, you have deuce/seven unsuited-fold-don't go all in.

Your volley.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

You assert the KJV is perfect. The burden of proof is on you. Unfortunately, you cannot. Instead, you resort to insults and obfuscation. In debate, this is known as argumentum ad baculum, the appeal the the club. That's not scholarship- that's bigotry. Present your evidence or withdraw your assertion.

________

Throwing a tantrum? Does the KJB have errors? Yes or no.

In Christ,

John M,. Whalen

You were the one that made the claim the KJV was perfect. How about you prove your claim rather than attacking me? I don't think you can. As a matter of fact, you are wrong.

_______

(bold/underline my emphasis)

"As a matter of fact, you are wrong."-Rufus

Boy, I guess you showed me.

"Hint: 'Because I say so' is not evidence."-Rufus

Because you say I am wrong, Rufus, is not evidence that I am wrong.

1. Again, he is asked a simple question, "Does KJB have errors?", and he "punts", much like he punts on my continuing questioning him to identify this mystical, enigmatic, "has no name", illusive "word of God" that is "inerrant." And he refuses, and we all know why: He has no final authority-he is it. He is a "free agent."

He will not go on record on this board to state the KJB has errors, because he does not have any standard , much less an infallible standard, by which to make this judgment, i.e., to judge the KJB.

Remember, after weeks of posting, no one knows what Rufus believes is the "inerrant word of God), by which to judge the KJB. He has never identified it. And if he does identify this standard, He knows I will "pick his argument apart", for he is caught in a logical fallacy trap="game, set, match ".,right Rufus? How does it feel to have your argument systematically dismantled by a "simplistic", "swinheaded" "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13) man such as myself?

"It is simplistic as well as swineheaded to assume that any English translation other than the KJV of 1611 is invalid." -Rufus

Is "swineheaded" in "the modern English"?

________________________________________________

2. "....God's Word (which, by the way, I do believe to be inerrant; don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Are these your words, Rufus? Or, how about these:?

"He who asserts must prove. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who insist the KJV is perfect. Go ahead, prove it."-Rufus

"...How about you prove your claim... ?" -Rufus

"Answer, if you can."-Rufus

Fine. Now, you asserted that "God's Word" you "believe to be inerrant." Therefore, by your own argument(not mine),which is on record for all to see, "the burden of proof is on those who insist that" God's Word "is perfect." Go ahead , prove it, i.e., that "God's Word...is inerrant." After all, "He who asserts must prove." Prove that "God's word is inerrant" -

"How about you prove your claim " that "God's word is inerrant."? "Answer, if you can." We will wait.

Perhaps you should make a "correction", a "revision", to your "original" post(s)?(play on words)

___________-

Rufus is now on record: He agrees that the KJB has no errors. Thank you Rufus!

"..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Of course, I have no choice but to to presume what you believe, because you have told no one on this board what you believe. Therefore, I presume, since you will not tell us:

1. You have no final authority, and

2. The KJB has no errors(Notice I am waiting for him to either agree or disagree with this "assertion". He knows I have him in a logic/ reasoning trap of his own making, based on his own "argument." He won't answer this)

3. All "versions" are the word of God-he is a subjectivist

"..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Here is your opportunity:"Tell us plainly"(John 10:24) what you believe? You have told us what you don't believe-how about showing some "spine/backbone/vertabrae", and tell us what you do believe? Seem pretty "simple" to me-after all, I am "simplistic" according to you.

Let's listen to Rufus's next post/answer(loosely used here), and get even more confused. I suspect we will receive more of the mantra: "... We cannot tell."(Mark 11:33)

_________________________________________________________-

Bonus question:Just how do you go about proving to someone that Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day(1 Cor. 15:1-4)? After all, "He who asserts must prove", and "How about you prove your claim "...that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:..."? Or perhaps you cannot, since it is "according to the scriptures", which you seemingly cannot figure out what the scriptures are?

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

"...How long halt ye between two opinions?..." 1 Kings 18:21

in Christ,

John M. Whalen

Bluster and argumentum ad populum aside, I await the proof of your assertion that the KJV is perfect. I look forward to your next diatribe with great eagerness.

____

As I suspected, as I predicted: .. We cannot tell."(Mark 11:33)

More temper tantrums, like a child who was "gyped out of his sucker". He is on record:

1. He has no final authority, and

2. The KJB has no errors(Notice I am waiting for him to either agree or disagree with this "assertion". He knows I have him in a logic/ reasoning trap of his own making, based on his own "argument." He won't answer this)

3. All "versions" are the word of God-he is a subjectivist

"..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Here is your opportunity:"Tell us plainly"(John 10:24) what you believe? You have told us what you don't believe-how about showing some "spine/backbone/vertabrae", and tell us what you do believe? Seem pretty "simple" to me-after all, I am "simplistic" according to you.

"I await the proof of your assertion that the KJV is perfect. " -Rufus

"....God's Word (which, by the way, I do believe to be inerrant; don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus

Are these your words, Rufus? Or, how about these:?

"He who asserts must prove. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who insist the KJV is perfect. Go ahead, prove it."-Rufus

"...How about you prove your claim... ?" -Rufus

"Answer, if you can."-Rufus

Fine. Now, you asserted that "God's Word" you "believe to be inerrant." Therefore, by your own argument(not mine),which is on record for all to see, "the burden of proof is on those who insist that" God's Word "is perfect." Go ahead , prove it, i.e., that "God's Word...is inerrant." After all, "He who asserts must prove." Prove that "God's word is inerrant" -

"How about you prove your claim " that "God's word is inerrant."? "Answer, if you can." We will wait.

Again, I " await the proof of your assertion that God's word is inerrant."

As I contended, this proof will not be forthcoming, as he is in a logic trap.

" I look forward to your next diatribe with great eagerness."-Rufus

Thank you for the invitation? Accordingly:

Statement or proposition:a sentence which is either true or false

Premise: the statements or propositions which are assumed in an argument in order to prove a conclusion

Conclusion: the statement or proposition which is to be proved in an argument

Argumentaion: the process of reasoning from premises to conclusion

Logic is the science of correct reasoning, teaching the standards for how to discern good reasoning from bad reasoning, to help us to arrive at correct conclusions.The tool we use in our observations of the world that help separate fact from fiction is reason-the ability to use the mind to sort through the observations and draw accurate conclusions about what is true.

The ability to argue well is the essence of clear, or logical thinking. Arguing is a virtue. If I said "The earth is square", would you disagree? Sure you would. And why? Because you have a good reason to believe the earth is round, and you do not have a good reason to believe the earth is square. When you have every reason to believe one thing and reject another, it is your rational obligation to accept the belief supported by reason and reject the belief not supported by reason. And such an obligation demands that we disagree with thouse who espouse to the belief not supported by reason. Thus, arguing is a virtue because it facilitates discovering what it is true.

An argument is a reasoned and principled disputation about matters of fact-they help us discover the facts and find the truth.

You may consider this analogy: an argument is a house, a roof supported by walls. The roof would be the conclusion, and the walls are the supporting ideas. In the science of logic, we would call the walls the premises, and the whole house or structure of the building is called a syllogism(syllogism is an inference in which one proposition (the conclusion) follows of necessity from two others (known as premises);.a sequence of three propositions such that the first two imply the third, the conclusion.). Premises are the statements or propositions which are assumed in an argument in order to prove a conclusion. The conclusion is the statement or proposition which is to be proved in an argument. And argumentaion is the process of reasoning from premises to conclusion.

Thus, before you can arrive at logical conclusions using a line of reasoning, there must be a basis for the reasoning called a premise, i.e, a fact, proposition, or assumption that is the foundational basis for the argument. The soundness of the argument depends on the validity of the premises-the soundness of the house depends on the walls.

Now there are different forms of syllogisms. For example, when the form is right and the facts are true, we call this a sound argument, or valid(the conclusion must follow of necessity from the premises), that the walls are strong enough to "support" the roof, if you will. The conclusion is thus true, resting soudly or securely on its supporting foundation.

The goal of clear thinking, or logical thinking, is to discover if the walls, the support, can be knocked down, or if they are solid. For if the walls go down, the roof is flat on the ground, and become merely assertions, and the argument is defeated.

Intellectual honesty means accepting deductive(an argument whose conclusions is purported to follow of necessity from the premises) logic, that is, if one is faced with a logically valid argument, with clear terms and accurate facts, this person has a rational obligation to believe the conclusion, even if he does not like what he finds. Rationality has nothing to do with preference or "what we like"-it has do do with the truth.

I thus "knocked down" his premise, his supporting walls, and he has been reduced to merely a couple of lines and opinions, catchy cliches("Bluster and argumentum ad populum ") he most probably obtained from a "Google search", or from a book such as "How to impress everyone with fancy, scholarly one liners, even when your argument has been discounted."

I challenge anyone to ask Rufus one simple question, as I have asked: Does the KJB have any errors, and, if it does, what is your "God's word" that does not have errors=his "inerrant Word of God"?

Kick back, perhaps have a beer.......that answer from Rufus will not arrive-just like that 'inerrant God's word" he references has not arrived to him.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[jmwhalen]

John...thanks for the reply.

I will not quote everything, as some of the re-posts from people are getting rather long with just a small comment at the bottom.

You seem to deliberately skirt the issue on one point in particular that I make...but in fairness I will answer your questions or your observations.

I like (personal preference) the KJV...I believe the KJV...I see it has some parts that have a peculiar and unhelpful word order...I see a few other places where some words could be improved upon to give a meaning nearer to what is being said, and I see a few places where there are mis-translations and the word Easter is one of them...whether deliberate or not I am unsure...but it is strange, and it is inconsistant and I reject it because it does not hold up to the rest of Scripture...and as my judge and witness in this I would actually use the KJV itself.

There are no perfect bible translations that I know, but admitting this does not mean I don't believe what is written in their pages (unless they are UNFAITHFULLY TRANSLATED with an agenda inspiring people and not the HOLY GHOST)..it means in what I wrote in the first paragraph.

My question to you is...would you believe the KJV if you knew there was an error in the 10 commandments through a simple printing error, and where it said 'Thou shalt commit adultery' you would not believe that would you...rather you would know that it was a man made error...it would not suddenly give you carte blanche to commit adultery...because you know from the rest of the word of G-d that it is not right to do so....you might even ADD to your Bible the word 'NOT'.

Thank you for your reply. In Him. Botz

I used to have a set of the Bible on tape narrated by Alexander Scorby. I was reading along with it one time, and noticed he made a mistake and left a verse out. I have a newer set now, without that mistake. That doesn't mean I think he did that intentionally, and I haven't turned away from listening to the Bible on tape. Printing errors are possible, but that is not the same as a translation error, so I agree with your point there.

__

Brother Botz,

Could you explain verse 21 in Matthew chapter 17 in the NIV to me? Thanks/

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Here is the NIV version in context...

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.{"a}

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

The {a} refers to a footnote that states....

{a}..Matthew 17:20 Some manuscripts include. 21 'But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.'

The KJV says of the appropriate reference...

20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

The lesson both versions/translations teach me is to develop faith, and to expect to see G-d move and act even in encountering a stubborn demonic spirit when and if ones life-style as a Believer is liberally sprinkled with prayer and fasting.

Conversely what is being said is that you will encounter the same difficulties that the disciples displayed in this passage if your faith vascillates, and you do not have a constant prayer and fasting life-style.

As a matter of note...I do not use the NIV, I find it a rather baffling translation, and I do not like the style of the wording. I think the comparison table you put up with the KJV against the NIV demonstrates this to some extent....

______________

Brother Botz,

"Here is the NIV version in context.."

1. So, where is verse 21 in the NIV? Please provide a "no spin" answer.

2. This is not "rocket science", folks, assuming that we accept logic, i.e., the science of correct reasoning(Is. 1:8). If the NIV is, in fact, the word of God, then the KJB is not, for it adds to the word of God. Likewise, if the KJB is the word of God, then the NIV is not, for it diminishes/takes away from the word of God. If this premise and resulting conclusion is denied, the the following scriptural passages are non-sensical, mean absolutely nothing, and you night as well just rip them out of "whatver 'the' Bible' you "use"(believe?) right now(which is what people do any how-they read, but don't believe a verse, and if they don't understand it, they correct/revise/delete it-my point):

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut.4:2)

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut.12:32)

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."(Prov. 30:6)

"Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:.."(Jer. 26:2)

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev.22:18-19)

3. Check all the evidence-see my post on KJB vs. NIV passage contradictions.

4. Check all the evidence:

I will rephrase the question from "Could you explain verse...in the NIV", to

What do the following verses in the NIV say, i.e., I am not asking for an interpretation, I am asking for what are the objective words(see my previous posts-objective words comprise scripture, not "intended thoughts", not "general message".....):

Mt: 18:11, 23:14

Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26,15:28

Luke 17:36, 23:17

John 5:4

Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29

Romans 16:24

Very subtil(Gen. 3:1-see my previos post), wouldn't you say, from the very first "textual critic."

5. "As a matter of note...I do not use the NIV, I find it a rather baffling translation, and I do not like the style of the wording. I think the comparison table you put up with the KJV against the NIV demonstrates this to some extent...."-Botz

Again, you make my point. You say you "use" the NIV. Do you believe it as "the word of truth...the word of God"? I "use" a car manual, I "use" a TV Guide, I "use" a "fill in the blank with any Biblical commentary", I "use" "gospel tracts", I "use" Strong's, I "use".................................................But does that make these things I "use" the word of God?

"I find it a rather baffling translation,"

Again, you make my point.

- Since when did "understandability" be the criteria for determining objective truth? I don't understand many parts/verses in the scripture, many of them are, indeed, quite "baffling." So, I should then correct/revise/delete/ignore it? Again, you are submitting the Bible to your fallible "correcting ability" because of your misunderstanding. The solution is not to change/revise/delete/ignore "whatever Bible" you "use" because of your fallible comprehension skills-the solution is to study, meditate, search the objective words of the scripture, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, you may come to a solution. You are not expected to understand every verse, nor have exhaustive understanding of the Holy Bible. But don't change it. You do what most do: I don't understand an objective word/phrase, so I will either change it, revise it, delete it, add to it, or find another "whatever Bible" that confirms my understanding, which leads to doubt, which leads to confusion. This is exactly what the first "textual critic" did in Genesis 3(read my previous post). You are to believe the objective words of the Holy Bible as given, at face value, submit to its authority, don't revise/change.....the objective words; instead, study, admit, that, if their are "baffling" verses, it is you that needs to be set straight, it is you that needs correction, it is you that needs to revise your doctrine, not the objective words of the Holy Bible.

Have you read Shakespeare? Pretty baffling, is it not? So, you change it? Ever read a medical book(my brother is a doctor)? Pretty baffling, is it not? So, you change it? Ever read the U S Constitution? Pretty baffling, is it not? So you change it?

"I do not like the style of the wording.'-Botz

So what? Since when does "likeabilty" determine objective truth? I don't "like" many things about Christianity. So what, John? Have you read Shakespeare? I have, and I do not like the style of the wording. So what, John?

"I don't understand the word of God, so I will be the authority and change it to something I 'prefer', 'like', understand....."

That is, our understanding/comprehension of the law in no way determines/affects the legitimacy of its authority. Again, if If "understanding" determined legitimacy of authority, perhaps we need to change Shakespear's works, our "medical" books,.......

People confuse the objective truth of God's word as given by revelation, and its availibility, with illumination, i. e., understandability.

Most consider the "which Bible" issue like the "which religion" issue-they "pick", "prefer".... a "Bible"/a "religion" based on likeabilty/preference/taste....instead of:

IS IT TRUE?

6. Consider:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11

A bible corrector(as opposed to a bible believer), in the early 1900's, would say "I find this quite baffling. I have checked with the 'modernists', the 'experts', the 'scholars', the 'intellectuals' , the scientists, and they have said, they 'believe' , that and rains came exclusively "from above." This is(was)was there "FACT."

Moses was not a "scholar", nor an oceanographer, but he wrote that fountains, or springs, of the great deep burst forth, at the same time the rains fell from heaven, flooding the earth. And only relatively recently have scientists, the "experts", discovered that yes, there are, great water fountains erupting from the ocean floor.

But, of course, according to the "modernists", the "experts", the "scholars", the "textual critics".......(just as "Easter DID NOT EXIST when Acts was written...blah blah blah), "water fountains erupting from the ocean floor did not exist when Genesis was written...

Bible believers rejected the "scholars", the "experts", the "modernists", the "intellectuals", and accepted, BY FAITH, what the LORD God said in his inspired, preserved, without error word, and they submit to it.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

PS(1):If I was not clear in the preceding, I will employ "the" "Modern" English.

"Oops, my bad" . But I do feel that what I wrote was "Sweet." And any comments to the contrary will result in dis dude "Snuffing the punk. " Do we all agree? Yes? "That's wack, man."

PS(2):If any should not understand this, I will send them my "New and Improved, Unabridged, 89th Edition expanded Revised Combination Lexicon Strong's Interlinear George Foreman Grill Street DictionaryThesaurus of 'the 'Modern English'."

PS(3) Well, "Ize gottsta go." My boss at work just called me, and he does not sound happy(or is that "gay"? Oops, I need to "revise" James 2:3 to reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), everchanging nuances of this "evolutionary""the" English, to reflect what the author really "meant/intended", in this "modern, enlightened,civilized, tolerant" society/world). I "figger" he just did not like me changing/"revising" the Training Manual he gave. I told him I just don't "like"/"prefer" it, as it is too "baffling", and I do not "like" the "style of the wording"-it is not my "favorite", although I do "use" it. Go "figger!" "Whussup with this dude?" "Whussup with that?" As Jed Clampett would say: "It don't rightly seem fair." Where is Jethro when I need him, with that 6th grade "eggeekayshun!?"

In Christ,

John M. Whalen