For popular or very good threads
Well…the Bible is primarily a book that deals with theology. That is its purpose. It is the sole authority for Christian theology. The Bible focuses on God’s redemption of sinful man. The main character throughout the pages of scripture is Jesus Christ.
Agreed. The Bible is a book of theology, but what I am bringing up is the information (what the apostles wrote) that the theology is based on. Theology doesn't tell you what the apostles wrote. Theology is just the study of that information.

Sure, we have an English Bible that tells you that information, but we wanna go back as close to the source as possible, which is what even the English translators do, and that's done by looking at the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts - typically, the earliest we have.

I have presented several points why I believe the KJV is the best translation for English speaking people. There are false claims, contradictions, omissions and altered doctrine in many of the newer versions. Nothing has been offered to show the KJV is inferior to these newer translations. None of the problems I pointed out have been addressed. Ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug does not resolve the issues newer translations have.
You've made some points, but none that I've seen that would justify the claim that the KJV is the best, esp. in light of the KJV not relying on all of the manuscript evidence and text interpretation methods that modern versions rely on.

You are more than welcome to “think” that. But what do you base your thought on? Do you have some insight concerning scribes adding their own work while transcribing? Or is this solely your opinion? I haven’t just offered my opinion; I have offered irrefutable evidence to support my belief the KJV is superior to newer versions. I welcome any evidence that the NIV, NASB, HCS, or any other version surpasses the King Jimmy
Well hey, an eye for an eye, and an opinion for an opinion..😛
 
You've made some points, but none that I've seen that would justify the claim that the KJV is the best, esp. in light of the KJV not relying on all of the manuscript evidence and text interpretation methods that modern versions rely on.
Really? So you believe a book that flat out lies is better than a book that is truthful? You prefer a book that contradicts itself rather than a book that is unified in it's message? You favor a book that omits key information over a book that discloses all the data? Is this what you're saying? Would you endorse a science book that said the world was flat if it was from an ancient source? Would you want your doctor to use methods and practices from the 15th century? If not, why? These old writings must be better because they're older right? That is exactly the stance you're taking concerning these ancient biblical manuscripts. IMO sometimes older is better but not always.

Since you lean towards these newer translations being better that the KJV, I have a few requests...I would like for you to reconcile Mark 1:1-3. Why the lie? Why did Mark claim Isaiah wrote "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." when he didn't?

Please explain how the book of Acts is improved in the newer versions with Acts 8:37 left out. What is better with that verse omitted?

Also, how is the NASB benefitted by having Goliath being killed by two different men in two different battles?

And finally, how does claiming Jesus and Satan are the same person make newer translations superior than the KJV?

If you believe these newer translation are better than the King James because they are based on older manuscripts, you should be able to address my four requests with ease.
 
Really? So you believe a book that flat out lies is better than a book that is truthful? You prefer a book that contradicts itself rather than a book that is unified in it's message? You favor a book that omits key information over a book that discloses all the data? Is this what you're saying? Would you endorse a science book that said the world was flat if it was from an ancient source? Would you want your doctor to use methods and practices from the 15th century? If not, why? These old writings must be better because they're older right? That is exactly the stance you're taking concerning these ancient biblical manuscripts. IMO sometimes older is better but not always.
Sure, older is not always better, but in some cases it is. It happens to be better when we're dealing with the writings of a person because we want the writings to be from the original source or as close as possible. The apostle Paul lived during the first century CE, so of course having writings that are from the first century would be better than copies of his writings in the 15th century. The more time that passes, then the more likely it is for copies to be altered, lost, etc.

We can start there. I'll also start looking into your other questions.
 
Well…the Bible is primarily a book that deals with theology. That is its purpose. It is the sole authority for Christian theology. The Bible focuses on God’s redemption of sinful man. The main character throughout the pages of scripture is Jesus Christ.
Agreed. The Bible is a book of theology,
You might contemplate how the Bible destroys traditional theology, virtually at every turn, while being used to forward it, i guess chiefly bc wisdom is hidden from the wise? How far do we really have to go here to demonstrate who seems wise in their own eyes tho? As Paul discusses, who is it that has trained their senses to discern good from evil? Heb 15:4

Or who seeks to be absent from the body? And doesnt remark about the point of the passage, that we seek to serve whether present or absent, i mean? Jesus praised atheists and pagans, and had nothing but diss for the religious of His day, and while i realize these are somewhat hidden (in plain sight), i suggest that the struggle against “theology” goes all the way back to Genesis, and the (usually misunderstood) commentary against child sacrifice, and other theological beliefs of the day

And as we have seen, the prevalent belief in the Cult of Sol Invictus (even in Judea) in Jesus’ day, and extending to our own, goes virtually unremarked in “theology” today, by the same ppl who “interpret Paul to their own destruction,” as well as other offenses against interpretation.

Who are the blind leading the blind, after all? Who was offended upon hearing that? I have abandoned seeking to change anyone’s mind now, but i suggest that the “few” are those who overcome Apollos waters, and are able to receive hidden manna, and not some superior theological viewpoint., that can ultimately only divide.
but what I am bringing up is the information (what the apostles wrote) that the theology is based on. Theology doesn't tell you what the apostles wrote. Theology is just the study of that information.
and what a sad commentary that is, imo; we deem it “theology” bc we allow religious ppl to expound upon it, forgetting that the first apostles were fishermen and tax collectors. Ignore theology, if you know whats good for you. Or i mean by all means define God—you have to do that first, right—and get busy lol, but idt it will produce much fruit
Sure, we have an English Bible that tells you that information, but we wanna go back as close to the source as possible, which is what even the English translators do, and that's done by looking at the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts - typically, the earliest we have.

I have presented several points why I believe the KJV is the best translation for English speaking people. There are false claims, contradictions, omissions and altered doctrine in many of the newer versions. Nothing has been offered to show the KJV is inferior to these newer translations. None of the problems I pointed out have been addressed. Ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug does not resolve the issues newer translations have.
You've made some points, but none that I've seen that would justify the claim that the KJV is the best, esp. in light of the KJV not relying on all of the manuscript evidence and text interpretation methods that modern versions rely on.

You are more than welcome to “think” that. But what do you base your thought on? Do you have some insight concerning scribes adding their own work while transcribing? Or is this solely your opinion? I haven’t just offered my opinion; I have offered irrefutable evidence to support my belief the KJV is superior to newer versions. I welcome any evidence that the NIV, NASB, HCS, or any other version surpasses the King Jimmy
Well hey, an eye for an eye, and an opinion for an opinion..😛
if only, huh
 
Last edited:
forgetting that the apostles were all fishermen. Ignore theology, if you know whats good for you
Nope. Matthew was not a fisherman and neither was Paul. The only four fisherman we are sure of were Andrew, Peter, James and John. Not surprised seeing you thought John the Baptist was at the mount of transfiguration.

Theology is the study of God. Ignoring theology is done at one’s peril. BTW, I’m still waiting for you to show me where reincarnation is in the Bible
 
You do realize Bart Ehrman is an agnostic right? I find it hilarious that people give a nonbeliever any credence whatsoever when it comes to the Word of God. That is equivalent to me being an expert on the Quran and Islam. Bart Erhman is no expert concerning Christianity no matter how many letters come behind his signature.

You stated the KJV does not factor in the manuscripts discovered after it was written. Can you show me 1 (one) example, just one, of an additional piece of information contained in newer transactions that is not already included in the KJV? The truth of the matter is, the newer versions contain far less information than the KJV. Whole verses are removed from newer versions without any new additions. And as I have already pointed out, these newer translations contain false information and confusion. Many new translations have Elhahan killing Goliath instead of David (2Sam.21:19). Please explain how this is better. I would like to see one example of a newer translation being better than the KJV. You have not posted any evidence to support your claim. All you have offered is opinion.

Finally, while the KJV is a word for word translation, it is also a thought for thought translation. The KJV does not follow the word for word example you posted above. The translators, who were experts in Hebrew and Greek, arranged the words so as to be understood when read in English.

As a side note, have you ever wondered why these newer manuscripts had to be discovered? The reason is they were not being used and had been forgotten. Manuscripts that were in constant use wore out much sooner because they were made out of papyrus and skins. They needed to be replaced much more often than scripts not in use. Those manuscripts were not in use because they were inferior.
Bart makes more sense than any Christian I know. As far as the KJV goes - I can live without it.
 
Hello Muckah. It’s nice to meet you. I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with you.
Bart makes more sense than any Christian I know.
Based on this comment I take it you are not a born again believer. If I am wrong please forgive me. Bart Ehrman may be an intelligent person, but mere intellect can never comprehend the Bible. I Cor.2:14 tells us But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Since Ehrman is not a believer he cannot discern the truth of the Bible. His spirit is dead and the Bible is a spiritual book. If you are a nonbeliever then it is understandable that Ehrman makes more sense to you than believers do. The Bible is probably foolish to you if you are not born again.

As far as the KJV goes - I can live without it.
This is not surprising if you are not saved.
 
Let's start with Mark...
Mark 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Mark 1:1-3 (NASB)
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 2 just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I am sending My messenger before You, Who will prepare Your way; The voice of one calling out in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!’”

The issue here is not about which statement is correct, whether it was from Isaiah or not, but rather it's about what did Mark say. If I say that the Earth is flat in 2000, and then in 2025, someone or some document said that I said the Earth was round, then you would go by what I said myself even if it is factually incorrect. That's how I view this issue.

The reason the newer translations mention Isaiah in Mark 1:2 is because they are using what to consider to be more credible manuscripts than the KJV did. Eventhough the later manuscripts may contain information that is factually correct in that Isaiah didn't say those things, but the issue is did Mark still say it was Isaiah. If so, you would go with what Mark said, even if Mark was incorrect in his statement.

Either way, I have found explanations that explain how Mark's reference to Isaiah is correct.
While it is worth noting that many later manuscripts of Mark simply read “as it is written in the Prophets” (see translations such as the KJV, NKJV, MEV, etc.), the earliest manuscripts specifically cite “Isaiah the prophet,” and most scholars today (including faithful, Christian scholars) think that the “Isaiah” version is the original reading. For the sake of argument, we will assume that this is correct. So, is Mark in error? How should we understand this?

Mark claims to be quoting Isaiah, but only half of the words he cites actually come from that prophet. The other half is from Malachi. Is Mark confused? Is he trying to trick the readers into thinking all the words are from Isaiah when some are from a completely different book?


There is no error here at all. Using the citation methods of his time period, Mark is bringing quotes from two different sources together in a way that other authors of his time did, combining related statements from both sources to make a bigger point while only mentioning one of them. In Mark’s case, he was drawing together the testimony of two prophets to show the significance of John the Baptist’s ministry and how it began the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. His original readers would have almost certainly known the prophets well enough to see this.
 
Well done! I have never seen this issue approached from this angle before. CARM is a favorite cite of mine that I have used many times. While I commend you for uncovering this, I still disagree with it's premise and I will explain why. Combining two quotes into one and citing only one author may have been done in the ancient world, but no where is it found in scriptures. In fact, many places are extremely boring in the Bible because so much detail is provided, such as the book of Numbers. We have to remember that the Bible is not an ordinary book. Each and every word was inspired by God and God is in the details. If God tediously listed peoples genealogy and places they went then why would He be sloppy and combine two verses into one and attribute both to one man? Here is an example of how detailed God was:

Numbers 26:28-34 The sons of Joseph after their families were Manasseh and Ephraim. Of the sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites: and Machir begat Gilead: of Gilead come the family of the Gileadites. These are the sons of Gilead: of Jeezer, the family of the Jeezerites: of Helek, the family of the Helekites: And of Asriel, the family of the Asrielites: and of Shechem, the family of the Shechemites: And of Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites: and of Hepher, the family of the Hepherites. And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. These are the families of Manasseh, and those that were numbered of them, fifty and two thousand and seven hundred.

Numbers 33:5-37 And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth. And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pi-hahiroth, which is before Baal-zephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Pi-hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there. And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. And they removed from the Red sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin. And they took their journey out of the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah. And they departed from Dophkah, and encamped in Alush. And they removed from Alush, and encamped at Rephidim, where was no water for the people to drink. And they departed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinai. And they removed from the desert of Sinai, and pitched at Kibroth-hattaavah. And they departed from Kibroth-hattaavah, and encamped at Hazeroth. And they departed from Hazeroth, and pitched in Rithmah. And they departed from Rithmah, and pitched at Rimmon-parez. And they departed from Rimmon-parez, and pitched in Libnah. And they removed from Libnah, and pitched at Rissah. And they journeyed from Rissah, and pitched in Kehelathah. And they went from Kehelathah, and pitched in mount Shapher. And they removed from mount Shapher, and encamped in Haradah. And they removed from Haradah, and pitched in Makheloth. And they removed from Makheloth, and encamped at Tahath. And they departed from Tahath, and pitched at Tarah. And they removed from Tarah, and pitched in Mithcah. And they went from Mithcah, and pitched in Hashmonah. And they departed from Hashmonah, and encamped at Moseroth. And they departed from Moseroth, and pitched in Bene-jaakan. And they removed from Bene-jaakan, and encamped at Hor-hagidgad. And they went from Hor-hagidgad, and pitched in Jotbathah. And they removed from Jotbathah, and encamped at Ebronah. And they departed from Ebronah, and encamped at Ezion-gaber. And they removed from Ezion-gaber, and pitched in the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh. And they removed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.

If you are like me, you probably skimmed through these verses rather than concentrating on each verse because it is almost an information overload. Because God was so detailed throughout the entire Bible, I cannot see Him getting lazy and combining two verses into one and attributing both to Isaiah. Again, nowhere in the Bible is this method used. But I do congratulate you on presenting evidence to support your position! Thank you! One question before we move on...even if Mark did cite Isaiah as the author, how is that better in the NIV than in the KJV? Your position is the newer versions are better than the KJV, so how would this be better?
 
Last edited: