Iglesia ni Cristo member deceived about Romans 16:16

Plaridel's invitation letter to his post at Arefenos blog

Let me quote this Iglesia ni Cristo member's best introduction:

Here is a commentary on CD2000's post "INC Ministers' willful DISHONESTY and INFIDELITY to the SCRIPTURES!" He intends to prove that it is not "iglesia ni Cristo" in the bible but "iglesya ni Cristo". My friends, we know that here may be different verisons of the Bible. What version of the bible is he using in his post? he has this picture: But what version is he using? The picture does not show the version or publisher.

MR. PLARIDEL, let me help you unzip a very simple and obvious analysis here. Romans 16:16 is NEITHER about the translation NOR it was about the SPELLING. It doesn't concerns me a lot.

It doesn’t matter if the word “church” in Tagalog is spelled “iglesia” or “iglesya”. But it definitely CONCERNS me when your Iglesia ni Cristo cult DELIBERATELY ALTERED what was written in Romans 16:16 to be a PROPER NOUN "Iglesia" or "Iglesya".  

Please care to read what was written in your PASUGO as your Ministers QUOTED the same passage from Romans 16:16?

With DUE RESPECT, in all TRANSLATIONS of the Bible, Romans 16:16 has these words “… churches” NOT “Churches”. It has “… mga iglesia” NOT “… mga Iglesia” or Iglesya. (even the Lamsa Translation has it).

See now the difference?

That was what Mr. Plaridel is trying to do. Deviate your attention to something else.

He said that the Bible I quoted was:

"...actually a pocket new testament [emphasis mine], was printed by the American Bible society in accordance with the Philippines Agency,and was approve by the Japanese government on October 29 1942, with the name on the top being "ANG BAGONG TIPAN". I think its a translation form the King James Version. It does say Iglesia Ni Cristo"

"Mangagbatian kayo ng banal na halik. Binahat ng mabati kayo ng lahat ng mga iglesia ni Cristo"

IN the "dating salin" version of the bible also known as Tagalog Bible number 53, it says the same thing "iglesia ni Cristo"

There you are. You were caught LYING again and deceiving many.

And to cut short of his conceited ARROGANCE, let me prove to you that the Bible I quoted WAS NOT a "POCKET BIBLE".  It's an 8 INCHES length Bible version called "Magandang Balita BIBLIA may Deuterocanonico" -- a Catholic Bible in Tagalog.

The rest of his deceiving tactics you can read, and I quote:

But regarding the verses that he used they are in the bible but they cab (sic) be used againt the Catholic Church with courage and with proof. Want to see why? Click here for the video. This happened on August 5 2006. On the INC side it is brother Ramil Parba and on the catholic side in Mr. Talibong. this makes me laugh because of what happened. The catholics usually use verse Mathew 16:18 in their debates but this one just makes the best and most embarrassing for catholics. On the page where the verse Matthew 16:18 is found the page was clearly changed. the page itself was changes with new paper. They went a few steps further by doing that not just overlapping it with a small cut of paper. The words in that verse of any bible do not say the words "Roman catholic Apostolic". THis just proves how desperate catholics come when it comes to debates, that they would add to the bible or change it in some way. ouch.

That just hurts you guys. I guess CD2000 is not that keen on what he says. sorry CD2000 :)

And the saddest part of his article? He wanted to prove his case through a link at a YouTube video but for 12 hours the video just didn't play at all.

Poor Iglesia, his only weapon to tear down my credibility wasn't siding with him.

Try your best luck again Mr. Plaridel!