Hi Tom, bottom line again.  You say very clearly: "THE KJV DOES CONTAIN ERRORS, AND ALL TRANSLATIONS DO!"

Tom, it is clear that you yourself believe that every Bible version every person here is reading "contains errors".  Therefore, it is your stated opinion that there is no inerrant Bible.  This has been and continues to be my main point.  You just confirmed it.

I have read through all the responses and posts here, and so far not a single person has come right out and affirmed that any Bible or any text in any language IS NOW the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God.

Did you bother to read through the original post that started this whole conversation?  Did you read about how recent polls show that most future pastors do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant?

Did you read what the Bible says about itself and how God promised to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away?

Do you have such a Book?  What is it called and where can we get a copy?  You tell us that all translations have errors .  OK, then, exactly where can we find the inerrant Bible?  Or is it your belief that no such thing exists on this earth?

Will K

Hi all, sorry about confusing Tom and Cris, my mistake.  Thanks for the correction.

BP asked:

Tell us EXACTLY where this word of God existed before the KJB and more importantly, exactly where it exists now,

You said:  "In our hearts - same place it exists now and forever.  

The written Word simply strengthens the resolve in Him already present in our hearts via the Spirit.  To me, arguing versions of the written word makes about as much sense as arguing that a particular spoken accent is better than another - but it isn't Billy Graham's southern accent that saves folks - it's his ability to awaken the Word that is already a seed in each man's heart.

Fairly heated discussion for a non-salvation issue."

Hi Judge not, I'm afraid you are off in the land of mysticism and make believe with your idea that "the word of God" was and always will be in our hearts, and particularly with the last statement about "the written Word's ability to awaken the Word that is already a seed in each man's heart."

JN, this is totally against the sound doctrine of the Bible, and it is New Age Mysticism.  There is no "seed" within each man's heart to begin with.  There is no divine spark that needs to be awakened.

The Bible teaches that the natural man is dead spiritually and has no desire for the true God.  It is the written or spoken words of God that are essential to the new birth.

James 1:18 "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."

Your idea that somehow the word of God is natually in every man's heart is pure New Age theology - it is not at all what the Bible (any bible) teaches.

You are going off into the area of "What is true for you may not be true for me".  God does write His laws in the hearts of those who have been born again by the written word, but only these and no others.  And if this  "word in our hearts" does not agree with the written words in the inerrant Bible, then something is seriously wrong.  

The ideas you just expressed are not what is taught in the Bible at all.  I hope you can see this.

Will K

While the KJV can be hard to understand, sometimes it can be good to "stretch your mental muscles" rather than take the easy path. I personally use it, having started out with it, but I don't worship it. I am just suspicious of the agendas of those who translated some of the more recent versions. The OLD American Standard version isn't bad, if you can find one.

Of course, if you really want accuracy, you can study Greek and Hebrew and get versions in the original languages to read!!! I never had time for that. I do look up the Greek or Hebrew in Strong's Concordance some times to check the meaning.

Hi Rhys, thanks for the thoughts.  However it still looks like you do not believe The Bible (any Bible) is now today the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God.

Are you aware that the Old ASV of 1991 differs radically from the King James Bible in omitting some 17 entire verses from the New Testament?  Have you ever seen how the ASV degrades the Person of Christ by its footnote in John 9:38?

The verse reads: "And he said, Lord, I believe.  And he worshipped* him."

Then the ASV footnote reveals their anti-Christ mindset saying: "The Greek word (worshipped) denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a a creature AS HERE, or to the Creator."

Fine bunch of scholars these guys were, huh?

So, the bottom line is You do not believe The Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, right?

God bless,

Will

OK gotcha104..................what's your point in all of this?  The bottom line....................let's have it.

Tom, I must confess, I'm a little surprised you don't clearly see what I'm getting at.  It is in the very title of this thread.

Most Christians today do NOT BELIEVE The Bible (any Bible or any text in any language, be it Hebrew, Greek, Swalhili or whatever) ----do not believe The Bible IS NOW the inerrant and inspired words of God and all we need for our faith and practice.

Many "doctrinal beliefs" sections on many internet sites blithely site something like "we believe the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God", yet when you ask them to tell you what these Scriptures are called and where we can get a copy of them, then they begin the soft shoe shuffle routine, accompanied with baloons and dancing bears, about "only the originals were inspired", and thus today we do not have an inerrant Bible but only differing, conflicting and contradictory ballpark approximations found in multiple choice "reliable versions", that nobody considers to actually BE the inerrant words of God.

This is the bottom line, and it still holds true.  It is true of you and it is true of most members on this forum.

I believe God has kept His promises.  He did not lie to us.  He has given the world His inerrant and complete words and all the evidence clearly points to the King James Bible as being The true and inerrant word of God.  This is my point.

What do you think?

Will K

[All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.]

Matt 4:8-9

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
KJV


Tell me are these the words of God?

Hi Reba, nice question.  A little tricky, but nice.  Some of the words recorded here were spoken by Satan, but they are recorded in the Bible, and as such, they form part of the word of God.

Now, being less tricky, but more critical to the issue at hand (The inerrant Bible), are Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.";  Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting"; Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost", and Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation"----are all these verses inspired Scripture or not?

Are you aware that the NIV, ESV omit them from the text?  The nasb differs from one edition to the next, some omitting the verses and others putting them in brackets, indicating that they are not inspired Scripture.
 

These are just 4 examples of a hundred I could give you.

Did God inspire these words or not.  Remember, the Lord Jesus said "heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away", and all these 4 examples are the words of Jesus or they aren't.  So which is it?  Either the KJB added these words, in which case it is a false bible with errors, or the NIV omitted them, and it is false.  You can't have it both ways.

Awaiting your thoughts.

God bless,

Will

Hi Ollie, here is part of your post:

I had asked: "Now, about that inspired and inerrant Bible that tells us all these things - Do you believe such a thing exists?  If so, name it for us please.  If not, then just tell us so we will know where your are coming from on this vital issue."


Then you ask: "Why? What is your point? What are you trying to prove? Why is this issue vital? What does it have to do with one's faith?"

Ollie, it has to do with the central and critical doctrine of an inerrant Bible.  What is happening today is that most seminarians and future pastors, and more and more "laity" in the pews, no longer believe The Bible or any bible IS now the inerrant words of God.

If you think this is a minor issue, then maybe it is already too late for you.  The Bible is the foundation of everything a Christian believes.  It is God's revelation to sinful men.  Satan always tries to get man to question the truth of the Bible and he has been largely successful, particularly in the last 100 years or so.

Most Christians today do not believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God.  Sure, there are a lot of verses that are the same (as you pointed out), but there are literally HUNDREDS of verses that are totally different in both meaning and text.

There are anywhere from 17 to 40 entire verses missing in many modern New Testaments like the NIV, RSV.  PLUS a couple thousand other words and phrases completely gone.  God either inspired these words or He didn't.  God either kept His promises to preserve His wordS till heaven and earth pass away, or He lied.

Tell me which bible version out there you personally think is the closest to the non-existent and never seen "originals", and I will point out just a few of the many very real and significant differences for you.  Is it the NIV, the NASB, NKJV, ESV, or what?  Give it a name and then we will look at some concrete examples rather than theories and speculations, OK?

Thanks,

Will K

gotcha104,
 "God's Word", the Holy Bible, has survived and will survive with or without King James or any other group of translators. You know that and so do I. God's Word was preached and studied before King James, and the same will be true after King James, with or without the KJV......I'll also repeat that I believe the KJV to be the best translation.


Love In Christ,
Tom

Hi Tom, thanks for the response and agreeing that the title "the Word" or "the Word of God" refers to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tom, I don't believe I avoided or refused to answer your questions.  My initial post clearly shows that most Christians today do not believe any Bible or any single text in any language IS now the inerrant, complete, and infallible words of God.  Neither do you.

You have not identified what this inerrant Bible is called and you think the KJB has errors in it.  So, if any bible version has errors in it, then to that degree it cannot be the inerrant words of God.

You seem to be equating "the word of God" to "the gospel of salvation".  This is not strickly accurate at all.  When I speak of The Bible, I am referring to the entire 66 books compiled into one single Book that includes the whole counsel of God and all that He has chosen to reveal to us.

Do you have or do you believe in such an inerrant and complete Book?  Apparently, in your view, it is not the King James Bible, so exactly what are you referring to when you talk about "The Holy Bible" which has survived before and after the KJB?

Tom, spell it out for us in very clear terms, OK?  It seems you are using pious sounding words that have no real substance.  If I am wrong about this, then please correct how I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Where was this "The Holy Bible" before the King James Bible, and where is it now?  Where can I get a copy of it?

These are simple and direct questions.  I hope you will not avoid answering them.  You tell me I have avoided answering yours, and I fail to see how I did that.  Then you tell me you are not going to answer mine until I answer yours.  Who is really doing the avoiding here?

Please give us a straight up answer to these simple questions I just posted again, so we will all know exactly where you are coming from on this vital issue.  Thanks,

Will K

Hi again Tom, I thought I would also post something regarding the quote you took OUT OF CONTEXT from the King James Bible Preface.  By the way, I do not defend the KJB translators nor their Preface; I defend only the TEXT of the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved, inspired and always truthful words of God.

Anyway, here is some info regarding that phrase "variety of translations".


Variety of translations



        Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:

"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. Having a variety of translations available is a precious tool in the struggle against religious fundamentalism."





One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2).

One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below:

Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts.

Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. Jame R. White writes, "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77).

The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:

There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement . . .Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."


Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale  omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts.

The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.

Will Kinney

Can a Translation be Inspired?

I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?

Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.

" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.

Will K

Hi Tom, thanks for the thoughts and questions.

Here is part of your post:
Let's just use ONLY your logic and argument on this issue and see what we come up with. God's Word didn't exist before King James.
Now, that's silly - isn't it?


Tom, it is apparent that you did not read my opening posts very well, or look at the links I provided.  Again, you are confusing The Word (the Son of God) with the word - the written revelation of God.

Of course, the Son of God has always existed.  He is eternal God, but we know absolutely nothing about Him without "the words of God" in written form.

I too believe God has always had His words preserved here on this earth, even before the King James Bible.  I have addressed this on my site in an article "Where was the word of God before 1611?"

Here it is again: http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/before1611.html
 
You ask: Do you use the 1611 version of the King James?  If not - why not? Again, let me help you out some. you probably use a revision of the KJV from about 1769 like I do. Reversing the "u" and "v" and other quirks of Old English make the 1611 version very difficult to use. Using your complete logic, you should be using nothing but the 1611 version.

Tom, one of the links I initially provided deals with this issue of the so called Revisions.  The underlying Hebrew and Greek TEXT of the KJB has never changed.  



You ask: Is the KJV THE BIBLE - or just a translation of THE BIBLE?

Tom, you've got yourself in a pickle on this one.  Are you saying that a translation CANNOT be the inspired words of God?

Where did you ever get this idea?  Certainly not from the Bible.

Please read my article Can a Translation be Inspired?  Then see if what you say or imply is Biblical or not.

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/transinsp.html

I may just go ahead and post it so others can see if this idea that "No translation is inspired" comes from the Bible itself or mere human reasoning.



You close with - Does the KJV have errors?  YES!

In short, I believe the KJV is the best English translation of the Holy Bible. BUT, the Word of God existed before King James, and it exists without King James now.


OK, Tom.  Let's try to clear this up a bit, OK?  Tell us EXACTLY where this word of God existed before the KJB and more importantly, exactly where it exists now, so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy of it and compare it to what you think is the best English translation.

I await your answer.  Thanks,

Will

I just looked at the words...    Word as in John 1:1 and word as in John 2 :22

The given meaning is the same according to esword. No change because of the capital W. The inerrent scriptures plainly say ...

John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
KJV

Chris, first of all "the Word" (capital letter) refers to the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.  "the word" or "the words of God" refers to His written revelation.  Without this written revelation called The Bible we are in total darkness about Who God is and what He has done for His people in Christ.

Rom 1:19-20

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV

Hi Reba, thanks for your comments.  Every Bible I am aware of makes the distinction between the Word (capital letter) referring to the Son of God, and "the word" (small letter) referring to the written or spoken word.

Is esword your inspired Bible?  You have yet to tell us if you believe The Bible or any bible or any text out there in wonderland is the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God.  Could you do that for us please?

As for the very good reference you gave us in Romans 1, I am well aware of this verse, but all it proves is we can know by the creation only two things about God -#1 He exists and #2 He is powerful.  Without the written revelation from God as found in The Bible, we know absolutely nothing about Who He is, What He is like, Who the Son of God is, and what He has done for His people.

We also would know nothing at all about the true nature of man, how man responds to the covenants of God, prophesy, the fall of Satan, the entrance of sin, the redemption in Christ or any number of hundreds of other divine revelations.

If we did not have the Bible, we would all be heathens and pagans.

Now, about that inspired and inerrant Bible that tells us all these things - Do you believe such a thing exists?  If so, name it for us please.  If not, then just tell us so we will know where your are coming from on this vital issue.

God bless,

Will K

I see this question asked again and again.  John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  There is NOT a lot of room for interpretation there.  

The Word is alive just as surely as God is alive.  The True Word is not labeled KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASB, NASB, ASV, DT, LSD, NORAD, USMC or anything else.  The Word is God.  The Word is Jesus.  The Word is the Spirit.  

The Word lives.

There is no “version” of the Word – God never changes.  As far as I’ve read, John 3:16 says the same thing regardless of man’s ‘version’.

If someone announces “my version is the correct version” I believe that person confuses 'correct' with 'personal preference'.    

Hi Judge Not, saint, I think you are confusing two different things here.  "The Word" does refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  However "the word of God" refers to His written revelation.  Without an inerrant Bible we really do not know anything - NOTHING AT ALL -about The Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

May I invite you to take a look at one of the two topics here and then respond more in depth?  Read either "The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God" or "No Doctrines are Changed"?

Do all these "bibles" teach the same things about The Word?
No, they don't.

Do we have an inerrant Bible or just conflicting ballpark approximations of what God may or may not have said?

Did God keep His promises to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth, or did He lie or exaggerate about this?

Looking forward to hearing from you,

God bless,

Will K

1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, ESV, NKJV teach - "but Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints" or "Judah is UNRULY with God, even AGAINST the Holy One who is faithful" as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

The Holman Standard is even weirder than them all. It says: "Judah still wanders with El and is faithful to holy ones." Say what?

Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly?

If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true?

If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth?

Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?

Will Kinney

Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Pegotcha2ta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."

Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."

We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."

NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."

ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."

ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."

The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.

For a more detailed study of who rules the world see:

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/controlworld.html

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pegotcha2ta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."

John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.

"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."

Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.

See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at:

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/hastingunto.html