What's with all the new Bible versions?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Kind of like comparing servants of Christ to silly Nazi characters on an old TV show. What was it? Hogan Heroes?

I was playing around Aaron......(notice the LOLs)

I like to have fun too!(dont tell me you dont like Hogans Heroes)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

I was playing around Aaron......(notice the LOLs)

I like to have fun too!(dont tell me you dont like Hogans Heroes)

Proverbs 26:18 -19

When Sean is really wanting to have some light fun he calls people reprobates.

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_reviews.htm

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_reviews.htm

The individual who wrote the article on this website sums up the conclusion Riplinger's research quite well. Read the entire article to come to your own conclusion whether yea, nay, but I feel to post his conclusion.

Conclusion

The sad thing about Riplinger’s book is that many good Christian people who have no knowledge of Greek, Greek manuscripts, Bible translations, or other areas discussed, will read her nonsense and will imagine that New Age Bible Versions has told them the truth. They will be led to vilify other godly Christian people and to cut themselves off from excellent translations of the Bible which could be powerful tools to help them gain a greater knowledge of the precious Word of God. New Age Bible Versions is not just a book. It is a wicked attack upon the body of Christ and upon the Holy Scriptures. I have touched upon only a small sample of the faults in Riplinger’s book. My reading and examination of NABV for several months has led me to believe that there is not a single numbered page that does not have multiple errors. All who in any way contribute to its promotion and distribution are bringing great harm to the cause of Christ.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

The NIV leaves out 16 entire verses!


1. Matthew 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

2. Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

3. Matthew 23:14: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

4. Mark 7:16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

5. Mark 9:44: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

6. Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

7. Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

8. Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

9. Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

10. John 5:4: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

11. Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

12. Acts 15:34: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

13. Acts 24:7: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

14. Acts 28:29: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

15. Romans 16:24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

16. I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...l3tt8sAkiVFvQA



Just keep your head in the sand like good oneness believers, okay.

Do you know WHY? BTW the NKJV does not

[TK Burk]

I'm not sure where to post this since this new thread of Sean's is talking about pretty much the same thing as the older thread. Because of that I'm posting this in both threads:

This is an excerpt from the original preface to the King James Bible. Please, note what the KJV translators said about their openness to other translations of the Bible. They also advocated using the LXX.

I guess they wrote this without talking with Sean or watching the video from his Grand Poobah, Gail Riplinger.

Anyway, enjoy what they said back in 1611:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had beene burnt by the Galles, they fell soone to builde it againe: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had bene most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good Patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezrah, and the prophesie of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple build by Zerubbabel after the returne from Babylon, was by no meanes to bee compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembred the former, wept when they considered the latter) notwithstanding, might this later either have bene abhorred and forsaken by the Jewes, or prophaned by the Greekes? The like wee are to thinke of Translations. The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. Wee are sure Tertullian was of another minde: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Doe we trie mens faith by their persons? we should trie their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of an other minde: for he lighting upon certaine rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his owne booke, with giving commendation to them so farre foorth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seene in S. Augustines third booke De doctrinâ Christianâ. To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres, were of an other minde: for they were so farre from treading under foote, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselite, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretikes, that they joyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the Translation of the Seventie (as hath bene before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

[FlamingZword]

Sean is Satan and I can prove it.

The first letter is a S

S
because this is an encoded system
we must move forward and use the second letter of this name which is the a
so we now have
Sa
you might think his name does not have a t but you would be mistaken
for the e is composed of two lines a short line and a long crooked line.
but if we straighten the long line and put the short line in there we have a t
so now we have the third letter
Sat
because Satan does everything backwards we now must go back and pick up the last two letters and add them
Satan

There I have proven that Sean is Satan.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Wow, that is some deep stuff.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Sean is Satan and I can prove it.

The first letter is a S

S
because this is an encoded system
we must move forward and use the second letter of this name which is the a
so we now have
Sa
you might think his name does not have a t but you would be mistaken
for the e is composed of two lines a short line and a long crooked line.
but if we straighten the long line and put the short line in there we have a t
so now we have the third letter
Sat
because Satan does everything backwards we now must go back and pick up the last two letters and add them
Satan

There I have proven that Sean is Satan.

Can you get this interpretation to align with the sinking of the Titanic? If you had that also you'd for sure be right.

[Sean]

Well notice guys, it all started as I just tried to show folks some false modern translations....Then it was an all out blitz campaign against the person in the video(not the content at all).....

Next it was an all out attack against the poster of the video(not the content at all).....

Why dont you attack the content of the video?

That is the stuff that is causing this meltdown in the first place.(they cannot, because they know deep down, the content is the truth of how these false translations got here and why they say the opposite of each other in so many areas)