formica wrote:
this topic is not far off Jim's dialectical altercations. Since the NIV, TNIV and the modern versions are "forgeries" too. And especially the New Testaments which stem from the Greek texts. The heretical Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort produced their own "forgeries" of Greek texts, together with their own textual criticism, which have become the basis of the NT in the modern forgeries. Completing the "forgery" with dynamic equivalence thus changing doctrines and omitting many words, the NIV/TNIV becomes a criminal counterfeit of the Bible.

THIS MAD-DOCTOR, "Dr. Bart Ehrman", Is Making An Open FOOL Of Himself For Uttering Such NONSENSE & Intellectual LIES In Stating The Historic English "King James" New Testament (& The Erasmian New Testament Textus-Receptus) Is A Forged Document !

Mike wrote:
If Jim Lincoln posted something of this nature, it would be pointed out to him that he's going off course by turning the subject into a translation issue. I wonder if they will do the same now?

John UK wrote:
Jesus responded to the (tempting) question of the Pharisees like this:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:9 KJV
Adultery carried the death penalty, so this "putting away", this "divorcing", was obviously as a result of fornication committed before marriage and discovered by the husband to be. This was the case with Joseph, who "was minded to put her (Mary) away privily", because he believed she had committed fornication during the bethrothal period but before their marriage. The translators of the NKJV (and NASB, RSV et al) could not conceive of a "divorce" before a marriage, so they mistranslated the text and missed the whole point of what Jesus was saying.

Mike wrote:
If Jim Lincoln posted something of this nature, it would be pointed out to him that he's going off course by turning the subject into a translation issue. I wonder if they will do the same now?

FHL wrote:
(1.) Don't know about forgery, however there's one significant issue with the English translation/interpretation:
Like a thief's cutting torch on a bank vault lock is the "exception clause" (e.g., Matthew 19:9) on the bond of holy matrimony.
(2.) Regardless of the situation -- whether by divorce or parting-of-ways -- the child always hurts most.
(3.) Jesus said "It's better that a millstone be hung around their necks and they be cast into the sea than they who would hurt a little child."
(4.) If your Bible has no imprimatur (e.g., non-1611 AV), you may want to reconsider reading it.
(5.) Every jot and tittle matter.
(6.) Understanding the "exception clause" in the context of Church History (i.e., no known divorce for the 1st 15 Centuries of the Church) and the whole of Holy Writ.

Poor ignorant Mr Ehrman he doesn't know the truth, which in turn means that Satan and sin have control over his life and heart. He is not saved.

The great thing which real Christians become aware of is the power of the Word of God.
Psalm 119:98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way."

Talking about hating every false way - We hate what poor Mr Ehrman has produced, because we know the truth.

FHL wrote:
(1.) Don't know about forgery, however there's one significant issue with the English translation/interpretation:
Like a thief's cutting torch on a bank vault lock is the "exception clause" (e.g., Matthew 19:9) on the bond of holy matrimony.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:9 KJV

Adultery carried the death penalty, so this "putting away", this "divorcing", was obviously as a result of fornication committed before marriage and discovered by the husband to be. This was the case with Joseph, who "was minded to put her (Mary) away privily", because he believed she had committed fornication during the bethrothal period but before their marriage. The translators of the NKJV (and NASB, RSV et al) could not conceive of a "divorce" before a marriage, so they mistranslated the text and missed the whole point of what Jesus was saying.

Like a thief's cutting torch on a bank vault lock is the "exception clause" (e.g., Matthew 19:9) on the bond of holy matrimony.

(2.) Regardless of the situation -- whether by divorce or parting-of-ways -- the child always hurts most.

(3.) Jesus said "It's better that a millstone be hung around their necks and they be cast into the sea than they who would hurt a little child."

(4.) If your Bible has no imprimatur (e.g., non-1611 AV), you may want to reconsider reading it.

(5.) Every jot and tittle matter.