On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:09:27 GMT, Ben Mitts
<benmitts@sbcglobal.net> spake thusly:

It NASB matches the KJV, How in the
world can you say it makes Jesus Christ
out to be a liar?

Care to put down in writing where you say
the NASB proves Jesus is a liar?

BTW, why do you refuse to tell me what
translation/s you use?

The real question Ben, is why did you disappear
from the other thread about this, immediately
after I provided the proof?

It is impossible for the NASB to match the KJV,
because they are based on different texts.
The KJV is based on the TR, which is part
of the Majority Texts. The NASB is based
on the corrupt Alexandrian Text. I proved
that also in the other thread.

And I have never refused to tell anyone which
Bible I use. Everyone here knows what I use.
I use Bibles based on the Majority Text and
then, more literal translations, such as the
KJV, the NKJV, the ALT and the LITV.

But we will leave these arguments aside and
forget about them. It doesn't make any sense
to attack each other over them.

I will repost the message that I sent to you,
regarding the fact that the NASB makes
Jesus out to be a liar.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:30:50 GMT, Ben Mitts
<benmitts@sbcglobal.net> spake thusly:

The consensus today, is that the Alexandrian Text
is the best, no matter how corrupted it is. Hort
based his work on this text and the Critical Text
and the Nestle/Aland Text are based on his work.
Research this for yourself. The information is
out there. Wescott did also base his work with
Hort on the same text.

I have researched all the texts you have mentioned
And have also research the KJV, ASV, and the NASB
and not one ever states any of these texts were used
in their particular translations. You lose!

It has nothing to do with truth. You do not wish
to know the facts. You cannot provide any
information whatsoever about the origin of
the text they used and yet, claim to be seeking
the truth and tell me that I lose. Based on what?
Your imagination?

"Recent research on the oldest and best Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament has been
reviewed, and some passages have been updated
for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts."

Tell me, what are they referring to as, "the best
and oldest"? Do you even know?

Have you noted, "RECENT RESEARCH"?
This is their way of saying that they have
used the Alexandrian Text and that they
have changed the wording to adhere to it.

Note also that they claim that they are
the best, only because they are the oldest.
That is circular reasoning.

I dont defend the NASB as you seem to believe.

Let us also look at what this NASB you defend
says about Jesus. You claim that you aren't
defending it, yet here you are, defending it.
Although I do not believe it is a defense so much
of the NASB, as it is a defense of the corrupt
texts on which it is based. Why you would defend
them, I cannot understand, especially considering
that you obviously were not even aware that they
are used and yet, here you are, attacking me and
defending them.

The NASB makes Him a liar and God does not lie.

"Thy word is TRUE" Psalm 119:160

"...God, that CANNOT LIE..." Titus 1:2

John 7:6-10

6) So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here,
but your time is always opportune.
7) The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me
because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
8) Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up
to this feast because My time has not yet fully
come.
9) Having said these things to them, He stayed
in Galilee.
10) But when His brothers had gone up to the feast,
then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if,
in secret.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=7&version=49

You see, Jesus here said that He is not going
to the feast, period.

Now let's look at a faithful rendering, which is not
based on the corrupt text used by the NASB
translators...

John 6:7-10

6) Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come:
but your time is always ready.
7) The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because
I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil
8) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this
feast; for my time is not yet full come.
9) When he had said these words unto them, he abode
still in Galilee.
10) But when his brethren were gone up, then went he
also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in
secret.

Note the word "YET", which IS in the Majority Texts
and is missing from the NASB.

is based on the Nestle Text, which is based on the
work of Hort, which is based on the Alexandrian
Text, which is the Sinaiticus, with a few other texts
used to fill in some blanks.

In a faithful rendering, Jesus says that He was not
"YET" going up to the feast and so, when He goes
later, He did NOT lie.

Now if that's not enough to convince you, there are
many more examples of the perversion of the NASB.
I have a feeling however, that no amount of proof
will suffice for you.

BTW Dave, you refuse to state what Bible you study
from, why is that!

I have never done any such thing and that makes
you a liar.

Anyone who knows me, including you,
knows what I have repeatedly said about trustworthy
Bibles and which one I use most often. The fact
that you now pretend to be ignorant of this, speaks
volumes and the fact that you would try to turn the
tables and force me to defend something, when
the question is about the NASB, tells volumes,
especially in the light of your claim not to be
defending it. If you weren't, you wouldn't have
bothered with this thread at all. Yet you entered it,
attacking my position. That is called a defense
of what it is I am criticizing, to anyone who thinks
rationally.

Bible Bob wrote:

On 5 Sep 2005 09:16:16 -0700, "JohnH" <johnhennekes@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bible Bob wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:48:31 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:

<snip>

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Me - affirmative that Tongues have ceased as well as the other apostolic
sign gifts
You - negative that Tongues and healings still exist today as practiced
in the charismatic church

How does that make sense? It should be the other way around. How
can the affirmative be that tongues have ceased? Anyone with half a
brain could defeat your premise with only one verse. I won't debate
with you but before you make a fool of yourself, I will give you some
food for thought.

The first thing you need to do is sound like you know something about
your topic. You might start in 1 Cor 12 where you will learn that
tongues are not a gift; but a manifestation. The word "gifts" in
verse one is or should be in italics because it was added. The Greek
word for "spiritual" is pneumatikos, spiritual things or spiritual
matters. The topic "spiritual matters" introduces other topics among
which are different gifts(vs 4), different administrations (vs 5), and
different operations (v6). Verse seven begins with the
conjunction"But" setting verse seven in contrast with what preceded it
and introduces a new topic "manifestations of the spirit" and under
that topic are listed nine manifestations one of which is called
"gifts (plural) of healings". All of the nine are spiritual matters;
but eight of the nine are not gifts.

Here is your next clue. Watch the English word "another" very closely
in the Greek. Another from "allos" of the same kind and another from
"heteros" means another of a different kind. Allos is the other of
two and heteros is the other of more than two. That clue will help
you break the nine into groups of three so that you can see how they
work together in sets.

Nevertheless, Paul also starts off the last verse of 1 Cor. 12 with the
very same conjunction as verse seven, and actually wraps up the
preceding [before proceeding into the Love Chapter], by stating, "But
covet earnestly the best gifts..." Therefore, whether one calls it
manifestations, spiritual things, or spiritual matters, it's still
biblically supportable [and arguable] that Paul has lumped all of these
together as "gifts" anyway. :-)

JohnH

JohnH,

Keen eye.

However, the context indicates that the gifts spoken of are the gift
ministries. Let's look at the context.

1 Corinthians 12:27 KJV
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Corinthians 12:28 KJV
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of
healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:29 KJV
[Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all
workers of miracles?

1 Corinthians 12:30 KJV
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?

1 Corinthians 12:31 KJV
But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more
excellent way.

As you said, verse 31 begins with adversative conjunction "but (from.
de)" "De" generally marks a contrast and an otherwise concealed
antithesis. If we go back in the context we see that -

1 Corinthians 12:4 KJV
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:5 KJV
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 KJV
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which
worketh all in all.

What are spoken about in verses 28 and following? Diversities of
gifts (apostles, prophets, teachers (compare Eph 4:11 were God "gave"
some apostles, prophets,...teachers (same order))). Differences of
administrations (helps, governments) and diversities of operations
(miracles, gifts of healings (impartation manifestations) and
diversities of tongues (prayer and worship manifestations). Are they
all apostles, prophets or teachers (gifts)? No. Are they all workers
of miracles or gifts of healing (imparation manifestations), do they
all speak with tongues and interpret (worship manifestations).

The "de" of verse 31 sets what follows; not in opposition with (which
would be alla); but in contrast with what was said before and verse 31
says covet earnestly the best gifts. So what is the best gifts? That
which the body needs at that point in time whether it be an apostle,
prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher. Those are the gift
ministries that were "gave" by God (Eph 4:11). Then, the conjunction
"and" sets in correspondence the best gift with what follows in
chapter 13 which is the more excellent way. Even if you have the best
gift, that gift has to behave as stated in what follows.

I hope that makes sense. I haven't worked the material for quite some
time and know that I have left some stuff out; but I suspect you can
fill in the holes. If not, let me know.

Hi Bob,

Well, all of this would have made better sense, though, had Paul not
stated, "covet earnestly the best gifts" (KJV), "zealously strive after
the better gifts" (LITV), and "earnestly desire the greater gifts"
(NASB) at the end of chapter 12, and then had not also immediately
launched-off chapter 13 by speaking about "the tongues of men and of
angels" (KJV, LITV, NASB). I find this transition from chapter 12 to
chapter 13 at least worthy of some prayerful reflection.

Otherwise, I'll just be forced to invoke the Elastic Clause of James
1:17, which is as follows: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is
from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning" (KJV), "every act of good
giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the
Father of lights, with whom is no change or shadow of turning" (LITV),
and "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above,
coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation
or shifting shadow" (NASB). Now, whether this 'phenomenon' talked
about in Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; and 1 Cor. 12-14 be termed spiritual
"things, matters, endowments, bestowments, gratuities, or whatever," I
do not think that you will argue that these did not originate from the
Father, so I see nothing scripturally wrong in calling this a "gift."
:-)

JohnH