Originally Posted by Diligent

Again with the cart before the horse!

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So, if you don't have the record of the word to begin with, how is it brought to your remembrance?

It's not "cart before the horse" if you've established the KJV as your standard, but even if you don't, the Holy Ghost will teach you. But if you do, there's no prohibition to comparing scripture with scripture and there's no fear of personal "corruption" because you've already established a standard.

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Debau

Gord-MDOC,
If we start finding contradictions in His words, that should concern you. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), nor is He a liar (Tit 1:2). I won't bog you down with many verses. I would offer you one verse at a time for comparison to try to convince you of the integrity of the King James Bible, and the lack thereof the rest(NASB-ESV-NIV, etc.).
I would first ask you who killed Goliath? Look in your NASB-ESV-NIV at II Samuel 21:19.

NASB:
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV:
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

I always thought David killed Goliath!

Maybe its me or my English or something but my KJV doesn't have the word David either, so I really don't see this as any valid argument.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.

You brethren are giving me the 'so called' missing links, and so far I've not seen one valid example. I've got my Logos, QuickVerse and SwordSearcher standing buy so give me some real examples please.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Gord

ESV, ... GWT at the last verses of Mark and I see all up to vs20 in all versions

Gord, The modern versions leave the text in, often in brackets or some other restricted method, while teaching that this is actually man's corruption. Read the footnotes and such. Of course this is sheer hypocrisy. If they really believed it was man's corruption, and they were honest before God, they would not have the text. Confused textcrit pseudo-evangelicals (textual apostates) like Daniel Wallace have their own movement afoot to actually remove the text, as it is most modern versions will only leave you doubtful and confused.

Originally Posted by Gord

I do see the subtle difference with the word He compared to the word God in 1Ti 3:16

Nothing subtle there, doctrinal quicksand has been built on the difference. Oh, actually their Greek does not say "he", it says "which" or "who", grammatically dubious, but they know that would expose the text to ridicule so they usually change it to "he" in the text.

Originally Posted by Gord

that's not a deal breaker

Who told you you should be making deals to include corruption with the word of God ?

Originally Posted by Gord

I need better then that to be sold on KJV-only.

False dichotomy. You could actually reject the modern version blunders and corruptions and not be "sold on KJV-only". Many of us actually moved precept upon precept, line upon line. The first thing we realized was that the modern versions were abysmally corrupt and we switched to Received Text based Bibles only.

Make that proper movement, and be refreshed. You can then look at King James Bible issues without the fuzz and buzz of the abject corruption of the modern versions.

And if you want about 180 missing links, to start, Brandon has a "magic marker" page.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Gord, The modern versions leave the text in, often in brackets or some other restricted method, while teaching that this is actually man's corruption. Read the footnotes and such. Of course this is sheer hypocrisy. If they really believed it was man's corruption, and they were honest before God, they would not have the text. Confused textcrit pseudo-evangelicals (textual apostates) like Daniel Wallace have their own movement afoot to actually remove the text, as it is most modern versions will only leave you doubtful and confused.

Nothing subtle there, doctrinal quicksand has been built on the difference. Oh, actually their Greek does not say "he", it says "which" or "who", grammatically dubious, but they know that would expose the text to ridicule so they usually change it to "he" in the text.

Who told you you should be making deals to include corruption with the word of God ?

False dichotomy. You could actually reject the modern version blunders and corruptions and not be "sold on KJV-only". Many of us actually moved precept upon precept, line upon line. The first thing we realized was that the modern versions were abysmally corrupt and we switched to Received Text based Bibles only.

Make that proper movement, and be refreshed. You can then look at King James Bible issues without the fuzz and buzz of the abject corruption of the modern versions.

And if you want about 180 missing links, to start, Brandon has a "magic marker" page.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Deal Breaker Definition: any issue or factor that is significant enough to terminate a negotiation, so why can you be so literal in some of your arguments, and generic in others.

For Example: here you point out

Gord, The modern versions leave the text in, often in brackets or some other restricted method, while teaching that this is actually man's corruption. Read the footnotes and such. Of course this is sheer hypocrisy. If they really believed it was man's corruption, and they were honest before God, they would not have the text. Confused textcrit pseudo-evangelicals (textual apostates) like Daniel Wallace have their own movement afoot to actually remove the text, as it is most modern versions will only leave you doubtful and confused.

but that does not answer the literal claim of missing verses, and here you point out

Nothing subtle there, doctrinal quicksand has been built on the difference. Oh, actually their Greek does not say "he", it says "which" or "who", grammatically dubious, but they know that would expose the text to ridicule so they usually change it to "he" in the text.

a literal comparison between he and God. To me you change the argument to change your need, but I detect where the real problem may lay that may show why I haven't grasped this yet...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord
that's not a deal breaker
Who told you you should be making deals to include corruption with the word of God ?

you really need to relax, that is just a figure of expression by me about this issue, and you take it soooo literal. I take the Gospel literal as that is what the Holy Spirit has imparted upon my heart, through the words I read out of a Good News Bible to accept my salvation, according my take on what the KJV-only argument is, that should never happen as I didn't read perfectly preserved words from a KJV bible.

I am going to try and spend more time in study on this topic rather then continue this (to me) never ending redundant argument. I'm wasting time here where I should be arming myself with truth. I thank everyone for there input, it has opened my eyes to a very real topic for study, thank you all who contributed to causing me to think.

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Diligent

so I would suggest starting with this article on what God's word says about it: God's Providential Preservation of the Scriptures

That's an excerpt from the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, a tome of tomes on the subject of preservation and inspiration. (Side note: when the editor of the book originally contacted me, he said the book was a scholarly treatment of the subject. I told him I wouldn't hold that against him. I do recommend the book.)

I was recently laid off work, so my blessings now are on the basics, I will when I get back to work, thank you.

Originally Posted by Debau

Gord-MDOC,
If we start finding contradictions in His words, that should concern you. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), nor is He a liar (Tit 1:2). I won't bog you down with many verses. I would offer you one verse at a time for comparison to try to convince you of the integrity of the King James Bible, and the lack thereof the rest(NASB-ESV-NIV, etc.).
I would first ask you who killed Goliath? Look in your NASB-ESV-NIV at II Samuel 21:19.

I am aware of all the nuances of the disparate versions... I studied them years ago. I don't use the NIV or ESV.

KJB:
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The KJB does not contradict I Chron 20:5, which says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath.

Actually, 2 Sam 21:19 ("Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim") does contradict 1 Chron 20:5 ("Elhanan the son of Jair"). I'll let Clarke's commentary do the talking:

Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Ch_20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.” This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.
(end of Clarke commentary)

There is a lengthier treatise on the subject expounding the same thing. This contradiction is of little import; it has no affect on biblical doctrine.

The ref for David's killing of Goliath is 1 Sam 17:49.

I dunno how this thumbs-down icon appeared in the above post; it was not intended. It was likely clicked on by accident during composing.

Originally Posted by Gord

Deal Breaker Definition: you really need to relax, that is just a figure of expression by me about this issue, and you take it soooo literal.

All: Yes, man, relax. You don't feed a babe with meat instead of milk.

Originally Posted by MDOC

Oh, don't worry about it. It's more important to have the Holy Ghost teach you than to have a ("Politically correct?" LOL) Bible. Remember the Philippians ref? Christ is still preached.

Context is always important. Paul is not saying he does not care how God's Word is changed or how someone says something (ie. whether it is true or not) - what he said was that it does not matter what someone's motives were in preaching about Christ, as long as they preached the truth about Christ. And the more mvs are watering down and changing the Word of God, the less truth about Him you are getting.

Originally Posted by MDOC

But if you do, there's no prohibition to comparing scripture with scripture and there's no fear of personal "corruption" because you've already established a standard.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You would be better off comparing things within the Bible itself, precept upon precept - rather than running to other corrupted versions to try to help you understand the KJV (or whatever other version someone prefers).

Doing Bible study out of multiple modern versions is never going to give you a greater understanding of the Bible, but will in fact give you a lowest common denominator approach to the Bible (ie. eventually you will start throwing out specifics and stick with generalities - whatever they all have in common; however, where they differ will be discarded).