₦airaland Forum

Kai! is-a-lie!  you did go to see GI Joe?  you have just disgraced me. I am going to report you myself. Freddy will be paying you a visit tonight, I might ask him to bring Emily Rose with him.

Recognise:
@JeSoul

- Jay

Daniel B. Wallace?

So you take your cue from Daniel B. Wallace?

Who the blankety blank is Daniel B. Wallace?

Check out what Daniel B. Wallace has to say of your treasured & beloved NIV

. . . how come you did not highlight this part of his quote too?

I personally consider it the best phrase-for-phrase translation available today

lol. look we can toss back n forth from now till the rapture. I agree the KJV is the best and most accurate of all the versions. However I also believe the NIV is just as important because it is easy to understand. Of what use is 100% word for word translation accuracy if you can't understand it?

duduspace:
_{Heaves a sigh of relief}

lol you know me better than that now.

On point one, I beleive yu are wrong,  not only christians judiciously & honestly read their bible, from a point of commitment to reading the bible I would say most christians are lazy, choosing only to read supposedly specific promises for them (which unfortunately most of the time they don't even fully understand as they don't place them in the historical context of the times those words were written).

You're right. It is a small percentage of professing christians who actually take the time to study the bible as a student would. 

a bible scholar however does not of a necessity have to be a christian. I've personally read the bible through twice (KJV version)

True. But the problem with that is that such a scholar reads it a historical document, whereas we christians read it as the very words of God - what both sides get out of it will be very different. I'm impressed you've read through the entire bible, but distressed it didn't touch and move your heart so as to see the beauty of the gospel of Christ.

A scholar also has the obvious benefit of approaching the bible from an impartial point of view because he has no vested interests in the bible being the word of god or not.

Impartial in a secular sense? yeah I can see your point. But in understanding the spiritual and deeper meaning of the scriptures - which is what the topic is geared towards - I would need the input of christians who reason with the help of the holy spirit - not from an 'academic' mindset.

 

Perhaps if we had more people of atheistic or agnostic mindsets in the various councils  of those days rather than politicians seeking to control and subjugate, there wouldn't be so much dispute about some bible versions being corrupt or not.

I disagree. An atheist/agnostic is already prejudiced against the bible. How do you think they would be able to submit an objective analysis of the scriptures?

   There isn't a big controversy of scriptural versions, as you can see from this topic not many people even know about these differences. Which is why I have called them "sensationalized", as you jump from the KJV to the NIV and NASB etc it is not a different message or gospel being presented, it just isn't. And NIV conspiracy theorists know deep down that all this is much ado about nothing. I have used the NIV for many many years - I would like to think I turned out okay .

Deep Sight:
Yes, and i have said no conscientous person should object to a UK-style Charity Commission, the functions of which will simply be to monitor expenses of charities (including religious bodies such as churches) to avoid fraud.

Not long ago congress looked into the financials of several mega-churches here in the US - but it was optional (as it should be) for the churches to agree to it or not. As you said it will be suspect for any church to refuse it as some did. And it up to the parishioner how to proceed from there.

Now this is my problem. Nobody, I repeat nobody forces anyone to go to church. The church does not take the money from people, they are not forced - people stupidly willingly give them their money. If you're being fleeced and see no returns on your 'investments' in tithes and offerings - why still continue to give them your hard-earned money? I don't buy it that this is due to ignorance - I think it is greed too. You want to reap wealth where you haven't sown it, want to land a windfall when you haven't gone out and toiled and labored for it and a wolf in pastor's clothing ends up taking you for a ride.

 If we truly want to stop the robbery of the population by these charlatans - then the government should concern itself with its basic duties such as educating the people, providing basic infrastructure and security and we will see less and less of this nonsense.

and by the way what is all the mudslinging at only Fox news? is there any media left in america that is still objective and journalistic pure? No. Each side is on the extreme. In the same breath you condemn Fox please kindly do so to MSNBC, ABC and CNN (cnn esp has refused to stop talking about Micheal Jackson till now).

Please, no double standards allowed.

Ibime:
Hold up, I think you are being brow-beaten into submission by Faux News. No bill has been announced, and yet you guys are already opposing it. A framework has been sent to congress which divided itself into several committees, all of them producing seperate recommendations which have to be correlated into a single bill. So far, nothing has been established, but I am willing to bet that Obamas bill will be a bill to create a non-profit National Insurance company which will significantly reduce the price of health cover and force other insurance companies to compete with it on price! Insurance premiums for the co-op will be means tested, meaning those who have no cash will be covered, whilst those who do will still pay significantly less.

Bad boy, you have not been paying attention have you? Wasn't this same point brought up a few posts back by the honorable Pres-elect in response to a question I had asked?

[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=304656.msg4340614#msg4340614 date=1250092618]truth is, there is no healthcare bill. are u shocked , that is the truth. obama wanted congress to pass a bill by august but congress decided to delay it so they can go to their constituencies to discuss with their people . . . . . the same people who dont want to discuss
however, there are proposals,[/quote]to which I responded:

JeSoul:
So what was Obama in such a hurry to 'pass' before August? This is one of the things that has been leaving me (and I'm sure many others) confused. Why was he in such a rush to pass an unfinished, unfinalized, undebated massive healthcare insurance bill?

and FYI, my posts show I have always been in support of reigning in the Insurance companies and thereby cost and providing care for those citizens who can't afford it or are struggling. We don't need major 'overhaul'. We just need to apply targeted fixing to problem areas of the current system.

Ibime:
There was a debate on this on BBC last night and everyone agrees that allmost Brits are happy with the NHS.

I corrected you for free again. You're welcome  .
You are right about the satisfaction rating, I think I saw somewhere it was upwards in the 70-80%s. So I'm not trying to argue that, I'm just saying the system does have some problems and America should find a model that works for her instead of trying to copy our neighnors - even Obama himself acknowledged this few days ago.

Imagine a country where you have to be middle-class to afford healthcare. Have you asked any nucca on minimum wage whether he can afford those inflated prices?  The existence of Medicaid and such already shows the Governments guilt that a significant proportion of full-time workers in Yankee cannot afford healthcare. What a state of affairs in a so-called developed country.

The Republicans have made this into an emotional issue again. We are not surprised at their tactics. Motherphockers lose all sense of reason when the word socialism is suggested to them on talk radio and Faux news.

You're beating a dead horse brotha. I want reform and I think most Americans do. The current system hoses the payers and lines the pockets of the insurers - that's armed robbery without a gun. We just need to hear a clear, concise and common sense plan as to how the govt plans to achieve this reform without sending us all into permanent bankruptcy.

So far, Obama has a 100% record of achieving his promises. Infact, he has delivered on all his promises in only 6 months, healthcare not withstanding. This alone would get him the 2nd term mandate. I only wish Yar'Adua would match just 5% of his achievement[/b]

hehe . . .Because I am nice, I will give you the chance to retract that obviously false assertion 

BTW, I have not even seen one black face in any of these town hall meetings. I hope Tayo-D would not go to these meetings to show solidarity with his redneck brothers cos he might mistakenly get lynched! 

That's because they are too busy protesting this  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-266995.0.html 

[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=304656.msg4345836#msg4345836 date=1250174020]jesoul . . no kill me o . . . . . . . . . . .aaaaaaaahhhhhhh . . . .this is xmas [/quote]Lol  you be funny boy.

i agree with u here to an extent. but let me say this, america's primary goal as far as foreign policy is concerned, is their selfish interest. if they do some good in the process, then all well and good, if not, they'll do it anyway. but i dont complain, they have done some good in the process. and which country is better anyway?

I don't know if you can make a blanket statement and say this country is better than that etc . . . we all have our positives and negatives. I really dislike it when one country assumes some moral high ground over another as if they themselves don't have numerous faults.

  The same middle east that cries foul about American, British etc occupation contain the same animals that stone to death a woman who was raped, marry off 6yr old girls to 60yr old men, train their sons to die as suicide bomb martyrs so they can get 72 virgins in paradise and chop off the hand of a child who stole a candy bar.

lol . . . is there something the rest of us should know?

Deep Sight:
@ Tudor,

@ Adaku123.

Permit me to attempt to act as a Judge in your very interesting debate. (I am a lawyer by the way!).

First off: Both of you are obviously quite intellectual and you both try to bring an academic/ research slant to what you say. For this reason, i would ask that you continue the discussion, but without the insults - because quite frankly, its easy to see that neither of you is daft. So please easy up on words like "retard", "dumb", etc.

There is actually a perfect mid-point in your arguments that shows you both are somewhat right.

The mid point is this:

In colloquial terms, the word religion may indeed be applied to anything that one is so obessed with, that virtually amounts to worship, or giving one's life to that thing or that idea. I certainly know my own personal love for sexy women amounts to a religion for me: i literally worship feminine sexuality. I also worship other things that may be said to be a religion for me; football, for example. So Adaku's statements are not entirely without merit.

However we are all aware that the particular sense in which the word religion is being used on this topic is as regards spirituality and formalized worship systems, and i believe the topic opener made this clear. For this reason i am compelled to agree with Tudor that in this context the word religion only refers to its theological meaning: namely - mankind's search for God, gods, deities & entities supernatural, etc, and the worship of such.

See the link from Wikipedia here attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

In this respect, to the extent that atheism does not seek such, it can never be considered a religion. At best it is a mere idea, a proposition, and it is ridiculous to talk about regulating a proposition or an idea. By the way, do note that an atheist (who believes that God does not exist) is quite different from an agnostic, who believes that the idea of God is so abstract, it can never be understood, and should not be attempted.

Have i been a good judge? Rate me guys.

Lol . . . a lawyer in the house 
I don't like your final verdict, but I would say your cross-examination is very sound, fair and compelling. I think the jury will be spilt and hung at an impasse

adaku123:

@ Tudor

Lol, Seriously, Is that the best you could come up with at your age, My bestfriend is an atheist and makes sound reasonable judgements, But what you can come up with is that a belief in WEARING BOXERS RATHER THAN TIGHTS IS ALSO A BELIEVE,

What do you want me to do?? Quote dictionaries, I will, Webstar says religion is ''a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith'' And Atheist is ''one who believes that there is no deity''

The keyword being belief, If you are going to argue then do it logical, Being an atheist you guys are suppose to be very logical and you always come with proofs of this and that,

An atheist doesn't simply lack positive belief in God. The atheist has positive belief in the non-existence of God."

Atheists are hypocrites for attacking the faithful when atheism itself is a result of faith. Even a court declared it a religion http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

Religion is a philosophy of life. So is atheism. Examples are Secular Humanism and even forms of buddhism. Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism (Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx).

Religion has its faithful believers, who guard the orthodoxy of the faith. So does atheism. Religions believe in Eschatology, And most atheists believe in this even though its not about goin to heaven or hell, 

And religion is a matter of faith, not certainty. Your own faithful say that,  Cosidering science changes everyday but the WORD OF GOD Christianity remains the same,

Dont argue like a retard, U are shaming the nigerian population,  If you u see a flaw in my argument , correct ME, 

Agressiveness is not the method to argue, It shows WEAKNESS , Do you think i didnt read all the posts before commenting? D guy said ATHIESM should also be regulated since its a religion, And yes it is a religion!!!

if you are going to talk about something, Back it UP, OK, Dont ARgue like a DULL CHILD ,

ROTFLOL . . . see koboko!   

Good for the tax evaders   well not so good now they've been caught.
When you sweat to make your millions the govt. waltzes in and robs you of >50% of it why won't they go and hide it elsewhere?

The difference btw them and their Nigerian counterparts is that they toiled and sweat for their riches, the Nigerian ones stole theirs.

The Celtics have disgraced themselves  they will not get any ticket money from me this season . . .













uhmm unless they play ridiculously well 

Kai! is it true?

Max, Vesc and No2 - have any of you seen G.I. Joe? tell the truth and shame the devil

[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=304656.msg4343127#msg4343127 date=1250135623]on the contrary[b] i think america is a great country[/b].[/quote]Correct boy, here's another small for you 

Once upon a time I used to be anti-american. I bought into the hype and criticisms of all the other nations pointing accusing fingers at the US. Until I grew up and realized that America is the convenient bucket in which much of the world likes to throw in the blame all too often without looking at themselves in the mirror first. Which country on the face of the planet goes around doing humanitarian deeds out of the goodness of their hearts? which country doesn't serve its own selfish intrests? The same sins they accuse America of, they are also guilty of such and worse. I acknowledge the many many faults of America, but I still think she's done a lotta good in the world (even while profiting herself) that is oftentimes ignored, while the ignorers stand pointing accusing fingers without doing anything to help themselves.

when u hear ''give me back my america'' in a healthcare townhall, a man brings a gun at a townhall for healthcare which the president is coming and has a sign saying . . ''it is time to water the tree of liberty'' . . a famous statement from thomas jefferson which in full is . . ''the tree of liberty is watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots'' . . . only tayo d will believe this guy came to discuss healthcare.

Yeah there's a study out showing a sharp rise in anti-govt militia groups on US soil. No one can deny racism is still a driving factor in some people hatred towards the present administration. However I would like to think its a small minority, I don't think these "tensions" are anything more than just a small blimp on the radar.

Ibime:
Some Americans are so stupid.

I fixed your quote for you. You're welcome. 

I am happy that those of us in the civilised world have "had our freedom taken" by universal healthcare. Its quite obvious that America is not in the civilised world.

Say what you will but America is a country founded on independence and one that heralds personal freedom and champions the cause for as little government interference/intervention as necessary. People are confused and angry that this govt appears to be diverting away from those principles - this is what people are angry and frustrated about.

Perhaps socialized healthcare or public & private options work for other nations, though with some problems - Americans don't want it. We want the current system to be fixed and costs to be managed and monitored and assitance to be provided to those citizens who can't afford it. Some hot shot british politician was on Fox last night (Daniel something) wondering why in the world America would want to go down the British route    I guess not all your fellow Brits are siked about your healthcare system.

America doesn't[b] need [/b] to follow the British or Canadian model - she needs to come up with her own that works for her.

Why is this thread populated by wusses scared of a lil' horror?

Max, Vesc and No2 go and report yourselves to Freddy Krueger immediately.

Recognise:
[center]NIV BIBLE QUIZ[/center]
INSTRUCTIONS:
Using the New International Version Bible (NIV), answer the following questions.

Do not rely on your memory.

As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse

(Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.)

Wayo boy is back  . Whether you like it or not, footnotes are in every NIV bible including mine  . We NIV users are not 'missing' any scriptures.
and you still have not responded to this article https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-307915.0.html#msg4328145
we are patiently waiting.

Lol . . . G.I. Joe the "summer blockbuster"   
well I haven't seen it, but I've seen who's in it and that's enough for me to declare it 'unwatchable' . A friend saw it and said it was crap.

JK,
  I've seen Eagle Eye if you decide to review that next.

SeanT21:
Goat Meat with pepper soup is the way to go.

hehe . . . correct girl

Re: Spiritual Christians Vs. Logical Christians : Where Do You Stand?

Neither. I stand with the Bible Christians.

-Do you know it is possible for 2 christians to believe differently about something and both be right?

Rom 14
1. Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
2. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak,
eats only vegetables.
3. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and
the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does,
for God has accepted him.
4. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls.
And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5. One man considers one day more sacred than another;
another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat,
eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains,
does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.


  Tonye you're trying to project your personal convictions on disputable matters such as tithing, tatooing etc onto other christians and that is wrong.

ROTFLOL . . . Nollywood Pocahontas?  for the singular reason of it being "horrendously comical" I could entertain such a viewing if I so needed a good laugh 

Spiked,
crazy ke? nah not even close to you or iice

[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=304656.msg4340614#msg4340614 date=1250092618]@jesoul
i am a man of peace meanwhile, that kiss u sent me in that other post, i enjoyed it soooo much. it's been a loooong time [/quote] lol see this boy, I say no put me for trouble oh. Next thing I know somebody will report me to the whitehouse snitch-line 

anyway, finally someone is interested in talking health care. now that u have seen the light, i want to let u know that there are intelligent republicans out there who have good ideas. only the limbaughs and pallins wont let them speak up. they are drwoned in the ignorance of the loudest bomboclaats like pallin . . . . making it look like the republican party is a party of hoodlums.

Men, I like Palin, but I think she's extreme and unreasonable atimes. I hope she doesn't run for president in 2012 - I don't think she has what it takes to run America and in essence the world . . . although it would appear in more recent years the bar seems to be set pretty low for the American presidency 

truth is, there is no healthcare bill. are u shocked , that is the truth. obama wanted congress to pass a bill by august but congress decided to delay it so they can go to their constituencies to discuss with their people . . . . . the same people who dont want to discuss

however, there are proposals, in the houseof rep, a different one in the senate. infact there are many proposals in the house . . . . no bill yet. . . .but until i see poeple coming out in their numbers to support the attempt to reform healthcare, i wont add to the debate . . . .i'm out

So what was Obama in such a hurry to 'pass' before August? This is one of the things that has been leaving me (and I'm sure many others) confused. Why was he in such a rush to pass an unfinished, unfinalized, undebated massive healthcare insurance bill?

  People want to discuss, I think they are just frustrated with many of the problems we have that they are channelling all their anger into the healthcare townhalls - and justifiably so. Many people feel like congress doesn't listen and so they've had to resort to screaming and shouting at them - well they've sure got their attention now. Same congress who were about to pass $500 million for new private jets few days ago in these tough economic times until people cried foul, why won't americans be angry?

[quote author=Black_Revo link=topic=306910.msg4340798#msg4340798 date=1250094558]Thank you and that's what i have been trying to explain all these while that she just merely refused to come to Nigeria but the marriage was not dissolved neither was there any divorce. So they are both still legally married and and therefore the church is right.[/quote]Uhm doesn't the article say this:

On 26 April this year, Ighodalo granted an interview to ThisDay newspaper where he spoke  on why he divorced his first wife.

Ighodalo said he married a fellow accountant, Lucy-Ann Summer whom he said he met “while I was going up and down” in 1995.

He disclosed that Ann refused to join him in Nigeria and after much persuasion failed, she left. “Because the expectations from the marriage were not met, she met someone else that met those expectations…,” the pastor added.

This clearly states that she left him for someone else. Whether or not they were divorced at the time is not the issue - She left him for someone else! therefore he is free to remarry.

     Pres-elect ejo no put me for trouble oh 

So over the past few days I have dedicated some real time to looking deeper into this bill and have found that some of the claims from opponents such as the mandatory end-of-life counselling sessions are stretched from what is actually said in the bill - so in truth there is some misinformation out there. In my opinion I think the WH is spending so much time responding to what is not in the bill instead of clearly telling us what's in it.

@All,
  Let us take a different approach in this debate shall we? Pretend Jesoul doesn't know jack about the bill as you answer (for some of you that should be an easy task since you already think so  ) but I'll keep my questions simple and if you can also keep your answers simple:

- Will any part of the healthcare reform bill provide coverage for illegal immigrants?
- If not what plan does the WH have to address the issue of uncovered illegal immigrants?
- How does the WH plan to pay for the bill? (as they have said the proposed savings won't cover all the costs). My state Mass. is on the brink of bankruptcy because of the 'healthcare reform' they started few yrs ago without fully knowing how we'd pay for it.
- What are the issues/problems with the Canadian or British health-care system? do you think those issues would be greater or lesser if America had a similar system?

  Thanks for you answers in advance & more questions to come . . .

imhotep:
I've been cool my dear sister. But very busy. That is why I have not been responding to many posts. Please bear with me. How has it been with you? I spent some time living with lepers and TB patients. . . actually I was the chaplain in a leper settlement. . . and I learnt a whole lot from them . . .and I must confess that my world view has altered a little. Among the lepers, it does not matter whether you are catholic, methodist, muslim or atheist. . . you are a REJECTED leper . . . and I was a Catholic chaplain ministering to these people. . . many were lepers long before I was born!!!

Very courageous & very intresting. Care to explain more about that?
 

Actually the story is not a doctrine. . . not even an attempt at it. It is meant to move SOMETHING in you.

You know I get that.

But what I also know is that the concept of the gospel of Christ (John 3:16-18) is offensive & bigoted to any mind that hasn't been regenerated - that's what I was trying to point out. We cannot be concerned about how the world views us, but moreso whether or not we're speaking the truth to them.

hehe see this yeye boy refusing to accept the plain, simple truth 

any verse or section that has been "omitted" in the NIV from the KJV can be found clearly stated in a footnote at the bottom of the same page of the same NIV bible being read from. and the glaring refusal of the author of the so-called perversions to recognise (pun intended ) this is highly suspect.

  You don't have to worry about coming across as 'brash'    I can handle it  .  I see no need to go thru the rest of the so-called perversions listed on that website - they are all sensationalized. As far as I'm concerned the NIV bible preaches the unadulterated gospel of Christ, a few word differences here n there do not have any significant effect on its message at all.

By the way you did not comment on this article:

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

By: Daniel B. Wallace
  Download Word Doc
First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.2

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?3

To read all the text go here
http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Cheers!

Recognise:
Still awaiting you to publish here what  the following verses say from HIV NIV:

1) Matthew 18:11

Let me give you one response to this particular verse to wet your appetite, then I have to be out in a minute.

KJV, Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. You're right Matt 18:11 does not 'exist' in the NIV bible.
   BUT before you smile in false victory the NIV CLEARLY states this after verse 10:
" For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven[b].[a][/b]

  the[b] [a] [/b] directs readers to the bottom of the page in the footnotes section where it says this clearly:

Matthew 18:10 Some manuscripts heaven. 11 The Son of Man came to save what was lost.

There. Where's the conspiracy and deliberate omission by the NIV to pervert the bible? why did they include it in the footnote eh? I am willing to bet for every "omitted" verse in the NIV, there is a clear, concise, easily visible at the bottom of the page footnote stating that exact same thing as in the KJV.

Recognise:
I like the manner you selectively quote and chose your responses

How did you manage to miss the below and not address it as well

[center]" . . . Trust me NIV is corrupt and perverted

It is lethal and dangerous if in the hands of those that dont know or are naive"[/center]

Okay so are you saying the NIV is okay for some people but not for others? I don't want to misunderstand you.

Have you not noticed that no one has grasped the bull by the horns

ah ah see dis wayo boy   didn't you see AIO's response and my first response to the website you presented as evidence? Don't make me come over there  

an example is "familiar spirits" albeit inspite of it, you are now familiar with the phrase, excuse the pun

hehe Jesoul is not 'familiar' with every phrase in the bible. I will miss and forget certain ones especially the ones I don't use or hear often or are not used in the version I use often.

Jay please can you publish here what  the following verses say from your NIV:

1) Matthew 18:11
2) Matthew 17:21
3) Mark 15:28
4) John 5:4
5) Acts 8:37
6) Romans 16:24

Disclaimer! Weather check, you're due for a disappointment because you wouldnt find such verses in HIV NIV.

Don't worry homeboy   I will get to those in a little bit. I'm busy pointing out the sensationalized ones on http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm  

Alleged Perverison #2: The NIV perverts the virgin birth. Luke 2:33

KJV-
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NIV-
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Bone of contention? NIV says "Father" KJV says "Joseph. Quote from the website:http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth.

Seriously? I'll let the readers judge for themselves if this is a serious enough offense by the NIV.

By the way, we should also chastise Mary for refering to Joseph as Jesus's father in yes the KJV:
Luke 2:48
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Pastor AIO:
Here's a website that is a great resource for anyone who really wants to study the bible deeply by looking at the various original manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew:

http://biblos.com/

This is what it has to say about Mark 10:14

All you have to do is put your cursor over a greek word and it will give you it's various meanings.

http://biblos.com/mark/10-14.htm

Thanks for the link, most appreciated!

Pastor AIO:
It is off topic but I'll answer briefly. Save for the psalms proverbs and a couple of others it doesn't really speak to me and there is not much that I can apply to my life in them.

hmm, intresting. I find the OT bursting at the seams with stories of very practical applications. I would like to discuss this more sometime with you. I shall open a topic at some point. Thanks & Cheers!

Now addressing "evidence" purporting the NIV bible presents a perverted gospel as outlined by Terry Watkins on www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

#1. In dispute: NIV perverts the deity of Christ.
      Really? 1 Tim 3:16
KJV -
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
    God was manifest in the flesh,
     justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
   preached unto the Gentiles,
    believed on in the world,
    received up into glory.

NIV -
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
  He[a*] appeared in a body,[b*]
     was vindicated by the Spirit,
  was seen by angels,
     was preached among the nations,
  was believed on in the world,
     was taken up in glory.

The bone of contention is that "He" instead of "God" and "Body" instead of "Flesh" is used in the NIV. I doubt I need to point out the ridiculousness of such an assertion that this supposedly "perverts the diety of Christ".

But the bigger point which the author shamelessly fails to point out is that in the NIV bible it clearly makes this observation in the footnotes on the same page in its bibles (linked by the [a*][b*] markers in the verses):

[a*]-1 Timothy 3:16 Some manuscripts God
[b*]-1 Timothy 3:16 Or in the flesh

so if the NIV is truly trying to change 'God to Him' and 'Flesh to Body' why would it include that footnote on the same page as the verse to guide readers?