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

[JohnnyRudick]

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. :)

Yes, these are from the corrupt Latin Vulgate of Jerome and Company and are the root of the confusion we have today in Bible translations.

The people of this earth are tossed hither, thither and yawn because of the mischief of these pretended christian leaders and scholars.

No. They cannot all be right. Only one line of texts. The Byzantine type texts of Erasmus's Textus Receptus. Surviving texts may bot be the oldest but they were not found in the trash either.

Later, Bro. Rudick;-)

[JohnnyRudick]

Nimrod wrote another time "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."

I think it is too easy to get caught up in "counting angels on the head of a pin".;-)

God has many times asked men to do simple things to show a picture of a larger truth.

Many times it is a thing that will come about more then once and in a couple of different ways.

Like asking someone to walk around naked for three years;-) Isaiah 20:2&3

Or

Go marry a whore:-[ Hosea 1:2.

God is here merely asking Ezekiel to show two different things and mark them to identify their distinction. God is then telling Ezekiel what he will do.

The sticks may represent nations records or even both.

Sometimes the answer is too simple and we refuse to see the simplicity of it.

Be of good cheer.

God has restored a record of a people separated by many waters.

"Genesis 49:22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough

by a well; whose branches run over the wall:

Genesis 49:23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at

him, and hated him:

Genesis 49:24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of

his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of

Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)

Genesis 49:25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help

thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of

heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings

of the breasts, and of the womb:

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above

the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the

everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on

the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

He also reunited a kingdom split in two under His servant David. 1 Samuel.

God will in the last days bring the 10 lost tribes of Israel and unite them with the tribe of Judah making them one in His hand.

God is only showing a picture of what He has and will accomplish.

The "sticks" are only tools.

And a stumbling stone to some;-)

Later. Bro. Rudick.

.

Edited January 16, 2009 by JohnnyRudick

[Sergg]

Yes, these are from the corrupt Latin Vulgate of Jerome and Company and are the root of the confusion we have today in Bible translations.

The people of this earth are tossed hither, thither and yawn because of the mischief of these pretended christian leaders and scholars.

No. They cannot all be right. Only one line of texts. The Byzantine type texts of Erasmus's Textus Receptus. Surviving texts may bot be the oldest but they were not found in the trash either.

Later, Bro. Rudick;-)

But have none of you considered that none of the texts are right? The oportunity to 'choose' is but illusion. No surviving text is in itself the most trustful. Because not all of them record the same things, for example. All text is but shadow to what really happens anywhere. All that happens anywhere is but shadow to the mind through its remembrance. And no coming of a 'spirit' or 'altered state of consciousness' can truly 'represent' what happened, not because its details have to fail at being almost perfect(for, in Hypnosis a profoundly detailed account can be obtained, for example) -though it often happens, but because even a phenomenon as a Spirit that posseses and brings forth a 'complete account'(or a session of Hypnosis), the matter is that all accounts(including that of a God or its Spirit) is a parcial(if perfect) account. And 'partial', is the doome of pretensions as to 'True Accounts'. A True Account, in principle, would be that of All-of-Those-Present Accounts, and even transcending them. Completeness in representation is not possible. And approximation(if profound) speaks of everything but divinity. It is thus, a question of faith, not rational 'reasons' for taking one to be the Best. Rationally, you would only have a 'Next Best Thing'. But such a second-rate option, cann not be amn object of faith, but of sciencie.

[nimrod]

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

Maureen,

I understand. I went to that article early on in this discussion. However, the issue still remains. If the Bible is Inerrant, I ask WHICH BIBLE? (the KJV, the NIV, the Hebrew) You seem to be saying that ALL of them are inerrant. They can't all be correct. (see differences, exclusions & inclusions quoted above in my earlier post)

[JohnnyRudick]

But have none of you considered that none of the texts are right? The oportunity to 'choose' is but illusion. No surviving text is in itself the most trustful. Because not all of them record the same things, for example. All text is but shadow to what really happens anywhere. All that happens anywhere is but shadow to the mind through its remembrance. And no coming of a 'spirit' or 'altered state of consciousness' can truly 'represent' what happened, not because its details have to fail at being almost perfect(for, in Hypnosis a profoundly detailed account can be obtained, for example) -though it often happens, but because even a phenomenon as a Spirit that posseses and brings forth a 'complete account'(or a session of Hypnosis), the matter is that all accounts(including that of a God or its Spirit) is a parcial(if perfect) account. And 'partial', is the doome of pretensions as to 'True Accounts'. A True Account, in principle, would be that of All-of-Those-Present Accounts, and even transcending them. Completeness in representation is not possible. And approximation(if profound) speaks of everything but divinity. It is thus, a question of faith, not rational 'reasons' for taking one to be the Best. Rationally, you would only have a 'Next Best Thing'. But such a second-rate option, cann not be amn object of faith, but of sciencie.

Ummmmmmmmm. O. . . K. . .????:-]

And to Nimrod.

The KJB is the only Scripture of that volume you can trust except where it was corrected in the corrected works of Joseph Smith.

All the other versions you find out there are only "versions" of the KJB.

Any problems you may find in the KJB can be sorted out with a little study.

I have already given you an outline as to why this is so.

Why there is differences between the opposing versions with the KJB.

This reminds me of the conversations I see about which church is right.

They keep saying All of them can't be right, yet it does not seem right to say that one ie right and all the rest are wrong.

Well, what is, IS.

Except that which ain't;-]

Later. Bro. Rudick;-)

Edited January 16, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought

[nimrod]

The best commentary on this subject is the fact that Joseph Smith preferred to read the Hebrew version (and...If I recall, German). He loved to read it in "the original." He made it clear that they were more correct. He spent days and days studying Hebrew, as evidence by his journal.

Here is another interesting note in translation. KJV used Old English. In the parable of the sower, the seed planted in stoney earth is scorched "by and by". We would interpret that to mean "over time" or "after a while". In Old English "by and by" meant "immediately", or "forthwith." So, just from a change in customary usage, the scripture may be misinterpreted. Of course, the same thing could occur in any language. Just a reminder to do your homework.

FYI: The Parable of the Sower and Joseph reading the Hebrew Bible were in the lesson today...Chapter 25 of your Teachings of the Presidents, Joseph Smith Manual.

[Hemidakota]

Thanks...

Wasn't the Savior the one who went out and sowed the wheat from the fields and left the tares to burn? Then for the grape harvest did he sent His servants. There is a meaning between the two.

[JohnnyRudick]

The best commentary on this subject is the fact that Joseph Smith preferred to read the Hebrew version (and...If I recall, German). He loved to read it in "the original." He made it clear that they were more correct. He spent days and days studying Hebrew, as evidence by his journal.

Here is another interesting note in translation. KJV used Old English. In the parable of the sower, the seed planted in stoney earth is scorched "by and by". We would interpret that to mean "over time" or "after a while". In Old English "by and by" meant "immediately", or "forthwith." So, just from a change in customary usage, the scripture may be misinterpreted. Of course, the same thing could occur in any language. Just a reminder to do your homework.

FYI: The Parable of the Sower and Joseph reading the Hebrew Bible were in the lesson today...Chapter 25 of your Teachings of the Presidents, Joseph Smith Manual.

Exactly;-)

The so called "originals" that he was referring to was the "Textus Receptus", and the German was still the same text only translated into German by Luther.

Translating from these languages helps us get around the difficulties of the problems you state above and helps us zero in on the point we are trying to make.

But Joseph Smith was not changing what God said as the French translation did which were translated from the corrupt texts I have made remark of earlier.

And to Korihor.

If there is a God, and there is.

And if he had children, and He does.

He would speak to them. And He does.

I have read just about everything you have and have heard all the arguments.

I imagine you must breath just about every anti-Mormon publication written.

The things I see written by you has the spirit of these publications as the underlying foundation.

You cannot know the truth of God by the knowledge of man.

This Truth only comes by the Holy Ghost.

He must bear witness to you of this truth.

You must wish to have this witness before you can receive it and then choose to not only believe it but Love the Truth that was witnessed to you.

God has declared the truth of what I have testified and I speak not of my own knowledge.

I could quote the many Scripture that declare this Truth but you would not believe it anyway.

I pray in the name of Jesus Christ that a witness will come to you to show you the Truth but then the "ball is in your court". Do with it as you will or as many do, continue to rail against the truth you know.

The Church scares you as you know if there is a True Church, this is it.

May God help you.

In Jesus name.

Bro. Rudick.

Edited January 19, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spell Correction

[Traveler]

I continue to question how attempts to undermine confidence in the Holy Bible, one of the Sacred Works in LDS canon, bolsters the cause of the church.

The truth is that all things sacred belong to a greater whole. Over emphasizing one of the Book of the Bible or certain passages over all the rest is not wisdom or purpose among the covenant “children” of G-d. Jesus said we must live by “every word” that comes from G-d.

For myself I see nothing in history to warrant Bible only as sacred scripture as being “sufficient” for Christians. My studies of the creed of Trinity express this very notion and the necessity for the creed in the first place.

The recognition that something (the Holy Bible) cannot stand by its self is not to undermine it as much as it is to recognize that to seek G-d and his word is more of a journey than it is a destination.

The Traveler

Edited January 21, 2009 by Traveler

[Justice]

You cannot know the truth of God by the knowledge of man.

I think this is the hardest lesson learned by many in life.

People say they know and understand this, but i wonder...