Vatican allows Scrolls to change to Bible

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 09/11/2001 | RICHARD OWEN

[nmh]

"THE Vatican is to abandon decades of secrecy and obstruction to allow changes in the Bible based on revelations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, more than half a century after they were discovered. "

Maybe Catholics will actually become Christians when they are allowed to read the Truth. Yeah, I know, disgruntled Catholics will call this "bashing". Even when they have been deceived they still blame others for their demise. Oh well. Just like other godless liberals - same tactic.

[bryan1276]

I don't recall who said stick to the KJV, but they were absolutely correct. This conversation could go on for hours, but if you'd like the facts, check out this page. www.biblebelievers.com

[HiTech RedNeck]

The NIV and TEV are ideal for people with limited reading skills.

Does this remark reveal perhaps where your glory is. Funny that just last night I read a Charles Haddon Spurgeon sermon that among other things thoroughly debunked the idea that one even has to be able to READ to be saved. Amazing! Spurgeon must have been one occult man. </sarcasm>

[HiTech RedNeck]

I fear this "religious" war is not only unwinnable, but unwise. KJV worshipers, have at it. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I regret my harsh tone. Not my position -- which I firmly hold to be true -- but my tone.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The New KJV provides the footnotes you seem to enjoy. The original KJV reprinted would not refer to works published later. That would require occult knowledge I believe.

Take a look at the title page of the KJV. "Translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised." [italics mine] When that is done today for a work intended to be accurate (like the NIV) rather than a piece for casual reading (e.g. Living Bible), lots of footnotes result. The most ancient manuscripts were not available in the days of the translation of the "Authorized Version" (which is what it really should be called -- it was authorized for the Church of England). So of course it couldn't have the same footnotes we have today, even if the translation committee had been asked to furnish them. But it does appear to have been done with a somewhat authoritarian, rather than authoritative, bent.

[Chemnitz]

That's what happens when you read NIV promotional materials. The KJV is really an edition of the Tyndale translation. The Byzantine family of manuscripts is ancient, but older is not necessarily better. No one really knows the origins of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Perhaps you think they are very old. Maybe they are. But are they reliable? Modernists make fun of the Majority Text because there are so many examples. And why did the Church preserve those examples? Perhaps because they represented the best readings.

I do not worship the KJV. I have used many translations. I have read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. I have studied the manuscript issues. I just want people to know that there is an excellent case for preferring the KJV family of translations.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That's what happens when you read NIV promotional materials.

Amazing conclusion, considering I have never read anything that the producers of the NIV wrote promoting their translation.

Or, maybe you mean, that's what happens when Christians think for themselves (while seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

[HiTech RedNeck]

P.S. Let's at least agree on the obvious. Pray for the USA.

[MitchellC]

In reply to the constant charges that the Messiah wasn't prophesied to have been born of a virgin and that Jesus didn't fulfill the Immanuel prophecy, I invite everyone interested to ingest the following: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

[ET(end tyranny)]

The Nestle text is the result of five men voting on everything. A 3-2 vote leaves a verse in or kicks it out. Someone counted 5,000 changes in recent editions.

And they call that 'divinely inspired'?

[ET(end tyranny)]

This adulteration began with the RSV translating Isaiah 7:14 as "a young woman will conceive."

Wrong! The RSV decided to print the correct translation. Why would NOW care if it was virgin or young women. I made a post about this very verse earlier in the thread which exlains the deliberate mistranslation of that verse! But go ahead and believe the pagan myth if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Which verse in the OT do you think pertains to Jesus being born of a virgin?

[MitchellC]

I'm admittedly not up-to-snuff enough to know off the top of my head (and am heading to bed and am too tired from today to look back for the specific verse), but the link I gave contains a very persuasive argument that the 1st century Jews understood it to be "virgin" and not just "young girl". Did you click the link and read? (By the way, that isn't my webpage, and I should have pointed when I linked it - sorry if I made it appear that it was.)

Good night, and stay safe.

[al_c]

HIV is a common nickname for the NIV.

Never heard it. Is it a reference to the virus that causes AIDS?

Any proof? There are many books on the subject.

Please share with us your references that prove your statements.

[al_c]

The magisterium believes in a bible that evolves like Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic doctrine has not evolved. If you think it has, please share with us ONE item of the doctine that has changed.

If you want changed doctrines, take a look at some of the protestant sects that say same-sex marriages are okay. Take a look at how many times some denominations have split. That's where you'll find changing doctines.

[Chemnitz]

Yes, the "HIV translation" is a reference to AIDS. Anything goes. Deadly virus. That sort of thing.

Use google and do a search on the Majority Text and the KJV. One interesting book is "Unholy Hands on the Bible." Published by Sovereign Grace Trust. It offers details on mistranslations and text omissions (in the name of improving the New Testament). Theodore Letis has a number of books as well.

Also try a search on Wescott and Hort. Find out how arrogant they were with their newly invented rules for deciding whether a reading was correct or not.

The first chapter of my book deals with these issues. You can find it at http://thystrongword.0catch.com/

I hope that helps.

[al_c]

No, it doesn't. First off, the HIV comment is offensive. And you consider yourself Christian? 2nd ... I was asking you to share your self-proclaimed wisdom, not provide links and evasions. Silly me for asking.

[Chemnitz]

The information was provided. I believe the line above the text box says "NO personal attacks." Maybe you could read that before posting again.

The HIV is very popular. You can fool most of the people most of the time.

[al_c]

And your HIV comment isn't a personal attack against those that use the NIV Bible?