Where can I find a list of errors in the Bible?

[Dr T]

I'll guess a "seer" is someone that can see beyond what you might call "this sphere" and bring original order to the text. But again, that is just my guess.

[Hemidakota]

Article: Hold Fast to the Words of the Prophets - Neil L. Andersen

Seers

What is a seer? In the Book of Mormon, Ammon explained the role of a seer to King Limhi:

But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, . . . and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them. [Mosiah 8:17]

Look at this beautiful picture [a partial photo of blue water and shoreline]: What do you see? Wouldn’t you love to be canoeing in this peaceful setting? Doesn’t it look appealing?

What if your view was suddenly enlarged and you saw this [a full photo showing the same water pouring over a waterfall]: The canoe ride would be very different from what you first perceived.

Spiritually, seers see the wider view. They see what we sometimes cannot see. Their words and counsel help us see the larger view. If we heed their counsel, holding fast to the iron rod, we will be safe.

Let me give you an example. President Hinckley has spoken strongly about the blessings of tithing. He speaks frequently to the General Authorities on this subject. He has said:

We can pay our tithing. This is not so much a matter of money as it is a matter of faith. . . .

I urge you, . . . every one of you, to take the Lord at His word in this important matter.10

We reiterate the promise of the Lord given anciently through the prophet Malachi that he will open the windows of heaven upon those who are honest with him in the payment of their tithes and offerings, that there shall not be room enough to receive the promised blessings.11

In the fall of 2001 three of the Twelve were in Brazil at the same time, and each taught the promises of an honest tithing. A few months later a young college student in So Paulo was put to the test. She was working and going to school. Here are her words, which were shared by President Hinckley:

The university in which I studied had a regulation that prohibited the students [who had not paid all their fees] from taking tests. . . .

I . . . faced serious financial difficulties. It was a Thursday when I received my salary. When I figured the monthly budget, I noticed that there wouldn’t be enough to pay [both] my tithing and my university. I would have to choose between them. The bimonthly tests would start the following week, and if I didn’t take them I could lose the school year. I felt great agony. . . . My heart ached. I had a painful decision before me, and I didn’t know what to decide.

Through prayer she determined that she would trust in the Lord and in the words of the prophets. On Sunday she paid her tithing. The next day she sought a way to be able to take her tests but could not find a solution. She then explained what happened:

The working period was ending when my employer approached and gave the last orders of the day. . . . Suddenly, he halted, and . . . asked, “How is your college?” I was surprised. . . . The only thing I could answer . . . was, “Everything is all right!” He looked thoughtfully at me and bid farewell again. . . .

Suddenly the secretary entered the room, saying that I was a very fortunate person! When I asked her why, she simply answered: “The employer has just said that from today on the company is going to pay fully for your college and your books. Before you leave, stop at my desk and inform me of the costs so that tomorrow I can give you the check.”

The student then explained her feelings:

After [the secretary] left, crying and feeling very humble, I knelt exactly where I was and thanked the Lord for His generosity. I . . . said to Heavenly Father that He didn’t have to bless me so much. I only needed the cost of one month’s installment, and the tithing I had paid on Sunday was very small compared to the amount I was receiving! During that prayer the words recorded in Malachi [and declared so often by the prophets and apostles] came to my mind: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Mal. 3:10).12

Clouded in the mists of darkness, the decision was difficult; the outcome was unsure. But she held fast to the iron rod. Her faith in the Lord and in the Lord’s prophets was confirmed. While all experiences may not be so immediate in their resolution, the promises for those who honestly keep the law of tithing are absolutely certain.

I have heard President Thomas S. Monson say to returned missionaries, “There is one way you will always stay active in the Church—always be honest in your payment of tithing.” What a beautiful promise!

[Hemidakota]

PC, I don't know of anything the LDS church puts out to point out errors in the Bible. They are not in the business of tearing down other churches. From all I have read, put out by the LDS Church is in support of a belief in Jesus Christ and his redeeming love.

Members of the church might publish a book or create a website but that should not be construed as the Church.

As far as I know we do proclaim that the Bible is the word of God, the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Jesus Christ, out of the mouth of two or more is witness given. Doctrine and Covenants are revelations given to Joseph Smith and other prophets since restoration.

Ben Raines

"If there is any truths being presented by other faiths, whether partial or in full, we accept them, we embrace them, and we expand upon them."

Point I was making is partial of what you presented here, Ben to PC. Both books depicts of the divinity of Jesus Christ and His role among the children of GOD.

Thanks

[Moksha]

Some ideas for how mistakes could occur can be found in the book, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erdman.

[JohnnyRudick]

PC, I don't know of anything the LDS church puts out to point out errors in the Bible. They are not in the business of tearing down other churches. From all I have read, put out by the LDS Church is in support of a belief in Jesus Christ and his redeeming love.

Members of the church might publish a book or create a website but that should not be construed as the Church.

As far as I know we do proclaim that the Bible is the word of God, the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Jesus Christ, out of the mouth of two or more is witness given. Doctrine and Covenants are revelations given to Joseph Smith and other prophets since restoration.

Ben Raines

Exactly right;-)

The fact that the King James Bible is quoted as Scripture in the BofM shows that it has the stamp of the Allmighty on it.

It has stood the test of time and the people of this world rails against it just as they do His Church.

They have tried to keep it from the people for over 1500 years and have set up a counterfeit for it and have trouted it out in various forms from time to time to create divisions and diversity.

God inspired the people of Asia (not Africa) and we have to give thanks to God for people like Erasmus back in 1516 into whom the spirit of God (D&C 130:23) moved to lay the foundation for the King James Bible we have today.

In turn it made possible the restoration of the Lords Church to complete His blessing on us.

The four standard works of the Church can be depended on and is "profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16) for true accurate information on Gods dealings with His children from before the foundation of the worlds.

Again, Thanks for listening;-)

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

2 Timothy 2:15 teaches us that we must "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth." One who rightly divides God's words to you gives you a better chance that the man trying to teach you from them is "approved unto God".

The world will try to make him feel ashamed, but he knows before God he does not have to be.because he "rightly divides" God's words to you.

If one comes to you a friend, stranger or even one called a preacher, and he does not understand the concept of rightly dividing God's words, you do not take stock in that one but find one who can.

I do not profess to be scholarly in the least way.

I just profess a love for and a need to continue studying the Scriptures as they stand.

God in His Infinite goodness has preserved and kept His words in the possession of His people.

I know that God has promised to preserve His words, and His church has NEVER been without the guiding protection of the words of Almighty God who is able to perform that which He has promised.

God has raised up men throughout history to do this work.

He gave us an English Bible, And through that Bible He raised up a man who He used to restore His Church.

He did this through a King James Bible.

All other bibles are mearly versions of the above, taken from a corrupt line of desent. They are illegitimate children of a wayward wife.

The KJB has a pure line of desent.

It is the one quoted in Scripture to varify Scripture.

It is the only line of decent you can trust.

It is "perfect in His generations" Just as Noahs desent was perfect, and a pure genitic pool for man kind, so is our English Bible a Pure stream of LIVING WATER from God down through the centuries. (John 4:13&14)

Now lets look at some Scripture. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans-1: 18)

O taste and see that the lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in Him. (Psalm 34:8)

Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever."

Some may ask."What is the interpretation of this verse?" What makes you think you have a right TO interpret what God says?

You don't interpet Scripture.

You can expound upon Scripture.

You can s-t-r-e-t-c-h it out and preach on one verse all night long.

BUT you tell what it says.

THE SCRIPTURE SAYS (ROM.9:17,10:11,11:2.)

You say "O that's just coincidence.

The Scripture can't REALLY SPEAK.

Are you an unbelieving heathen?

Not only can the Scripture speak but the Scripture is a Prophet.

Look with me at Gal. 3:8. "And the Scripture, forseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,..."

So the Scripture also is a prophet for those who believe the Scripture.

And the words are reveald to you through the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is a revelator. John 16:7-13, 1Cor.2:15.

The Holy Ghost reveals the writen words of God.

The words of God are Scripture.

And the Scripture cannot be broken. (John10:35)

Uncle Bud's Daily prayer- "O Lord give me a backbone as big as a saw log, and ribs like the sleepers under the church floor. Put iron shoes on me and galvanized breeches. And give me rhinoceros hide for a skin, and hang a wagon load of determination up in the gable end of my soul, and help me to sign the contract to fight the devil, as long as I've got a tooth, and then gum him till I die. Amen.

Later;-)

Bro Rudick

[nimrod]

I asked this question, not to degrade the Bible in any way. I am LDS; therefore, I believe the Bible to be the word of God. However, I do not subscribe to Bible Inerrancy. I see that belief as a rather new one.

If one believes in Bible Inerrancy, he must ask himself, "which Bible?"; for each translation is different. The fact that Hebrew does not translate well into English is one example. No language translates perfectly into another. I also believe that truths were lost.

I may have asked a more specific question: "Please list errors in the KJV of the Bible"

Errors in ancient scripture, while problematic, are not fatal, in an LDS perspective because we believe that God still speaks to mankind......That God has prophets in these last days.

Thanks for your posts.

[Maureen]

..."which Bible?"; for each translation is different.

You realize that there are many languages which would explain why there are different translations. The English language is always evolving so it's only logical that English from the 16th century is going to be different than English from the 21st. The style is different but the message is the same.

[nimrod]

You realize that there are many languages which would explain why there are different translations. The English language is always evolving so it's only logical that English from the 16th century is going to be different than English from the 21st. The style is different but the message is the same.

You've heard the term, 'lost in translation'. There will always be meaning lost in translating. Try explaining "love" in the same amount of words in English and in Hebrew. There are many words in Hebrew that do not have an equal in English. This is basic.

(This doesn't even touch on things that are lost as records were passed down) Its unreasonable to think that they would remain exactly the same. Photocopy machines didn't come out for a while.

I deal with "interpreters" all the time in my job. Words do not translate straight across.

Look at the KJV and a New World Translation or a NIV. There are scriptures that take on a whole new meaning. Things are added so that the verse means what the translater "thinks" it means. For instance, read 1 Cor 15:29 in the King James. Then read it on one of these other English version. Last time I checked, you could not have reached the same conclusion after reading each version.

[Maureen]

You compare, see link and KJV scripture below link:

NETBible: 1 Corinthians 15:29

NET ©

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?

NIV ©

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptised for them?

NASB ©

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

NLT ©

If the dead will not be raised, then what point is there in people being baptized for those who are dead? Why do it unless the dead will someday rise again?

MSG ©

Why do you think people offer themselves to be baptized for those already in the grave? If there's no chance of resurrection for a corpse, if God's power stops at the cemetery gates, why do we keep doing things that suggest he's going to clean the place out someday, pulling everyone up on their feet alive?

BBE ©

Again, what will they do who are given baptism for the dead? if the dead do not come back at all, why are people given baptism for them?

NRSV ©

Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

NKJV ©

Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead

KJV:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Edited January 15, 2009 by Maureen
Showing all translations from link for easier reading/comparing.

[JohnnyRudick]

From Nimrod "Words do not translate straight across.

Look at the KJV and a New World Translation or a NIV. There are scriptures that take on a whole new meaning. Things are added so that the verse means what the translator "thinks" it means. For instance, read 1 Cor 15:29 in the King James. Then read it on one of these other English version. Last time I checked, you could not have reached the same conclusion after reading each version."

Please excuse me a little as I am coming at this at this time from "off the cuff" you might say. I am a little rusty and all my "stuff" is in storage and I can't get at it;-(

Also my health will not allow me to continue for too long at a time:-{

;-]

Also Maureen; "You compare, see link and KJV scripture below link:" 1 Cor 15:29

I see no difference between the two accounts of that scripture. The message is the same for that verse.

But there is differences between many scriptures in the different bibles out there.

I will give a few. 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 2:12 and 3:12.

Different accounts of these verses can split a church.

We have two lines of manuscripts for the bibles we have today.

Most are on one side with the KJB being on the other.

There is a reason for this.

Up to the time of Joseph Smith the KJB was widely accepted as the Bible for all English speaking people.

The other English Bibles in use were the Great Bible and Tyndale New Testament Bible.

They essentially agreed with each other as they were from the same manuscripts differing only in ways to say much the same thing.

These came from the old Greek texts of West Asia and are of the language of the people.

These manuscripts were later gathered together later by a man I believe called of God called Erasmus.

He put together the texts that later became the Luther German Bible and the Swiss and English Bibles.

They stood against;

the other bible in use that came out later in answer to the KJB.

It was the Douay-Rheims out from France.

This bible came from a corrupt collection of Latin Manuscripts out of Egypt. called Sianaticus and another called Vaticanus put together from the older.

It was these manuscripts that Wescott and Hort later dug up to create the American Standard Version and all the other bibles to confuse us.

These are all divergent bibles we have standing against each other to this day to confuse us.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,..."

"False teachers" Bringing "in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

V:2 And many follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth (the Bible?) shall be evil spoken of.

V:3 and through COVETOUSNESS shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now a long time lingereth not, and there damnation slumbereth not."

We have already learned that Gods words are Truth. (John 17:17

"Many shall follow their pernicious ways;"

"He does it and he is supposed to 'love the Lord', so it must be alright."

What more evil can be said then that God cannot preserve His words.

The reason you could not find the "word of the Lord" (Amos 8:11) on earth was not because they were not there, but because evil men had hid them and would not let the people have them.

(1 Nephi 13:25-29)

And this is carried on through out the world to this day.

Evil and greedy people are flooding the world with corrupt counterfeit bibles in order to confuse and lead them about by the noes.

Buy it Now!

It's the Super Duper New and Improved Word of God.

Now on sale at your fa-vor-it book store.

Buy-Buy-Buy one now!

The way of truth is indeed being evil spoken of.

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:.."

I'll tell you this, when some one makes merchandise of you, they do it with "feigned words" (flattery, lies, etc.)

Turn to 1 Timothy 6:10. Here is another instance that you must use the KJB to get bible Scripture correctly.

Especially these Scriptures.

The false teachers referred to in these last two verses and the ones hereafter.

Now get out your KJB and read along with me.

"for the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after,

they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many

sorrows."

Another thing.

In merchandising the trick is to keep the "chump"

on the hook.

The merchants go to, lets say Las Vegas, and there decide

what is going to be in style next year.

That includes clothing, hair styles etc.

Another thing those in merchandising do is make the buyer

"think" that the merchant is the only one who can "help" them.

"No one can fix your hair like I can."

"I am the "only one" who understands your needs." ect.

You think you decide?

One year it's wide colorful ties.

"They are in style.", the next year wide plain ties.

When there is a glut in the market in these "stylish" ties, and the market falls off, narrow ties are now the rage.

Colorful narrow ties, then plain narrow ties.

It starts all over again,

The merchants play most of us like a piano.

IN OUR LIVES!

IN ALL THINGS!!

EVEN IN WHAT THE WORLD CALLS THE CHURCH!!!

THEY ALWAYS HAVE.

WHY DO YOU THINK THERE WERE MONEY-CHANGERS IN THE IN THE TEMPLE?

THEY ARE STILL THERE. (1Timothy 6:5&6.)

Now lets go to Romans 1:18

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"

Are they just innocent victims of some misunderstanding?

V:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."

Also look again at 2 Pet.1-12.

Read up to V:12 and I'll comment.

"But these,as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil (V:2) of

the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish (see Rom.1:18) in there own corruption;.."

Most of the time these Bible Perverters will mess up a text simply because they don't understand what the verse means.

They say "This can't possibly mean that" and just like there old predecessor Origen, they change what God caused to be written. 2 Peter 2:12 and 3:12.

Later. Bro. Rudick

Edited January 15, 2009 by JohnnyRudick

[JohnnyRudick]

I hope this helps someone at least a little.

Note. Look how many times the bible perversions say Holy Spirit along with the use of the churches of this world.

Also look at our correction of the term that corresponds with the KJB in our prayers as in Baptism.

Amen?

Found in some of my old notebooks.

Soooooooo, wrote a little down.

Good luck with it;-)

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. ...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the ground- work; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...

I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...

When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...the product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...

I don't want anything to do with it...[t]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him[Dr.George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things... [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct, How correct? 100% correct...

If you must stand against everyone else, stand.

Dr. Frank Logsdon

The Bible believers have always known it.

Those who learn to believe and trust the Bible come to know it.

The adage really applies here. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The corrupted texts referred to are the ones I have been warning about for years.

They are the text from the Vatican library, and from a waste basket in a monastery near Mt. Sinai.

These texts were developed by a scholar named Origen of Alexandra Egypt.

With the help of the likes of Irenaeus, Aquilla and Cyprian.

The contents of these Manuscripts were had by the King James translators in the form of Jerome's Latin version of the Bible and the Rheims bible from France.

We are told by most sources today Jerome translated from the Hebrew.

Yet his translation agrees with the Corrupt texts the above scholars, yet against the Masoretic text of the Hebrews.

Yes, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did agree with the 1582 Rheims version.

The King James translators knew better then to use these translations as they knew they were based on leavened manuscripts.

Most of the Scholars today know better also, yet...

These corrupt texts were had from Egypt. Alexandria Egypt.

Two Choices.

The source of these corrupt, leavened bibles we are buried in today is Alexandrian philosophers.

They've had a very comfortable existence.

Through out history they have been under the protection of the Roman Church.

Or;

The "SYRIAN" or Byzantine text which is identical I'm told with the prevalent Greek text of the Middle Ages; It is NOT the Latin Vulgate!

It is the Greek Vulgate of the first and second centuries, and it stands in opposition to the EGYPTIAN texts, of the Vaticanus-B which the other Vatican manuscripts agree the most with, the (B) being the best represented of them.

It was the Syrian text which had it's beginnings in Antioch Syria.

This is the Bible.

This is the Book quoted by God in the Book of Mormon.

It leaves a trail of blood that can be traced through-out history.

From where they were first called Christians, Acts 11:26, to "the end" this trail crimson trail is easily traced.

The old common Latin (not the high Latin of the scholars) of the Donatists, Montanists, Novatians, and Waldenses survived against persecution beyond belief.

The King James translators had three of these Bibles.

They had the works of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus, the Complutensian and the Antwerp Polyglots.

These Masoretic, Syrian and the Ana-Baptist Bibles all stood together against the Vatican bibles of France, Rome, and Egypt.

The King James translators were much more cautious then modern Bible perverters.

Our man at the beginning of this article for instance.

Origen's Hoax

Origen's first work in "Textual Criticism" was his famous Hexapla.

That is Hex- app-le.

I call it a Hex apple.

Of course it was a six column language comparison of translations.

The first column contained what was left of the Masoretic text after Origen and friends got through with it.

The second column was a Greek transliteration of the first column.

The third contained the Greek version of a man named Aquilla.

He is the man that gave us the legend of the northern mercenary soldier named Panther who went to Bethlehem and became the father of a blond blue eyed Jew named Jesus Christ.

He thought the Greek word for "virgin" was a mistake and thought it aught to be Panther. Humm Strange.

The forth column is from a Scholar named Symmachus.

The fifth column is the work of Origen himself.

This was the first Greek Old Testament ever made.

Through Catholic Tradition this Column took on the role of a pre-Christian book.

It was first concocted in the early 200's A.D. Not B.C.

But to this day it is referred to as the LXX or Septuagint by unwary writers.

The only place where 50 can actually be tied to this outside of tradition, is

Eusebius (340 A.D.) had fifty copies of this fifth column published for Constantine and the Church at Rome.

Hence the Vaticanus books, complete with the books of Judith, Tobit, Esdras, Maccabees, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

From this we have the Shepherd of Hermes.

A young man watching a girl bathing, and although he loves her "as a sister," she is caught up to heaven to reveal twenty pages of "Biblical" prophecy to him and she rebukes him for committing adultery in his heart.

What is this young prophetess' name who is preaching to this young man?

She is Lady Dame.

And since she has been assumed up into heaven she has the right to be God's oracle for a dozen pages.

Wescott and Hort say this is one of the "most reliable manuscripts."

Uh-huh.

The sixth column is from one named Theodotian.

He is the one who gave us such memorable scripture as Matt.1:16 "And Jacob the father of Joseph, to whom was betrothed the virgin Mary, was the father of Jesus who is called Christ."

We find this verse in the footnote of the RSV with the comment, "other ancient authorities read..."

This was Theodotian's opinion of what should be there.

He had no authority for that insertion.

So how did Theodotian's opinion of a translation of another version, get to be called an "ancient authority?"

During the time when the Gospel was delivered to Paul the center of Church activity moved from Jerusalem to Antioch, (Acts 11:26.) not Alexandria. It, Antioch, became the starting point for Paul's journeys. Acts 13:1&2.

Also Mark, Barnabas, and Silas, and Peter were there.

If you study the book of Acts it is easy to see that it was Antioch Syria not Alexandria Egypt that was the center of Church activity. (Acts 11:22-30, 13:1-4, 14:21- 27,15:5-35,Gal.2:11.

As a matter of fact no Apostle was ever sent into Egypt.

The Scripture did not tell them to go to Egypt for food.

Egypt has always been portrayed in the Scriptures as a "type" of the world system.

This world system has always been opposed to the things of God. Egypt has always been known as the land of Ham.

Another subject perhaps?

God would not allow Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob to stay there.

South was a very bad direction to travel.

Abraham was to stay in the land and trust God.

Yet he went into Egypt and got him self into trouble. Gen.12: 9-13.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not to go to Egypt.

They were to trust God. Gen. 26:2&3.

Jacob disobeyed God and moved his whole family to Egypt.

You say God gave permission for Jacob to go?

Yes, after he had already sent his sons to buy corn and they had already gotten themselves into trouble.

God made a way to preserve them in spite of their disobedience.

They were not to go to Egypt for food.

God would not even let their bones remain in Egypt. Gen.50:25.

Joseph in this account is a "type" of the Lord Jesus Christ who would deliver us from Egypt.

He would even save us even though we went to Egypt on purpose.

But once he has fed us, we must allow Moses (Deut.18:14&15,34:10,Acts 7: 37-41.) to lead us out of Egypt.

Canaan land is not heaven.

It is an "Embassy" of Heaven.

Think about it.

Canaan is refuge from Egypt, but it is not Heaven.

God called Israel out of Egypt. Exodus 3:10. Hosea 11:1.

God called Jesus out of Egypt. Matt.2:14&15.

God calls you and me out of Egypt. Isaiah 30:1.

But the Men of the Bible correctors league tell us otherwise.

Jer.43: 2. "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,"

In the Scripture "Pharaoh" is a "type" of Satan, or the Anti-Christ. "and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!"

How much do you worship Egypt?

We can't get the Words of God from that polluted stream.

Do you send your Children to Egypt for training and counsel?

Oh, yeah. Public School.

Well, that's another story.

"O my children are "lights" to the outside world."

Do you send untrained children into the battle to do the work of a trained soldier?

Plus we are to be lights on a lamp stand, not down there in the midst of the darkness. (Matt.5:15&16.Rev.1: 12-13.

We are to stand apart. (2Cor.6:17&18)

It is easy to see from the Scripture that Alexandria Egypt is not the place God would choose to preserve His words.

It is also plain to see that the Philosophers would not be a people who would not add leaven to the words of God. (Acts 17:18,Col.2:8.)

Egypt and the Philosophers would be the "last people on Earth" you would trust in doctrinal matters as pertaining to the words of a Holy God.

Egypt is the worst possible place you could go for a Bible.

Psalm 1:1 "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in His law doth he meditate night and day."

Note the progression in this verse.

Progression

1. First you take counsel from the ungodly. You send your children to be "schooled" by these people. I even refer to a "Church" school, or a "Bible" college.

I'm convinced that no matter how well you have trained your children, you send them to one of those places, unless you have "some special child," they will distroy your child's faith in not only the three standard works of our Church but even the Book that they profess to believe in, God's holy Bible!

You have the responsibility of training up your children. (Gen.18:19,Deut.4:10,6:6&7, Prov.22:6.)

Not Egypt.(Isaiah 30:1.)

2. If you do take the councel of the ungodly or have your children to do so, then you find yourself "standing in the way of sinners."

You and/or your children will be walking their walk, and talking their talk.

3. Finally you will be "sitting in the seat of the scornfull."

You or your children will be the teachers of error.

You or your children will be defenders of the ungodly.

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be seen.

Yet seen to oft, familiar with her face,

(1.)first we endure,

(2.) then pity,

(3.) then embrace."

You have the Texts written and edited by Origin and friends in Alexandria Egypt who worshiped Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pliny, Plutarch, Herodotus, Marcion, etc.

The source of "leaven" in Jerome's Latin Vulgate (345A.D.)

This accounts for the account of two Latin texts during the "Dark Ages" (599A.D.- 1520A.D.)

Because the other one came up from Antioch Syria, in the Church of Jesus Christ through the hands of the Waldensians, Albigensians, Huguenots, etc. in a trail of persecution and blood.

The other one of Egypt and Rome, and perversions of the Greek text by Jerome, is the text preserved in the monasteries by the Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, and officials of the Spanish Inquisition.

Take your pick.

Later Bro. Rudick

[nimrod]

You compare, see link and KJV scripture below link:

NET ©

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?

NIV ©

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptised for them?

NASB ©

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

NLT ©

If the dead will not be raised, then what point is there in people being baptized for those who are dead? Why do it unless the dead will someday rise again?

MSG ©

Why do you think people offer themselves to be baptized for those already in the grave? If there's no chance of resurrection for a corpse, if God's power stops at the cemetery gates, why do we keep doing things that suggest he's going to clean the place out someday, pulling everyone up on their feet alive?

BBE ©

Again, what will they do who are given baptism for the dead? if the dead do not come back at all, why are people given baptism for them?

NRSV ©

Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

NKJV ©

Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead

KJV:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Darn! I knew I should have double checked that verse. I recall reading in a NIV years ago. I recall it more different. No matter. Here are some:

NETBible: Ezekiel 37:16

I believe the term "Stick" in this verse does not mean a literal stick. One version uses the word "carve" to explain the writing. This suggests it is an actual stick that you would widdle (sp?) on.

Here is one:

NETBible: Matthew 17:21

You will not find Matthew 17:21 in many translations. Read the reason given. Many don't believe that it was part of the original text. There are several other examples of this. So, if several translations leave out several versus, which is correct? All of them? Nay...of course.

[Maureen]

You will not find Matthew 17:21 in many translations. Read the reason given. Many don't believe that it was part of the original text. There are several other examples of this. So, if several translations leave out several versus, which is correct? All of them? Nay...of course.

NET Bible says:

17:21 [[EMPTY]] 39

39 tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

It would seem translators prefer to translate as close to the original as possible. I think that's a good thing.

M.

[nimrod]

NET Bible says:

17:21 [[EMPTY]] 39

39 tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

It would seem translators prefer to translate as close to the original as possible. I think that's a good thing.

M.

So you are saying that the those versions are more correct than the KJV? Well, I'm not so sure. BUT we now agree. Translations differ. Things that differ are not the same. One must be correct. One must be wrong. Especially when it comes to INCLUDING or EXCLUDING text. Maybe we (on this forum) should come up with a version?

King James assembled committees to come up with the most "original" text. He is said to have lamented

“I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English."

So, if King James thought prior versions were poor. And now WE see that later versions are out-smarting King James and his committee by leaving versus out, who shall we believe?

Hence.....Heavenly Father still has prophets on the earth. We need not be led to and fro with every wind of translation. If Heavenly Father has stopped his ministry on earth, then we are in a lot of trouble, aren't we? Left to our own philosphies....philosophies of men. :)

[Maureen]

So you are saying that the those versions are more correct than the KJV? Well, I'm not so sure. BUT we now agree. Translations differ. Things that differ are not the same. One must be correct. One must be wrong. Especially when it comes to INCLUDING or EXCLUDING text. Maybe we (on this forum) should come up with a version?...

I think if you did a little studying regarding how scholars go about translating from one language to other languages, it might help you see things with a different perspective. Here's something to read:

Bible.org: Translations

M.

[nimrod]

But.... can't we agree on these points:

1. Different translations of the Bible ARE ACTUALLY different. Including or excluding versus is a pretty big deal. (We do believe the Bible to be scripture, correct?)

2. Languages do not translate perfectly. The end result is actually the product of many subjective decisions made by the translator. (ie: English word for "love" will suffice for the Hebrew word in this instance....or not)

3. The Bible is a COMPILATION of many books. Over the centuries "scholars" decided to leave some books out. Who authorized those decisions. If you found versions that were old enough, they would have books in them that are not in our current KJV.

4. Since copy machines were not invented, it is unreasonable to conclude that information was passed down perfectly.

Why did King James feel a "better" English translation was needed if all translations were just fine?

Why wouldn't scholars translate with a slight (or not so slight) bent toward doctrines THEY beleived in and away from doctrines they didn't believe in?

[Hemidakota]

Here is thread we need a few BYU NT Professors to step in...:)

[JohnnyRudick]

You will find very few Bible Professors who will understand let alone admit the deliberate split in bible genealogy parentage and it's deliberate deceptions.

I have tried to lay out the outline of what and why this deception and confusion exists.

If we choose to ignore the conspiracy that exists to confuse the Scriptural history we will never understand the true nature of the beast we are dealing with.

1 Nephi 13:25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in

purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve

apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest

the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most

abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken

away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and

most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they

taken away.

1 Nephi 13:27 And all this have they done that they might pervert

the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and

harden the hearts of the children of men.

1 Nephi 13:28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone

forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that

there are many plain and precious things taken away from the

book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

1 Nephi 13:29 And after these plain and precious things were

taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles;

and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles,

yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the

Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest--

because of the many plain and precious things which have been

taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of

the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the

Lamb of God--because of these things which are taken away out of

the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble,

yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

[nimrod]

Still any doubters?

The highlighted portions are missing in the NIV:

Galatians--

3:1 ... who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth...

Ephesians--

5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord...

Philipplans--

3:16 Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Colossians--

1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood...

3:6 ... the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.

2 Thessalonians--

1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God.

Here are more differences in the NIV and KJV:

Matthew 20:16

So the last shall be first and the first last: for many be called but few chosen. (KJV)

So the last will be first, and the first will be last. (NIV)

Matthew 20:22

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?... (KJV)

Ye don't know what you are asking, Jesus said to them. Can you drink the cup I am going to drink? (NIV)

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. (KJV)

Verse is completely missing in the NIV

Matthew 27:35

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments amongst them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. (KJV)

When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. (NIV)

**Sholars have debated over which text to follow for centuries. Hebrew, Greek, German, KJV, NIV, etc. They all cannot be right. Period. :)

[Moksha]

If we choose to ignore the conspiracy that exists to confuse the Scriptural history we will never understand the true nature of the beast we are dealing with.

Does this include factoring in the stories of Horus and Mithras?

[Sergg]

Gen. 6:6-7 -God repents.

Rom. 11:29--God can’t repent.

]

But he needs to be acquainted with LDS theological development. For , if he insists in needing an lds account of Bible errors, he is quite in the wrong track by merely visiting other sources. For as with the case quoted above, a reading of Joseph Smith's writings show that in such case, it contains no 'contradiction' or 'error' in terms of the idea behind such verse (for God indeed felt 'sad'), but that its only error is that of inserting such an impossible concept as that of God 'repenting'. Smith believed that a bad scribe had tempered such verse and inserted such a horrible (anti-Paul) concept...

[Maureen]

nimrod, May I suggest you read something called Textual Criticism:

Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes often made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original....

[Sergg]

But he needs to be acquainted with LDS theological development. For , if he insists in needing an lds account of Bible errors, he is quite in the wrong track by merely visiting other sources. For as with the case quoted above, a reading of Joseph Smith's writings show that in such case, it contains no 'contradiction' or 'error' in terms of the idea behind such verse (for God indeed felt 'sad'), but that its only error is that of inserting such an impossible concept as that of God 'repenting'. Smith believed that a bad scribe had tempered such verse and inserted such a horrible (anti-Paul) concept...

Of course Smith had no other criteria for the diagnostic of such 'corruption' than his own claims of divine authority to hermeneutics. The truth of the matter is, judaism indeed included such contradiction. And this guy wants 'lds' accounts, not true historical ones...

[JohnnyRudick]

Does this include factoring in the stories of Horus and Mithras?

Well. Counterfeit stories of the divine would be included in the conspiracy of which I speak. Stories like that, yes;-) is a part of it.

Thanks for asking;-] Bro. Rudick