Religion - I am A?

[12th Doctor]

I'm sorry, you are correct, it is wrtten in Middle English, I concede the point.

Early Modern English I think... Chaucer was Middle English... not a massive difference though. I'm just being a pedant

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah... it was the same priest for both funerals, So I guess it was his idea; he'd rigged up some spotlights to shine on the coffin.

That really shouldn't be.  Your Catholic friends might have a complaint there.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

[12th Doctor]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm sorry, you are correct, it is wrtten in Middle English, I concede the point.

Early Modern English I think... Chaucer was Middle English... not a massive difference though. I'm just being a pedant

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah... it was the same priest for both funerals, So I guess it was his idea; he'd rigged up some spotlights to shine on the coffin.

That really shouldn't be.  Your Catholic friends might have a complaint there.

I'll tell them that. Thanks

[12th Doctor]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

[12th Doctor]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

The NIV bible is the most commonly used bible in america tday

[12th Doctor]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

The NIV bible is the most commonly used bible in america tday

I just looked it up.  It is the "New International Version", for Protestants.  My bible was translated by Catholic Theologins and the text was reveiwed by Protestants to confim the validity of the translations.

My bible was Translated directly from Greek, yours was translated from German, which was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek.  An awful lot gets lost in translation.

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccuratly put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

The NIV bible is the most commonly used bible in america tday

I just looked it up.  It is the "New International Version", for Protestants.  My bible was translated by Catholic Theologins and the text was reveiwed by Protestants to confim the validity of the translations.

My bible was Translated directly from Greek, yours was translated from German, which was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek.  An awful lot gets lost in translation.

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccuratly put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

THe KJV was not.. it translation from Hewbrew and Latin.

[12th Doctor]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

The NIV bible is the most commonly used bible in america tday

I just looked it up.  It is the "New International Version", for Protestants.  My bible was translated by Catholic Theologins and the text was reveiwed by Protestants to confim the validity of the translations.

My bible was Translated directly from Greek, yours was translated from German, which was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek.  An awful lot gets lost in translation.

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccuratly put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

THe KJV was not.. it translation from Hewbrew and Latin.

If you KJV was translated from Latin, then it is already more innaccurate than mine, which was translated from the original Greek.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

The NIV bible is the most commonly used bible in america tday

I just looked it up.  It is the "New International Version", for Protestants.  My bible was translated by Catholic Theologins and the text was reveiwed by Protestants to confim the validity of the translations.

My bible was Translated directly from Greek, yours was translated from German, which was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek.  An awful lot gets lost in translation.

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccuratly put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

THe KJV was not.. it translation from Hewbrew and Latin.

If you KJV was translated from Latin, then it is already more innaccurate than mine, which was translated from the original Greek.

Haha, Greek i mean...  sorry.

[angus]

So my hypothesis about how the "praying to saints" misconception came about doesn't necessarily hold.  Unless there's a similar construct in Greek (or Hebrew).   Oh, well, it was just a fleeting idea.  

Anyone know how to say "to ask" and "to pray" in greek?  Are they the same word, or are they different words?

[12th Doctor]

Egyptians were resurrectionists too.  Like Catholics.  I guess that's why they were mortified at the thought of looters coming in to steal their treasures.  Never know when you might need a comb, or your cat, or a bottle of honeywine in the afterlife.

Did William Shakespeare write the King James bible?  Or is that just an urban legend?

urban legend.  Although, it might be a better translation if he had.  

The revised KJV is good though.  But the Old one....

THe revised KJV?

Yes, also known as the "Revised Standard Edition"

Oh, I read teh OLD king james

Yes, I know, the errant edition that almost every Church has done away with.

No, alot of churches in the south still use them.  

Yeah, but the major Churches have done away with them.  The Episcapalians, United Methodists and Lutherans don't use that edition any more.  they use the revised standard edition, because the Original King James Version had too many errors in translation.  It is a fact.  They reviwed the original Greek and found that there was much that didn't match up.

That is what they want you to think. B. F. Westcott  and F. J. A. Hort. Who wrote the Greek manuscript for all the other version of the bible but the kjv were in a cult for the devil.


Here is a link...
http://www.historicist.com/hw.htm


Also they were part of the New Age movement

This is about the New Age movement
http://www.contenderministries.org/newage.php

All this proves is that you are beyond reason.  The manuscripts for mine were translated by Catholic theologins.  I don't even know what the Hell the NIV version is.  I don't use it.

The NIV bible is the most commonly used bible in america tday

I just looked it up.  It is the "New International Version", for Protestants.  My bible was translated by Catholic Theologins and the text was reveiwed by Protestants to confim the validity of the translations.

My bible was Translated directly from Greek, yours was translated from German, which was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek.  An awful lot gets lost in translation.

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccuratly put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

THe KJV was not.. it translation from Hewbrew and Latin.

If you KJV was translated from Latin, then it is already more innaccurate than mine, which was translated from the original Greek.

Haha, Greek i mean...  sorry.

*Pounds head on wall*

It is still an errant translation.  I'll research it, hang onl.

[12th Doctor]

Here Josh, read this

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kjv.htm

[12th Doctor]

Here is a more scholarly site:

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccurately put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

Here is my take on the different translations:

My favorite is the Catholic DR Bible translated by Jerome.

The KJV compares well with the DR bible, except that the KJV has some passages (like 1John 5:7 and changing Passover to "Easter" in Acts 12:4) that were clearly added MUCH later.  I don’t like how each verse is broken into a separate paragraph.

The NKJV corrects these KJV additions by removing them and is actually a pretty decent bible.

I have seen several different versions of the Catholic NAB bible with inconsistent translations.  The NAB bible I have at home is different than the NAB translations I find on the Catholic websites.  So, I don't know what to make of it.

The NIV is garbage but is an easy read to get the basic idea and I love it’s paragraph and sub-title form, so I still recommend it.  But, IMO, it is not useful for serious study.

I hate the Amplified Bible because it interprets the passage instead of translating the passage.  It also waters down the word of God by adding many words to it.  My copy of it is stuck away in some box in the attic.  The only thing that kept me from burning it was that it is a bible.

I can’t stand the NASB, but I can’t remember why since it has been 10 years since I picked one up.

I have no experience with the NLT or any of the other translations.

[12th Doctor]

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccurately put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

Here is my take on the different translations:

My favorite is the Catholic DR Bible translated by Jerome.

The KJV compares well with the DR bible, except that the KJV has some passages (like 1John 5:7 and changing Passover to "Easter" in Acts 12:4) that were clearly added MUCH later.  I don’t like how each verse is broken into a separate paragraph.

The NKJV corrects these KJV additions by removing them and is actually a pretty decent bible.

I have seen several different versions of the Catholic NAB bible with inconsistent translations.  The NAB bible I have at home is different than the NAB translations I find on the Catholic websites.  So, I don't know what to make of it.

The NIV is garbage but is an easy read to get the basic idea and I love it’s paragraph and sub-title form, so I still recommend it.  But, IMO, it is not useful for serious study.

I hate the Amplified Bible because it interprets the passage instead of translating the passage.  It also waters down the word of God by adding many words to it.  My copy of it is stuck away in some box in the attic.  The only thing that kept me from burning it was that it is a bible.

I can’t stand the NASB, but I can’t remember why since it has been 10 years since I picked one up.

I have no experience with the NLT or any of the other translations.

I don't claim that the NAB is the definative translation, but you would agree with me that is better than the KJV?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't claim that the NAB is the definative translation, but you would agree with me that is better than the KJV?

The only know about the NAB version I have at home and is very poor and biased, but like I said, it is NOT the NAB I've seen on the web, so there must be multiple versions of the NAB...which really confuses me.  

I do know the NAB I find on the web corrects a lot of the errors of the NAB I have at home, but I haven't read enough of the web NAB to judge it.

[Brambila]

Katholikos;- meaning, the universal church in both lungs- ORthodox, Catholic.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Any way "them new Liberal Bibles" as you so inaccurately put it are better translations than what you are using.  I'm not entirely certain, but I think Jmfcst would back me on this one.

Here is my take on the different translations:

My favorite is the Catholic DR Bible translated by Jerome.

The KJV compares well with the DR bible, except that the KJV has some passages (like 1John 5:7 and changing Passover to "Easter" in Acts 12:4) that were clearly added MUCH later.  I don’t like how each verse is broken into a separate paragraph.

The NKJV corrects these KJV additions by removing them and is actually a pretty decent bible.

I have seen several different versions of the Catholic NAB bible with inconsistent translations.  The NAB bible I have at home is different than the NAB translations I find on the Catholic websites.  So, I don't know what to make of it.

The NIV is garbage but is an easy read to get the basic idea and I love it’s paragraph and sub-title form, so I still recommend it.  But, IMO, it is not useful for serious study.

I hate the Amplified Bible because it interprets the passage instead of translating the passage.  It also waters down the word of God by adding many words to it.  My copy of it is stuck away in some box in the attic.  The only thing that kept me from burning it was that it is a bible.

I can’t stand the NASB, but I can’t remember why since it has been 10 years since I picked one up.

I have no experience with the NLT or any of the other translations.

But wouldn't be easter? Jesus has already died and came back? Right? I'm not sure.

What are you talking about 1 John 5:7?


Also I would like to point out some things....

Lets take Luke 2:33

KJV-Luke 2
33   And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NIV-Luke 2

33The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

NASB-Luke 2
33   And His father and (1) mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

Ok all of these have Joseph has his father, but the KJV. Now you might say well everyone knows that God is Jesus's father. No, everyone don't, to a lost person that is saying that Joseph is Jesus's father.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In regard to sin, our church rejects any restrictions on personal behavior that isn’t defined as a sin in the NT.

if you're talking about contraception, I agree with you. The Catholics are full of crap in that area. But abortion isn't mentioned in the NT either, and Paul's the only one who complains about homosexuality.

1) God is an invisible spirit
2) There is only one God.
3) God is the creator of the universe.
4) God is omnipresent (he fills the universe), therefore he has the ability to be on earth in the body of Jesus Christ while, at the same exact time, be reigning in Heaven
5) Jesus is God “manifested” in the flesh (1Tim 3:16) and is the exact representation of the image of God’s “being” or “person” (Heb 1:3).
6) Jesus Christ is omni-present (Eph 4:10)
7) Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe (Heb 1:10).
8 ) Believers in Jesus receive ONLY one spirit (1Cor 12:11,13; Eph 2:18, 4:4)
9) The identity of the Holy Spirit is simply God’s spirit, they are synonymous, there is absolutely no difference. (Rom 8:9)
10) The identity of the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus Christ, they are synonymous, there is absolutely no difference. (Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6)

well I can't say I disagree with any of those.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm sorry, you are correct, it is wrtten in Middle English, I concede the point

actually I think it's Early Modern English, I'm not at the transition point though.

I doubt there has ever been a full translation of the Bible into Old English.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But wouldn't be easter? Jesus has already died and came back? Right? I'm not sure.

Easter is not Passover; in fact, by definition they can NOT fall on the same day.  Easter is always the Sunday after Passover, so even if Passover falls on a Sunday, Easter falls on the following Sunday - a whole 7 days later.

The EXACT word in Acts 12:4 the KJV is translating as "Easter" occurs 26 other times in the NT, and that KJV translates that EXACT same word as "Passover" the other 26 times!

There is absolutely no justification for translating it as "Easter", and doing so is clearly a twisting of the scripture.

---

What are you talking about 1 John 5:7?

1John 5:7   "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Before the 16th century, no one had ever heard of this passage.

---

Also I would like to point out some things....

Lets take Luke 2:33

KJV-Luke 2
33   And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NIV-Luke 2

33The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

NASB-Luke 2
33   And His father and (1) mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

Ok all of these have Joseph has his father, but the KJV. Now you might say well everyone knows that God is Jesus's father. No, everyone don't, to a lost person that is saying that Joseph is Jesus's father.

Actually, the NIV and NASB have it correctly, for there is no name of “Joseph” mentioned in the Greek of Luke 2:33:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi?word=joseph&section=2&version=kjv&new=1&oq=joseph

And the NKJV has a footnote stating the same.