Evidence for God from Science

This is an interesting exposure of the New Kings James Bible from another angle.

I have never liked the NKJV because it omits and changes so many important words and texts - about 1,300.

What this speaker and many others are revealing is part of a general movement in the churches that expose the corruptions that have come into Christendom, on different levels from false doctrines to the infiltration of satanic agencies in the leadership. People are waking up to it and following the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvpePuF_yQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHp8JspStA

Starhunter wrote:This is an interesting exposure of the New Kings James Bible from another angle.

I have never liked the NKJV because it omits and changes so many important words and texts - about 1,300.

What this speaker and many others are revealing is part of a general movement in the churches that expose the corruptions that have come into Christendom, on different levels from false doctrines to the infiltration of satanic agencies in the leadership. People are waking up to it and following the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvpePuF_yQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHp8JspStA

Although I don't consider myself a KJV only ist it is the KJV is the version I most read.I do it mostly out of respect for what the KJV translators went through so that we could have a bible in English.Satan was doing everything he could to prevent it and yet it backfired because people were sneaking and getting them a bible anyway even though they would be publically burned at the stake if caught with one.The bible KJV spread so much that the rulers could not stop it.Everyone of the KJV translators were eventually caught and burned at the stake and for most of them as they were being led out through the city to be burned they were singing praises to Jesus the whole way in front of the crowd of onlookers.

Gail Riplinger is quite wacky and completely out of her depth. She now refuses to debate with any scholar on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVXjw4j ... BEC2638EB7

For your amusement:
http://youtu.be/WNyH5A_OZs8

Starhunter wrote:This is an interesting exposure of the New Kings James Bible from another angle.

I have never liked the NKJV because it omits and changes so many important words and texts - about 1,300.

What this speaker and many others are revealing is part of a general movement in the churches that expose the corruptions that have come into Christendom, on different levels from false doctrines to the infiltration of satanic agencies in the leadership. People are waking up to it and following the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvpePuF_yQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHp8JspStA

Actually and NKJV and the NASB are excellent translations and compliment each other very well. For a more literal version, I use these two the most as well as the ESV. The NLT is good to help aid the nuances of the text but sometimes falls short. YLT is good too.

In fact, the NIV versions are the most error prone omitting and changing text, they get it right here and there but overall, not the best Translations. Maybe the folks in the videos meant the NIV...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Maybe the folks in the videos meant the NIV...

I would expect that the folks in the videos mean every single version except for the (probably 1769) KJV, which- as we all know- fell out of heaven on a golden cloud.

Rob wrote:

B. W. wrote:Maybe the folks in the videos meant the NIV...

I would expect that the folks in the videos mean every single version except for the (probably 1769) KJV, which- as we all know- fell out of heaven on a golden cloud.

What KJV onlyists don't realise is that the original KJV had a margin for possible interpolations, not even the KJV thought itself was without error. But hey ignorance is bliss.

Personally I like the message as it is like reading a book and the NASB, ESV and NIV I like also.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Personally I like the message as it is like reading a book and the NASB, ESV and NIV I like also.

I don't like The Message because it's a paraphrase and the language isn't pretty at all. Peterson also completely decimates Paul's letters. Go read a side by side comparison.

An example:

(NIV) Romans 1:26-27: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(Message) Romans 1:26-27: Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

Rob wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Personally I like the message as it is like reading a book and the NASB, ESV and NIV I like also.

I don't like The Message because it's a paraphrase and the language isn't pretty at all. Peterson also completely decimates Paul's letters. Go read a side by side comparison.

An example:

(NIV) Romans 1:26-27: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(Message) Romans 1:26-27: Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

I don't see the difference, I get the same meaning from both.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: I don't see the difference, I get the same meaning from both.

The way I read it, Peterson appears to make room for loving, same-sex marriages.

Another example of the same thing. In this one he takes out homosexuality altogether and adds an environmental twist:

(ESV) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(Message) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.

To be fair, Peterson has said that he's uneasy when The Message is read from the pulpit and I can certainly see why.

Also, the addition of the phrase "As above, so below" to the Lord's prayer... Of course, just the words themselves in the context of "on earth as it is in heaven" makes sense, but why on earth would you use that specific language?
My eyebrow doth raise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqBEuxGY7DI

You might like to listen to Gail Riplinger's views more carefully before making a judgement.

Also the above link has Professor Walter Veith talking about the origins of the different texts.
I came across his videos through a post on this forum by Stu. I must say, they are eye opening like nothing I have ever encountered.

Rob wrote:The way I read it, Peterson appears to make room for loving, same-sex marriages.

I still don't get that at all, it still reads the same in my mind, but meh it doesn't really matter.

Another example of the same thing. In this one he takes out homosexuality altogether and adds an environmental twist:

(ESV) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(Message) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.

Still reads the same to me.

To be fair, Peterson has said that he's uneasy when The Message is read from the pulpit and I can certainly see why.

Once of our preachers uses it fairly often but always reads from two Bibles, The Message and a ESV (or similiar), I like hearing both, sometimes the message makes it easier to understand what is being said and I like that. But you are right it was never intended as a teaching tool, it was more of a simpler way of understanding the message.

Also, the addition of the phrase "As above, so below" to the Lord's prayer... Of course, just the words themselves in the context of "on earth as it is in heaven" makes sense, but why on earth would you use that specific language?
My eyebrow doth raise.

Still reads the same to me, maybe you are jumping at shadows?

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Still reads the same to me, maybe you are jumping at shadows?

I don't know, man. I see clear differences in the text that have nothing to do with making it easier to understand. If you don't see them in the passages I cited, I'm honestly not sure how to show them more clearly to you. There's a bunch more as well and they're blatant to me.
It reads like a very liberal attempt to make the Bible more contemporary and easier to swallow. You can get good things from it, but I would never want someone to use this as a source for anything. I'm not emotionally invested in it being good or bad, I just see what I see and I don't like it. Doctrine aside, the flow of language is clunky and lame in my opinion, which I realize is subjective.

Starhunter wrote: You might like to listen to Gail Riplinger's views more carefully before making a judgement.

Riplinger is completely bankrupt. She's dishonest in her citations and her entire position has been refuted multiple times by actual scholars. She and other KJV onlyists are not interested in a dialogue or even listening to opposition to their views and often resort to wacky and childish insults instead of merely backing up what they've said once their faulty logic or dishonest citation has been pointed out.
Here's a good playlist of scholarly discussion of Gail's book New Age Bible Versions from the John Ankerburg show. (She refused to take part in the discussion and defend her work, btw)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... UwTCogYEef

Rob wrote:
I don't know, man. I see clear differences in the text that have nothing to do with making it easier to understand. If you don't see them in the passages I cited, I'm honestly not sure how to show them more clearly to you. There's a bunch more as well and they're blatant to me.
It reads like a very liberal attempt to make the Bible more contemporary and easier to swallow. You can get good things from it, but I would never want someone to use this as a source for anything. I'm not emotionally invested in it being good or bad, I just see what I see and I don't like it. Doctrine aside, the flow of language is clunky and lame in my opinion, which I realize is subjective.

Fair enough Bro, I respect your opinion.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Fair enough Bro, I respect your opinion.

Likewise, sir. You could be right about me jumping at shadows, I am just really hyper-sensitive to anything that feels even remotely New Agey.

Rob wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Fair enough Bro, I respect your opinion.

Likewise, sir. You could be right about me jumping at shadows, I am just really hyper-sensitive to anything that feels even remotely New Agey.

I think it is good to be wary, we should test all spirits and such.