ChristiansUnite Forums

I was at another board,and some one show us the latest computer work done on the Bible Manuscripts.It took in muli-billions and billions of information.The result was that the King James Holy Bible is not 99.999999999999999% pure, but that indeed it is 100% pure.It passed the complicated computer analysis,with its reams of material to digest,and proved that the King James is the very words of God.
The site also showed that the scholarship level is steadily declining ever since 1611.
It reminds me of the prophecy in Daniel 12:4b ..even to the time of the end:many shall run to and fro,and knowledge shall be increased.
Even with all of the extra knowledge available we still fall short.I believe it has to do with faith in the BOOK.
 It reminds me of what the Bible says in II Tim 3;Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.That is because so many don't mix their learning with faith.Faith in God and his precious words.They would prefer to be a Bible critic.
But the simple Bible believer knows the truth of the matter,they know that
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,throughly furnished unto all good works.II Tim 3:16,17.The site is at...
  http://biblicaltextualcalculus.com/

Thanks Peter for your support ofthe AV - your type is rare and rapidly going off the scene - stay at it.

The AV we have in our hands today is perfect down to the italicized words - a lot of comfort in that!

God bless

Except for the transliteration and mistranslation...

Honestly, I don't see how any computer test is going to decide something like that.  That is not really dealing with the issue.  

If you say that even the italicized words are inspired, then you are  saying that the KJV is more important than the original languages that the Bible was written in.  

In the margins of the 1611 KJV, there is a not that says Luke 17:36 was not in the majority of the manuscripts.  Which is right?  The margin, or the text?

In the preface to the 1611, the translators said that a variety of translations is necessary to make the proper sense of the words.

Joel

I have found the AKJV to be the most accurate translation in existance today.

It could have been very close to a perfect translation of the original scriptures if the 1611 translators would have left their theology and the opinions of the church leaders in their day out of the work.

Too many times they added words for clarity that opened the door for poor interpretations to exist.

Thus we have hundreds if not thousands of different beliefs existing today because of poor interpretations that have developed many different doctrines adopted by the different churches.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Blessings

Hi Joel

1. I agree but I still like the findings though?

2. Not more important but where do the scriptures say only the originals are inspired - I just posted an article on the originals.

3. This is easy - the text.  

4. Again, don't really care what they translators said - they have their opinions though but the issue is not what they said or hinted at but what God had them put down.

God bless

I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that those foundings really have any significance at all, particularly since I imagine it came from a very biased source.  Computer findings are really not the issue.


The originals were the Word of God which He gave to His people.  I don't think that point can be disputed.  I responded to your other article over there.


Ok, so then the work of the translators was not inspired or directed by God?


You have not proven in any way that what "God had them put down" is better than what "God had the ESV translators" put down.

Disclaimer:  I am not in favor of all new translations, some are wretched.  Nor I am simply wishing to bash the KJV.  Many people have been saved from it.  It has been used by God for many years.  But neither is it the only valid translation.

Joel

I don't think any translation is pure, because there have been so much editing, altering, and re-editing to fit the views of the Catholic church. There are alot of Trinitarian alterations in the Gospels; I think they were just put in there to combat "heretical" views.  I believe we should just go with what the Holy Spirit discerns for us in each and every Biblical passage.  The essence is still there, because Christ would never forsake our yearning for spiritual knowledge, especially coming from him.

If you read the interpreters notes at the beginning, no Bible claims to be divinely inspired and all have their mistakes and limitations.  Unless the computer has the original, what is there to compare it with?  Some JKV advocates believe other Biblical interpretations as Satanic.

"I further believe that Satan, counterfeiting every possible phase of God’s work he possibly can, will produce his counterfeit ecumenical Bible. It appears entirely possible that the NIV or a successor to it, founded upon it, may accomplish that objective. A false Christ will lead humanity into a false faith, based upon a false text acceptable to all, but with a distinctly evangelical face, in order to deceive the last holdout against the ‘New World Order’—the professing conservative ‘evangelical’ or fundamentalist Christian.}"

 Here you go again. Please give examples of these satanic counterfeits in the KJV and NIV Bibles. Also, if you're going to knock these Bibles you really should tell us which Bible you read. Could it be the NWT?

 References to inspiration in the Bible:
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is recorded as referring to scripture as being fixed -- presumably because it comes from God:

John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." (KJV)

The Book of Acts refers to God speaking through the mouth of David:

Acts 4:24-25: "...Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"
(KJV)

Paul describes the process of inspiration by the Holy Spirit in one of his Epistles:

1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (KJV)

Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the "word of God," not of men:

1 Thesalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
(KJV)

A key proof text used by conservative Christians to support their belief in inspiration is in one of the Pastoral Epistles. It states that all of the Scriptures are "theopneustos" in the original Greek -- "breathed out by God:"

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).

A second popular verse which supports the concept of inspiration is in one of the General Epistles:

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"

I believe the KJV is the most accurate Bible there is. The NIV has some very minor problems, though not major in my opinion - certainly nothing that changes any Biblical doctrine, and it certainly doesn't rise up to the level of satanic counterfeit. Holy exaggeration Batman!  :D

Bronzesnake

 ;D ;D ;D

Minor problems??? No doctrinal changes??? How about this "minor" change from the NIV:

Micah 5:2  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Jesus had origins???  Ii thought Christ had no origins.

God bless

I wonder if Christians who speak languages other than English have the same problem with different translations of the Bible.  

I honestly would love to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek.  I think I would get some much more out of scripture more quickly.  Right now I have to look up each word separately in Strong's concordance and then look for the Hebrew or Greek.  It takes a long time but it really helps me understand the scriptures better.  

I don't understand why anyone can get so obsessed with the King James version?  I don't use it because I can't understand the Shapespearean English language used in it.  I am truly thankful that someone decided that the Bible should be translated into all languages so that everyone can read and understand the Word of God in their own written language.

Typical - take one verse and use it out of context. This leaves the impression that the NIV depicts Jesus as a created being and not God. If you actually read the entire book, you'll come to the exact opposite conclusion.

 Like I said. It does have minor problems, but it does not change any biblical doctrine. This version does recognise Jesus as God in the flesh, so it can not be construed as an evil, deceitful version as you are making it out to be. I can find translation problems in any Biblical translation

 If we're going to approach any book as mindless zombies, then we'll fall into these traps. God gave us brains so we would actually use them.

 Save your condemnation and accusations of false, evil doctrines for the real deals such as the NWT - the Book of Mormon - Christian Science etc. You're doing more harm than good.

Bronzesnake

It is far from Shakespearean english.  Shakespear's style is older than the KJV and "harder" to understand.  It takes but a little time to get used to and is much more acurate than current English which is not as direct and definate.  Like anything worth learning take some time to understand God's word.  There's nothing more important to learn.

If you were unfamiliar with terms and understanding a vocation or such you would take time to learn that.  How much harder is it to take time to understand and learn old English?

No doctrinal issues changed???  
Below are just a few after just 5 minutes of searching:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/version1.html
http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm
http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/articles.html

If one cannot see the doctrinal errors then there may be a few reason why:
1. Some folks have never been grounded in sound doctrine so they would not be able to see it when it was false.
2. They just don't want to see it - they feel comfortable going along with the world.
3. Or...they may be lost and can't see it.

God bless  ;)

 After I looked the very first verse from the very first link, it was immediately clear that the folks who are screaming foul, such as yourself, are using isolated verses and building false impressions about the "apparent" evilness of the NIV.

 The first claim is that the NIV doesn't recognise any siblings of Mary and Joseph for the expressed purpose of adding "credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary"

Here is the piece directly from your first link...

 

 The last sentence attempts to hammer home the fact that "The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters" The inference, of course, is that the NIV does not recognise Jesus had siblings for the "evil" purpose of expounding upon the RCC's false doctrine of a perpetual virginity of Mary.

 It's clear that people such as yourself, and those who spend (waste) so much time flinging around false and misleading information in order to vilify fellow Christians, have - A) Never read the NIV - B) Read enough of it to totally misunderstand it - C) Have an agenda, and are wilfully misrepresenting the truth - D) Are just plain ignorant.

 Here's a verse straight out of the NIV...

 Matthew 13:55
“Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Guess that blows that foolishness out of the water huh?

I'm not going to waste my time responding to any more of this foolish, mean spirited nonsense my friend. You keep on believing that the NIV is all evil and scary, and I'll keep on knowing the Truth. It would do you, and others who are equally ignorant on this topic, a world of good to actually read the book before you start flinging false accusations around.


Bronzesnake

Then fine - I am not sure what category you fall into in my list - will not judge -

I presented just 4 links and you focused on 1 verse from 1 link - You haven't even scratched the surface of objectively researching the matter - It appears you don't want to know.

You think all we do is pick on the NIV?!?!?  All modern versions came from Egypt - they are read basically the same.  So, yes they all basicaly agree with one another.  

This issue is a much bigger issue than just the NIV and a few changes in a few bibles.

The issue is they do not agree with the line of manuscripts that God has used and blessed for the past 1800 years - and the AV1611 came from this line - your versions came from the other line which came from Egypt.

Have a nice day

Yes, you presented 4 links. I did go through several examples within those links, and they are all just as weak and deceitful as the first. How can you accuse me of lacking objectivity? That's truly ironic considering the example I gave which I found on the very first link and the very first verse. I exposed the deceit and total lack of evidence and credibility in your accusations in regard to the NIV.

"your versions" How do you know which version I use?

"All modern versions came from Egypt"?!! :D

I could make a far more credible argument for exclusively using the original text in their original language as opposed to using the KJV or any other translation for that matter - however, I would never make outlandish claims such as any translation other than the original manuscripts from antiquity changes biblical doctrine. In order to "corroborate" such an ignorant claim, I would be force to take single verses out of context, and disregard any and all other relevant verses which would lead to the full understanding and corroboration of Biblical doctrine - you know, just like you and your friends do.


Bronzesnake

AVBunyan, no offense intended, but those links (yes, I went and read most of what was on them) were examples of horrible scholarship.  If they were supposed to prove that the newer versions change major doctrines of Christianity, they failed quite miserably.  None of the changes actually changed anything.  Most omitted some things, but that just means that that particular text doesn't teach that truth.  It doesn't mean the truth is changed (exception, the New World Translation, which is not comparable to the NIV, or NASB, etc, since it is produced by  the Jehovah's Witnesses, which deny central doctrines of Christianity.)  Other minor changes (were afraid instead of marveled???) simply DO NOT affect any major doctrines.  

Joel

Well stated my friend. You just took all my hard work and condensed it into a paragraph or two!  :D Nice job.

Bronzesnake

Because you can find a diamond in a trash can doesn't make the trash can a jewlery store.

Because you can find the message, or the fundamentals of the faith, and some truth in the modern versions doesn't mean the modern versions are bibles?

So, because the modern versions support the doctrines in many places - is it ok to attack them in other places?

Even if it is in only one verse, if a version deletes even a portion of a reference to the diety of Jesus Christ it is IMO an adulterated Bible. i.e :

1 John 5: 7-8

KJV

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.



NIV

7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


NASB

7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


Or the omission of Jesus' words to Satan:

KJV

4  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.


NIV

4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.



Some of the newer versions also leave out the last 12 verses of Mark which contain the "Great Commision":


Mar 16:15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If any portion of scripture is changed or missing then it is a corrupt Bible.

 Here's the thing. There are many people who can not comprehend the old English in the KJV. It confuses and frustrates many people. The NIV was translated into a simpler, modern English for such as these.

 Yes, I have stated that there are problems with the NIV, but they do not change any doctrine.

 When we read this version, we don't come away thinking Jesus is just a man, or a good teacher. We clearly understand that Jesus is God in the flesh, who came to earth being born of a virgin, performed miracles, preached as no man had ever preached prior, was falsely accused by the Jewish religious leaders, was brought before a puppet court in the Sanhedrin, was sent to Pilot, who found no fault in Him, was sent to King Herod, who mocked Him, and also found no fault in Him, was returned to Pilot by the Jewish religious leaders, who demanded that Pilot crucify Him. Jesus was brutally scourged, He was spat on and had His beard ripped out. Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross without any broken bones. His side was pierced. There was a great earth quake, and darkness enveloped the earth.
Jesus rose back to life on the third day following His crucifixion, and was seen by many people including over 500 at one time. Jesus ate with His disciples, and Jesus was seen ascending on a cloud up to heaven.

I can go on, but I believe my point is made.

Is this Bible the best translation? No. Is this the Bible we would prefer to use in a Bible study? No. Is this bible an evil corruption? No.

 I use the KJV for my personal use, but I also have used the NIV when I am in fellowship with those who can not comprehend the KJV, and I have lead many to Jesus using this Bible.

 It's not the ideal translation, but it is certainly not an evil translation either. The NWT translation definitely falls under that category, as do other "religious" books.


Bronzesnake

I'm afraid you can find much more than just a little support for fundamental doctrines in some modern versions (I do not advocate all modern versions).  I'm actually not even that big of a fan of the NIV.  I like the ESV personally.  

I don't think they attack the doctrines in other places.  They simply render what was most probably in the original text.  

Let me ask you this question:  If, for the sake of argument, you admit that some things in a version were added to what was in the original manuscript, should that be taken out in a new translation created?  In other words, if, for the sake of argument, 1 John 5:7 was not in the original, shouldn't it be left out in a translation of the text?  

Joel

I understand some peoples inability to comprehend the KJV even though it is one of the lower reading levels (grade 5). It's reading level is even lower than most comic books. Most other Bible versions are at grade level 6.

Personally I found the KJV easier to read and comprehend, less confusing, than most others but then that is me. After all it was my first reader.

Thank you Pastor - sound reasoning.  The examples you used to show that were outstanding.  If one were to be honest he would have to see that the AV was more clearer and exact in the examples you used.  Nice job!

God bless

 I agree with you here. I disagree that the NIV is the evil translation that you think it is.

 The KJV is the closest Bible to the origional text of antiquity. I do not dispute that.

Bronzesnake

I agree, Bronze, to the extent that it is not an openly evil translation such as the NWT is. I do believe that with its ommissions as well as the footnotes and side margin notes that the NIV caused confusion and doubt as to what the Word of God truly is. It has caused many to doubt the true diety of Jesus Christ. I realise the footnotes and side margin notes are only commentaries and should be taken as such. Unfortunately there are to many people that have put more weight into them than that.

I also believe that it laid the ground work for even more evil and adulterated versions of the Bible than what the NIV is.

No matter how you look at it, even the smallest amount of evil is still evil.

After reading through all these posts, I may be coming around somewhat to understanding the full scope of the situation. I have read the NIV and I came out with the same doctrinal beliefs that I have through my KJV. I can concede that there may be some who don't have the same biblical foreknowledge that I had when I first picked up the NIV, and perhaps that could lead to confusion - but do you really think people can read the NIV and doubt that Jesus is God? I guess anything is possible, and I know for a fact that there are lots of people who read the KJV and also have doubts, or even down and out deny Jesus is God. So could the emphasis be more on the reader than the text itself?


 Bronzesnake

I believe two things are required:
1. God's pure words
2. A regenerated saint with a humble and believing heart.

Yes, there is spiritual food to be found inthe newer versions but the growth will be stunted.  One can live off of McDonalds but will be weak.

I read a lot of the old days (1600's to 1930 or so) - these saints had a diet of basically one Bible - Geneva or KJV later.  These saints were spiritually stronger than we are today.

The modern versions contain some of the words of God - they contain the messages of the word of God but this does not mean they are the pure word of God.

We have to face the cold facts that today regardless of what version is in use - including the KJV- we are the weakest, most worldly, and carnal bunch ever!  Our shame.

All I am saying is though we, as a whole, are in a mess so at least have the book that God used for starters and let it work in and through us.  

Toss the modern versions aside.

God bless

This is true. There are some that no matter how much evidence is given them they simply refuse to believe. Some of this could be that "biblical foreknowledge" they believe they have due to false teachers, etc.

Unfortunately this is added to by such Bibles as the NIV or worse ones that completely eradicate the deity of Jesus Christ.

AVBunyan and Pastor Roger.

 OK, thank you for explaining this to me. I do understand your concerns now, and I can say that I tend to agree with you fellows.

 See? Solid rock can be penetrated!  :D :P

Bronzesnake

One other thing that I want to say and point out to the KJV only advocates. Some, maybe even many, KJV only advocates in their enthusiasim get carried away and nit pick the other bibles to death and even come up with falsified or uneducated statements about them just because a certain person said it is true (like that one web site pointed out above). Remember here that we are talking about the Word of God and its accuracies in doing so we must insure that our statements about these various bibles are also accurate less we convince them we are wrong about those bibles.

I am sure that you, Bronze, have run into this in the Creation vs evolution subject also.

It seems to me that you are all mostly forgetting this the KJV is a translation of a particular text.  We have no basis for saying that the KJV is the *only* inspired translation.  Greek words can be translated into English in different ways.  The way the KJV does it is not the only valid way, and in some places, is not even the best way.  Even putting aside the textual issues, we have to remember that translations can indeed vary in translation.  And I believe that when we translate into English, we should make sure that the way we translate is generally understandable to our current audience (note, I am NOT saying that we should just paraphrase).  The KJV's translations of passages in which the Greek text used is the same as that of the ESV, NASB, etc, are not automatically better than the translations of the ESV etc.  We have no reason to take it like that.  

Joel

Well stated my friend, and the very reason I got my haunches up right off the bat. You have a good eye my brother. :D

Bronzesnake

As I'm thinking over these posts, I thought of something that would really help in this discussion.  So, those of you that are KJV-only (/mostly/best/whatever), I want you to give me in a few paragraphs/pages (not a book), why you believe that we should use the KJV only, w/o talking about the "corruptions" in the modern versions.  In other words, what is so great about the KJV?  I don't know if I have ever heard such an explanation.

Joel

The KJV has withstood the test of time in its accuracies. Both historically and spiritually. Once a person understands a few basic words (such as ye, thou, thine, etc.) it is quite simple to read. It is very thorough in the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. It is very thorough in telling us just who Jesus Christ is and why it is important for us to know this (Salvation through Jesus Christ). It has many thorough lessons that guide us in our walk with Him. It is all this and so very, very much more. It is the inherent Word of God.

The KJV has indeed been used of God for a long time to promote truth.  But that does not make it the best translation (plus I do believe there are several translation/textual issues, but that is not the question of the moment).  Simply because something has been good for a long time does not mean it is the best translation that should be used over anything else.


Not necessarily true, as there are many words that are archaic and would not be understood by a lot of people today.  Plus, some of the same words are used, but in different ways, which could promote confusion, especially to new Christians.  
  Another question being, "why even learn ye, thou, etc?"  Why not just use something that has the words we use today.  It's actually not all that simple to read--most new Christians and even others that have been Christians for a long time find it hard to read.  I personally don't have too much trouble reading it, because it was my first translation, and I read some of the old puritan works in old english sometimes.  


I don't see how that is an argument for the KJV translation.  The doctrine of Jesus Christ is the same in most translations, because they present the same teachings, just with different words.  


That is no particular claim to fame for the KJV.  That information can be had from other translations.  That is really not an argument of any sort for the translation of the KJV.  I'm talking about why is the KJV as a translation so good?  


Again, having many lessons guiding us in our walk with God is not peculiar to the KJV.  For example, in older versions, we had the Geneva Bible, etc.  That is not an argument for the translation.  

What do you mean by the inherent word of God?  As in, to the exclusion of other versions?  It is the same/more word of God than the originals?  How do you know that? That is more what I am getting at.  Why do you think the KJV is such a great translation?

Joel

I can see where this is leading and sorry I don't have the time to go into a lengthy discussion of manuscripts, ancient texts and semantics. Maybe some other time.

The reasons I gave in my prior posts on this thread should suffice.

[quote author=joelkaki The KJV has indeed been used of God for a long time to promote truth.What do you mean by the inherent word of God?  As in, to the exclusion of other versions?  It is the same/more word of God than the originals?  How do you know that? That is more what I am getting at.  Why do you think the KJV is such a great translation?
Joel

Good questions there,Joel.
Here are the basics.
The AV is founded upon the majoruty of manuscript evidence.
99 percent to be exact.This includes the thousands of manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611.
The KJV has proven itself to be exact throughout and throughout history.But the Other 1 percent,the minority text is corrupted throughout and throughout history,By heritics such as Origen,Jerome,Eusebius,and later brought back to life in these last days by the two heretics and necromancers,Westcott and Hort.The modern versions follow this minority false text.In particular two manuscripts[Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.]Plus a couple more.
These two texts cannot agree with each other any two verses in a row,and that is why the availability of thousands and thousands of variations.Whereas the KJV is in total agreement with the majorty of the manuscripts throughout.
 All of the modern versions are corupted thereby.There are so many blunders,is incredible.NIV,alone has 64,098 words missing from the text.Plus the Manuscripts that the modern versions use include Non-Biblical works such as "The Book Of Hermes" and " The Shepherd of Barnabus" and others.
These two teach to give over to the Beast,take the number of the Beast,kill anyone that does not take the number of the Beast.[Riplinger]
The heresy taught in the new versions is incredible,such as the NIV which teaches that Jesus is a sinner,and in danger of the judgement.Matthew 5:22.And there are literally hundreds just like it,when you take time to really study.

Here is a small sample of the coruptions in the modern fake Bibles put out by these heretics.
This is a bell weather test to see if you have a pure Holy Bible or not.Compare these with the only trustworthy edition of the Holy Bible ,the AV 1611 King James Bible.
Remember,that all these wanna-bees compare themselves to the KJV and try to say that it is in need of updating,but to what expence?
Mat 12 :6,42
Mk 10:24
Lk 2:33
Jn 1:18,
Jn 3:13
Act 20:28
Ro 9:5
II Tim 3:3,16
Jms 5:16
This alone is too much folly to be acceptable.
Mat 1:25
Mat 6:13
Jn 17:5
Gal 3:1
Col 1:14
Col 3:2
II Tim 2:15
Heb 11:6
Rev 22:14
Not one jot or tittle,Right?
Lk 4:4,8
Lk 23:42
Jn 9:35
Rom 8:1
I Cor 5:7
II Cor 2:17
Gal 5:4
I Tim 3:16
I Pt 2:2
..Satan cometh immediately and taketh away the word..
Mk 9:46,48
Lk 24:51,52
JN 8:9
Act 1:3
Rom 1:18,25
Rom 13:9
II Cor 10:4
I Tim 6:5,8,10,20
This should be more than enouph to show you just what kind of Bible you really have.

The AV is even better than the "ORIGINALS" because I can see them.[The 'originals' do not exhist]In fact,every time that the Bible mentions the word Scriptures,is always about a copy or a translation.

The AV is much better than the 'originals',because I can read it.We would be waiting a long time to read the 'originals',and even if they did pop up,of which they won't;who can read them?

Plus there are a variety of other reasons,but I spare you the verbage.

The AV is error free.In fact,if you picked up a 1611 "ORIGINAL"and compared it to a 2005 edition of the 1611 it would be word for word perfect,just as the LORD would have it.
The AV is the only English that acurately portrays the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.That is the specific reason there are such words as THEE.THOU,THINE,and YE.The Th's are singular,and the ye is plural.Plus the ending to words give the tences,such as seekETH,etc.In fact all other languages use these endings and plural and singulars in their verbage as matter of rote.

I could go on for hours but this is in a nut shell the reason WHY the KJV is the Holy Bible while the others are fakes.
Plus they cannot make money without a coppyright,so they HAVE to use other words,sooner or later,it just becomes rediculous.We are already there.

I am so happy that the Bible has been translated into over 6000 languages besides English.  Would anyone like to know more about this?

http://www.answers.com/topic/bible-translations

M,
Good stuff.
Let us not forget those among us who are most instrumental in distributing the written Truth - our interdenominational friends the Gideons.
http://www.gideons.org (http://www.gideons.org)

I spent this last week in Chicago on business.  Even though I generally always travel with one of my Bibles, when staying in a hotel I like to use the one left by the Gideons.  It’s interesting to see where past room occupants sometimes underline certain passages or even write comments in the margins.  But the most interesting thing about this trip – the Gideon’s Bible in my room was the NKJV.  When did the Gideons move from the KJV to the NKJV???  Anyone know?  

Over 900 have been translated sraight from the King James.
Wycliff has compromised,big time.They follow the Alexandrian texts also.We are definitely living in the last days.The Laodicean era.Luke warm.Laos=people...Docea=justice.
Luke warm era of Human rights.

[quote author=JudgeNot among us who are most instrumental in distributing the written Truth - our interdenominational friends the Gideons. .. But the most interesting thing about this trip – the Gideon’s Bible in my room was the NKJV.  When did the Gideons move from the KJV to the NKJV???  Anyone know?  
Yes,they have given into the pressure of the salesmen of the new version,and make several versions available now.
NKJV<KJV<NASB.They have gone the way of compromise.
Sad to say.

You got that right,Allinall.The modern versions have a hard time figuring out what 'hell' is,They PREFER hades and Sheol.
Sure updates the archaic English eh?

When was steel invented? or discovered or what ever?

Of course,all of the others are fake knock offs.Just read my post a couple back.I do not assume that it is the best whatsoever.It is the best,because of all the evidence in its favour.Agrees with 99 percent of the manuscripts,verses the minority Alexandrian texts that can't even agree two verses in a row,because they were pumped out by single oppinionated heretics.They ommit tons of stuff including whole verses.Plus the main Manuscripts that they follow don't have MANY of the books of the Holy Bible in them.So the Translasion is an Eclectic one.In the extreme.
Plus the King James has been responsible for all of the major revivals of the reformation.Wessley,Finney,Moody,Etc.

Greetings brethren – I trust the post will be a blessing for this is my motive here not to stir up.

The question was why the AV1611 vs. the modern versions?  Here are just two reasons I will chose to chat about here:

1. The ability to cross-reference more accurately.
I believe the cross references in the AV are more accurate and exact thus giving the ability to let the scriptures unlock themselves by the cross-referencing.    I believe in their attempts to “update” the English the modern translators have greatly hindered one’s ability to get an accurate cross reference in many ways.  I’m trying to keep the length of this post down so if you are interested then try it and see how easy the AV cross-references vs. the modern versions.

2. The exactness of the wording of the AV vs. the modern versions.
I firmly believe that the AV is more exact in its description of the holy things of God in the AV than the modern versions.  I cite just several examples here and there are many more:

1. Pure vs. flawless – In the AV the word the Spirit often uses to describe God’s words is “pure”.  Pure carries with it in the definition “holy”.  Look up flawless (definition), which many of the modern version use to describe the word and you will see that holy is not part of being flawless.  Illustration – a septic tank can be flawless but not pure. Is the word flawless?  Yes it is but it is more – it is pure for it is holy for God and Christ are holy.  

2. Preeminence vs. sovereign – Look at Col. 1:18 and you will see that Christ has the preeminence, which carries with it in the definition “integrity”.  Many of the modern versions change preeminence to “sovereign” which does not carry with it integrity.  Illustration – Hitler was sovereign over Germany in WWI but did he have integrity?  With Jesus you have integrity.

Point – the AV is more accurate in its descriptions.  The above were but 2 but there are countless more.  One can say the modern versions are more accurate and exact than the AV in places.  I doubt it – it may appear to but you have to change the words and I believe God gave us the adjectives, etc. He wanted to use for us.  Modern versions may give another “slant” but when it comes to how the AV describes our Lord you can’t beat the AV!

Also - Some Subtle Doctrinal Changes:
Here the saint is saved.
AV - 1 Cor 1:18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are “saved” it is the power of God.

Here the saint is in a process of being saved – this is because to Origen salvation was a process – works.
NIV - 1 Cor 1:18  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are “being saved” it is the power of God.

Here the faith is of the operation of God.
Col 2:12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Here the work is transferred from the operation of God to one’s faith in the power God!
Col 2:12  having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Here we see it is the faith of Christ, which justifies the sinner.
AV - Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,

Here we see that it is one’s faith in Christ, which justifies – how can our faith do anything?  The faith of Christ has been transferred to man’s faith.  There is a big difference between Christ’s faith and ours.
Gal 2:16  know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Again - not trying to stir it up but to get folks to think if they have not seen such things before.  My purpose is for saints to have no doubts in the God’s word, which I believe to be found in the AV.  And by having no doubts this will give strength, boldness, and comfort thus drawing saints closer to our Saviour.

God bless

My spirit is grieved over all this debate. It is the Spirit that gives life not the letter. Instead of arguing for the AV just preach it. If the teaching you teach is of the Spirit then fine. If not then you are just teaching the letter which brings death. The same goes for the versions. If what you teach is of God then rejoice! If not then you are simply of the letter. Jesus said my words are spirit. Paul said the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

2Co 3:6  Who3739 also2532 hath made us able2427, 2248 ministers1249 of the new2537 testament;1242 not3756 of the letter,1121 but235 of the spirit:4151 for1063 the3588 letter1121 killeth,615 but1161 the3588 spirit4151 giveth life.2227 KJV

2Co 3:6  who has also made us competent, as ministers of the new covenant; not of letter, but of spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens. Darby

In one spirit is capitalized in the other Spirit is lower case. Which is correct?

Your teaching on this question is what is important and tells alot.

asaph
 

You jest.  Surely.  Besides, I was speaking of the words Baptize and Church both of which have been transliterated/mistranslated...

Allow me to butt in.

I find it ridiculous that some people are so gung-ho about the KJV. I can give a few reasons. For instance, some of the original 1611 King James Bibles referred to Esther as "he", and referred to Jesus as Judas in one verse. Also, the original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha. Hardly inspired, if you ask me.

And yet, some people actually believe that the King James Bible is more reliable than the original documents. And some people say such things as "If it's not King James, it's not the Bible." Give me a break! Pardon me, but what did the Christians prior to 1611 do without the Bible??

There's a local church around here that won't let you use an NIV or anything else. They really think the KJV is the only Bible. It's like a whole religion inside Christianity. And of course, it only serves to alienate people. I know somebody who has been rebelling from Christianity, even though he was raised in a Christian home. The church I mentioned had a big part in this because he hated the fact that they were so judgemental and contentious when it came to Bible translations.

The whole thing really makes me sick.

[quote author=Yoyostick IFor instance, some of the original 1611 King James Bibles referred to Esther as "he", and referred to Jesus as Judas in one verse. Also, the original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha. Hardly inspired, if you ask me.
It may be true that there was the odd typographical error,here or there,in the first 1611.But those have been corrected.Plus there have been subsequent typographical errors in later editions of the 1611,but they always corect them back to the original 1611.Pretty remarkable scholarship if you ask me.NIV and NKJV have close to 100 changes per page.Some of it is in no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts anywhere.That is pretty shakey ground to be trusting in.

As far as the Apocrapha goes,the 1611 inserts the Apocrapha INBETWEEN the Old and New testaments.The texts that the modern versions are not even honest in typing their own documents,for the Alexandrian manuscripts[Aleph and B]have the Apocrapha in the text intermingled as PART OF the text.
They couldn't sell their fakes if they put every thing in,the way it is in their beloved Manuscripts.
 Plus the apocrapha was taken out of the KJV,anyway.

The new versions are refering to the Dead Sea Scrolls too.We all know that the Essenes were the rebelious culprits for that stuff.They include manuscrips that promote the confiscation of property.Promote the two coming Messiahs[one is religeous,the other is a Civil leader]
They call for initiation into taking the Name.
And people not taking the name in the seven year span,should be killed.
Real trustworthy material.

These are just a couple of the thousands of truthful reasons that the KJV IS the only word of God for the English speaking peoples.
If you knew what I knew,you would be in convulsions of repentance.
Once I found out some of this stuff,My wife and I pulled anAct 19:19,and burned all of our fake New age bibles.That incuded our NKJV wedding bible.

1. Some of our spirit's have been grieved by the majority of "christianity" tossing aside the book that God has miraculously used and blessed for over 350 years.  

And yes we know God had his word prior to 1611.

2. We know this but the Spirit uses the word to do the work.

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 119:154  Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word.

Eph 6:17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

And many more.

3. We, who defend it (you use the word aruge) do preach and teach it and use it in witnessing.  We are saddened that most do not use it, believe it, preach it, nor teach it and look at the results - the most worldly, carnal, flashly, unspiritual, ignorant Christianity ever!

Thank you - some of may not have enjoyed that but that's what I feel.

I believe nothing happens without the word of God.  And I believe the modern versions are not the word of God.  They may contain some of the words of God but are not the word of God.

Yes, one might be able to survive solely on a diet of McDonalds but their health will suffer.

Yes, one may survive only feeding on the modern versions but their spiritual growth will suffer.

God bless

Did Job have steel? Was it invented at his time?

Reba -
Steel was 'invented' in the mid-1800's by a guy named Henry Bessemer in England.  Steel is the product of a heat process involving iron and other metals.  I think Bible translations use the word 'steel' when 'iron' would be more accurate (although I'm sure they were experimenting with alloys in Job's time).
JN

But judgenot! You must be mistaken the KJV (which is my favorite) uses the word steel in discribing  things of old .......

2 Samuel 22:35
35 He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
KJV
Job 20:24
24 He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.
KJV
Psalms 18:34
34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
KJV
Jeremiah 15:12
12 Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?
KJV

 

Right Reba - I'm not arguing.  What we consider 'steel' today is just different than the stuff they called 'steel' back then.  At sometime someone melted bronze and iron together - that's probably what the Bible refers to as 'steel'.

Ya,real cool an' hip man,daddyo,just like the other thingamajigs.Just kiddin.

Seriously that is a good point you make.Here is the facts of the situation.Of all the major Bibles out there[if you can call them that]The Holy Bible comes out as the easiest to read.The King James has proven itself to be the easiest to read in 23 of 26 catagories.And that was one Bible against the others.In fact,if you take your 1611 and an NIV,and put them side by side,you will be quite surprized at the complicated and archaic words that the NIV uses,when the 1611 uses every day words that my 6 year old son can read and understand.
The majority of the words in the KJV are 3letter words.This makes it very understandable to the young and those that are from a diferent language base.Plus the Holy Bible has its own built in Dictionary.None of the others can say that.
In fact all of the early translators never used LexICONS or dictionaries,but stuck to the words of God,only.

[quote author=asaph It is the Spirit that gives life not the letter.  just preach it. If the teaching you teach is of the Spirit then fine. If not then you are just teaching the letter which brings death. The same goes for the versions. If what you teach is of God then rejoice! If not then you are simply of the letter. Jesus said my words are spirit. Paul said the letter kills but the spirit gives life.
You are totally right asaph,but you have missed the point of my posts partly.If the very letters are not part of the very words of God,Then what?We are given into anything goes.
Jesus contrasts the spirit with the flesh.John 6:63
Then after he shows that his words are spirit,and they are life.
God's words are very important.Every single one,even the way they are spelled and the order of the words.
Not one jot nor tittle,right?Diminish not a word,Right?Thou shalt not add or take away,right?But this is exactly what is being done in the modern versions and are coming up with another gospel.
The letter that you talk of is of the LAW.This is totally not to be used in this senario.This is about honouring the LORD and his wonderful words and what God said about his words in his word.
Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure,therefore thy servant loveth it.
Proverbs 30:5+6 Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not to his words,lest he reprove thee;and thou be found a liar.
Psalm 12:6+7 The words of the LORD are pure words:as silver tried in a furnace of earth,purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them,O LORD,thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you,Till heaven and earth pass,one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,till all be fulfilled.
Jeremiah 26:2 Thus saith the LORD;Stand in the court of the LORD's house,and speak unto all the cities of Judah,which come to worship in the Lord's house,ALL the words that I command thee to speak unto them;diminish not a word.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away:but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said,It is written,Man shall not live by bread alone,but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Plus I am sure you can find more yourself.When God repeats something,over and over,all throughout the Holy Bible,I think he has something very important for us to take note of.He that hath ears to hear let him hear,amen?

I do rejoice in God's word.I am totally absorbed in to it every day of my life.It is more than my necessary food.
But so many are stuck into believing that the new versions are nutritious,when they are doing the Church a great dis-service.Some of the translators are good men,and mean well,but others are purposely adulterating the words of the living God.
If you knew that there was danger to your community ,wouldn't you feel responsible to make the trumpet call,and warn the people?I think so.Any reasonable person would.I am not going to gingerly tap on the door of your house,afaid that I might offend you,or wake you up,when your house is on fire.I will do all that I can,with all my strenth and all my mind and all my heart,to rescue you,and as many others that is possible.It is my passion.I know it is not yours,but I have spent years devoted to the Holy Bible,keeping a sharp eye on the movements of the enemy,trying to infiltrate the ranks.

This is the next revival of the Modern chuch,if they wake up.
Then God can bless his word as ussual.
How many days are left for us to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Will it be the real gospel or a fake?
Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another;but there be some that trouble you,and would prevert the gospel of Christ.
But though we or an angel from heaven,preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,let him be accursed.
As we said before,so say I now again,If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,let him be accursed.

The chuches are living under a double curse,by allowing these troublers to change the words of the living God.
We need to repent of our lukewarmness,and get fired up and purified again.We can fight with the real word of God that is sharper than any two-edged sword,instead of battling with a butter knife and taking our ease.

Sheesh i know your not argueing! X

The point being a translation is just a translation. The KJV is most wonderfull to me but it is just a translation. God knows and knew when steel wouldbe/was 'invented'.  

I always thought revivels were of the Spirit i read here they are of a bible translation....  one never knows....

I, for one, grow weary of this kind of statment. This shows a lack of understnding of the prupose and the work of the word in God's plan.  It is an improper estimation of the power of the written word of God!

Here is a novel idea - try taking a King James Bible and running references and seeing just what the purpose of the "word" is in the scriptures?  Can anybody today still run references from a good condordance anymore - I know it is difficult with the modern versions but you still can with an AV!  Try it - it is a fascinating study.

Forgive me while I repeat myself:

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 119:154  Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word.

Eph 6:17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

The above are just 4 verses showing what the word does.

Yes, revivals come about by the work of the Spirit but the Spirit uses God's work in the revival - just read the history of revivals.  No word - no revival.

Ya'll have a nice evening now.

OK - I, for one, grow weary of this kind of statment.  ;D

I must interject (again) in a debate that, due to egos and individual understanding, seems to never go away.
I generally stay out of translation discussions.  In my opinion the Word is so simple a baby must understand it – if not the Word is wasted.  That’s what I’ve been taught.  If any version of the Word reaches ears willing to hear – as long as that translation teaches that Jesus is God our Savior the Holy Spirit and through faith in Him we are saved - it is a valid translation.  
*AV and AV* - it seems to me you are turning the Holy Trinity into the wholly quadriplegic.  (Forgive the pun.)   ;D
The translated written Word, while holy, is no more holy than the ground Moses took his sandals off to walk on during a visit to Mt. Sinai.  If all is based on the written Word rather than the Trinity, then the Trinity is crippled.  
The Word is more than translated documents comprised of letters and prophecies.  The Word is the Word.  The Word is the God inspired oral testimony you heard in church last Sunday.  The Word is a Christian witnessing to a fellow commuter on a NY City bus.  The Word is on a message board in front of a community Church that makes a passerby visit and become saved.  The Word is what Jesus writes in our hearts every time we pray.  To limit the Word to a single written translation of letters is ludicrous to me.  
And in defense of Reba (though she can defend herself quite well, thank you):  When we attend a revival and the Spirit is renewed in our hearts and we jump for joy – the Word is certainly a tool God uses, but, again, it is the Word of testimony, the Word of history and the Word of wisdom that sends the Spirit into our hearts – not the Word from a single Bible translation.  
We are all born with particular gifts from God.  For some it is the gift of testimony, for some the gift of giving, for others the gift of teaching, or others the gift of helping.  It appears to me, *AV and AV*, that your gift may be one of studying and translating the written Word.  All I would ask is; please make sure that while you are exercising the gift God gave you that it doesn’t blind you to the Simple, Saving Word – the Word that a baby can understand.  
God Bless!!!!!!
Jim

Are Spanish, French, German, Russion, etc. Bibles any less the Word?

I like the KJ best for a number of reason. One reason is because i can hear my Dad's voice when i hear kj being read... I like the poetry, the music of the language. I fully believe God is big enough to take care of His Word and am thankfull He preserved the KJV translation for us. I am also thankful for the modern translations. Watch any old movie about the Bible and you will hear Jesus talking in KJ.

Playing here is really sad to me and i should not be doing so. When some folks in the world are so hungry for Gods written Word they savor a page or a halve page a book or chapter is held so precious their very lives are risked to hold them and we have the gall to argue their translatins are not the Holy Word. We are so blessed we are becoming fat........

I will not pester this thread any longer... :P

Amen to that, too!  :)

[quote author=Reba Are Spanish, French, German, Russion, etc. Bibles any less the Word?
 When some folks in the world are so hungry for Gods written Word they savor a page or a halve page a book or chapter is held so precious their very lives are risked to hold them and we have the gall to argue their translatins are not the Holy Word. We are so blessed we are becoming fat........
...................
Good question there Reba.
  The 1611 follows the 99 percent majority texts.Any other language that follows this majoruty proven text is the very words of God in their language.
The Germans have the Martin Luther's Bible.It is founded upon the Texus Receptus[majority text].
The Italians have the Diodati.Also Texus Receptus.
The Hugarians have  Erodisi[Texus Receptus]
The French have Olivetan [T.R.]
Spain has Valera [T.R.]
Poland Visoly [T.R.]
Iceland Gottshcalkson [T.R.]
Holland Degrave [T.R.]
Russia Elisabeth Bible [T.R.]
Coverdale England,1535,[T.R.]
Great Bible England,1539,[T.R.]
Matthew's Bible England,1537,[T.R.]
Bishop's Bible England,1568,[T.R.]
Tyndale Bible England 1525,[T.R.]
Geneva Bible 1560,[T.R.]
The Greek texts they used was the Received text.
Erasmus:1516
Beza:1565
Stephanus:1546
Colinaeus:1534
Elzevir:1633
All,T.R.
As far as this thing you say about us being so fat,here in North America,is true.The rest of the world dying to get a scrap of Paper with the precious words of the LORD.
That is why I will be sending two boxes over to the mission fields this week.We sure can do our part to help them in water, food ,work,but the best thing is to bring them the words of the living God.They need the true gospel,that makes wariors not lukewarmers.

The best and only way to promote the KJV is by reading, preaching and teaching it. I make certain that I do all three. The Spirit bears witness. One can use other versions and not be condemned. For instance if I say "God loves you!", this is a noble and true saying though not a direct quote from the Bible. The Spirit can and does convict people with such words. That is why the new covenant is of the spirit and not the letter.

2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Therefore let us not be quick to judge other translations. Let us weigh what is being read by the Holy Spirit in our spirit.

Phi 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

asaph

 

The Bible I use is a translation of the inerrant word of God.  It is the work of God through men.


Please remove the book of 1 Corinthians from your KJV because it holds no truth to you.  Division is great, and Paul, must have just been an ignorant fool.   ::)  


The doctrines taught in the Bible have nothing to do with the KJV translation.  I've yet to find ANY scriptural support for this preference that held weight.  Many have tried.  All have been scripturally, contextually, grammatically, and literally refuted.  The KJV only viewpoint by its very nature is devisive.


So is it God responsible for the KJV, or man?  By this, it would seem man as they were far better prepared and educated than anyone else.  Therefore, man preserved the authenticity of God's original.  Or, your argumentation is wrong.


Such sound theology...

Actually we are not to promote the KJV but Jesus Christ. He is the end of the commandment. He is the goal of all revelation. He is the Lord Spirit, the I am, the way, the truth, and the life.
Allinall has made a good point about the letter to the corinthians. In the church of Corinth there were those that said I follow Paul, I follow Peter or Apollos or Christ. The same thing is happening here. I follow the KJV, I follow the NIV or I follow various translations. The remedy is Christ the Lord Spirit. You need not that any man teach you but the annointing which you have received of Him is truth and causes us to abide in Him.

1Jo 2:27  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

asaph

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.  Look at this scan of the 1611 at

http://members.aol.com/xplosive5/compkjv1.gif

I'm not sure how you would suggest that the Cross References are more accurate.  They are not even as numerous, and I would bet that most of them are the same cross references.  


Perhaps you could provide an example in which this situation appears?


I'm afraid this point is just off the mark.  Preeminence, at least in the dictionaries I have looked at, does not carry the idea of integrity anymore than sovereign does.  And the ESV has preeminent anyway.  The NASB does not use sovereign.  Neither does the NIV.  The NKJV has preeminence.  


I do not see that the AV is more accurate.  If those are your representative examples, I'm afraid I can't see that your position is supported.  How is that you know that God wanted us to use the adjectives put in the KJV?  


I see three problems with this.  One, there is no doctrine changed in the difference of those translations.  Salvation does have a past (justification) aspect, a present aspect (sanctification), and a future aspect (glorification).  Two, how does Origen have anything to do with the NIV?  Three, you have made no reference to the Greek and what the word actually is.  


I'm afraid I really cannot see your point here.  There is no doctrine changed in this that I can see.


Again, no doctrine changed--just differences in understanding how Iesou Christou is being used.  You don't believe in justification by faith alone?  


I appreciate your heart for God's Word and your desire for confidence.  That is commendable.

One other thing.  It has been said as well that the KJV follows 99% of the Greek Text.  I am sorry, but that information is just not accurate.  

Joel

Thanks for your response Joel - I apprecaite the time and effort you put iin the post - that is more than most do.

You can't see where "faith of" is Jesus' faith and "faith in" is the sinner's faith?  forget teh Greek - what does the simple English say not what does it mean.

You cannot see that our faith cannot justify - only Christ's.  The modern versions are saying it is your faith in Christ which justifies - can you no see the difference?

This is a major difference in doctrine!

Can you not see where in I Cor. 1:18 the AV says "are saved" while the NIV and others make salvation a process by saying " beig saved"?  

This is a major difference in doctrine!

Forgive me up front but I'm not real concerned about "the Greek and Hebrew" for there are many "Greek and hebrew" authorities.  

My final authority is what I hold in my hands.

God bless

Don't you linguist get tired of arguing this?   :(

If God can speak through a donkey, surely he can use a few different languages to get His message across.   ;)

1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

BTW, that underline is not included in the KJV  :P  :D

Know the author, know the word.  

Grace and Peace!

I do see that there is a difference between "faith of" and "faith in."  My point was not that those are necessarily one and the same.  My point is, the phrase in Greek could be rendered either way.  


You do not believe that our faith justifies us?  I believe that is firmly established by Scripture (not that any credit goes to us, because that very faith and the rebirth of the Spirit causing that faith comes from God).  

My argument is this:

1)  The Greek can be understand either as "in Christ" or "of Christ" depending on how you understand the genitive to be functioning.  
2)  Translating it "in Christ" is not an aberrant theological teaching.
3)  No doctrine is changed either way.


I understand the difference between "are saved" and "are being saved."  But like I said before, salvation has past, present, and future aspects.  

You are deciding what you think the text should say and then are forcing that on whatever the Greek is.  The Greek supports "are being saved" although "are saved" is also a possibility.


I disagree greatly.  There is not a major difference in doctrine--at least inasmuch as there is no doctrine changed.  Salvation is a one-time event and a process, therefore neither translation contradicts the doctrine of salvation.  They would just be emphasizing different aspects.  
 

Why are you not concerned with the Greek and Hebrew?  If you believe that the TR is inspired, then should not the KJV match up to it?

What about what I said concerning accuracy in translation and cross references?

Joel

[quote author=asaph One can use other versions and not be condemned. That is why the new covenant is of the spirit and not the letter.
2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Therefore let us not be quick to judge other translations. Let us weigh what is being read by the Holy Spirit in our spirit.
Yes asaph,one can use other translations,but they are not going to always remain faithful to the truth.Why promote porridge for supper when you have every thing on the menu?Why go to the side of the road to look for diamond rings when the Jewlery store is right infront of you,on the same block?
The spirit is not at odds with the words of God.If it doesn't line up with the words of God,just what spirit is it?
God cannot lie.God calles the scriptures His words.Well it better reflect his perfection.Not the wanna bee like Satan that would like to be LIKE the Most High.Tricky,isn't he.He appears as an angel of light,but check it out carefully,and the deception becomes obvious.
Matthew 5:22 the modern versions take out "without a cause"
      that makes Our sinnless Saviour,a spotted,blemmished,non-acceptable sacrifice.For they have made him to be a sinner.
Teaching in the spirit is not needing to correct God's words.God's words are pure,very pure ,therefore thy servant loveth it.Teaching through the spirit verifies God's words.Amen.
I am not being legalistic or letter killing,at all.I am making a stand that was once delivered to the saints.No compromize.
 Now why would anyone want to change the best verse that attests to the fact that Jesus is God,manifest in the flesh.
 They change that to "he who".Well,we all are manifest in the flesh.Are they trying to be other religion friendly?That way they can insert their own guru's name.! Timothy 3:16.
And without controversy[get that one]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.
Plus the word for God is in all the Manuscripts but two,yes those two false Alexandrian manuscripts,pumped out by heretics and necromancers.Real trustworthy stuff.
How about this one;In Matthew 18:3
And said,Verily I say unto you,Except ye be converted,and become as littlechildren,ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The new versions would like to contradict this by putting in Mark 10:24 Children,how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God.
It is not hard,it is the easiest thing in the world to do;simply believe in him.
Imagine trying to teach that one to the Sundayschool class.Those poor children,what lies and confusion.
They also take the Omnipresence away from Christ Jesus our LORD in John3:13.
:13 No man hath ascended up to heaven,but he that came down from heaven,even the Son of man which is in heaven.
These are the words of Christ Jesus,with his conversation to Nicodemas.
In 2 Timothy 2:15,we don't need to study the Bible any more.
Well,I could go on and on,but I spare you the verbage,but woiuld hope to stir you up to remember that every word of God is pure.

Plus I have not been quick to judge the other translations,but took a few years to read only other versions and compare them to the Holy Bible.I had boxes of them and read them to find out if there was something that I could gleen out of these NEW DISCOVERIES.all I discovered was it led to lies ,and confusion and every evil work.Can God use them,Yes,he can use Baalim's ass,so he can use imperfect vessels,but this is not the norm,nor is to be promoted,nor is to be an excuse,to use just these perversions.
We must weight the truth by the truth.Only the Holy Bible will confirm what spirit is in us at any given time.
We are not the final authority,but God's words are the final authority.We don't interpret the Holy Bible outside of comparing scripture with scripture,spiritual with spiritual.
If we go by any private interpretation we end up becoming what the Holy Bible calls Brute beasts,Foolish persons.
The Greek for Private in 2 Peter 1:20 comes from the word
"idiotes",we become idiots.
Help us LORD not to be fools and idiots by going along with all of these private interpretations of what each individual thinks such and such a word or passage should mean,but that we will allow the Holy Bible and the Holy Spirit's convition that backs up God's words to lead us into a lifestyle of glad,willing instant repentance and obedience,all for the glory of God and for the most amount of good.Let us allow God's word to be the only rule of faith for all matters of faith and practice .

If the King James Version is the only word of God in the English language then God does not need us to prove it. His Spirit makes real the words of God. And His words will not fail. The annointing brings life to the believer. We do not need any man to teach us. Jesus be glorified!

When we speak we are to speak as Christ's ambassadors the very oracles of God. If I say "God loves you" with the annointing this is the oracle of God! I can say this with all authority because Jesus has given me this authority! If I say your sins are forgiven then they are forgiven. Jesus has given us this authority! The annointing is the source of authority and the annointing breaks the yoke upon us. The purpose of the annointing is that we would abide in Christ.

1Pe 4:11  If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1Jo 2:27  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

asaph  

If the King James Version is the only word of God in the English language then God does not need us to prove it. His Spirit makes real the words of God. And His words will not fail. The annointing brings life to the believer. We do not need any man to teach us. Jesus be glorified!
quote]
The infalibility and preservation of the scriptures IS part of the Words of God,and so must be taught.No less than any other thing in scriptures.The WHOLE council of God,Amen?
Teaching the scriptures is part of the things commanded to do,both in the Old and New Testament.
You have taken the verse out of context thinking that[or at least implying]teaching is no longer necessarry.Well it is.
I don't think that I need to show you all the verses on teaching the words og God and then compare it to the ones that say "Ihave no need of teachers".Just because He says he has no need of teachers does not nul and void the requisite that it is an integral part of the well being of the church.
Plus it is not IF the King James is the word of God.It is the word of God.I don't have to prove anything you say,since when?
Over and over,the people perverted the words of God,thereby perverting the ways of the People.So God had so send them the word of God again and again,and expose the lies they had sunk to.
All of the scriptures is showing people proving the scriptures to be exactly that,"The Words Of The Living God".
It is God that will preserve his words.He has lived up to his word.He has done what he promised in his word.I believe what God said in his word about his word.

I am not doubting the annointed preaching,whatsoever.That I welcome.But I will not abide lies to be propogated through fake bibles that are driven by copyright laws,and so get more and more rediculous.Not to mention the Satanic origin of the modern Bibles.
The LORD said,When I return,will I find Faith on the earth?
Faith commeth by hearing,and hearing by the word of God.
Fake bibles make for a fake faith.Now that is serious,don't you think?If I know these things and I say nothing,what kind of person would I really be then?
If a fireman saw a house burning down filled with many people and didn't do anything,not even warn the people and raise his voice,the community would be up in arms against this wretched man.
I have compassion for the church.I see them being compromized in a big way.
In Revelations,The people worship devils.Now how can this be?
The new bibles show us.They simply change the word devil to demon.If you take a look at your dictionaries,demons are not the same as devils.Demons are tutular divinities,geniuses.
A devil is an evil one.
Plus they make Jesus and Lucifer to be one and the same person.Compare Isaiah with Peter and Revelations.
The list is endless.That is because the New bibles are becoming agreable to the New Age doctrines.The New Ager's don't believe in the end of the world,they just hold to a series of cyclical ages.And the new versions are catering to them very nicely.
The Holy Bible uses two different words for the Greek word 'aion'.
Whenever the context refers to SPACE,then they use the word "world'.
Whenever the context refers to TIME,then they use the word "age".The modern versions don;t do this consistently and thereby they are promoting the concept of ages and ages.
So,we do need men to teach us,afterall.

Paranoia. God has preserved His Word in the Person of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. There is no giant conspiracy by Bible translators to usher in the New Age. It's all in your mind. Granted, some may do it for financial gain (why do you think bookstores sell the KJV?) but praise God the Word is getting out!
You are spending an enormous amount of time trying to "help" God preserve His Word. I love the KJB because God has blessed it to my spirit by His Spirit. Your misguided teaching only brings discord and strife and brings doubt to many a soul about the reliability of all versions including the KJB.

asaph

You are right the conspiracy is by the Bible translators.

2Co 10:3  For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4  (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
2Co 10:5  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;



This has already been done by many of these new versions. They themselves bring this doubt into mans minds by not being in agreeance with each other, through the deletion of many words and even whole verses that diminish the deity of Jesus Christ and in some instances even turn Him into evil itself.


There is no trying here. God has already preserved His word. We as followers of Jesus Christ must merely be assured to teach His whole word accordingly, not allowing the doubts and incorrect teachings that many of these new translations put into mans minds.

Paranoia. God has preserved His Word in the Person of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. You are spending an enormous amount of time trying to "help" God preserve His Word.Your misguided teaching only brings discord and strife and brings doubt to many a soul about the reliability of all versions including the KJB.
asaph
God has preserved his words in a BOOK.I am not helping God preserving his words,those are just your halusinations.I said it before,and I'll say it again.There are lots of people that are completely compromized ,when it comes to God's word.
If it isn't God's words,then whose is it.I'll give you one guess.
Discord and strife?Discord and strife?According to who?Any person that will not uphold the truth of the scriptures and has already compromised.Many are deceived in these last days,and we need to warn them of the garbage that has infiltrated the churches.
Even Jesus caused discord and strife.Because of him.But God's word says ;Romans 16:17
:17 Now I beseech you,brethren,mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned;and avoid them.
It is not about watching out for people that cause divisions.
Its about marking them that cause divisions CONTRARY to the doctrine learned.
So stop falsly accusing me of defending God's Holy words.

My teachings are not missguided at all.It is the teachings of scriptures themselves.All I am doing is showing how lacksidasical the christian community has become in upholding the words of truth.
If there is no absolute,then,guess what?Thats right,anything goes.It all is relative,and oppinions.There must be a sole authortity.God's word is that.But many have gone about to pervert the pure words of God.

My words do not bring doubt upon the words of God,but it is the people that oppose the words of God that have already done that.They always question the words,by saying.."now the word would be better rendered"....Or. " the KJV is not quite up to date here,it should read" And on and on they go.They are the Bible critics,professionals at that.
Yes,I truthfully bring into question the New,modern versions that are built upon the heretics such as Origen,Jerome,Eusebius,and later ressurecrted in these last apostate days by the heretics and necromancers Westcott and Hort.Westcott and Hort were heavily involved in the occult during the production of the Greek manuscripts that they changed in over 5,000 places in the New Testament alone.They formed private clubs to do all this necromancy.
If you look in the New Age dictionary,you will Find Westcott and Hort mentioned as the Fathers of the Channelling movement.
I could go on for hours but I spare you the verbage.

A person ought to know if he has a real Bible in his hands so make sure to go to one of my earlier posts and copy down the small list out of hundreds more.This list shows any person if they have a real Bible or not.If there is even one varriation in one verse,you know it is not the Holy Bible.Inspired,infalible,pure,purified,perfect.It would then be just a man made fake fostered by Satan.

[quote author=Pastor Roger  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
This has already been done by many of these new versions. They themselves bring this doubt into mans minds by not being in agreeance with each other, through the deletion of many words and even whole verses that diminish the deity of Jesus Christ and in some instances even turn Him into evil itself.
There is no trying here. God has already preserved His word. We as followers of Jesus Christ must merely be assured to teach His whole word accordingly, not allowing the doubts and incorrect teachings that many of these new translations put into mans minds.
Amen Pastor Roger.
I couldn't believe the words out of your mouth at first glance.I was going to say,"He took some of my quotes that I was just writing right out of my post.How did he do that?"
You took the words right out of my mouth.Good answers.

We are trying to help the church in this issue,so the church can again grow into the fulness of the stature Christ would have us to be.

So PeterAV, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if only the church would as a whole return to the use of the KJV, the church would be revitalized and renewed?

Joel

Scary or expected?

PeterAv,
You seem to use circular reasoning in your doctrine. It goes like this:
"I believe the NIV is the only Perfect Translation. The KJV deviates from the NIV therefore the KJV is evil."
I purposefully switched the arguement to favor the NIV so you could see clearly the fallacy of your stance.

The King James Version has minor differences from all versions, translations and manuscripts that came before it. As such, if the King James Version Only position is true, then the perfect word of God, and thus the Bible, did not exist until 1611 and then only in English. Not only do I reject this, it is inconsistent with the King James Version Only claims that God promised to preserve a 100% perfect version of his word.

If the King James Version Only position is correct in that the King James Version is God's perfect word, then it must be seen as a restoration. For the Word of God to have been lost until 1611, would have been a tremendous victory for Satan, yet I find this unlikely in light of Matthew 16:18. That the Gospel would be given a second time is ruled out by Jude 3.

Jud 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

asaph

PeterAV,
You said-"Westcott and Hort were heavily involved in the occult during the production of the Greek manuscripts that they changed in over 5,000 places in the New Testament alone.They formed private clubs to do all this necromancy.
Prove it!
Now read this:
Westcott, Hermes & the Occult
by James May[1]
While advocates of the King James Only position have hurled a myriad of accusations at Brooke Foss Westcott, none is perhaps more serious in nature than the assertion that he was a practitioner of the occult. The first bit of evidence produced by Gail Riplinger in support of this thesis is his membership in a student association at Cambridge University named the Hermes Club. Actually the club was first called the Philological Society and only later renamed Hermes. Gail, with James Sightler[2] and David Sorenson[3] close behind, would have us believe that this club was, to get right to the essence of the whole mess, a group of devil worshipers.[4] This idea is immediately obvious as New Age Bible Versions titles the section in which Hermes is discussed as “Hermes: Alias ‘Satan’,” and then proceeds to allegedly quote Helena Blavatsky to the effect that “Satan or Hermes are all one.”[5] I say “allegedly quote” because I have not personally looked up this reference, and I have learned NEVER to trust any quote from any King James Only defender without examining it myself. Two considerations supposedly demonstrate that the Hermes Club was concerned with the occult: The name of the club and the topics discussed in the club meetings. The only 19th century documentation that has been presented concerning the nature and activities of the Hermes Club is found in the biography of Westcott written by his son Arthur. Since this material is somewhat difficult to secure, I have reproduced the account of the club in full in the next three paragraphs:
Westcott’s most intimate friends during his career as an undergraduate were J. Llewelyn Davies, C. B. Scott, and David J. Vaughan. These four, together with W. C. Bromhead, J. E. B. Mayor, and J. C. Wright, were the original members of an essay-reading club, which was started in May 1845, under the name of “The Philological Society." At a later date the society took the name of “Hermes." The society met on Saturday evenings in one or other of the members' rooms, when a paper was read, and a discussion, not infrequently somewhat discursive, ensued. The following were the subjects of papers read by my father:-- The Lydian Origin of the Etruscans; The Nominative Absolute; The Roman Games of (or at) Ball; The so-called Aoristic Use of the Perfect in Latin; The Funeral Ceremonies of the Romans; The Eleatic School of Philosophy; The Mythology of the Homeric Poems; The Theology of Aristotle; Theramenes.
On two joyful occasions the ordinary business of the society at the weekly meeting was suspended--the first being 7th March 1846, when Westcott was elected to the “Battie" Scholarship; the second, 6th March 1847, when Scott was elected to the "Pitt” Scholarship. In 1847 A. A. Vansittart and J. Simpson became members of the club. At times the society's philosophic gravity relaxed, as witnesses the following entry in the minute-book under date 8th May 1848: "Mr. Vaughan having retired to his rooms, and Mr. Davies within himself, the rest of the society revived the ludus trigonalis [a Roman game of ball], and kept it up for some time with great hilarity." Presumably Westcott took his share in this hilarious revival, though it did not form part of the discussion on his paper concerning Roman Games of (or at) Ball.
The last recorded meeting of the society took place on 15th May 1848. On that occasion the character of Theramenes was discussed in Westcott's rooms. Before separating for the evening the society chose the character of Philopoemen as the "next topic of discussion." So ends the minute-book. Whether the society survived to discuss the character of Philopoemen or not is not apparent. Probably not, for the four faithful members of the club had now graduated. There is an entry in the minute-book which indicates that in March the end was near. Above the initials B. F. W. occur these words: "Let me here offer my heartfelt tribute to a society from which I have derived great pleasure, and, I trust, the deepest good-not least under the feelings of today." The subject that evening had been "The Condition of Women at Rome”; but the discussion had wandered over a wide field, and, in its latest stages, was concerned with a comparison of Plato and Aristotle.[6]
It hardly needs to be said that the description of this club as given in Westcott’s biography strikes the reader much differently than the material found in Riplinger, Sightler and Sorenson. The term philological, as used in the original club name, refers to the study of classical Greek and Latin literature, religion and culture, and the description of the activities of the club seems to very much fit this title. So why the change to “Hermes”? Should we see some hidden occult significance in this? To disarm Westcott’s accusers on this point we must only show that “Hermes” has attributes and associations which are not connected to the occult and which would reasonably explain the choice of the club’s title. To this end we note that Hermes was the messenger of the gods and was himself the god of eloquence:
In the Odyssey, however, he appears mainly as the messenger of the gods and the conductor of the dead to Hades. . . . He was also god of eloquence and presided over some kinds of popular divination.[7]
Interestingly this usage is also reflected in the pages of the New Testament:
And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker (Acts 14:12, New American Standard Bible).
The word “Hermes” in this verse is transliterated from Greek into English by the NASB and other modern translations. The KJV obscures the use of the name by following the Latin and thus translates the Greek “Hermes” as “Mercurius.” The obvious point is that the people in Lystra did not call Paul Hermes because they believed that he was Satan or because they thought that he was somehow connected with the occult. No, he was the chief speaker, and it seems most likely that the young Cambridge students called their club Hermes because they considered themselves to be eloquent speakers in their meetings.
There is a second occurrence of Hermes in the New Testament in Romans 16:14:
Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them (Romans 16:14, King James Version).
The name Hermes in Romans 16:14 is identical to the name in Acts 14:12. Those who read no Greek will be helped by knowing that it has the Strong’s concordance number 2060 assigned to it. It appears a very safe assumption that the early Christians did not agree with Gail Riplinger that “Hermes” = “Satan”. The first century church would not have accepted anyone into its midst with a name associated with the devil, but would have demanded that the name be changed, which leads us to conclude that the use of the name Hermes provides no reasonable indication that the Cambridge club was associated with the occult.
Riplinger and Sightler also imply that the topics covered by the Hermes Club in its meetings indicate an occult connection. To this end they chose only the most sinister sounding topics to relate to their readers. The full list of topics presented by Westcott, as given in his biography, is as follows:
1.    The Lydian Origin of the Etruscans
2.    The Nominative Absolute
3.    The Roman Games of (or at) Ball
4.    The so-called Aoristic Use of the Perfect in Latin
5.    The Funeral Ceremonies of the Romans
6.    The Eleatic School of Philosophy
7.    The Mythology of the Homeric Poems
8.    The Theology of Aristotle
9.    Theramenes
Of these topics Riplinger mentions only numbers 5, 6, 7 and 9; Sightler only number 6. The others perhaps sounded too innocuous for a band of devil worshippers. It takes little research in a good encyclopedia to confirm that these are indeed subjects that young classical scholars might discuss. Since these papers have not been presented to us, we have no way of knowing the opinions which Westcott expressed toward his topics. For example, we do not know what aspects of Aristotle’s theology were discussed, and we do not know what criticisms were offered. In other words, and to get right to the point, the Hermes Club provides no indication whatsoever that Westcott was involved in the occult.
Addendum: An Important Correction
With what appears to be but one exception, quotations in Riplinger, Sightler and Sorenson associating the god Hermes with the occult are completely irrelevant and do not prove that Westcott wished such an identification. The information below first appeared in Riplinger and was then copied by Sorenson:
The designation [Hermes] is derived from “the god of magic. . .and occult wisdom, the conductor of Souls to Hades,. . .Lord of Death. . .cunning and trickery, (Riplinger, p. 400).
The latter title [Hermes] was so named by Westcott because it derived from “the god of magic. . .and occult wisdom, the conductor of Souls to Hades,. . .Lord of Death. . .cunning and trickery, (Sorenson, p. 175).
While both versions claim to relate Westcott’s motives, the second by Sorenson contains a particularly egregious error. Instead of referencing Riplinger as his source, Sorenson here has a footnote (number 36) informing his readers that this information was derived from volume 1, page 47 of the biography of Westcott written by his son. This statement would indeed be a strong indictment if it had been written by Westcott’s son, but it was not.[8] Sorenson’s footnote is simply wrong. There remains not one shred of evidence that Westcott chose the name Hermes for any reason except that Hermes was the god of oratory.
asaph

Footnotes to the above article: Westcott, Hermes and the Occult

[1] Copyright 2005, James Richard May. This paper may be reproduced in its entirety for free distribution. All other rights reserved.

[2] James Sightler, A Testimony Founded For Ever (Greenville, SC: Sightler Publications, 1999), pp. 103-4.

[3] David H. Sorenson, Touch Not The Unclean Thing (Duluth, MN: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001), p. 175.

[4] Sightler does not make the statement as directly as Riplinger, but no one can miss his idea. Sorenson does not take his accusation quite this far.

[5] Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 1993, eleventh printing 2000) p. 400.

[6] Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan and Co., 1903), Vol. I, pp. 46-48.

[7] “Hermes” The Encyclopedia Britannica (Electronic Edition, 2001).

[8] I have, of course, read Westcott’s biography and have examined this page in particular.

asaph

PeterAV,
You said-"A person ought to know if he has a real Bible in his hands so make sure to go to one of my earlier posts and copy down the small list out of hundreds more.This list shows any person if they have a real Bible or not.If there is even one varriation in one verse,you know it is not the
HolyBible.Inspired,infalible,pure,purified,perfect.It would then be just a man made fake fostered by Satan."

One variation from what? The KJV? Here goes your circular reasoning. The KJV is the only inspired word of God in the english language therefore all other versions are not inspired, etc!!!?

What version was inspired before the KJV? And if it was why did the KJV replace it? And if there was not an inspired version what ever happened to the preservation of the God's Word?

asaph


PS don't forget to read and answer my other posts on page six.

[quote author=asaph One variation from what? The KJV? Here goes your circular reasoning.
What version was inspired before the KJV? And if it was why did the KJV replace it? And if there was not an inspired version what ever happened to the preservation of the God's Word?
The English language was not finalized or stablised,until 1600.Even then they wrote phonetically.I have found the same word spelled different ways.But the versions that agree with the majority of manuscripts,[the Recieved Text,or Texus Receptus].All of these versions can be considered to be the words of God for their time.
No other Bible has faithfully used the Texus Recetus since.
Even though 99 percent of the evidence goes infavour of them.I thought that I had already posted the list of various tranlsations that also agree with the KJV.
Now these all agree with the KJV for the most part,because they predominantly follow the same Greek Texts.Not the fake one pumped put by hereticts and necromancers like Westcott and Hort.
Greek texus receptus.
Erasmus 1516
Beza 1565
Stephanus 1546
Colinaeus 1534
Elzevir 1633
Translations...
Martin Luther Germany
Diodati Italian
Erdosi Hungary
Olivetan France
Valera Spain
Visoly Poland
Gottshcalkson Iceland
DeGrave Holland
Elisabeth Bible Russia
These all followed the KJV text type.
Plus there are the ancient translations that also follow the KJV text type.
The OLD LATIN 125-160 AD[not the corrupted Latin Vulgate by Jerome]
The OLD SYRIAC 130-175 AD
The Gothic 350 AD[The earliest English known]

Plus there are the pre-cursers to the King james in the English language.
Coverdale 1535
Great Bible 1539
Matthews Bible 1537
Bishop's Bible 1568
Tyndale's Bible 1525
Geneva Bible 1560
Finally the 1611 Holy Bible.
That is what it was called for almost 300 years,before compromisers wanted to CHANGE God's words.

So you call honest Work evil circular reasoning?Give me a break.If you have the complete Bible you use the complete Bible.Why settle for humanised garbage pumped out by heretics sudh as ORIGEN,and JEROME,and EUSIBIUS,and later brought back to life in these last apostate days by the equall heretics,Westcott and Hort?Who would trust necromancers,the Fathers of the modern Channelling movement?Puleeese!
It's not circular reasoning as you say,but it is called.taking a stand FOR the Holy Bible.No Compromise.

The King James,as it is called today,was made from many other good translations that were faithful to the recieved texts.[Recieved=accepted by all]And they made of many good ones,ONE principal good one.
With three years of fasting and prayer,to kick it off,is unmatched in church history.
Plus it is without any prooven errors.All others I can show PROOVEN errors.And will continue to do so,so that the people will no longer be in the dark, as many would have us to be.

[quote author=asaph PeterAv,
You seem to use circular reasoning in your doctrine. It goes like this:
"I believe the NIV is the only Perfect Translation. The KJV deviates from the NIV therefore the KJV is evil."
I purposefully switched the arguement to favor the NIV so you could see clearly the fallacy of your stance.
quote]
...............
But you purposefully left out that the other versions such as the NIV and other garbage was put out by hetetics Such as Origen,Jerome and Eusebius,and later pumped out in these last apostate days by equall heretics such as Westcott and Hort,famous for being the Fathers of the modern new age Channelling movement.
Plus the KJV agrees with 99 percent of all manuscripts.Why did you leave that out?The circular reasoning is yours until you repent of your fallicy.You will always be going around the Mullberry bush until you can see evil as evil,period.
KJV agrees with all the manuscripts but a couple,and even those had to follow the KJV to pass off as a "Bible".

So, do you really believe that a Bible pumped out by heretics,involved in necromancy and Channelling is the trustworthy edition?Or is it because there is some hidden sin or too much pride to admit that you have been dupped like so many others?Allow God's words to change you,don't be caught changing it.

The statement in bold is simply false.

Joel

I hate to say it, but this is getting border line cultish!   If the KJV is the only infallable word of God, what are folks who don't speak english to do?   Chinese, Gernam, french, russian?    Are these lost until they learn to speak and read Kings English?    ::)

If someone is saved from hearing the NIV version of the gospel, does that make their salvation false?  What about a german version of the Bible?   Is it Jesus that saves, or the version of translation?   Is God the one preserves His word?   Is this debate a stumblingblock for babes or anyone for that matter?   The word is living folks....He is not confined to the Kings english, or any other for that matter.  Those who hear His voice and believe are saved.

This thread IMO is becoming a distraction, and I pray not a stumblingblock to salvation for some who read it.

Grace and Peace!

2nd Timothy,

Amen Brother!

God uses HIS WORD in many ways, fashions, and forms. People can be and have been saved by the spoken or written Word of God for thousands of years. I must add this was also in the native languages of the entire world. God also works in and through us to be witnesses for HIM. Regardless of our education or speaking ability, God can and does use us and many people are Saved when we yield and allow the Holy Spirit to speak through us. The point is that the words of a plain man can be a powerful witness for JESUS.

I'm not a person who says KJV only. I do say that the KJV is better or best for my study, but I have many other translations. I have an NIV and Amplified Bible that I use fairly frequently. I trust God to use His Word, either in written form or spoken form from one of HIS servants. I understand the KJV debate, and it has gone on for hundreds of years. I also see and understand several sides to this old and still ongoing debate. Let me end by making a very simple statement, I trust God to give me words when HE gives me an opportunity to witness. I also trust God to use the Bible left in a hotel room or other place for HIS Purpose.

I'm praying right now that God will guide us and give us wisdom to direct our energies in ways and means that will best light a path for the lost.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1Corinthians 1:18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I used to purchase KJV bibles to give away.  For some reason (copyrights) they are the most inexpensive Bibles.  Then someone pointed out to me that it was best to recommend new believers and seekers to read the Gospel of John first, rather than get lost in Leviticus somewhere and give up.  Rarely have I seen New Testaments booklets as KJV.  

I can't afford to buy Bibles to give away anymore.  Most people who took the free Bibles could buy one in a translation they wanted to read.   I would encourage people to buy New Testaments or whole Bibles to give away, along with tracts.  Tracts are useful but some people do not have a Bible at home.  

One of the local dollars stores in my area has a paperback Bible that I purchase to give to those that do not have their own Bible. It is a KJV. It costs all of $1.00. I usually take all they have on the shelf each time and they seem to get plenty more to restock the shelves with.

Have you even read any Church history?Have you read any of the Works of Westcott and Hort.Have you read any of the heresies of the NIV crew and others.I trow not.
I/ve spent years studying this issue,and you present no proof no quotes nothing to back up your own bold statement that is an outright lie.Careful that you don't get caught declaring evil good and good evil.
All I am doing is declaring that the Bible is the Bible and show proof for it.Plus I expose the garbage of the fake versions,for the works of Satan that they are.Even good godly men can get deceived,look at Peter And Barnabus.Many of the translators are good godly men,but have been dupped and did not know the info that is now coming out about the origins of Wesrcott and Hort and the LXX.

Before you attack me for saying that my statement is unsupported, let me point out that you have provided no proof whatsoever either for your statement.  So at this point, we are on equal footing.

Joel

[quote author=2nd Timothy I hate to say it, but this is getting border line cultish!   If the KJV is the only infallable word of God, what are folks who don't speak english to do?   Chinese, Gernam, french, russian?    Are these lost until they learn to speak and read Kings English?    ::)
quote]Nice try 2nd Timothy.You have ignored the two times that I listed the other translations that are the word of God in the various langusges,so your argument is completely flawed.
Not to mention the 900 translations that were made from the KJV into other laguages in the last few hundred years.

That is right.You go ahead and accuse me of causing a stumbling block,when I preach the truth,and show that the Bible alone is the word of God and ought not to be changed.
Any babe in Christ would be more than glad to know this.Any babe in Christ has a yielded heart of instant obedience to the truth of God's words.If they see that the Bible that saved them is false they will immediately go to the real Bible.They will be glad to be saved ,and just as glad to escape the clutches of Satan.
The only words of God in the false versions that are true are the ones that follow the readings of the KJV.All the rest is not needed,for the truth has already come.
Even the New KJV is all gone to pot,too.
They have beensued for 250,000 with the securities commission.The prsident said he had not seenany worse than this.
The NKJV ommits tons,yet claims to follow the same text as the original KJV.Well, they simply lied.They followed the tex,alright,but made the very same changes as the rest of the apostate fake Bibles.That follow the Alaexandrian Text type,pumped out by the two necromancers Westcott and Hort.
Here is a tiny sampling of the NKJV.Now remember,they are just to update the languge a tiny bit and make as little change as possible.
#1,they make 100,000 changes to the text.
#2,KNJV ommits the word LORD  66times.Real archaic huh?
#3,NKJV ommits the word God  51 times. Same thing.
#4,NKJV ommits the word  heaven 50 times.Now why would they want to water down the Bible like that?
#5,NKJV ommits the word  blood 23 times,Just toss it aside,the blood is old hat these days ,I suppose.
#6,NKJV ommits the word  Hell 22 times.The world loves that one,they say it's about time the churches are agreeing with us.
#7,NKJV ommits the word  Jehovah  entirely.
#8,NKJV ommits the words New Testament entirely.
#9,NKNV ommit the word damnation  Entirely.
#10,NKJV ommits the word  devils entirely.No wonder the end times will be full of people worshipping devils,it is not spoken against in the Bible!!
NKJV ignores the Texus Receptus over some 1,200 times.
NKJV replased the KJV Hebrew[ben Chayyim] with the corrupted Stuttgart edition [ben Asher]Old Testament.
Then they post the logo of the satanic trinity of the ocCULT,on to the cover,but God's word says not to think that the Godhead is like anything...graven by art..Acts17:29.

They demote the trinity,they make salvation to be a works/progressive thing.I Cor 1:18 etc.
They promote a works salvation;Matt 7:14 Difficult is the way.
Now that is a lie.Getting saved is the easiest thing there is.But it is narrow.Only through the blood of Christ Jesus.

They promote the ONE WORLD religion;Acts 17:22,Tit 3:10,etc.
Plus there are hundreds of more difficult words in the NKJV,than the KJV.
Etc.,etc.,etc.
Just incase there are any out there that have other versions,thinking that your versions are better,the answer is nope.They are just as wicked and evil if not worse.There is only one Holy Bible for the English speaking peoples,that is prefect,inspired,infalible,pure,purified.The Holy Bible 1611AV.

My parents speak mandarin Chinese. I will tell you something. Translating english into mandarin will never ever ever have the same connotation and syntax. I find people who argue the superiority of a translation are closed in a small world that speaks on english. Do you know how many languages there are in this world?

When I hear a verse in Chinese and compare it to the one I know in english...it is ENTIRELY different. The syntax and connotations are very different. For instant prov 3:5...'lean not on your own understandings' In chinese it literally means 'you cannot be close to your own smarts' Smarts and understanding can be very different. Leaning not and cannot be close can be very different. This is when I am exercising my mind and not my spirit.

I find that many saints from China are far more well-versed than some saints here in America who have the KJV. How is this so?

Because the truth cannot arrive through human wisdom. When you talk about translations you are relying on human wisdom. The WORD OF GOD IS NOT MEANT TO BE RECEIVED BY THE MIND. Who is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth that guides man to Truth!

Receiving the Word of God
http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=7123 (http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=7123)

[quote author=blackeyedpeas Amen Brother!
 I have an NIV and Amplified Bible that I use fairly frequently. I trust God to use His Word, either in written form or spoken form from one of HIS servants. I understand the KJV debate, and it has gone on for hundreds of years.
Tom
/quote]
How can you know which is the truth,and which is not?It is not a game of I prefer.The NIV ommits 64,098 words.And is one of the worst translations out there.They lie in the footnotes,saying "some manuscripts ,etc."They are always refering to just TWO corrupted manuscripts,namely vaticanus and sianaticus.They don't even have the nerve to be honest about it and name them.
I've have documentation of at least 695 changes of ommissions in the New Testament alone,with little or no manuscript evidence for the ommission or change.Plus there are several changes that are in no manuscripts whatever.
They had two Sodomites on the team.And then we wonder why there are no sodomites in the NIV mentioned anymore.
The list is endless.
The Amplified is no less insidious.They italisize everything that they believe not to be in the Bible.But they leave it in to trick the common man.Plus both the NIV and the Amplified version are owned by Rupert Murdock,the Prince of darkness himself,as coined by a certain news publisher.
He owns bart simpson,so I call the NIV the Bart Simpson Bible.
He bought the rights from a homo sexual publisher in San Fransisco.They bought out Zondervan.so now the Guy[Rupert ]has control of Niv and every bible pumper out by the Lockman foundation.
The KJV debate has not gone on for hundreds of years,but was only started by the two necromancers Westcott and Hort,and a couple just before them.1881.They spent 30 years behind closed doors in secret,with everyone pledged to secrecy.
The King James was done openly and included any person that had any input in the country,that had an interest in the work.Not just the translators.Plus they prayed and fasted for three years,first.

Have you even read any Church history?Have you read any of the Works of Westcott and Hort.Have you read any of the heresies of the NIV crew and others.I trow not.
I/ve spent years studying this issue,and you present no proof no quotes nothing to back up your own bold statement that is an outright lie.Careful that you don't get caught declaring evil good and good evil.
All I am doing is declaring that the Bible is the Bible and show proof for it.Plus I expose the garbage of the fake versions,for the works of Satan that they are.Even good godly men can get deceived,look at Peter And Barnabus.Many of the translators are good godly men,but have been dupped and did not know the info that is now coming out about the origins of Wesrcott and Hort and the LXX.

 let me point out that you have provided no proof whatsoever either for your statement.  So at this point, we are on equal footing.

Joel
Read the material I just quoted.Just before you falsely accuse me of accusing you.
Plus while your at it read New Age Bible Versions,Which Bible is God's Words?In Awe of Thy Word,by gail Riplinger.
Then when you finnish that go to a more pleasent presentation by Dr.Peter S.Ruckman.He also has a few eye openers.his list is;
The Christian Liar's Library
The Mythological Septuaguint
The Scholarship only Controversy,can you trust the professional liars?
Manuscript Evidence
Biblical Scholarship
Alexandrian Cult Series
The Errors in the King James Bible
How to teach the original Greek
King James Onlyism versus Scholarship onlyism
Differences in the King James Version
The Monarch of the Books
The last Grenade
Of course there is much more but this will help a lot in your eye opening ventures.

Almost everyone of you need to simmer down some.

Luke 22:24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
Bob

Nice try 2nd Timothy.You have ignored the two times that I listed the other translations that are the word of God in the various langusges,so your argument is completely flawed.
Not to mention the 900 translations that were made from the KJV into other laguages in the last few hundred years.
And on what basis do you declare that these are the word of God?  Because they follow the KJV?  On what basis is the KJV the standard?  You assume what you need to prove.


I agree that the Bible alone is the Word of God and ought not to be changed.  So in other words, if something is added to or taken from the Bible in ANY translation, then that should be changed.  I believe the KJV does add some things that were not truly part of God's Word.


Ah, so we are less spiritual (perhaps even hard of heart) because we will not only use the KJV.  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.


On what basis do you make that claim?  You assume that the KJV is the standard, but you never prove it!


A few things--1)  You again assume what you need to prove, namely, that the KJV is the standard by which all else should be judged.  2)  Statistics reallly don't prove anything.  BUT, if you want to play the statistics game, then I'm afraid you have some problems.  Look at these numbers (that I just searched for myself using some Bible software):

The KJV uses "Jesus" 973 times and "Jesus'" 10 times, making a total of 983 times.  

The NKJV uses "Jesus" 971 times and "Jesus'" 9 times, making a total of 980 times, only 3 less than the KJV.

The NIV uses "Jesus" 1241 times, and "Jesus'" 33 times, making a total of 1274 times, 291 times MORE than the KJV.

Which version is taking Jesus out of the Bible?

*Note to all who are not understanding my argument here*
  I am not promoting the NIV as the best translation--I personally don't like it.
  I do not think that this kind of "statistical proof" proves anything, but since it is the kind of reasoning being used by the other position, I am showing where it logically concludes.  
  *end of note*


They do NOT demote the trinity (the NWT does, but that is the JW version, which as a movement denies the trinity, so that is to be expected.)  Rather, the teaching of the Trinity can be found powerfully in the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and others.
 
They DO NOT make salvation to be a progressive thing SOLELY.  Salvation is a past event, but it is also something carried out in the present as we are freed from the power of sin in our lives, and salvation has a future aspect as well, called glorification, in which sin is eradicated completely.  Look at Romans 8:30.  1 Cor 1:18 in the versions other than the KJV is not teaching a different view of justification.  Rather it emphasizes the sanctification aspect of salvation DUE TO THE GREEK WORD/CONSTRUCTION.


I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting the "new versions".  They are not making any sort of statement about how we are saved, or that we have to work hard for our salvation.  
  But I will say this, the path that Christians have to walk can often be difficult.


You've got to be kidding me.  Those passages don't promote one world religion.  I can't imagine how you got that out of there.


Again, assuming what you need to prove,  

Joel

I have already read sizable portions of NABV.  If that is your defense, I don't know what else I can say.  Gail Riplinger is, pardon my language, a lunatic.  The lady doesn't even make sense.  I'm afraid that the statements in her book are simply unsupported.  Acrostic algebra?  The NIV and the sinking of the Titanic are related?  Come on, let's be rational.  

  I suggest you read "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, and listen to their interaction (I believe it is found on www.aomin.org .    


I'm sorry, but if that is the stuff you have been reading, then I can see why you support this like you do.  But honestly, Gail Riplinger does not document her positions accurately, misrepresents others, and just makes up stuff out of thin air.  

However, please do not take my comments personally.  I do not mean to be abrasive.  And I believe Dream Weaver is correct, and we all need to simmer down somewhat.  
  Please realize I do admire the fact that you desire to support the Scriptures, however much I may disagree with the manner in which you do so.

Joel

Brothers while I support the KJV totally I agree also that the other versions have been used successfully to bring many to Jesus Christ.

I also agree with DW,


To call others Pharisees or other such names, implied or directly, is not being Christian like and is running you both in danger by doing so.

Eph 4:1  I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2  With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3  Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Eph 4:7  But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Thanks,
I deleted my post.
asaph

Since Westcott has been blackballed by KJO advocates, and continues to be, I post this a second time to see if I can get a response. I believe the author, Mr. May, has been open and honest in his attempt to come to the aid of the deceased Westcott.

Westcott, Hermes & the Occult
by James May[1]
While advocates of the King James Only position have hurled a myriad of accusations at Brooke Foss Westcott, none is perhaps more serious in nature than the assertion that he was a practitioner of the occult. The first bit of evidence produced by Gail Riplinger in support of this thesis is his membership in a student association at Cambridge University named the Hermes Club. Actually the club was first called the Philological Society and only later renamed Hermes. Gail, with James Sightler[2] and David Sorenson[3] close behind, would have us believe that this club was, to get right to the essence of the whole mess, a group of devil worshipers.[4] This idea is immediately obvious as New Age Bible Versions titles the section in which Hermes is discussed as “Hermes: Alias ‘Satan’,” and then proceeds to allegedly quote Helena Blavatsky to the effect that “Satan or Hermes are all one.”[5] I say “allegedly quote” because I have not personally looked up this reference, and I have learned NEVER to trust any quote from any King James Only defender without examining it myself. Two considerations supposedly demonstrate that the Hermes Club was concerned with the occult: The name of the club and the topics discussed in the club meetings. The only 19th century documentation that has been presented concerning the nature and activities of the Hermes Club is found in the biography of Westcott written by his son Arthur. Since this material is somewhat difficult to secure, I have reproduced the account of the club in full in the next three paragraphs:
Westcott’s most intimate friends during his career as an undergraduate were J. Llewelyn Davies, C. B. Scott, and David J. Vaughan. These four, together with W. C. Bromhead, J. E. B. Mayor, and J. C. Wright, were the original members of an essay-reading club, which was started in May 1845, under the name of “The Philological Society." At a later date the society took the name of “Hermes." The society met on Saturday evenings in one or other of the members' rooms, when a paper was read, and a discussion, not infrequently somewhat discursive, ensued. The following were the subjects of papers read by my father:-- The Lydian Origin of the Etruscans; The Nominative Absolute; The Roman Games of (or at) Ball; The so-called Aoristic Use of the Perfect in Latin; The Funeral Ceremonies of the Romans; The Eleatic School of Philosophy; The Mythology of the Homeric Poems; The Theology of Aristotle; Theramenes.
On two joyful occasions the ordinary business of the society at the weekly meeting was suspended--the first being 7th March 1846, when Westcott was elected to the “Battie" Scholarship; the second, 6th March 1847, when Scott was elected to the "Pitt” Scholarship. In 1847 A. A. Vansittart and J. Simpson became members of the club. At times the society's philosophic gravity relaxed, as witnesses the following entry in the minute-book under date 8th May 1848: "Mr. Vaughan having retired to his rooms, and Mr. Davies within himself, the rest of the society revived the ludus trigonalis [a Roman game of ball], and kept it up for some time with great hilarity." Presumably Westcott took his share in this hilarious revival, though it did not form part of the discussion on his paper concerning Roman Games of (or at) Ball.
The last recorded meeting of the society took place on 15th May 1848. On that occasion the character of Theramenes was discussed in Westcott's rooms. Before separating for the evening the society chose the character of Philopoemen as the "next topic of discussion." So ends the minute-book. Whether the society survived to discuss the character of Philopoemen or not is not apparent. Probably not, for the four faithful members of the club had now graduated. There is an entry in the minute-book which indicates that in March the end was near. Above the initials B. F. W. occur these words: "Let me here offer my heartfelt tribute to a society from which I have derived great pleasure, and, I trust, the deepest good-not least under the feelings of today." The subject that evening had been "The Condition of Women at Rome”; but the discussion had wandered over a wide field, and, in its latest stages, was concerned with a comparison of Plato and Aristotle.[6]
It hardly needs to be said that the description of this club as given in Westcott’s biography strikes the reader much differently than the material found in Riplinger, Sightler and Sorenson. The term philological, as used in the original club name, refers to the study of classical Greek and Latin literature, religion and culture, and the description of the activities of the club seems to very much fit this title. So why the change to “Hermes”? Should we see some hidden occult significance in this? To disarm Westcott’s accusers on this point we must only show that “Hermes” has attributes and associations which are not connected to the occult and which would reasonably explain the choice of the club’s title. To this end we note that Hermes was the messenger of the gods and was himself the god of eloquence:
In the Odyssey, however, he appears mainly as the messenger of the gods and the conductor of the dead to Hades. . . . He was also god of eloquence and presided over some kinds of popular divination.[7]
Interestingly this usage is also reflected in the pages of the New Testament:
And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker (Acts 14:12, New American Standard Bible).
The word “Hermes” in this verse is transliterated from Greek into English by the NASB and other modern translations. The KJV obscures the use of the name by following the Latin and thus translates the Greek “Hermes” as “Mercurius.” The obvious point is that the people in Lystra did not call Paul Hermes because they believed that he was Satan or because they thought that he was somehow connected with the occult. No, he was the chief speaker, and it seems most likely that the young Cambridge students called their club Hermes because they considered themselves to be eloquent speakers in their meetings.
There is a second occurrence of Hermes in the New Testament in Romans 16:14:
Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them (Romans 16:14, King James Version).
The name Hermes in Romans 16:14 is identical to the name in Acts 14:12. Those who read no Greek will be helped by knowing that it has the Strong’s concordance number 2060 assigned to it. It appears a very safe assumption that the early Christians did not agree with Gail Riplinger that “Hermes” = “Satan”. The first century church would not have accepted anyone into its midst with a name associated with the devil, but would have demanded that the name be changed, which leads us to conclude that the use of the name Hermes provides no reasonable indication that the Cambridge club was associated with the occult.
Riplinger and Sightler also imply that the topics covered by the Hermes Club in its meetings indicate an occult connection. To this end they chose only the most sinister sounding topics to relate to their readers. The full list of topics presented by Westcott, as given in his biography, is as follows:
1.    The Lydian Origin of the Etruscans
2.    The Nominative Absolute
3.    The Roman Games of (or at) Ball
4.    The so-called Aoristic Use of the Perfect in Latin
5.    The Funeral Ceremonies of the Romans
6.    The Eleatic School of Philosophy
7.    The Mythology of the Homeric Poems
8.    The Theology of Aristotle
9.    Theramenes
Of these topics Riplinger mentions only numbers 5, 6, 7 and 9; Sightler only number 6. The others perhaps sounded too innocuous for a band of devil worshippers. It takes little research in a good encyclopedia to confirm that these are indeed subjects that young classical scholars might discuss. Since these papers have not been presented to us, we have no way of knowing the opinions which Westcott expressed toward his topics. For example, we do not know what aspects of Aristotle’s theology were discussed, and we do not know what criticisms were offered. In other words, and to get right to the point, the Hermes Club provides no indication whatsoever that Westcott was involved in the occult.
Addendum: An Important Correction
With what appears to be but one exception, quotations in Riplinger, Sightler and Sorenson associating the god Hermes with the occult are completely irrelevant and do not prove that Westcott wished such an identification. The information below first appeared in Riplinger and was then copied by Sorenson:
The designation [Hermes] is derived from “the god of magic. . .and occult wisdom, the conductor of Souls to Hades,. . .Lord of Death. . .cunning and trickery, (Riplinger, p. 400).
The latter title [Hermes] was so named by Westcott because it derived from “the god of magic. . .and occult wisdom, the conductor of Souls to Hades,. . .Lord of Death. . .cunning and trickery, (Sorenson, p. 175).
While both versions claim to relate Westcott’s motives, the second by Sorenson contains a particularly egregious error. Instead of referencing Riplinger as his source, Sorenson here has a footnote (number 36) informing his readers that this information was derived from volume 1, page 47 of the biography of Westcott written by his son. This statement would indeed be a strong indictment if it had been written by Westcott’s son, but it was not.[8] Sorenson’s footnote is simply wrong. There remains not one shred of evidence that Westcott chose the name Hermes for any reason except that Hermes was the god of oratory.
asaph

[quote author=joelkaki And on what basis do you declare that these are the word of God?  Because they follow the KJV?  On what basis is the KJV the standard?  You assume what you need to prove.
.........
Well, lets just say 99 percent of manuscript evidence including the thousands of manuscripts found AFTER 1611.
There are 5,300 Manuscripts.Less than 50 peices of manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian false heretical Minority standard,that all the modern versions follow.
The translarors lie so much just to get you to buy their own private version.Those thousands of manuscripts found since 1611 agree with the KJV 99 percent and even the 1 percent has to follow the 99 much of the time,or they could not be pushed on to the publick as a bible.

The KJV changes nothing.You are against all manuscript evidence,plus,it is not about oppinion.

Ah, so we are less spiritual (perhaps even hard of heart) because we will not only use the KJV.  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.
..................
No,because you do not believe the Bible is the bible.When they see it for what it is they simply believe,because they have not had time to be falsely indoctrinated to the point of offence when the truth comes out.Instead,they humbly submit.

On what basis do you make that claim?  You assume that the KJV is the standard, but you never prove it!
................
That's right,go ahead,and IGNORE 99 percent of the manuscript evidence that favours the KJV as a trustworthy translation.99 percent of manuscript evidence is hard to throw away now isn't it.

........................
I assume nothing my man.I have followed the majority of manuscript evidence is all.This includes throughout the whole of the text and the whole of history.
Feel sorry that you think that 99 percent with 5,300 manuscropts isn't enough to convince you of the overwhelming proof of the trustworthiness of the Holy Bible.

You have not offered evidence that 99 percent of 5300 manuscripts supports the KJV.  You have simply asserted it.  Therefore I feel no compulsion to "be convinced" that your position is correct.  

Plus the study I have done leads to a very different conclusion.

Joel

Like many here I use the KJV in my readings as well as many other versions.   The Pure Gospel is the same in all that I have seen.  Man is sinful and God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins.

The Gospel of Christ knows no barriers, languages, depths, heights and the gates of hell shall not prevail.  

I have nothing more to add.  Carry on!

Grace and Peace!

I support the KJV but do not believe it is as good as the Recovery version. You can see more by looking up Witness Lee.

I now use the Recovery version more often. But for me it does not matter what version I use...the Spirit still leads me. The Spirit will lead you if you let it. This is done best when you pray over the verse. Read each word and believe in it with all your being. Go slowly. When you pray it you are exercising your spirit. That's how you receive the word.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

I also use the KJV and NIV quite often. When you search Scripture, you must come to Jesus to find life. If you do not find life it is useless. These Words are spirit and life.

Jesus scolded the pharisees for searching through the Scriptures and not coming to Him. Likewise, when we go to the word we must come to Christ.

John 5:39
You search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,

John 5:40
Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Does any of your sorces believe that they posses in their hands the infalible words of God?Do you?
A book without prooven error?
By the way you speak,I trow not.
Would you like me to post the list of manuscripts?You know I can.

Felix102,
Great word! The Recovery Version is very good. You are right on! Whatever the version, the Word read and prayed over becomes spirit and life to us. It does not matter what version but whenever the name of Jesus is spoken there is mercy and grace. Before I was a believer whenever I heard the name of Jesus spoken as a cuss word I was convicted in my spirit. Jesus is NIV, KJV, RV, NASB, Etc. He is all in all! He is the gospel, He has become my Salvation!
I am always inspired by your posts brother.
asaph  

To whom it may concern,
All the versions are without error because the Holy Spirit teaches us what He wills. God is not limited to one version.
(LITV)  When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not happen or come about, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken; that prophet has spoken it proudly; you shall not be afraid of him.
(KJV)  When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Is it proudly or presumptuously? Is it Jehovah or LORD? The Holy Spirit says both words are acceptable in both instances.
H2087
&#1494;&#1491;&#1493;&#1503;
za&#770;do&#770;n
zaw-done'
From H2102; arrogance: - presumptuously, pride, proud (man).

Am I evil for believing this? If I am tell me how.

Even the NLT is used by the Holy Spirit to teach us a facet of truth.

22If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared.

While it is not a word for word tanslation neither is it a lie or evil word as some would have us to believe. The Lord Spirit is the teacher. Love Him and be taught!

asaph


 

[quote author=asaph Since Westcott has been blackballed by KJO advocates, and continues to be, I post this a second time to see if I can get a response. I believe the author, Mr. May, has been open and honest in his attempt to come to the aid of the deceased Westcott.
It is very obvious by the writer's own words,that he has not read all that Gail has.Yet he gives his oppinion.And this is to be the standard.Now it is true that we all do not have to read everything around,to get the grip on things.
But he goes about it all wrong.
He didn't quote Westcott much,now,did he?She did.All he did was do a paper on what someone said she said or some other person said.Without spending any time on the facts.
The facts,like Westcott's own word,perhaps,may put it into perspective,right?
Plus if you take a look at the list he wrote down,it sure was not Christianity they were studying,now,was it?

Westcott[Greek editor]vol II p232,242,263,147,148,239.
               Westcott...Living One in his Gospel of the Ressurection pg 63
 "To me it appears that the Spirit is teaching us now above all things the unity of life,of all things,of all beings,of the seen and of the unseen...We view...men as disconnected,but this is simply a consequence of our limited powers.
To God all life that is truly life is one...There can be no doubt that the uniform tendency of recent research is to establish in many unexpected ways the closeness of the conections by which we are bound one top another."
 
  "In proportion as we know more fully,this conection is found to be more powerful and far reaching.It is the element-one element-in the idea of life which has been revealed to us in this age...the little life which is now my own is part of a vaster life."
Now that is New Age,Greek stuff,like Plato and Aristotle.
All is one harmonius whole,ya right.

Then we wonder why the modern Bibles have instead of HIM as in Jesus,they insert THE ONE.

Life of Westcott Vol I pgs 249-255,164,volII pg 306,Historic faith pg258,The Gospel of the Ress.pg 63,Religious thought in the West.p 106
 "All..is gathered up without loss of personality in One...God in all things and all things in God."

The life of Westcott pg251

 "As far as I could judge,the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing himself now,and not in one form but in many."
 ibid p 274VolII
Wescott spoke of the "consecration" of the host.
Sounds like he has Catholic leanings here.

Historic Faith p11

  "There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.That tima has happily gone by."
Excuse me?
ibid p13

It is no longer 'faith in God,but faith for things'.B.F.Westcott's years of association with the esoteric world led him to call "faith" a "power" we can "use."

Lots more to come.
Historic Faith pgs111,105,253,Greek Tex with Notes and Addenda p70,Gospel of John:the AV with intro.and notes p 246.
  "The revelation of the Divine in man realized in an through Christ...Man is divine...Every type of essential human excellence coexists in Christ...humanity has been raised in the Son of Man to the right hand of God."

Here is a great one.this is found in Lif eof Westcott vol II p 127
  "David is not a chronological person."
Hey,it gets better!
Life and Letters of BF Westcott volII p 101,226,volI,pgs 231,209,Religious Thought in the West pg228
  "Only a social interpretation of the Gospel." I John 2:2 is "foreign to the language of the New Testament"..great difficulty with the notion of sacrifice and vicarious punishment."...he sees "man paying his debt."..."Some by diligent obedience have been raised to the loftiest places in the celestial hierarchy."in Col 1:14 he supports the removal of  "through his blood".."the redemptive efficacy`of Christ's work is to be found in his whole life.".."The redemptive work of Christ was complete in his last discourse."..."No doubt many do not agree with me."

Just a very tiny sample of his mind set,that is agreable to the occult and New Age mind set.See how we clear up things by going to the source,instead of quoting someone that speaks against the accuracy of the quotes by Gail?
James May missed the mark.
I haven't even touched many of the worse teachings he has laid down for posterity,even though he was careful not to expose himself,so he could get the work done on the Fake Greek Text.

Have you actually read in context everything you quoted above? Or is this taken from one of your KJO cohort's writings. I have not read Westcott myself so I refrain to comment. However the essence of what Mr. May said in his argument is that Westcott was misquoted by his adversaries and time frames were off also.. There is a good possibility that this is the case here also. But thanks for at least responding to the article.

asaph

[quote author=asaph
All the versions are without error because the Holy Spirit teaches us what He wills. Is it proudly or presumptuously? Is it Jehovah or LORD? The Holy Spirit says both words are acceptable in both instances. Am I evil for believing this? If I am tell me how.
asaph
Matthew 5:22 in the new versions make Jesus out to be a sinner.NIV etc.Not all follow these mistakes all the time.This is one out of hundreds and hundreds.
So the new versions are with error.Yes,the Holy Ghost teaches using anything and anybody,but the most important thing is the very words of God.Why is that so hard to understand?I'll tell you why.Many are to proud to admit that they have been duped,others are making money on the stuff.
Many don't believe what God said in his word about his words.
They believe the lies of the modern translators.

We must remember that God mostly uses his words to do his work.If the words are adulterated,you get adulterated understandings.

Proudly or presumptuously?
In this instance the King James has it right.
Yes,it is true that certain words can be translated various ways,but the context always determines the word used.
No different than when the KJV uses Easter in acts,when all the other 27 times Passover is used.
Many prophets can speak with pride and the thing can come to pass.Baalam was not a humble man for the LORD.Jonah was a little on the prideful side too.The gifts and calling are without repentance.
So even though they speak with pride,the thing CAN come to pass.But if the persom speaks presumptuously,it becomes obvious that the word is not right.
The word presumptuously means someone that speaks with an excessive bold confidence.Someone with pride can speak quite softly and with no brashness.So the terms are not the same.
Pride is not the accurate rendering here,as it may be in other places.
Plus you should never ever go to the compromized LexICONS,and fake dictionaries.The Holy Bible has its own built in dictionary,unlike any other work on earth.
All of the translators in that era 1611 and before,did not use worldly dictionaries.They did not want to have pagan definitions for the Holy Bible.So they only use the Bibles and Manuscripts that wre around at that time.
All Lexicons and dictionaries disagree with each other,so it becomes a oppinionated choosing game of I PREFER.
None of the men who wrote the dictionaries and Lexicons professed salvation,many were unsaved,or liberal,od involved in New Age,and humanism.I use Strong's now,only to find a verse.I avoid the back like a plague.

The proper rendering should be LORD.Jehovah is only for the purposeful times that it is definitely needed.They revered the name of Jehovah,immensely.So, that is the reason LORD was used for the those places.

As far as I am concerned, all versions except the KJV are corrupted and NOT God's Word.  They CONTAIN God's Words, but ARE NOT God's Word.  Even if the NIV, NASB, etc., were only missing 1 word of what God intended to be there... why read them knowing that there IS A VERSION that does not omit 1 word?  The KJV and the others ARE NOT THE SAME.  Therefore, which version is right about what it says?  The version that says, "Some messages may contain...", etc., or the version that says, "Thus saith the Lord..."?  God is not unsure about what His Word may and/or may not contain.  God knows.  The last few verses of Mark are not a mystery to God.  The King James Version knows this.  But does your New Age Vaticanus manuscript???  Heaven and earth shall pass away...you know the rest.

Mat 5:22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The NIV omits "without a cause."
Have you ever been angry with your brother without a cause? I have always had a cause, so I'm safe.  8)  Right?

Where was Jesus ever angry with His brother, period?
Was He angry at Peter when He turned to him and said Get thee behind me Satan. I think not. He was angry at Satan and Satan is not His brother. Was He angry at the Jews who sold oxen and sheep and doves in the temple? Yes. Were they His brothers? No. In fact he called the Jews that opposed Him children of the devil. One time Jesus asked the question who is my brother. The answer He gave was whoever does the will of God is His brother.

Mat 12:50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Find me one verse that proves He was angry with his "brother." As far as I can tell there is none.

Now what judgement is Jesus talking about? I believe it is the judgement seat of Christ. If I am angry with my brother I will have to give an account of my anger at that judgement seat of Christ unless I resolve it today. I should not let the sun go down on my anger. With or without the phrase "without a cause" the text is inspired and is used by the Holy Spirit to instruct and convict us.
The Word of God is 100% pure!

asaph

Well done asaph.You are giving it a lot of thought and honesty.I just wish others would learn from your efforts and labour of love of the word of God.You are a good scholar here.
That was a good answer.So I need to change the senario a bit on that one.
The words of God are pure words,nothing to be ommitted.Right?Why do they ommit.Without a cause.Plus,[not counting Jesus]The truth of the verse still is in jepordy for it doesn't say Jesus.But it says "WHOSOEVER".So the new Bibles have made a grievous mistake nonetheless.

Plus Brother can and is used in the way of "in the LORD."
Plus Brother can be used and is used for "any person on earth."but more remotely.
I Thes 3:2,Heb 13:23.
Heb 8:11,etc.
Yes the Holy Bible is 100%,is for sure but not the modern versions.
Just like jesusavedme said,"the modern versions MAY contain the words of God yet not all,why settle for less."

Yes, that would be helpful.
I did notice that you simply did not answer the arguments that I presented in my two posts at the top of page 8, but ignored them entirely.  All you responded with was the 99% thing, which is unsupported.  Even if it was, you still ignored my arguments which is telling.
Joel

Thanks for reminding me.I'll get right on it.It will take a bit of time to post all the info,so I need to wait for a better time to post.Maybe tonight.
Peter Fuhrman

Peter, I know that this is your topic, I don't want to intrude here, but allow me to come to your defense concerning this issue if you don't mind.  

God told His people in His Word that His Word would abide for ever and be faithfully available unto ALL GENERATIONS.  The Modern Versions are all based on manuscripts (Aleph, Oleph, Alexandrian, Vaticanus, Sinaticus, etc.) that, for hundreds of years, WERE SITTING LOCKED UP INSIDE OF CAVES AND/OR THE VATICAN.  They were and are NOT the promised Divinely preserved texts that God promised.  That is enough to credit their dismissal.

The fact that the Modern Versions are MISSING WORDS that the Authorized Version (Textus Receptus) DOESN'T, means that one of them is right and one of them is wrong.  Take a guess at which is which.  Jesus said that man should not live by bread alone but by "EVERY WORD" that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  Every word means every word.  We cannot and should not attempt to make Jesus' Words void or unavoidable with our finite, carnal understanding.  

The Holy Spirit will and would never lead someone to believe wholly in a Version that does not say "Thus saith the Lord..." but instead "SOME MANUSCRIPTS MAY CONTAIN...".  God is not UNSURE OF HIS WORD, let me tell you that right now.  The last few verses of Mark, 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, etc., are not MYSTERIES OR QUESTION MARKS to God.  He is absolutely certain whether or whether not they are inspired text.  The only manuscripts that pass the test concerning God's faithfulness of preservation and textual credibility is the Textus Receptus, the foundation of our King James Bible.

[quote author=jesusavedme  The only manuscripts that pass the test concerning God's faithfulness of preservation and textual credibility is the Textus Receptus, the foundation of our King James Bible.
AMEN!!And Thank You!!

[quote author=joelkaki
I agree that the Bible alone is the Word of God and ought not to be changed. .  I believe the KJV does add some things that were not truly part of God's Word.
  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.
You agree Joel,that the Bible is the Word of God and ought not to be changed.
Why did you forget to tell me just what this bible is that is the Word of God.Is it your ESV?Is that the one you believe ought not to be changed,because it is the Word Of God?
You admitt that,in your opinion that the ESV is not false.

Here are just a few tiny samplings of the hundreds and hundreds of corruptions,and I'll do it[pick samples] just in the O.T. where doctrine is not affected that much.They have identical personalities in both Testaments.So just what would the New testament look like after It is exposed?Nevertheless,here are a few samples from the OT.

To start with,if you look at the history of the ESV,you find out that it is nothing more than the revision of the RSV.The most liberal piece of human evidence known to man,concerning the Holy Bible.It failed miserably.So to make money,they change the name and make a few More changes because of thoses darn copyright laws.
 
  Here are a few of the men and women that have promoted this ESV.
R.C.Sproll
Max Lucado
Joni Ericson Tada
John W.Walvoord
Erin Lutzer

The ESV along with the RSV both are founded upon the corrupted Westcott and Hort Manuscripts.These fake manuscripts,ommit over 5,000 words and 18 complete verses.
The Old Testament is an eclectic text that borrows sometimes from the Hebrew Masoratic texts,Then it will jump to the Septuagint[LXX72],it will also borrow from the Samaritan Pentateuch,and the Syriac,Plus the Vulgate.This just what the RSV did.It is nothing more than the RSV dressed up in new garb.Plus they have been using the Dead Sea Scrolls too.From the Essenes,an obvious heretical group.
This is how the modern Bibles are getting Pagan word definitions verses the pure Bible definitions.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you,niether shall ye diminish ought from it,that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Pro 30:5,6
:5 Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
:6 Add thou not to his words,lest he reprove thee,and thou be found a liar.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.

So we have the Biblical standard set;Don't change,don't diminish.don't add.don't take away.God's word stands.
Info by Will Kinney

ESV Blunders;
Gen 49:21 he moved them to cities=Heb
NIV<ESB<RSV;he made servants of them.
Then in the ESV footnote they admit they knew what the Hebrew said plus the others that they arbitrarily follow from time to time.
FOOTNOTE;Sam,Sept,Vul,Heb,read He moved them to cities.

Gen 49:10 reads until Shiloh come
ESV reads  until tribute comes to him.

Ex 14:25 reads;took off
ESV reads;clogging

Deut 11:14,15 reads I will give..I will send
ESV reads;He will give..He will send

Deut 30:16 reads; LORD thy God
RSV<ESV reads;if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God...LORD
Again,changing and adding.Plus not in the Hebrew,as usual.
How people can talk with a straight face,and say these versions are reliable is a joke,if it wasn't so serious.

Deut 32:8 reads; of Israel
RSV,ESV reads;sons of God
LXX reads;angels of God

Deut 32:43 Reads;O ye nations,with this people
ESV reads;rejoice with him,O heavens,bow down to him all gods.
Compare RSV,NRSV
Plus it should read;servants
NRSV<ESV read;children...He repays those who hate him..

Judges 14:15 reads on the seventh day
RSV,ESV reads;on the fourth day
ESV footnote;4th day in Syriac and LXX;7th day in Hebrew.
There they go again changing when they didn't need to.they are dishonest.

By having many standards,one can play the mediator and play the game of I PREFER.

Judges 16:13 ESV adds ..and fasten it with a pin.Then I shall become weak and be like any other man.-in no Hebrew Manuscripts.

I Sam 1:24reads; with three bullocks
RSV,ESV reads; a three year old bull.
Fottnote;in Syriac,and LXX

I Sam 2:33 reads thine eyes,..thine heart
RSV,ESV reads his eyes...his heart

I Sam 6:19 reads; LORD...50,000 and three score and ten men...LORD
RSV,ESV reads;LORD struck 70 men

Well, there are hundreds more,but this is just a sampling of the moronic nature of tampering with God's Holy Words.

I don't think you will be rejoicing in the ESV like you have before,if you are honest at the true words of God that ought not to be changed,taken away,added to,or diminished by using unsatisfactory synonyms.

 ESV Blunders;
Gen 49:21 he moved them to cities=Heb
NIV<ESB<RSV;he made servants of them.
Then in the ESV footnote they admit they knew what the Hebrew said plus the others that they arbitrarily follow from tome to time.
FOOTNOTE;Sam,Sept,Vul,Heb,read He moved them to cities.

Huh?
Gen 49:21  Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth goodly words.

asaph

That should be Gen 47:21 not 49:21

KJV
Gen 47:21  And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.


ESV
21As for the people, he made servants of them[a] from one end of Egypt to the other.

NIV
 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, [a] from one end of Egypt to the other.

Footnotes:

   1. Genesis 47:21 Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint (see also Vulgate Masoretic Text and he moved the people into the cities


RSV
21: and as for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other.

Both thoughts are true and whatsoever things are true, think on these things.
Of course the KJV is the best but the Holy Spirit is not limited to  it but the KJ is limited to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit will not lead us into error. It is true that they were removed to cities and it is true that they were made servants there as evidenced by the Bible record. So what is the great theological error that we are led into by this statement?

Respectfully in Christ under the annointing,

asaph

The B-I-B-L-E that's the Book for me, the B-I-B-L-E YaY!

I Love the Living Word of God in the KJV 1611 AV B-I-B-L-E, again this is the Book for me, The B-I-B-L-E!!

YSIC,

KristiAnn
MsGuidedAngel

If that is your stand,then I feel sorry for you.Lets play the GAME of PICK and CHOOSE,or I PREFER,or MY OPPINION,or the OPPINIONS of others.Good grief.None of those Bibles[yuk]agree with each other.Speak the SAME things,remember.Wouldn't that be a hoot,if we all stood up to read our favotite private interpretations,instead of the Holy Bible.
Any reasonable Christian can see a faithful translation just by comparing these few verses,and chapters.
Numbers 21-23
Genesis 1-3,50
Exodus 10-15
Luke 4
Psalm 91
Matthew 2,13,28
Acts 6,7.11,12,27
Luke 2:33
I Tim 3:16
Isaiah 14:9-16
II Cor 2:17
Rom 1:18,25
Acts 4:27
Plus hundreds more,of any version.

Any reasonable Christian that is truly honest KNOWS that there is ONLY ONE Holy Bible.The KJV is it.Not because I say so,but it has the stamp of history upon it and has proven itself to be exactly that;THE HOLY BIBLE.Without any proven error.Pretty impresive compared to the garbage of the NASB,and the ESV.
The NASB and the ESV do not acurately reflect the "original Writings" and they are NOT perfect.
To start with,there ARE NO "ORIGINALS".so that argument is a fakey.Fakey fakey,fakey.Mamma gonna spank,for telling a lie now.
To the next point;they are not perfect.I have showed you many mistakes,and they also ignor the Hebrew texts in areas.

Plus you are so hopeless in your defence that you resort to halftruths and outright lies.
Like the text of Westcott and Hort is not the same as the 27 and ubs4.But they are.They are basically the same text throughout.27 had to recant on some 500 spots to read back to the King James as will always be the case.But the Translators ignore this over and over again and again.They just play the game of pick and choose.$$$ copyright laws,you know.If they were truly interested in updating the KJV,they would use the same Hebrew and Greek,and not the heretical Alexandrian minority 1% text type that can't even agree with each other two verses in a row.

Yes,this is scholarship onlyites finest hour.They would like to be like the Nicolaitans and rule over the people.
The common person can read,and they can discern the truth;they need no upper class trying to dictate to them just what the word of God means.Going back to the dark ages ,are we?

You have missed the truth again.                                                                                      
[You are mistaken.]
No,I am not mistaken.
Your understanding of the Bible is that there is ,out there somewhere in this world ,if you put all the manuscripts together,some kind of variation ,that that is the word of God.

There are many that try to prevert the words of God.There is only one Bible.Not many,then the scholar can make his fake money by being the mediator by presenting two contradicting versions,and then giving us his valued OPPINION.
I have given you more than is enouph info,to consider,but in your eyes I have given you nothing.Whats up with that?


[I did notice that you simply did not answer the arguments that I presented in my two posts at the top of page 8, but ignored them entirely.  All you responded with was the 99% thing, which is unsupported.  Even if it was, you still ignored my arguments which is telling.]

I can't be answering everything,and I do answer as much as I can or see reason to do so.Sometimes I just take a point or two and not take the whole thing to reply to.It becomes quite labourious.Especially when I put out a few posts,and then they get dissed with a sentance or two with no proof.And then You accuse me of not giving you proof.Whats up with that?

I don't know which questions you are needing,for I tried to answer most of what you asked.You may think it was ignored,or important,and maybe it is.So please help me out here.I have done my best.But there is much more to come.

I have showed you that the KJV follows the 99 percent,is this what you are looking for?The proof?

Brothers,

This thread needs to be calmed down some. Name-calling is going too far between brothers discussing the Bible. So, take a chill pill, shake hands, and continue on.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 10:31  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

PeterAV,

If all the proof you are going to give me is calling me a liar and simply restating your claims with no evidence, and not answer specific responses I had to your claims, then I really see no need to continue the discussion.  Should you be willing to carry on a civilized discussion, without ad hominem attacks, and truly look at the issue, then I would be willing to continue.  But what we have here right now is nothing other than a big mess.

And I would not go around quoting Gail Riplinger as an authority.  She tries to use "acrostic algebra" (NASV+NIV-KJV=SIN).  She supposedly got this from the Lord.  I'm sorry, but that is just craziness.  Plus, the name of the version is NASB, not NASV.  That and she tries to link the sinking of the Titanic with the NIV, among a host of other ridiculous things.  Please, if you want to use support of scholars to back up your statements, at least pick someone who makes sense, like Edward Hills, who made what I thought was the best case for the KJV in his book, The King James Version Defended.  Riplinger's material is just full of conspiracy theories and inaccurate information.  Hills' is actually well thought out and well-done, even though I may not agree with his conclusion.  

(Several of the things I was talking about you not responding to were on pg 8, reply number 106, specifically the # of times Jesus' name is used in the versions, and you have not yet offered evidence showing that 99% of the manuscripts support your case.)

Joel

Joel

The 99%.
The Majority Text pg 467-479 NABV,Riplinger.

"Wilber Pickering,author of the Identity of the New Testament Textand recipient of a TH.M in Greek Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary and M.A.and Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Toronto says:

  'The distressing realization is forced upon us that the 'progress' of the past hundred years has been precisely in-the wrong direction-our modern versions and critical texts are found to differ from the Original in some 6,000 places,many of them being serious differences..[They]are several times farther removed from the originals than are the A.V.and TR[King James Version and its foundation,the Greek Texus Receptus].How could such a calamity have come upon us...much of the work that has been done is flawed..'

    Dean John Burgon,the scholar who has collated the most early New Testament witnesses[87,000],says of the changes in one of the 'new' versions and Greek texts:

   'Ordinary readers...will of course assume that the changes result from the revisor's skill in translating-advances which have been made in the study of Greek.It was found that they had erred through defective scholarship to an extent and with a frequency,which to me is simply inexplicable...Anything more unscientific...can scarcely be conceived,but it has prevailed for 50 years.We regret to discover that ...their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquantance with the Greek language.'

   Edward F.Hills,author ofThe King James Version Defended
and graduate of Yale University,Westminister Theological Seminary and recipient of the Ph.D.from Harvard and the TH.M from Columbia University says:

     'Modern speech bibles are unscolarly.'

   The late E.W.Colwell,past president of the University of Chicago and the premier North American Greek scholar,authored scores of books,such as Studies in Methodology in Textual Critcism of the New Testament.He confesses his 'change of heart' concerning the reliability of readings in the new versions:

  ..'cholars now believe that most errors were made deliberately...the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons.Most of the manuals now in print[including mine!]will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment....The reverse is the case.'

   Zane Hodges,professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and co-editor of a Greek New Testament refers to new versions as,

   '[M]onstrously unscientific,if not dangerously obscurantist.The average well-taught Bible-bekieving Christian has often heard the King James Version corrected on the basis of 'better manuscripts' or 'older authorities'...Lacking any kind of technical training in this area,the average believer probably has accepted such explanations from individuals he reguards as qualified to give them.'

   William Palmer,scholar and author ofNarative of Events on the Tracts, says:

    '

• rdinary Christians have little idea [concerning the new Greek text]..it rests in many cases on quotations which are not genuine...on passages which when collated with the original,are proved to be wholly ineffecatious as proofs.'

wasnt the 1611 correct in 1613

99% continued

'The' Original Greek

  If you are convinced most Christians use a recently published version of the bible,such as the NIV,NASB,NKJB,Living Bibleetc.-what you really mean is-mostthat you have come in contact with,at your fellowship,in the 1990's,in the U.S.A.,use it.However throughout the 2,000 year history of the New Testament,people using a text like those of the new versions,were in a mathematically infentesimal minority.So,if you want to be lined up with most
Christians 'when the saints go marching in',don't take a quick spin of the head[like the girl in The Exorcist] to see what's happening around you.Take a long look back through history and around the world.It is safer.

   The survival of 'the' original Greek New Testament is dream which dissolves with the discovery that no two manuscripts or critical editions are alike.Those applying this tem to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf are unaquanted with the volotile state of the text.

   There are over 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.Together they giva view of the text much like a shifting kaliedoscope. 'They contain several hunderd thousand variant readings...,' notes Pickering.In an attempt to mary these 'moody' manuscripts,the 'Wheel of Fortune' is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a 'critical edition of the Greek Text'.There are more than two dozen of these texts,each a 'prize' stuffed with between 5,000 and 8,000 variations.As one scholar puts it, '...equally competent critics often arive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.'

Scholar's Sources

    Evidence for the New Testament is composed of papyrus fragments and manuscripts,uncial and miniscule manuscripts[modified capitals and cursives] and lectionaries[books used in chuches].Each of the 5,366 manuscripts including 2209 lexionaries extant today are given a name,an abreviation and/or a number.

Papyri            1-88     [e.g.,P66,P46,P75]
Uncials           01-0274[e.g.,Aleph,B,C,D]
Miniscules       1-2795  [e.g.,1-2795]
Lectionaries     1-2209  [e.g.,1-2209]

   In addition to the above,numerous other language versions of the Greek text were made in the 2nd century and those following.Those include the Old Latin,the Syriac,the Coptic,the Ethiopic,and score of others.These provide witnesses to the correct readings of the New Testament.Finally,scores of second,third,and fourth century personalities,such as JohnCrysostom,Irenaeus,Tertullian,and Justin Martyr,to name just a few,have left writings containing citations of scripture verses,witnessing to the original readings of the New Testament.Dean John Burgon has extrapolated over 87,000 of these.Currently the manuscripts are being collated by the Institut fur neutestamentiche Tereforschung by Kurt Aland in Munster,Germany.Microfilms of many are housed in the archives of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Centre in Claremont,California.Shouls the reader wish to pursue their own investigation,a list of sources where copies of those manuscripts may be found is given in this footnote.

  The Majority Text

   The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts,lectionaries,and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament.Manuscripts from the 2nd century[P66] down through the Middle Ages[A.D.1500]attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text',as Kurt Aland terms it.Dean Burgon,who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated,calls it 'The Traditional Text'.It is also called the Syrian Text,the Byzantine Text and the K[Kappa]or Common Text.

    This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version,or as it is called in the United States,the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611,in 300 languages,demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'.[Unfortunately,as we shall see,the new versions are not based on this 'Majority Text',but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the Majority.]

Isn't this all just a bit silly?

I mean, throughout most of the last two thousand years the majority of Christians have been unable to read scripture for themselves. They were either illiterate or too poor to be able to afford a Bible. For the first few hundred years Christians didn't even have a Bible. It's only in the last couple hundred years, since the Industrial Revolution gave rise to an educated middle class, that most Christians have been able to have a Bible in their homes. Millions of Christians are functionally illiterate today!

So how important is all this? I mean, get a sense of Christ's message, then start walking the walk. Do a bit of daily devotional reading if it gives you comfort. Having an encyclopedic knowledge of scripture isn't necessary to be a good Christian.

Sitting around obsessing which translation is or isn't the best - I don't think that's what it's all about.

   99% continued,NABV,Riplinger 467-479.
 The scriptures themselves attest to the proliferation and early creation of a 'Majority' text.

Acts 6:7 'And the word of God increased.'
Acts 12:24 'But the word of God grew and multiplied.'
Acts 13:49 '[T]he word of the Lord was published throughout all the region'
Acts 19:20 'So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.'

   Pickering explains the multiplication of the originals throughout history.

   '{W]e may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the text,the most reliable copies of the Autographs would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs.With an ever-increasing demand and consequent proliferation of copies throughout the Graeco-Roman world and with the potential for verifying copies by having recourse to the centres still possessing the Autographs,the early textual situation was highly favourable to the wide dissemination of MSS in c;lose agreement with the original text...It follows that within a relatively few years after the writing of the New Testament books,there came rapidly into existence a 'Majority text'.whose form was essentially that of the Autographs...the science of statistical probability demonstrates that a text form in such circumstances could scarcely be dislodged from its dominant position... every age,from the apostolic to the 19th century,the text form in question...was the one that the church in general recognized,used,and transmitted.'

   From the academic arena,world-class scholars express their unanimous agreement on the overwhelming dominance of this type of New Testament text in the early church and throughout history.

  Colwell calls it '[T]he uncontrolled popular edition of the 2nd century.'

   Comfort says it, 'became the most prevailing type of text throughout the Greek speaking world...it was nearly standardized.From then on,almost all MSS follow the Byzantine[Majority]text,including those MSS used by Erasmus in compiling the text that eventually would become the Textus Receptus.'[The Greek Text type underlying the KJV.]

   Geerling affirms reguarding the Majority Text saying, 'Its origins..go back to the autographs.'

Hodges writes, 'The Majority text,it must be remembered,is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives...[T]he majority of MSS in the transmission of any book will,a priori preserve the best text.Thus the Majority Text, upon which the King James Version is based,has in reality the strongest claim possible to be reguarded as an authentic representation of the original text...based on its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.'

   Harvard Theological Review cites Kirsopp Lake's exhaustive examination of MSS which revealed,'the uniformity of the text exhibited by the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts.'

  Von Soden,who made the most extensive review of the text yet accomplished,calls it the Common[Kappa]text,showing that it was the Greek text type most commonly used throughout history.'

   Kurt Aland's collation of 1,000 miniscules in 1,000 different passages shows that 90% contain the 'Traditional Text'.Work done at The Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung
in Munster,Germany confirms this same 90%.When they include papyrus and uncials together with cursives the number remains above 80%

  Metzger agrees speaking of '...the great majority of the miniscule manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus rests.'

   Hill says, 'The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament Manuscripts agree very closely together,so closely indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament.This Majority Text is usually called the Byzantine Text by modern textual critics.This is because all modern critics aknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament text in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine Period [A.D.312-1453].For many centuries,before the Protestant Reformation,this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek Church,and for more than 3 centuries after the Reformation,it was the text of the entire Protestant Church...[It is] found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts...[T]he Traditional Text...is the true text because it is that form of the Greek New Testament which is known to have been used in the Church of Christ in unbroken succession...is amply sufficient to justify the view...that therefore the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is that true text.'

Yes.You are right.

99%continued

1881: The 1% Minority

  [A] false balance is an abomination to the Lord.
                                                 Proverbs 11:1

  The variations among the majority Text are minor,like the varieties of doves.On the other hand,the remaining handful of manuscripts are as diverse as dogs and dragons.This handful,not only disagree with 'the Majority',as to what the New Testament says,but disagree among themselves.These include such manuscripts as Vaticanus,Sinaiticus [Aleph],Bezae [D],Papyrus 75 and a smattering of versions.Of the 4 uncials,Aleph,B,C,and D,Burgon writes:

   'All 4 are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially,not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts,but even from one another.'

  In 1881 this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millenia standing.A 'New' Greek Text,using the Vatican manuscript ,was introduced by Westcott and Hort and has been used as the Greek Text for
all subsequent versions.

  Fredric Kenyon,the late Director of the British Museum and author of the most widely used textbooks on textual criticism,says of the Majority Text:

   'This is the text found in the great majority of manuscripts,entrenched in print by Erasmus and Stephanus and known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text...until 1881...it held the field as the text in practicallyuniversal
use and when its position was then decisively challenged,a stiff fight was made in its defence by advocates such as Burgon.[This 'New' Minority-type Greek text] used predominantly...Aleph and B type readings...[The changes] amount to an extensive modification of the text.[It] has been the dominating influence in all modern critical editions.It is clear that...deliberate alteration...has been at work on a large scale in one text or the other...The Textus Receptus being habitually the longer and fuller of the two.'

Pickering reveals the continued use of this 1% text by the new version editors.

   '[The new versions] ignore the over 5,000 Greek MSS now extant...[T]he evidence cited does prove that aberrant forms of the N.T. text were produced.Naturally some of those text forms may have aquired a local and temporary currency.Recall that the possibility of checking with the Autographs must have served to inhibit the spread of such forms.We have the Majority Text [Aland] or the Traditional Text [Burgon],dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways...One may reasonably speak of 90% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority Text type...[The remaining 10-20% do not represent a single competing form.

   The minority MSS disagree as much [or more] among themselves as they do with the majority.We are not judging between two text forms,one representing 80% of the manuscripts and the other 20%.Rather we have to judge between 80-90% and a fraction of 1% [comparing the Majority Text with P75 and B text form for example...]
  Or to make a specific case,in I Tim 3:16 over 300 Greek MSS read 'God' [KJV] ...7 Greek MSS read 'who' [NIV,NASB,etc.]So we have to judge here between 97% and 2%...

    It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem...They are remnants reflecting ancient aberant forms.It is a dependence on such aberant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New Testament...I submit that due process requires us to receive as original that form of the text which is supported bu the majority of witnesses.To reject their testimony in favour of our  own imagination as to what a reading ought to be is manifestly untenable.'

   Hodges describes the readings in the new versions.

   '[M]odern criticism repeatedly and systematically rejects majority readings on a large scale...[This is] monstrously unscientific...f modern criticism continues its trend toward more genuinely scientific proceedures,this question will once again become a central consideration...[T]he Textus Receptus was too hastily abandoned...'

Then this statment is a lie.

Holy Bible,Pure,Purified,Preserved.
Infalible,Inspired,Integral.
AV 1611 King James Version
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.


And i said i wouldnt post on this thread again  ???

God doesn't make mistakes or typos or type setting erros. In the form of Jesus Christ His Word is perfect. The books are printed by man .

Amen!  Preach it sister!  

The word is eternal....from the beginning.

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Me thinks 1611 came a wee bit later.  ;)




oops....me too...lol

Grace and Peace!

Brothers and Sisters,

I am absolutely certain that the most critical issue of today is the lost hearing the plain and simple Gospel of God's Grace. I give thanks that it is simple enough for a child to understand.

There are hosts of lost people who are hurting and dying in their sins. It's not ironic that their lives without JESUS involve misery, even in this short life on earth. I give thanks that the preaching of the CROSS reaches them in many forms. Maybe it's in the simple words of a witness, a Bible tract, a sermon, a Bible left in a hotel room, or in countless other forms. Regardless, God uses His Word, and the Holy Spirit convicts and works with the message. Again, I give thanks that God Himself delivers the message. This is an encouragement to Christians who might not feel strong enough or capable enough to share the Good News of JESUS dying on the cross for our sins. One does not need to be a Bible scholar or eloquent with words to be used by God for His purpose.

In these possible last days of this age, our purpose should be God's purpose. I pray that all Christians will yield to God's will and take every opportunity God gives us to share JESUS with a lost and dying world.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 5:21  That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

[quote author=Reba Then this statment is a lie.
Holy Bible,Pure,Purified,Preserved.
Infalible,Inspired,Integral.
AV 1611 King James Version
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.....
God doesn't make mistakes or typos or type setting erros. In the form of Jesus Christ His Word is perfect. The books are printed by man .
That is right,man does the mistakes.That is how they KNEW what to correct in the FIRST place.

You have an erronious view of infalibility.Is there no room for human error,only perversion?Purposeful to boot.
How do you know how many times Paul or Peter wrote,and had to correct the odd mistake here and there?
That is just gnat straining to cover up the sins of the modern versions,that refuse to abide by the majority Text.

[quote author=blackeyedpeas Brothers and Sisters,
I am absolutely certain that the most critical issue of today is the lost hearing the plain and simple Gospel of God's Grace. I give thanks that it is simple enough for a child to understand.
Amen for that.But this thread happens to be about the Holy Bible.Not witnessing,even though,it does witness in a powerful way.
Talking about simple enouph for a child to understand;How about this one in the modern versions;Mark10:24....Children,how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God.
The Holy Bible does not say that,plus the rest of scriptures reject that notion all together.
The truth is;...Children,how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.

  Nobody can tell me that this is ok and ought to be overlooked.As if to say 'Que sera sera'.Whatever will be will be.

Brothers and Sisters,

This thread has been locked for a time to give everyone a chance to cool off. It will stay open as long as folks don't go back to name calling.

Moderator

I will be more cordial from now on.I will not take advantage of others.It is important to uphold  each other in the LORD;live at peace with one another,and work together,even though we may have what are termed irreconcilable diferences.
But each member of the family is valuable,amen?

Even the non-believers are precious in his sight.
Relentless for the LORD Jesus,
Peter Fuhrman

We Need to get along.
Here is a post that i just made over at Bible Answers US.I have been addressing this issue,in my own life as of late and trying to promote a cordial understanding,even though ,in the end we will yet not agree,or see eye to eye.
.................

    Enjoy The Bible Believers' Forum / Welcome To The Believers Forum - Read Me First / Re:KJV Only- Interesting artivle   on: Today at 12:37:44am  
[quote author=Guest
The vehement rhetoric of certain posts advocating the KJV as the sole inspired scripture has been very confusing. These posts have been argumentative rather than informative in tone. This has helped to cover up the fact that these posts are riddled with bad logic, an unbiblical theology, and ignorance of relevant facts from both inside and outside the Bible. When the writer identifies himself as a learned man, in my opinion, he is in fact insulting the Creator because he is refusing to use his mind properly to understand these matters.
Zeal is commendable. But it is downright dangerous when coupled with ignorance. The zeal demonstrated on this forum arguing for a special status for the KJV as scripture is no different from what Paul refers to the zeal of the Jews who had rejected/opposed the gospel: “They have a zeal …, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2).
Quote:
*********
 
By and large,I would tend to agree with you that there are certain. that do appear to get out of hand. whether called for or not,as the case may be.

But allow me to say this;Both sides of the issue have this happening,some are egged into it,and some know no other way,because of the place they are in,and yet others just need to have guide lines to follow.

I have been reading a KJV bashing site recently,and they are Good godly men that do just the same things as here.But this is an important issue,and I personaly,am trying to rectify this in my own life.

I believe that some times the bursts are warranted,and some not.The real problem is our own hearts.Some times we get caught in the prideful mentality of "I need to win this argument,or My ministry and beliefs are for not."Or at least some variation of that.

To solve this issue,we NEED TO PRAY BEFORE WE POST.
So,let me do that right now.

"Heavenly Father,I pray that I will post with a calm and forgiving heart,when I see an aledged attack upon my stand.I pray,LORD,that I will endeavor to ask questions of the poster,instead of interpreting his statements,and end up with egg on my face.Help me LORD to recognize that my brother is a man of God,just like me,and to consider him better than myself."

"Help me to ask questions about any words or definitions,according to the one that posts,so that I am not merely interpreting from my own viewpoint.Help me LORD,to understand the other poster's posistion,and compliment him as justified."

  "Help me LORD NOT to answer a thing too fast,but to wait upon you and hear from you,and be an instrument of peace,as much as is possible."

In Jesus precious name,amen.

I think that if we could really try to love each other,purposfully,and forgivingly,that this would be a start of actually finding some genuine friends,even though we still may disagree in the end.

I know of one man,on another site,and he is not a KJV'er
but reads the KJV 90 % of the time,and he puts his two cents in against the KJV on a regular basis according to my way of belief.Sometimes,I have taken advantage of him,but we have at least been able to talk to each other.And I actually think quite highly of him.

It is too easy for both sides to prove each other wrong, and or to think that they have to appeal to the emotional side of things,or attack the person's character.I think it is because the people that we post against,are not considered as valuable to the body of Christ as they are,reguardless of their quirks.We think that it is no loss,if they get hurt or whatever.

I have even thought of posting my own obituary to calm things down,but I don't think that would work either.
I think that when we are adamant,we need to pray for wisdom,and on top of that,let our words be few.Particularly when our gander is up.

This is the tough job that Moderators have to deal with on a continual basis.That reminds me,God bless our men that care for us here at Bible Answers US.Bless you guys!!

Lots of the retoric is really nit-picky stuff,you said-he said,no I didn't mean that,so this is what I think of your scholarship etc.etc.ad nauseum.I think that we all are guilty of that at some point and some more than others.
It is easy to tear down,but to build up,and to teach,and to understand takes time,work,prayer,and patience.

I say that I have failed in all of the above more than once,but am continually reaching, to be the one to that the LORD can say, "Well done thou good and faithful servant,enter thou into the joy of the LORD."
     

Brother Peter,

I'm happy to see you back. I've been thinking and praying about this issue and many others over the last couple of weeks. In fact, I was thinking about you when I reopened this thread.

I had a thought that I'm almost sure that the Lord laid on my heart to share here. I was thinking about the many times that members of my family and I were given opportunities to witness and our Bibles weren't quickly available. God gave us the guidance to witness anyway, and the words came from a heart where the Holy Spirit already lives. I honestly believe that God gave us the words that He wanted said. I'm hoping that you understand why I felt led to share this.

I know that the lost don't understand or care about differences that Christians argue about. In the meantime, they are still suffering and dying in their sins. I'm really thinking about what our priorities should be in a lost and dying world that just might be in the last days of the Age of Grace. If so, the time is growing short to share the GOOD NEWS of the Gospel of God's Grace.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 5:21  That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Great post,blackeyedpeas!
       Reaching the lost is the best thing we can do,along with growing to know him and his word.
  Yes,the Holy Ghost always comes through.
It has been since Oct '04 since the last person I had the priviledge to lead to the LORD.
         I certainly can press in and do better!!LORD willing of course.

Brother Peter,

We can and ALL should be doing more in witnessing to the lost. Brother, I'm certainly thinking about me and many opportunities to witness that I could have and should have worked harder on.

It's many times not very pleasant, as many people these days appear to be either mad at God or mad at Christians for whatever reasons. In fact, it's pretty popular to blame God and Christians for all kinds of problems. We are viewed many times as a nuisance, and I think that I know why. One of the first things that happens when a person starts seeking Christ is a knowledge that they are lost, they sin, and they do wrong. People just don't like to hear that much these days. They really don't want to hear that sin is their master. However, a reflection of the things of this world usually results in a knowledge that they cause misery, not happiness.

Here's what is so hard in witnessing. The person doing the witnessing might not ever know that God actually used them to bring a lost person to Christ. As a result, many Christians get discouraged in witnessing. It's important for us to realize that God never wastes a single word, and that witness may just be the start of something wonderful that will happen days, weeks, or months later.

Brother, I mentioned this for a reason, and it dealt with the thread topic. I subscribe to the thought that the KJV is best, but I know that it is imperfect. My words in witnessing are also imperfect, but I trust God to use them. IN FACT, I trust the Holy Spirit to speak to the heart of the lost, regardless of how plain and simple my attempt to witness might be. I think that the same is true for other translations of the Holy Bible.

Brother, I'm not trying to argue - just discuss with another brother in Christ. I firmly believe that God's Word is a mighty weapon used by God, likened to a two-edged sword. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit speaks from the pages of that precious book. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit does the same when I'm given an opportunity to witness. Brother, do you see the comparison I'm trying to make?

I won't name them, but some of the new translations seem to be more interested in being politically correct or soothing the sinner than speaking the Word of God. Another category of translations appear to have more mistakes than others but still try to give the Word of God faithfully. I'm also aware of some mistakes in the KJV, but that doesn't mean that I'm considering replacing it with ancient texts. I do use the ancient texts from time to time, but it's a lengthy process to study a single verse, and there's still a good chance that a mistake will be made in the translation. The main point I'm trying to make is my thought that God definitely uses more than one translation to distribute His Word. As a final thought, I'm thinking about hosts of people who were saved before King James and studied other translations for their growth and strength.

As a final thought, I think it's healthy to discuss the differences in various translations, but only in Christian love. Even though I like the KJV as best, I know that Almighty God is much more powerful than King James, and He has always had a way to distribute His Word in great power. If the discussion was kept in this context, I have considerable material on this topic that I've been studying.

Love In Christ,
Tom

II Timothy 3:15  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.

[quote author=blackeyedpeas ... in Christian love. Even though I like the KJV as best, I know that Almighty God is much more powerful than King James, and He has always had a way to distribute His Word in great power. If the discussion was kept in this context, I have considerable material on this topic that I've been studying.

Love In Christ,
Tom

II Timothy 3:15  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.
Thanks for those kind words,blackeyedpeas.

PeterAV,

 ;D  Your picture is a hoot. I'll try to join in here with you with some material I've been studying.

Love In Christ,
Tom

I Corinthians 1:30  But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Reba
Gold Member


Hi saints, I just found this site and started reading the topic about the King James Bible.  I recognize a few names here too.  Anyway, I am a King James Bible believer and I wanted to address an issue or two as I come to them.  Thanks,

Will Kinney


Reba asks: "When was steel invented? or discovered or what ever? "


Hi Reba, my guess is you maybe got this one from Rick Norris's book, The Unbound Scriptures.  I have read his book and disagree with it entirely.  In fact, I have written a response to it.

Here is part of that response.  I hope it helps answer this question for you.



Part 12 - Steel, brass, copper, bronze - Paper or Plastic?

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris criticizes the King James Bible for using the word "steel". He quotes several Bible dictionaries and scholars who say emphatically that the Hebrew word should never be translated as "steel". It is claimed, he says, that steel was not known during Bible times until the first century A.D.

Mr. Norris then asks: "Can KJV-only advocates offer any consistent evidence that shows that these two Hebrew words should be translated as "steel" in some verses?" Yes, brother Rick, we can, and will do so presently.

As for the claim he makes about the date of the invention and use of steel, there are many who would disagree about his supposition. A friend and fellow King James Bible believer, brother Jim, is an excellent researcher. He located a site for me by a Professor David K. Jordan, professor or Anthropology and Provost at Earl Warren College, University of California, San Diego. This professor has written an article about metalurgy and he discusses brass, iron and steel production. Here are some of his findings.

An important technique in modern and late historic steel production is "quenching," that is, heating the metal and then rapidly lowering its temperature again by plunging it into water. The result is a dramatic increase in the strength of the metal, which can be increased yet further by repeating the process. THE EARLIEST QUENCH-HARDENED STEEL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT DATES FROM ABOUT 1200 BC or so. (Homer refers to the process.) Obviously there is a fine line between iron and steel, and some metallic products are difficult to classify as quite one or quite the other.

At another site we find a discussion of ancient Indian steel production dating from the 8th century B.C.

The Ancient Indian Steel by D.P. Agrawal - J. Le Coze, of the Centre for Materials Science, France, has come out with an interesting essay about the different names of steel in different parts of the world that the ancient Indian steel known as wootz inspired. This steel making process was practiced in peninsular India since great antiquity. The ancient Indian steel was known as Damascene steel in Persia and was in great demand in the Persian courts of the First Millennium BC. Even Alexander was presented a sword made of such steel.

Coze informs that in ancient Greek, three names were attributed to steel: stomoma, adamas and chalybs. Since Hesiode (8th BC), adamas signifies inflexible or hard. It was systematically translated into "hard as steel".

I'm not going to base my defense of the King James reading of "steel" solely on the debateable timeline of the use of this material in making weaponry. It may be literal steel or a composite of various hard metals that are referred to by "a bow of steel"; but it may also be figurative.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary lists the second definition of "steel" as: Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like.

The word steel is found four times in the King James Bible. Three times the KJB refers to "a bow of steel" - 2 Samuel 22:35 "He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms." Job 20:24 "He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through." Psalm 18:34 "He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms." In Jeremiah 15:12 we read: "Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?"

The first three times the Hebrew word is # 5154 nekh-oo-shaw. This word has a variety of meanings as translated in many different Bibles, both old and new. Among the meanings found in the King James Bible for this word are: "brass" (7 times) and "steel" (3 times)

The second word for steel found in Jeremiah 15:12 is #5178 and this word likewise has several meanings including: "brass, steel, copper, fetters, and chains."

Mr. Norris says: "M'Clintock wrote: In all cases where the word 'steel' is used in the A.V. the true rendering of the Hebrew is copper." Unfortunately for Mr. Norris and Mr. M'Clintock (whoever he is), not even the NASB, NIV, or NKJV have translated it as "copper" but as "bronze".

Examples of multiple meanings for a single word abound even in the modern versions. For instance, the NASB translates the Hebrew word #5178 as brass -2 times, bronze - 130 times, and copper - one time. The NASB also translates #1270 as "axe, iron, axe head, and chains."

The NIV translates the same word as "bronze" 128 times and as "copper" 4 times.

When it suits the purposes of Mr. Norris, he refers to various older Bible versions that differ from the King James Bible to show, in his opinion, how they differ from the KJB. However these same older Bible versions often agree with the KJB against the modern versions.

The word "steel" as in the expression "a bow of steel" can be used figuratively to express something that is very strong, and not necessarily made of literal steel. We sometimes speak of someone having nerves of steel, but we mean that he is of a strong constitution and not literally made of steel. We also use the expression of having to "steel ourselves" for the coming difficulties.

One possible explanation of the expression "a bow of steel" as found in the King James Bible is that they are figurative rather than literal. In Psalms 18 David says of God that He is a BUCKLER (a shield), and A ROCK, and that God "maketh my feet like HINDS' FEET, and setteth me upon my HIGH PLACES. He teacheth my hands to war, so that a BOW OF STEEL is broken by mine arms. Thou hast also given me the SHIELD of thy salvation, and THY RIGHT HAND hath holden me up...Then did I BEAT THEM SMALL AS THE DUST."

None of these things mentioned are literal. God is not a buckler nor a Rock, and neither did God literally hold David up with His right hand. The "high places" were not literal but figurative of exaltation and victory, and David did not literally beat anyone "small as the dust". These are all figurative expressions.

Some people like to criticize the King James Bible when it is too literal, as in the expression "to cut off him that gotcha8eth against the wall" (1 Kings 14:10), which is literally what the Hebrew texts and older Bible versions read. Then they criticize it for being too loose in expressing figurative concepts "in the receptor language".

The King James Bible is not the only one to use the word "steel" in its translation.

Webster's 1833 translation follows all four verses exactly the same as the King James Bible, as do the KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible.

The 1936 Jewish translation, put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, has "steel" in Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34, and in Jeremiah 15:12.

The Geneva Bible renders this same word as "steel" in Job 20:24

The Bishop's Bible 1568 has "steel" in 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24, and Psalms 18:34

The Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 version has "steel" (acero) in 2 Samuel 22:35, Job 20:24, and Psalms 18:34. Likewise Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition reads "steel" (acero) in these verses.

Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible has steel in Ezekiel 27:19 "Wedan and Javan, from Uzal, Brought into thy traffic, - Steel, cassia and calamus, Were, in thy merchandise:"

The Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha 1952 has "steel" in Sirach 31:26 - Fire and water prove the temper of steel, so wine tests hearts in the strife of the proud.

Even the New English Bible 1970 reads in Jeremiah 15:12 "Can iron break STEEL from the north?"

The 2002 version called The Message actually has the word "steel" 10 times in the Old Testament. Here are a few examples:

Job 40:18 - His skeleton is made of steel, every bone in his body hard as steel.

Proverbs 27:17 - You use steel to sharpen steel, and one friend sharpens another.

Jeremiah 15:20 - I'll turn you into a steel wall, a thick steel wall, impregnable.

Jeremiah 17:1 - "Judah's sin is engraved with a steel chisel, A steel chisel with a diamond point-- engraved on their granite hearts, engraved on the stone corners of their altars.

Some other modern versions also have the word "steel" in them, but these do not agree even among themselves. In Nahum 2:3 the ASV 1901, the 1917 Jewish translation (JPS), Darby, Amplified 1987, and the NASB 1995 say: "the chariots are enveloped in flashing STEEL".

The brand new 1998 Complete Jewish Bible says: "The STEEL of the chariots flashes like fire as they prepare for battle", but the NIV, ESV say: "the METAL on the chariots flashes", the RSV has: "the chariots flash like FLAME", while the NKJV has: "the chariots come with flaming TORCHES." Isn't it nice that all these Bible scholars are in such total agreement with each other?

God bless,

Will K

Hi,

No, i have never even heard of the author. The question came from my mind.

Most folks would not date steel to the days of Job.  KJV is my favorite. I do not believe it is without error, nor did the writters in 16?? (what ever)  when they corrected the KJV.

God will safe guard His Word as long as He wishes. I am pleased He chose the KJV for so long a time. I have received much scriptural knowledge from  The Living, Amplafied, many others.

 For myself it would be sinnful to worship a book, to set man made limits on God's word. It also seems selfimportiant,  to think English would be The 'HOLY' language. Anyone reading the scriptures can see the eastern heiratige coming through the pages.

kintites (sp) come to mind. Of which white supremist jump from. I did not reread this thread and i think i am repeting myself...... KJV is still my favorite  :)

Reba, neither I nor any KJB believer I know of worships the King James Bible.  I do not have any altars with candles in my home dedicated to the KJB.  I write in my King James Bible, I spill coffee on it, and toss it in the back of my car.

I do however worship the God who inspired and wrote the Bible.

As for limiting God, it is God who limits Himself.  He cannot lie but always speaks the truth.  I have found through quite a bit of personal study and prayer, that the King James Bible always tells the truth and does not pervert sound doctrine nor contain ridiculous falsehoods.  All modern versions I have seen do pervert sound doctrine and contain proveable contradictions, and thus are found to be false witnesses to varying degrees.

The gospel is still there, and I certainly do not believe that a person has to be a KJB onlyist in order to get saved, but if you are not a King James Bible believer, your faith will necessarily be weakened and you will come out believing some things that are not true.

This is not to say that only the KJB believers have all the correct doctrine or understanding.  None of us sees all truth; we still see through a glass darkly, but only the KJB has all of God's pure truth within its pages.  This is my firm conviction.

As for why God chose English, maybe it's because He knew that English and American missionaries would be the primary missionaries to go forth to the pagan nations from the late 1700's onward and translate the KJB or its underlying texts into hundreds of foreign languages, and that English would become the closest thing to a universal language in the last days.

There is nothing particularly "holy" about the English speaking people, just as there was nothing particularly holy about the Jews - they were a rebellious and stiff-necked people.  But God chose to reveal Himself to each people according to His will.

English is spoken and read all over the world.  Hebrew is very limited, and the Jews, for the most part, are still in rebellion against God and His Christ.

I would like to ask you a favor.  Would you please go to the topic "The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God", and tell us your thoughts on this and where you stand?

God bless,

Will K

Amen to that. I am kind of disheartened by this topic. I left a Church body that was preaching from the pulpit that anything other than the KJV was devil worship, and that we will be reading the KJV when we get to Heaven. They also did a whole lot of other things that are not Biblical, but I won't go that far into it. Oh, and they were Fundamental Baptist if that makes a difference. I found a Bible teaching Body instead of a Bible bashing Body. ;D

Thank you, but I will stick to my NIV. Despite what KJV only people suggest, I am not a Satan worshipper. My Bible is not taking away the Deity of Jesus, He is God in my Bible and says so over and over. If a person chooses to read the KJV, so be it, but don't try to tell me that I worship Satan by reading my translation. I do no such thing. That is a really great way to discourage potential believers or new believers, and I think it is very wrong. There are such things as fanatics and I have seen them first-hand, it's not pretty.  :-\  

Hello Sammi,

After over 50 years of using the KJV, I recently changed to another translation for the very reasons you note.  I have no desire to be associated with something as destructive as this is, and I'm quite happy with my new translation. Besides, THE BIBLE is in Hebrew and Greek, and I speak and read in English. The KJV is nothing more than just a good translation.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 2:2-5 ASV  For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.  And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:  that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Thanks blackeyedpeas, I think this sort of topic is becoming divisive in the body of Christ and maybe that is Satans whole purpose, to cause us to war among ourselves so as to take our minds and hearts away from the truly important things and fight amongst each other. It sure doesn't show much good to the unbelievers when we as Christians are fighting amongst ourselves over which version of the word to read and not read. I have had several unbelievers mention how ridiculous we seem over this issue, and if we can fight amongst ourselves over our own Gods word, then why should they get caught up in that? Very sad.......... :'(

Sammi,

I agree, but I think that you understated the problem. The KJV-Only-ist cult problem HAS ALREADY been divisive for a long time. It is my firm opinion that their radical statements - like translations other than the KJV are works of the devil, etc. have damaged God's Work beyond measure. I had no idea how bad this problem was until just recently. Their statements are obviously false and without logic at all, so the result is hypocrisy and confusion.

The real irony lies in the fact that most of the KJV-Only-ists have a one track mind and do nothing except glorify a man's book and tear down others that are all being used by God. Another irony is their lack of knowledge about God's message and their preaching of NOTHING except the glory of King James and his translators. So, not only do they neglect the real work that needs to be done, they harm those who ARE doing the real work. The real work doesn't involve King James at all - RATHER THE KING OF KINGS - OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR - JESUS CHRIST - AND THE CROSS!

So, after considerable prayer, I decided to discard King James and the problems associated with it to expend all of my energy in serving ONLY OUR LIVING LORD AND SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 3:14-21 ASV  For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man;  that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.  Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen blackeyedpeas! What is so ironic about what a lot of the ones who say the KJV is the only version and all others are devils tranlations, is that they can and do twist the words and doctrines just as easily from the KJV as they can in the other versions. I've seen and heard it done, like I said it's not pretty.I don't believe the NIV that I read is the only translation, it's just the one I prefer, I can read it and study it and get what I need from it without being confused by archaic words that I don't understand. I want to worship and learn about my Lord, I can do that with my NIV just fine. :)

Hi Sammi, no one here who is a KJB onlyist is saying you are worshipping Satan.  I never said this nor even implied it.  However I do believe Satan's fingerprints can be seen in the NIV, but this does not mean that you are worshipping Satan at all.  You are perhaps being deceived by the devil in that you no longer believe any Bible on earth is now the inerrant words of God, but you are not worshipping him.

I have never denied that a person can get saved and be a true Christian even is he or she uses an inferiour bible version.  The gospel of salvation through Christ is still in even the worst of bible versions out there.

As for the deity of Christ in the NIV, I believe it is greatly weakened in many verses.  1 John 5:7 "The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" is missing from the NIV.

Likewise that "GOD was manifest in the flesh" has been seriously changed in the NIV of 1 Timothy 3:16.

And perhaps more seriously, the NIV tells us that the Son of God had "origins..from ancient times" in Micah 5:2 and in Acts 13:33 the NIV teaches there was a day when God was not the Father of the Son of God.

The NIV frequently rejects all Hebrew readings in the Old Testament, and omits literally thousands upon thousands of Hebrew and Greek words - about 64,000 of them.  But you are free to read anything you want to.  No one is forcing you to use the true Holy Bible.  

May I point out to you that it is the modern versionists who are the ones who are openly telling other Christians that "No Bible is inerrant"; "All versions have errors", and it is the modern versionists who are claiming that there is no inspired and inerrant Bible on this planet.


God said He would send a famine of hearing the words of God.  See Amos 8:11-12.  If you chose to feed on a very unhealthy diet of watered down and inferiour bible versions, go right ahead.  But do not falsely accuse the Bible believer of saying that you are worshipping Satan.  We never said this.

Will K

Tom, it is obvious that you do not believe any Bible or any text is now the inerrant words of God.  This has been my point all along.  When you tell us: "THE BIBLE is in Hebrew and Greek, and I speak and read in English" - you are in effect telling us that you do not have an inerrant Bible.  

There is no "The Hebrew and The Greek", but rather several variations of Hebrew texts and literally thousands of texual variations in "THE Greek".  In essence, you have identified NOTHING as being "The Bible".

Even if we accept the Hebrew readings (and I certainly do), then why do such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard all frequently reject the Hebrew readings?

Apparently you are now going with the ASV.  Do you think the ASV IS the inerrant words of God?  Of course not.  

Again, like Sammi, you are free to do whatever you want to with the Bible version issue.  Truth always divides.  As the church slips more and more into shallowness and apostasy, and most pastors no longer believe any Bible is now the inerrant words of God, for my part, by the grace of God, I will continue to stand for the truth that God has kept His promises and has preserved His words in a Book here on this earth.  It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible, and none other.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will K

I have had KJV onlyists saying that exact thing. Here is the NIV version of 1 John 5:7-8 and the footnote from the online NIV:

   6This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.




Here's the footnote on the online NIV Bible:
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)


1 Timothy 3:16
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
   He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
      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.


Footnote from online NIV
1 Timothy 3:16 Some manuscripts God
1 Timothy 3:16 Or in the flesh

cross reference for mine at home:
John 1:14:
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Micah 5:2
    2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
       though you are small among the clans of Judah,
       out of you will come for me
       one who will be ruler over Israel,
       whose origins [c] are from of old,
       from ancient times. [d]
Footnote of online NIV:
Micah 5:2 Or from days of eternity

footnote of mine at home:
5:2 In contrast to the dire prediction of v. 1, Micah shifts to a positive note. Ephrathah. The region in which Bethlehem was located(see Ru 1:2: 4:11: 1Sa 17:12).ruler.Ultimately Christ, who will rule (see note on 4:8)for God the Father. origins....from of old. His beginnings were much earlier than His human birth(see Jn 8:58).from ancient times. Within history(cf. 2Sa 7:12-16: Isa9:6-7: Am 9:11),and even from Eternity(see NIV text note).

So, John 8:58:   58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
footnote for John 8:58: I am! A solemnly emphatic declaration echoing God's great affirmation in Ex 3:14(see vv. 24,28: see also note on 6:35). Jesus did not say "I was" but "I am", expressing the eternity of His being and His oneness with the Father(see 1:1).With this climactic statement Jesus concludes His speech that began with the related claim, "I am the light of the world".

Acts 13:33

 " 'You are my Son;
      today I have become your Father.'[c] 34The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words:
   " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'[d] 35So it is stated elsewhere:
   " 'You will not let your Holy One see decay.'[e]

footnote:
Or have begotten you
cross reference: Psalm 2:7 : 7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
       He said to me, "You are my Son [d] ;
       today I have become your Father. [e]


I am not falsely accusing "the Bible believer" of anything. I am a Bible believer also, I just choose to read the NIV TRANSLATION of THE BIBLE.  I have had a KJV only advocate say that I was worshipping Satan by reading the NIV,and this from his pulpit, and he also said that we would be reading the KJV when we get to Heaven, I want to know why we would do this when we will be in the PRESENCE of the WORD? I also did not say that ALL KJV onlyists said that I am worshipping Satan, but there are those that do. :)

I use the KJV, though I have been noted for using, KJV, NIV, NASB, and ASV. I myself find it easier to understand KJV.

Everyone has a different view, how sad it would be if; we all were the same. We all worship the Lord, in our own ways. Who is to say, my way is the only way. Only Jesus Christ, can say that, not you, not me. I have noticed that, every single one of us worship our Lord differently. Yet the meaning comes our the same.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him,

I prefer the KJV also. As I have said before it was my first reader. As for many denominations coming from reading the newer versions ....  Think a minute of how many denominations there are that only had the KJV for so many, many years.

The argument that new versions leave so much out .....

There are many Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available that also vary in wording and in amount of text.

All of this arguing lends to even more division. It gives people the impression that KJV onlyist think they are better than anyone else. That they are the only ones saved and the only ones that are following the word of God. This sounds very much like many cults.

As for things left out of some Bibles .....

There are many books that are mentioned in the Bible (yes even the KJV) as valid scripture yet they are not to be found in any Bible. Does this mean that the KJV is corrupt and we should throw it away, too?

There is the written word and there is The Inerrant Word. I will follow The Inerrant Word.

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Heb 6:5  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

This word spoken of here in these verses does not come to us in a book.

I completely agree and say a huge Amen Pastor Roger. ;D

Amen
I am a KJV girl myself, but I think that everyone is allowed his/her own choice in the matter.

Hi Roger, Yes, there are many Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that vary in wording and amount of text.  The question is: Do we have a complete, inerrant and infallible Book around today in any language that IS NOW the pure words of God?

You apparently do not know, or care, or believe such a Book exists.

As for your false allegations that we KJB believers think we are better than anyone else or the only ones saved, this is totally untrue.  I know full well I am a wretched sinner who deserves hell for my many sins.  If I know anything of truth, it is by the sovereign grace of God.  Neither I nor the vast majority of KJB believers I know of think that we are the only ones saved.  Have I said anything at all to imply otherwise?  No.  Then why do you come up with such silly accusations against us?


Roger, the only great difference between the King James Bible believer and a multiple choice, "No Bible is inspired or inerrant", Bible of the Month Club member like yourself is that we believe there really is an inspired and inerrant Book on this earth and you do not.  You can still be a saved child of God using an inferiour bible version that is not inerrant and is perverted in many ways.  Salvation is not the issue.  The Inspiration, inerrancy and preservation of the words of God is the issue, and on this you and I disagree.  But please, don't overstate your case and try to make yourself out to be some kind of martyr for the cause of "any version will do" and make the Bible believer out to be some kind of a cultist just because he believes The Bible is inerrant when you do not.

Will

gotcha104,



I did not make any false accusations. I said, "It gives people the impression that KJV onlyist think they are better than anyone else."  Note the word impression. It shows your lack of comprehension of written words and causes you to make false accusations.

There is no sense in my discussing this any further with someone that cannot understand the simple meaning of such simple written words.

In Christ,

Here are some interesting reads  ;D :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions
http://www.kjvonly.org/

Sammi,

I did some research on this topic recently and was absolutely shocked. The Internet is full of false and ridiculous statements from King James "Only-ists". The ones I hate the worst is the gist - All other Bible Translations are works of the devil. The Internet is loaded with statements like this, and it's all based on a completely false and impossible to defend group of thoughts about the KJV.

YES! - Many of the KJV Only-ists rise to cult level. Many are good soldiers of King James, but NOT JESUS CHRIST! It's impossible for them to answer the most simple questions, as the most simple questions prove what they are saying is false. I asked a few of those simple questions here, and not a single one was answered.

I have no problem in saying that the KJV is an excellent translation and maybe the best, but it is JUST a translation. Many have carried this to the extreme and have actually made the KJV an idol. At the very least, the KJV Only-ists preach King James and have no time to preach JESUS CHRIST. The KJV Only-ist is their doctrine, their only doctrine, and this doctrine is harming God's work around the world. In this regard, I would echo the gist of what the Apostle Paul said - I would rather know nothing except Christ and Him Crucified.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Peter 1:3-5 ASV  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

The links I put up are the opposing side of KJV onlyists, not saying that KJV is wrong, but asks a lot of questions that I'm sure you yourself asked that couldn't be answered. And from what I saw, the KJV has it's own problems. Mmhm...... The only thing that seems to be inerrant, is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To say that KJV is the perfect word of God is dangerous in my very humble opinion. ;)

Amen Sammi and blackeyedpeas,


This is indeed true. To say that it is the inerrant word of God causes people to look at it closely and point out the mistakes in it. Then when they see the mistakes there is the thought that that God lies. WE ALL KNOW THAT GOD CANNOT LIE!

THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD IS ALIVE AND PRAISE GOD HE WILL RETURN FOR US ONE DAY!!

Hi Roger, what you said was this:

There are many Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available that also vary in wording and in amount of text.
All of this arguing lends to even more division. It gives people the impression that KJV onlyist think they are better than anyone else. That they are the only ones saved and the only ones that are following the word of God. This sounds very much like many cults."

Roger, apparently this is the "impression" that you yourself share, and you directly imply that we Bible believers are an exclusive cult of some kind.

Roger, are you aware that your arguments are very much like those a non-Christian would use when discussing the Christian faith?  He would say very much the same things you are.

"Just because you Christians think that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation, you think you are better than everybody else, and you are the only ones who are saved.  You are just a cult."

To a non-believer the true Christian will always seem like he is setting himself up as exclusive, better than others, and the only ones who are saved.  Truth always divides, and those who are on wrong side of Truth will slander and debase those who have it.

The simple fact regarding the issue of the Inerrancy of the Bible is this.  I believe the King James Bible is the providentially preserved pure words of God and you do not believe such a thing exists.

I am by no means saying or implying you are not a true child of God.  I believe you are redeemed by the same blood of the Lamb that I am; but I believe The Book is 100% true, and I can tell anyone what it is called and where they can get a copy;  you do not.

Will K

Hi Sammi, you still have the same problem with the NIV.  It still speaks of the ORIGINS of Christ as from ancient times, and the problem exists in the TEXT of the NIV in Acts 13:33 that says: "Today I have become your Father".  The NIV teaches that Christ had origins or a beginning at some time in the past, and it teaches that there was a certain day before which God was not the Father of the Son of God.

The Jesus Christ portrayed in the NIV is a created being, rather than the eternal and everlasting Son of God who has always existed.

Use your NIV if you wish, but it is a bogus bible.

Will K

That is just your opinion, and you are allowed an opinion. My WORD is alive and in me, not just on some paper. Say what you want, but the KJV is not the perfect word of God, the perfect word of God is the Son of God, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Worship your Bible if you must, but I will worship Christ. ;)

PS, I put some links a few posts back that debunk your "theories" on the KJV being the inerrant word of God. It isn't inerrant as man is errant and can make mistakes in translation. It is your preference to read it, but please don't call it inerrant or perfect, because it isn't.

That is just your opinion, and you are allowed an opinion. My WORD is alive and in me, not just on some paper. Say what you want, but the KJV is not the perfect word of God, the perfect word of God is the Son of God, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Worship your Bible if you must, but I will worship Christ. ;)

PS, I put some links a few posts back that debunk your "theories" on the KJV being the inerrant word of God. It isn't inerrant as man is errant and can make mistakes in translation. It is your preference to read it, but please don't call it inerrant or perfect, because it isn't.

Hi Sammi, it is unfortunate that you don't care to take the time to refute my arguments about the clear NIV theological blunders (heresy), but instead rail against the KJB or any bible as being inerrant.  This has been my contention all along.  You modern versionists do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant word of God.  Welcome to the ever expanding Bible of the Month Club.  

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Will K

 I guess if you're going to leave your brain on your night table, verses such as the one you pointed out could seriously confuse you. These type of arguments are used by non believers to attack Christianity all the time. If you read the entire bible, you can actually put things in their proper context.

 As far as the NIV portraying Jesus as a created being -

 NIV John 1:1-5

1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2)He was with God in the beginning.

3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5)The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 It's pretty clear about who Jesus is my friend.

[quote author=blackeyedpeas .....It's impossible for them to answer the most simple questions, as the most simple questions prove what they are saying is false. I asked a few of those simple questions here, and not a single one was answered......

I have no problem in saying that the KJV is an excellent translation and maybe the best, but it is JUST a translation. Many have carried this to the extreme and have actually made the KJV an idol. At the very least, the KJV Only-ists preach King James and have no time to preach JESUS CHRIST..
Love In Christ,
Tom
*******
I understand where you are coming from.But you will find what you accuse of the KJVers,with the whateverist do also.
You will find "certain" fellows on both sides.

I know of no KJVer that takes his KJV and sets up an altar to it.We simply are defending the Holy Bible is all.You can read your other versions,it is still a free world out there.But we are simply showing that the KJV is the "VERY" words of God.Perfect,and without proven error.And we expose the lies of the Christian hallways and classrooms that would usurp God's words With their own Arbitrary choices against what God said.Just like Eve,being tempted of the Devil.She failed and wanted to be a god.That way she could be her own final authority and be the arbiter against God's own words.

The same thing is happening today.The modern versions are using corrupted manuscripts,so the versions become corrupted themselves.Many are good,godly men and with good intentions.And a few have recanted,knowing of the ridicule they would receive.

The opposite is the case about preaching Jesus/verses KJV.
I have only preached on the KJV once.All the other times were for salvation or growth of some sort for the glory of God.

Maybe you are talking about posting?Just look at the numbers of people that read this thread,and you will see that it is indeed a very important topic in the eyes of many.As it should be.

And you KJVonlyists are causing other Christians to have to defend THEIR Bibles from YOU. To say that KJV is the VERY words of God and is perfect and without proven error is not only dangerous it is a lie. And KJVonlyists are causing extreme damage to new and non-believers. My first Bible was given to me by my parents when I was a liitle girl, and it was KJV. When I was about 23 I was given an NIV Bible by a very good friend and I could read and understand the WORD OF GOD  much easier and was blessed immensely by being able to pray, open my Bible and understand it. To tell people who choose to read other than KJV that they are watered down, or Satanic or any other garbage is just that . Garbage. It does tend to start sounding cultish and should stop.

I am not saying that the KJV is wrong or inferior, but it is not inerrant nor without flaw. I choose NIV because I understand it better, you choose KJV because you say any other is the work of the devil.
 And by the way, you don't have to put up an altar to worship something.
I am quite tired of people who are supposed to be Christians, telling other Christians that the Bible they read is inferior or Satanic, just because it's not KJV. Is God also English since His "only" word is in old English?

Sorry if I sound angry, but I am.

Brother Sammi, that is why, I orgionally locked this thread. Tempers were flaring, name calling, ect., ect.

Everyone needs to calm down some. This is the only warning I will give this thread, this time. As I only check this thread every few days. Because the discussion can play only tune. Some start to beat on one another, that will not happen this time.

Something everyone needs to know. Every Bible has flaws, unless you have studied classical greek, or hebrew. Something I am starting to learn right now. Yes, There are mistakes in the KJV, as well. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."  However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."  Both statements cannot be true.  Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation.  In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified.  A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. So as you can see, all Bibles have mistakes.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

Sammi,The reason you are really angry,is that you cannot find any errors in the Holy Bible.And that exposes you and shakes your opinionated foundations.Ours is not based upon opinion at all,but simple faith in God's word,and conviction that is is indeed that;God's word.
We dare to believe God and take God at his word.He said he would preserve his word,and he has.The perfect KJV.It has 99% of the manuscript evidence supporting it.But all of the other modern versions have corrupted manuscripts pumped out by heretics,like Jerome.
Jerome said in his preface,as the pope asked him to "CHANGE" the text to support the Catholic churches doctrines.
"I'm going to be exposed,for there is already many true Latin Bibles out there and I will undoubtedly be branded an Heretic."

Then there is Origen.The Alexandrian himself.His Hexapla,the fifth collumn is the LXX which is 200 AD,not bc like Alexandrians like to promote.Plus all of his ugly doctrines were rampant.He taugh baptismal Regeneration and Purgatory.
He did more to corrupt christianity than almost any other person.Plus he would switch OT readings to match New Testament readings.That way he could claim that his LXX is more accurate than the Original Hebrew.Ya,right.

Even today,there are scholars pumping the praises of Origen.
Such great clairity of doctrines,[hack,choke,spitoowie].

These wonderful doctrines were

No physical resurrection
Universal salvation
Salvation by works
Mystical kiss
Baptismal regeneration
Postmillenialism
Calling a pastor,"PRIEST"

Then we have Eusebius that made all of these corruptions socially acceptable at the bidding of Constantine.

And finally we have Westcott and Hort resurrecting this bunk and Changing the Bible in thousands of places.They hated God's word.Many articles have already exposed their corruptions of the manuscripts and the English Bible.

And this is the foundation of almost every modern version out there.Totally unreliable.But go ahead,you can use it.It is a free world out there still.

Allow the conviction of the Holy Ghost to convince you that God's word is final.Not man's.
That is what all of the versions and lexIOCONs are about.Making themselves the Final authority.But they all disagree.So they continue in their multiple versions and accept the less,the husks,instead of going back to the father and his perfect word.

Here is a typical King James site that shows the two lines of Bibles.
The true line that the KJV comes from.
The fake corrupted line that the modern versions come from.
*******
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/kjcontra.htm

PeterAV

hey brothers and sisters, can I add to this very long thread?

the debate is very interesting and it teaches me supporting evidence for my beliefs, and as i have been reading, it seems to me that to debate a point using offense leaves us outside the fulfillment of Jesus' request, that we be unified the way He and the Father are.  i have always been touched by the fact that Jesus even prayed for unity in John 17.  it seems important to me to see that our Lord cared so much about unity that he made sure His prayerful request got preserved for us to read.  (my favorite chapters in all the Bible are John 14-17 cuz those are Jesus' very words.  they tell us in a nutshell---of His love, purpose, and our instructions.)  i take a stand in hopes of always giving Jesus His heart's desire.  i am sure that each of you do too.  i mean, if He were standing in our home right now asking us to show compassion to everyone in this thread, i'm sure when we look into His eyes and see His miraculous love, and when we hear His voice that sounds like rushing water, we would be moved to compassion for every person.   all versions of the Bible ask us to be unified.  no matter what my point of view is, i pray to have one mind in Christ Jesus with each of you.  i hope you pray to have one mind in Christ Jesus with me because just think, that makes our God unified with us!

the Bible is an ancient book with hope.  hope to know the mysterious God who died for you and me.  hope to have more faith to believe in the one true God who then rose from the dead.  hope we get to live with Him forever, and hope we pray for each other letting the Holy Spirit in.

as for my opinion?  i read the NKJV.  read the NIV when I was a baby Christian (6 years ago).  grew up reading the KJV.  now, i am willing to compare and contrast any Bible (at least once), all the while asking the Holy Spirit for guidance.  what i really want is to learn the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, salted with a healthy dose of cultural, historical understanding so i can consider the context in which the writer wrote.
 
love ya, and am wondering what you think?
selahjoy*

Hi bronze, thanks for your comments.  However John 1:1 merely tells us the the Word (the Son of God) was with God "in the beginning".  It doesn't tell us what "beginning" is being talked about.  Most likely it is the beginning of the creation.

However, if we combine ALL the verses found in the NIV about the nature of the Son of God, we would have to conclude that the Son of God had "origins" or a beginning himself, and Acts 13:33 clearly infers that there was a "day" when God BECAME HIS FATHER.  So, there were days or a time when God was NOT the Father of the Son  - according to the NIV.


The consistent theology taken from the NIV would mean that God first created the Son on a certain day, and thus He had his "origins" and then later God created the heavens and the earth. The Son of God (the Word) was with God the Father in the beginning of the creation of the world, but before this, the Son did not exist.   This is exactly what the JWs teach and also many liberal theologians.

It it utterly impossible to teach from all the verses in the true Bible, the King James Holy Bible, that either the Son of God had "origins" (or a beginning) or that there was a day when God BECAME the Father of the Son.  But you can easily prove these heresies from the NIV and the Jehovah witness version.

There is nothing here about putting your brain on the night stand, but rather using your God given brain to put together all the verses on any particular subject or doctrine.

Bronze, do you personally believe that any Bible is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God or not?  If so, exactly which, if any, of all the conflicting versions out there is the inerrant Bible?

Will K

Hi Bronze, here is a more complete study on Micah 5:2.  Would you or anyone else like to respond?


  The Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal, only begotten Son of God.

We cannot wrap our minds around the mystery of the Holy Trinity, but the Sacred Scriptures, as found in the King James Bible, reveal that Jesus Christ is the eternal, only begotten son of God. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His incarnation. I John 4:9 says, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." Christ was the only begotten Son BEFORE He was set into the world. He did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation.

In John 16:28 the Lord Jesus says, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." In John 10:36, our Saviour asks, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

As the Son of God He appeared in the fiery furnace along with the three Hebrew believers in the days of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar says: "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

The book of Proverbs makes mention of the preincarnate Son in 30:4. "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"

Again, in John 17:5, the Lord prays: " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Jesus Christ, as the only begotten Son is one of the Three Persons of the Trinity. He is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. If the Father is eternal, so must be the Son. A human man cannot be a father until he has a son. He is a man, and a husband, but he does not become a father until and at the same time he has a son. The two terms, “father” and “son”, are simultaneous.

The orthodox view of the Person of Jesus Christ is that He is the only begotten Son by eternal generation, eternally proceeding from the Father. He is also eternal God. I Timothy 3:16 tell us, “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.” You cannot prove that God was manifest in the flesh from the Jehovah Witness bible, nor from the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, or NASB versions using this verse. They say something like “He appeared in a body” - NIV. All of us have appeared in a body too, but we are not God.

There are also other verses found in the modern versions that undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the KJB that Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET version, Holman Standard, or the JW bibles that He had an origin? Yes.

In Micah 5:2, the King James Bible says: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING.”

Other versions that read like the KJB "whose goings forth" are the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NKJV, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, NASB, Darby, Spanish, Hebrew-English translations of 1917 and 1936, Coverdale, Bishops', Hebrew Names Version, Bible in Basic English, Young's, the Geneva Bible, and the Catholic Douay.

The NIV says, "whose ORIGINS are from of old, from ANCIENT TIMES." The JW version, and the RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard say, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite (or "origen..from ancient days)."

Daniel Wallace's Net version likewise reads in Micah 5:2 - "As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah— from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose ORIGINS are in the distant past."

Then the good Doktor footnotes - "Hebrew “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins or to his activities."

Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NET, and the JW bibles say “origin” or "origins"? The Son of God did not have a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The JW’s teach that the Son of God is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, that He is less than God the Father. The word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."

The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET say his origin is from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.

The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, but when the word is applied to God, it is rendered as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”

The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!

Will Kinney

There is another phrase. that is “hard to be understood” that has been changed in the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, and the NASB. It is found in Acts 13:33 where it refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The KJB reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The versions that read as the KJB, “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the dead”. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the dead”, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.”

It is of great interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render this phrase “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN”. The Spanish says: “resusitándo a Jesus”, the Latin resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese- ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. Thus it is easy to see that they all consider this verse to read as does the KJB. I believe it is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The modern NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.

Some new version defenders tell us that the word “again” is not in the Greek text. Yet again, I believe this is a false statement. All the versions, frequently translate the verb anistemi as raised up again. For example the NIV renders this word as “rise again” 6 times, “raised to life” once, and “raised from the dead” once. It is frequently used in the phrase that Jesus would be “raised” on the third day. The noun form of this verb is anastasis and is always used in referrence to the resurrection.

What does the phrase, “This day have I begotten thee” mean? Jesus Christ did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation. This false doctrine is called incarnational sonship. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His taking on a human body.

The orthodox doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten before His incarnation was firmly established in 325 A.D at the council of Nicea when the church was combating the teaching of Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a created being; that He had an origen and was inferior to God the Father.

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." He was the only begotten Son before He was sent into this world.

The NIV teaches heresy with its rendering of Acts 13:33 by saying, "Today I have become your Father." And now the two new versions coming out, the ISV (International Standard Version) and the Southern Baptist Holman Christian Standard also have: "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has his goofy NET bible version on the internet. The NET version says: "13:33 that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE FATHERED YOU."

Then D.Wallace footnotes: " Greek “I have begotten you.” The traditional translation is misleading to the modern English reader because it is no longer in common use. Today one speaks of “fathering” a child in much the same way speakers of English formerly spoke of “begetting a child.”

While Dr. Wallace speaks of updating, or "modernizing" the English language, he utterly fails to see the blatant theological heresy his easy to read version has introduced. This reading of "today I have fathered you" teaches that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not the Son, and God was not His Father. This is the same teaching and reading of the Jehovah Witnesses' bible version.

The verb used here is gennao, to beget or to be born. There is no Greek word here for the NIV's " have become" or " Father" in any Greek text on this earth.

In what sense then can Jesus be said to have been begotten on a certain day? This happened at the resurrection.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary: this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4)."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament: "This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son.

The Expositor's Greek Testament: "Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

The Son of God refers to Himself in Revelation 1:5 as, "the firstbegotten from the dead", and in Colossians 1:18 He is referred to as "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence."

I believe the NKJV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB are wrong by applying Acts 13:33 to Christ's incarnation instead of His resurrection, and the NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard along with the NWT, are heretical by teaching Christ was not the Son, nor God His Father before a certain day.

I hope this little study has been helpful to you and that we all will appreciate and love the Person of our Blessed Redeemer more for His amazing grace to us unworthy sinners. May our attitude towards His true words as found in the KJB be as that of king David- “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128.

Will Kinney

Psalms 12:6-7

I will just say this one last thing on this subject. I love you all in Christ, regardless of the differences we have based on translations. I think it is a ridliculous and divisive discussion,but nevertheless, we should all love each other anywa. By the way,I'm not sure who referred to me as brother Sammi, but I'm sister Sammi. :)

In Christs love,
Sammi

Quote=Blackeyedpeas
*******
That is simply a false statement all together.
The Holy Bible has been around all over the world.There are many Bibles that are built upon the same Received Text as the English Bibles.So where was the Bible BEFORE 1611 is not a correct question.It is misleading at best.

Before the 1611 the Bible was everywhere!
The Received Text
Erasmus:1516
Beza:1565
Stephanus:1546
Colinaeus:1534
Elzevir:1633
*******
Bibles that came from this text that makes up 99% of manuscript evidence;
Martin Luther [German]
Diodati [Italian]
Erdosi [Hungary]
Olivetan [France]
Valera [Spain]
Visoly [Poland]
Gottshcalkson [Iceland]
DeGrave [Holland]
Elizabeth Bible [Russia]
Coverdale [England,1535]
Great Bible [1539]
Matthew's Bible [1537]
Bishop's Bible [1568]
Tyndale Bible [1525]
Geneva Bible [1560]

and finally;
King James [1611 AV]
To make a good one better,was their motto.

The other versions are trying to use the same line,but it is a lie,for they use corrupted manuscripts.
In fact when they tell you that ever since 1611,many more manuscripts have been found;they conveniently omit that of the total amount of those thousands found,that KJV is yet supreme,with 99% of the manuscript evidence.

So where was the Holy Bible BEFORE 1611?
All over the place.
All versions in the other languages that follow the KJV or the same Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts as the KJV are the Holy Bible for those lands.Even they are complaining of corrupters coming in and changing the words.

KJVers stand for docrtinal perfection in all of scripture.
The modern versions stand for opinions as the final standard.
Sure is a lot of opinions out there.

The Holy Bible has been around all the time.One can find versions that compliment the KJV as early as 150 AD.One can also find early Paprus that agree with the KJV by a larger margin that the corrupters.
In fact,of the 85,000 Early church sitations that were quoted,the KJV type readings outnumber the minority text by two to one.And on important verses it is three to one.

That is;66% to 75%.
Now that says something,reguardless that there was so much corruption at that time.

Now let us all speak the same thing,How?
Satan has duped too many.No more responsive readings,and fewer and fewer memorizing of the scriptures.

Do I think that God allowed the world to go without the Bible for so many years?Of course not,it has been around all the time for those who believed it and gave their lives for it,and God lets it surface where and when he so choose.

"I have found "The BOOK".
II Chronicles 34:14-19

PeterAV,

So, KJV Only would not be correct, would it? Thanks for admitting the obvious. Now, here's the other half of the obvious: The Holy Bible would and does exist now WITHOUT the KJV.

The truth of the matter is exceptionally simple:  The KJV is just a translation, and that's all it's ever been. It's good, but it's not 100% anything.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 2:2-5 ASV  For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.  And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:  that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

In which way?
The earlier versions were the word of God for their time but they are not the word of God for now.God has seen fit to use the KJV that has been purified beyond the other good translations that uses the correct texts also.

I look forward to hearing just what you meant.
It is communication that brings us to an understanding.If I have not been clear,I would like to know about it,so I can clear up the perceived contradiction.

Sometimes we read our own definitions into what others say,and so the discussion goes on and on,when each should try to find out things more clearly.Don't ya' think?

Relentless for Jesus and his words,
Peter A V
Thy word is truth.
John17:17

I highlighted the contradictions. I would just like to make this perfectly clear.You said this:
No! I never said that the KJV was incorrect,I simply said that there Might be the possibility of improvement.

Then you said this:
The KJV is perfect,purified 7 times.

And this:
The KJV "IS" the "VERY" words of God.Perfect and purified.

I would like to point out that perfection means without flaw, and has no need for improvement, as it is PERFECT already. So if the KJV can have room for improvement, then it isn't the perfect and pure word of God. You argue about something that is not only ridiculous, but it's going to get to the point where you are going to get fanatical, (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this hasn't happened yet) and you are actually going to TURN non-believers away from God with your fanaticism. And you may even turn believers away from God also. I have seen first hand how far KJV onlyists can go with their fanaticism and it is ugly. You should take your eyes off of an earthly king and turn them back to the Heavenly one, my friend.  ;)

Hmmmmmm...methinks she has a point... :)

AMEN SAMMI!

This really says it all. There are numerous good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and the KJV is only one of them. Arguing about translations and putting down various translations simply hurts God's Work. Our focus should be on our Lord and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST!


Love In Christ,
Tom

John 1:14 ASV  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

A second Amen to that Sammi.

What do some of the men behind these modern versions actually believe about the Bible itself? I'm not talking about their character or their doctrinal stance on "the fundamentals", but what they actually believe about the Scriptures they are forming and translating into the modern versions.

The beliefs of Westcott and Hort have been well documented, so I will only mention in passing that never once did either of these men profess a faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God.

Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69).

What about some of the men who are alive today and are responsible for the modern bible versions? Bruce Metzger is one of the chief editors of the Greek text of the United Bible Society, which is the basis for such versions as the NASB, NIV, Holman Christian Standard, and the ESV. What are his views of the Bible itself?

Bruce Metzger wrote the introductions to each of the books of the Reader's Digest Bible, and questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses."

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul's other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul."

1 Peter: "According to tradition, the apostle Peter wrote the letter from Rome, perhaps after the outbreak of persecution by the emperor Nero in A.D. 64. But this is questioned by some modern scholars, who prefer to date the letter nearer A.D. 100, with authorship unknown"

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as 'scripture,' a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul's death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter's name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Bruce Metzger co-edited the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. Mr. Metzger wrote many of the notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider the folowing from the notes to this version:

NOTES ON GENESIS:

"Genesis 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB:

"The ANCIENT FOLKTALE of a patient Job circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON JONAH:

"The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of POPULAR LEGEND and put it to a new, more consequential use."

Notes from "How to read the Bible with Understanding":

"The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They ARE NOT TO BE READ AS HISTORY... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, though THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS STRICTLY HISTORICAL. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are LEGENDARY ELEMENTS ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and NOT WITH A DULL, PROSAIC AND LITERALISTIC MIND."

Gleason "scribal error" Archer is one of the Hebrew scholars who worked on both the NASB and the NIV translations. He reveals a great deal about his own personal beliefs regarding the Bible itself in his book titled Bible Difficulties. This book is highly recommended by Hank Hannegraff.

Mr. Archer's book is full of statements such as these: "the Masoretic text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript." (p.171); "the eye of the Hebrew scribe unfortunately jumped passing over 26 Hebrew words in between, but the LXX supplies us with all the missing words" (p. 40); "a word has been lost in the received Hebrew text. Sometimes this omission occurred before the third century B.C., and so not even the LXX can retrieve it for us" (p. 40); "probably a scribal error"; "in the course of transmission the notation was miscopied. The accurate preservation of statistics is notoriously difficult, and 1 Samuel has more than its share of textual errors." (p.173).

Mr. Archer recommends several "lost readings", including whole verses, that not even the NIV or the NASB adopt, but they are found in the more liberal RSV. All of these versions, the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV depart scores of times from the Hebrew texts and often not even in the same places as the others.

In the Scofield edition of the NIV we read these faith destroying words in a footnote at 1 Chronicles 11:11. "mistakes in numbers sometimes occur. Many disagreements between numbers in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are alleged. Actually, out of the approximately 150 instances of parallel numbers, fewer than one-sixth disagree...God gave us a Bible free from error in the original manuscripts. In its preservation, He providentially kept is from SERIOUS ERROR, although He permitted a few scribal mistakes...Some say that Chronicles has exaggerated numbers so as to enhance the reputation of ancient Israel."

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 -5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.


Can't you see where this whole thing is headed?

None of you believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God.  

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Psalm 11:3

Will K

There seems to me to be a great deal of back-pedalling by the KJV onlyists.  First, God is sovereign enough to keep His word in the hands of His people, and has, though scripture itself denies this, done so.  Then they have determined that He has also done so in the form of the KJV, because it agrees with the transcripts that they agree are acceptable.  They ardently defend this, again, without biblical support for doing so, to the tearing down of brothers and sisters in Christ who hunger for the word, in that, they are hungering for the wrong word.  They put question into the minds of those who never had questions, and had never been led astray.  Is God sovereign (I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe so  :)) or is He not?  Does He need you to defend His word?  Has He ever?  Note:  I said need not command.  There are those who will post the passage from Jude about defending the faith as well as others.  Again, I have certain contextual disagreements with the necessity of this defense/application of this defence.

Next, they claim doctrinal changes in the exclusion/inclusion of certain verse/passages, basing their entire theology on one verse.  Their theology, and rightly so, is not based thusly, but their argumentation is.  Again, which is it?  One verse, or the whole?

They ardently defend the character of the 1611 translators, but ardently deny the salvation of any Catholic.  News flash: the 1611 translators were Catholic for the most part if not in their entirety!  You would trust the work of a doctrinal approach you deny while arguing the theology from whence it came?  Then to argue the men who translated the newer versions.  When will we stop looking at the men God used to get the job done and start looking at the God Who used the men?  When will we realize that we're all a little theologically out of tune, get off of our pedastals and humbly seek to know our God - and in turn help others to do the same.

This, my friends, is simple logic.  Please, don't get me started on the biblical ramifications of such a juxtaposed position as this.

Again, I've waged this battle for so long that I've come to view it in a sympathetic fashion, albeit an aggrevation.  I do speak/write in love brothers.   :)

Good post Allinall.  Glad to see logic and common sense used.  God gave us a brain and I see you're using yours. ;) 8)

Hi Allinall, thanks for your comments.  I, in turn, would like to make a few observations about what you say here.

I agree with you that God is sovereign and that He has promised to preserve His words here on this earth in a Book.  Do you deny this?  It seems from your remarks that you do not believe in the preservation of God's words.  If I am wrong in this, please correct my misunderstanding.


You criticize the KJB believer saying: "They put question into the minds of those who never had questions, and had never been led astray."

Brother, (I'm assuming you are a "he"), it is the modern version promoters who are now the ones who are openly stating that "NO Bible is Inerrant or Inspired".  All the recent polls show that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is fast fading all over the world.  God is sovereign. I completely agree.  And God Himself has predicted in His word that the last days will be characterized by a falling away from the faith, and that many will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned unto fables.  This is happening now and no one is going to stop it.


It is an undeniable fact that most Christians today know very little about The Bible and hardly ever read it.  The pendulum is swinging towards a mystical, subjective, and all inclusive New Age type of watered down Christianity.  

God doesn't "need" me or other KJB defenders for anything.  But I believe He has called me to defend the truth of an inerrant and pure Holy Bible in the face of the modern apostasy of unbelief.  I don't care whether you think I am right or wrong about this.  I'll leave it up to God and I'm sure He will let me know one way or the other very soon.


And Yes we do claim that several doctrines are being perverted in all the modern multiple-choice and contradicting versions - but part of the falling away from the faith includes "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" - 2 Timothy 4:3.

The absolute Truth is found in EVERY VERSE of the King James Bible.  All modern versions pervert Truth in several individual verses.  If it is not 100% truth, then it is a false witness.  This is God's Standard, not mine.

You then say:  "News flash: the 1611 translators were Catholic for the most part if not in their entirety!  You would trust the work of a doctrinal approach you deny while arguing the theology from whence it came?"

Allinall, this is unmitigated BALONEY.  How you could possibly speak such a bald faced Lie as this is utterly amazing.  By the way, I do not defend the KJB translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could be assembled today.  But to say they were Catholic is beyond all reason.  In addition to this, I do believe there are some Catholics who are true born again, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb children of God - and this, in spite of their false church.  I likewise by no means believe that every professing Protestant or Evangelical is a true Christian just because he/she makes a profession of faith.  

Brother, the central issue is this.  Is there such a thing as an inerrant, complete, 100% true Holy Bible on this earth or not?

What is clearly happening in the Christian church, is that more and more professing Christians no longer believe ANY BIBLE or any text in any language IS NOW the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  Apparently God has lied to us and His words are not true after all.

All you guys with no infallible Bible keep giving us your theories and pious sounding phrases about "good and reliable translations", but none of you comes right out and tells us exactly where we can find The 100% True Holy Bible today.

Instead, each of you sets up his own mind as his final authority, and each of your favorite versions or mystical bibles that exist solely in your own imaginations, differs from all the others.  "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."


Will K

I would like to repeat that there are people, pastors and preachers general Christians etc.  who take the word of God, no matter which version, KJV included, and twist it to fit their purpose. It doesn't really matter WHICH version is being read, if you are TWISTED and CORRUPT, you are twisted and corrupt. Period. I have seen fellow Christians who are more spirit-filled reading the NIV then a lot of people I've seen reading the KJV, and vice versa. The falling away isn't caused by the translation they are reading, IT'S CAUSED BY THE STATUS OF THEIR HEARTS. I sincerely hope you realize this.

Amen, Sammi. The NIV came out in 1978. There were many churches already formed prior to that time that had twisted and corrupted the word of God. These churches primarily used the KJV.

The falling away as you said is not because of the Bible being used but rather how people are using them. How people interpret them the way they want to in order to fit their desire to substantiate their sin.

What I find truly sad about the KJV only movement is that Christians not only get attacked by nonbelievers but by fellow Christians as well. I don't feel like I should have to defend my faith against a fellow believer for reading the Bible, it just sounds so :-\, idiotic.

:D  The word you used, idiotic I think is a great choice of words! Sister, I think you hit the nail, on its head.

Your friend, and brother in Christ.
Bob

Ephesians 2:16 And [He designed] to reconcile to God both [Jew and Gentile, united] in a single body by means of His cross, thereby killing the mutual enmity and bringing the feud to an end.

gotcha104,

See a post I made to you in another thread.  I won't repeat it all here. I will simply make some completely true statements.

Many of the criticisms of the KJV are 100% accurate. The original 1611 version represents the truth by the translators with the inclusion of thousands of footnotes and margin notes that offered alternate readings and interpretations. The KJV is obviously not complete, nor is it anywhere near accurate and true to the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. The KJV was and is ONLY A TRANSLATION!

Brother Will, please don't think that the readers here can't check the origin and steps in the translation of the KJV for themselves. When and if they do check for themselves, they will immediately find out that you made completely false statements, either intentionally or not makes no difference.

The instructions of King James and the step by step methodology of the translators of the KJV make it exceptionally clear that the KJV is NOT complete, NOT original, NOT inspired, NOT anywhere near accurate, and NOT the ONLY ANYTHING in talking about the Word of God. So, many of the criticisms of the KJV are completely accurate. Many of the biggest problems were with the New Testament and involved limited and improper sources of information. Everyone here can read it for themselves. My intent is not to tear down the KJV, rather present the TRUTH for damage control in God's Work. Gross misrepresentations and false information never serve God.

Will, remove the smoke screens. The quality of the translation is the only thing that matters. The side issues of who said what, what they believe, and etc. is not material, and the same thing can be done with those associated with the KJV. It's not material, so it's just a smoke screen for the truth.

The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are the standard for comparison, NOT THE KJV! The KJV is just a translation, and that's all it's ever been. Problems, errors, and all, the KJV is still a masterpiece and remains one of the better or best translations of the Holy Bible. Manufacturing or fabricating a doctrine that the KJV is the only complete, pure, and perfect Word of God is discovered as completely false in minutes by just about anyone, so why keep wasting your time with something obviously false? The location of the complete and perfectly preserved Word of God is also not material because it couldn't possibly be the KJV. The KJV is a translation of a translation, and much of the source material was either incomplete or improper. The KJV really represents a major upgrade and rewrite of the Bishops Bible with use of the ancient text they had access to, and that would include the Latin Vulgate. Everyone can check this for themselves, and I recommend that they do. The complete list of methods, instructions, and sources clearly show why many of the criticisms of the KJV are completely accurate. Many of the criticisms of other translations are also accurate.

Every translation of the Holy Bible has strengths and weaknesses. It is completely accurate to say that many of the more modern translators had access to huge amounts of material that the KJV translators didn't have. As a result, portions of some of the newer translations are more accurate than the KJV. However, the reverse is still true with other portions, so the KJV is still an excellent translation. Demonizing the newer translations simply makes people look at the OBVIOUS WEAKNESSES OF THE KJV!

Mud throwing contests against various translations of the Holy Bible do nothing but hurt God's Work. There is no irony that the KJV also gets covered in mud during these contests. The truth of the matter is really simple: God is using the KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NASB and many more good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and none of these translations are complete, correct, pure, and certainly not the ONLY Word of God. One must still do Hebrew and Greek word studies with all of them. Trying to demonize something that God is OBVIOUSLY using in His Work will always backfire. Those who are involved in this type of activity should check the truth and pray about what they are doing.  Finally for this 2 cents worth: we should be spending our time preaching JESUS, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace - not arguing about translations or preaching doctrines about translations.


Love in Christ,
Tom

1 John 5:4-5 ASV  For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.  And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

QUICK GUIDE TO BIBLE VERSIONS

Historic - Major Catholic, Anglican/Protestant Versions ( -1800)

· Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

· Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850].

· Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran].

· Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style.

· Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer.

· Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions].

· Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches".

· Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America.

· Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV.

· Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"].

· King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's].


Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990)

· Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics.

· American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same.

· Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible.

· Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time.

· Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version.

· Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual).

· Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV.

· Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

· Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)].

· New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.

· New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale.

· New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated.

· Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation".

· New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.

· Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader.

· New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text .

· New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations.

· New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV .

· Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.

Sammi,

ANOTHER AMEN!!

It makes me very sad that some folks use what limited time we might have left in this age by preaching translations, demonizing other translations, and hurting the Work of God with books and materials HE is obviously using. The mudslinging contest puts just as much mud or more on the KJV than the other translations being targeted. The whole process is in fact a waste of time that causes confusion, doubt, and division for the children of God who should have better and hopefully productive things to do for God.

It is time to forget this nonsense and preach JESUS CHRIST, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace.


Love in Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 2:9-10 ASV  but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

BEP posted
Whoa BEP!  Quick guide?  My cat has fewer fleas. :)  (Well - if i HAD a cat it would have fewer fleas...).

Now - when you take each of these versions and "convert" (translate) them into French, German, Portugese, Spanish, Swahili, Ebonics, Cherokee, Polish, Russian, Arabic, Togala, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Hebrew and Italian - we have how many versions?

Hmm - but only the 1611 KJV is valid?  :-X  Sure seems like a lot of wasted ink and paper.  Why not just tell the world that in order to be saved one must speak and read the King's English of the 17th century.  That should settle it.   ::)

(Please note that Arabic is struck-out because we all know that to introduce the Holy Bible to a muslim is an instant death sentence imposed by the 'Religion of Peace'.)

For anyone that is interested in learning the history of English Bibles the following is an excellant source of information. It is a little biased against the Latin Vulgate but it does explain why they consider the Latin Vulgate a corrupt source with historical evidence to prove it.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Hey PR, I particularly like this excerpt from that site, (I go there a lot).

"The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible."

Therefore, if "purity" of the Word is in question, I would consider the KJV to be much more hybrid than the Geneva Bible, or the earlier Whycliffes and Tyndales.

Gees. What a waste of an argument. Better to monitor the integrity of any new version, than to put all others down over one!!!!

I like the Amplified version!! I guess that makes me some kind of heretic, eh? I sure am glad Jesus is the Judge!!!

ZakDar,

Yeah, I liked that,too.

I have a copy of the Geneva Bible and occasionally use it. The original one is a bit difficult to read for most. Harder than the current KJV. There is a new Geneva available but it is basically a translation of the current KJV.

There is a Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D. that is currently working on a version that puts the original Geneva into modern spelling. He claims it is the exact same wording just updating the spelling of the words. He calls it the "Modern Spelling Edition of the Geneva Bible’s text".

I've been to that site, not recently, in fact, I had forgotten about it.  Read it today again just to refresh my memory.  I think I must have been there reading at the same time as ZAK.  Thanks for posting it.  It's a good site.

Hi blackeyedpeas, I will repeat some of your statements and then comment.

Among the things you say are the following: "The KJV is obviously not complete, nor is it anywhere near accurate and true to the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. The KJV was and is ONLY A TRANSLATION!"

Bep, you never identify for any of us which Hebrew and Greek texts you are referring to.  The Greek texts vary wildly among themselves, and since you do not believe ANY BIBLE OR ANY TEXT IS now the inerrant words of God, you keep entertaining us with your pious sounding, but ultimately empty, rhetoric.


Here comes your usual pious sounding baloney -"The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are the standard for comparison, NOT THE KJV!"

Bep, WHICH Hebrew and  Greek?  You never tell us.  Also, if it is the Hebrew, then why do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman all frequently reject the Hebrew readings?  You never answer this either.

 Now, here is a brilliant statement: "The location of the complete and perfectly preserved Word of God is also not material because it couldn't possibly be the KJV."


Bep, you are so hardened against the true Holy Bible that your faculties have become unhinged.  What a ridiculous statement you make.  You tell us "it is not material where the preserved word of God is"  (Is this your "mystical and unknown bible"?), but you personally are sure it is not the KJB.   So, you admit you don't know or even care where the true words of God are, but it is your humble opinion that it definitely is not in the King James Bible.  But of  course you never do get around to telling us where the true words of God ARE found, do you?



 
Bep, the following statement proves that you have made your own mind and understanding the Final Authority. "Every translation of the Holy Bible has strengths and weaknesses."

If you know where all the weaknesses are, then why don't you write your own bible version and set the whole thing straight for us?  You sit in judgment on all versions out there, and you decide for yourself what parts you like and what you don't, what parts are stong and what parts are weak.  You are your own final authority.

 You close with this: "Finally for this 2 cents worth: we should be spending our time preaching JESUS, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace - not arguing about translations or preaching doctrines about translations."

Bep, again may I point out the obvious?  Most Christians confess and affirm that "The Bible" is the inerrant word of God.  If it really is from God, then it cannot lie or contain errors.  But the ONLY SOURCE we have that tells us anything at all about the Lord Jesus Christ, the cross, and His redemptive work, is The Bible.  But what do we have today in "the Bible"?  We have over 100 versions in English alone, and none of them agrees 100% with any other out there, and they are getting worse.

The NIV omits literally thousands of words from its texts.  The NIV teaches that the Son of God has origins and there was a day before which God was not His Father. The NIV frequently rejects all Hebrew texts and makes up its own readings.

The NASB teaches that God can be deceived (See Psalm 78:36) and that there are two Gods (See John 1:18).  The NASB also frequently rejects the Hebrew readings, and differs from the NKJV in thousands of words in the New Testament alone.

Yet, somehow  we are supposed to believe that all these multiple-choice, conflicting, and textually different "bibles" are the true words of God.  This god of yours appears to be really confused.  

If we have no infallible Book, and all have weaknesses and errors, and different texts, then how does anyone know that what it says about Christ and the cross are in any way true or not?  At what point does God begin to tell the truth?

Didn't God promise to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth?  If He lied about this, then what else did He lie about?

The bottom line is that you yourself do not believe The Bible (any Bible or any text in any language) IS the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

Get all upset about this if you want, but it is the unvarnished truth of where you now stand.  You NEVER ONCE identify for us WHERE we can get ourselves a copy of the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  That's because you don't believe such a thing exists and "it is immaterial" to you.

Have it your way, Bep.  Go for it.  God will hand you over to the logical outcome of your present way of thinking.

Have a nice trip.

Will K

"It passed the complicated computer analysis,with its reams of material to digest,and proved that the King James is the very words of God."

How could a computer prove such. Did God program it?
A computer can only analyze to the extent of its inputed information. It is only as good as what man programs into it and man is capable of error. Even more so when feeding in "billions, multi billions of information".

It is faith upon hearing the word of God and being pricked in the heart by its power to act upon that faith that proves it is of God. That my friend can come from most translations.

Psalms 12:6-7

That power is in Jesus the Christ and the gift that God gives through Him to the world through believing.

ollie

gotcha104,

First of all you need to cool down your rhetoric. It is taking on a very condesending, accusatory stance.

Second. I compared the writings of the KJV to verses you mention in the NASB.

NASB

 36But they (A)deceived Him with their mouth
         And (B)lied to Him with their tongue.

KJV

Psa 78:36  Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

What do you think the word "flatter" means? It does not mean the same today as it did when the KJV was written. It means to deceive. Again it shows that you do not understand the language that the KJV was written in. It is explained in the adjoining verses that they did not succeed in deceiveing God, but that it was an attempt to deceive Him.

NASB

18(A)No one has seen God at any time; (B)the only begotten God who is (C)in the bosom of the Father, (D)He has explained Him.

KJV

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The only way that you can consider that this is talking about two Gods is that you do not believe that Jesus Christ is also God.

Your arguments are very weak and show a lack of comprehension of written words which is the case in most people that continue such arguments.



Where did God say that He promised to preserve His word in a "book here on this earth"? I know your answer will be in the following verses:

Psa 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


These are the verses that most KJV onlyists use to subtantiate their belief. First of all the verse in Psalms does not say anything about a book. It says that Gods word will be preserved and it has.

2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


The verse in Revelations was talking about the book of revelations because the Holy Bible was not a book yet.

"None of you believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God."

Why?

ollie

WOW!! gotcha104, I can't believe you just told Blackeyedpeas to go to Hell. I have absolutely no respect for you.

I'm afraid I missed that implication. gotcha104, I suggest that you re-evaluate your own position and statements before you are judged accordingly by God.

Again this thread is locked and may stay that way.

Right at the bottom, brother Roger. He posted at: Today at 02:43:35pm Aug 3 2005.

I caught it, this is one of the reasons I locked the thread, in the first place. I think it should stay locked, permantly.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Psalm 10:6 He thinks in his heart, I shall not be moved; for throughout all generations I shall not come to want or be in adversity.

DW,

I saw it but not until it was pointed out to me. That is why I locked this thread down again.