Yuku free message boards

>>>>Uh, but they don't 'contradict' or disagree with one another.
>>They don't? Who is quoted in Mark 1:2? Malachi wrote it, but the modern versions credit Isaiah. Oops!
>>Modern version note that Isaiah was credited with Mark 1:3 in Mark 1:2. No error here.

>But Isaiah didn't write what was in verse 2, though the modern versions say he did - error stands.

No, modern versions say Isaiah wrote what was in Mark 1:3. No error, despite your desire to find one.

>>>How many days did Paul wait in Acts 25:6, more than ten or less? Can't your version count to ten?

>>Acts 25:6 discusses the amount of time Festus was in Jerusalem, not Paul's wait.

>So I copied the wrong name.

Pretty cavalier for a person who says modern versions are not precise enough.

>That still doesn't answer the fact that your version can't count to ten.

Do you have corroborating Scripture that Festus stay was longer than ten days? If not, there is no contradiction, and your juvenile taunts are meaningless.

>>>Who is in danger in 1 Cor 6:9 - queers or those who offend them? Well, if two queers worked on your version, I can understand the confusion.

>>Neither one excludes people who are strange and unusual (i.e., "queer"), both exclude homosexuals (assuming you are using a vulgar insult toward homosexuals that probably shouldn't be seen in a genteel forum). Either way, no difference.

>Check the NIV, you went to the wrong perversion.

The key phrase is "nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ". Seems to still exclude homosexuals. I think you are just looking for problems, inventing them where they don't exist.

>Queer is vulgar? Sorry. I'll call them abominable sodomites (God's words for them) if that suits you better. However, they call us "straight", and the opposite of straight is not "gay".

With regard to sexual orientation, it is.

>They label themselves queer, why should you be bothered by the term?

I haven't met any homosexuals who called themselves "queer", except as a satire of rude and/or ignorant people.

>>>>Why do you set the KJV up as the standard rather than the NKJV or the NASB, for instance?

>>>Read your Bible (if you have one). Look for Antioch and Alexandria and see what is said about them. Then realize that the KJV is the only English Bible from the Antioch line.

>>This is man's reasoning, not God's, unless you have proof that the pre-NT history of these cities afected the post-NT copying of manuscripts.

>Read Acts chapters 11-15 or so. Antioch is where the term Christian originated. It was the center of the early church. They sent out missionaries and offerings. The first Bible teaching school was there (ch 13 - must've had a Bible to teach). The apostles and disciples wrote epistles from there (ch 15).

I see. You have no proof, and you present rationaliztions rather than be honest about it.

>>>The idea that God preserved His word in 200 versions that conflict, disagree, and contradict is the invention of someone crippled too high for crutches (maybe Benny Hinn can heal that malady). Either that or it's the invention of the subtle one in Gen 3:1 who coos "Yea, hath God said?????"

>>Man's reasoning again. Who are you to place limits or judgments upon the methods God may have shosen to preseve His Word?

>By definition things that contradict cannot both be true.

In the (very limited) universe of two-valued logic, this is true. In reality, contradictory statements are often equally true.

>>>>Where was God's 'pure' Word BEFORE 1611, Rex Text??

>>>You can't find it in 1999 but you want me to know what it was 400 years ago? I'm not that old, ask someone who was there.

>>IOWs, you don't really have evience for a pure, unbroken string of translations.

>No, some of them are no longer extant. Who cares? The folks before 1611 were the ones that had to be concerned with that.

Of course, the isssue is not the salvation of these people, but the status of your argument concening a string of unbroken pure translations, for which you just acknowledged you have no evidence.

>>>>>1) The KJV is God's pure word

>>>>Yes, it is, but If you believe that it is the **ONLY** pure word of God...Prove it, big daddy, or quit blowing hot air.

>>>If the other versions differ and contradict, they cannot possibly be the pure scripture big momma. Unless your god is the author of confusion.

>>Again, you are using man's reasoning. Who are you to set limits upon what God considers the effective transmission of pure Scripture?

>John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

>Contradictions cannot both be true.

In reality, they can be.

>>>Are Acts 8:37, Matt 18:11, and 1 John 5:7 in God's pure word or not?

>>Acts 8:37 and Matt 18:11, probably not; the Comma Johanum, almost certainly not.

>Probably? Almost? Man, I'd hate to trust my eternal soul to such a foundation of shifting sand.

Of course, not one of these verses contains a teaching essential to salvation.

>>>Did Isaiah or Malachi write what's quoted in Mark 1:2?

>>Malachi in Mark 1:2, Isaiah in Mark 1:3.

>Agreed, that's why the KJV says "prophets" and the false versions erroneously credit Isaiah with verse 2.

The modern versions do not credit anyone with verse 2, Isaiah or otherwise.

>>>Uh huh. You omit God from the preservation of his own word and leave it to just men.

>>No, God did that, and I think you should stop judging Him for it.

>God didn't do that. He promised that He'd preserve His word.

He has, using men. You are the one limiting the methods from which God can choose, not I.

>>>I gave you some errors in the NIV et al. I haven't seen any in the KJV.

>>No doubt others here in the list will be able to give you as many as care to have.

>Things they disagree with perhaps, but errors? Haven't seen one yet. I won't hold my breath waiting for the first one.

You think there were never any translational or printing errors? Then why seven different version?

>>>The babies are the versions that fall flat in the face of the King of books.

>>Unfortunately, since the King of Books is not available, we'll just have to get by on translations of copies.

>Sure it's available. We print them at our church. I can get you one if you need.

Only in your man-made rationalizations can you make the KJV into the King of Books.