ChristiansUnite Forums

I've heard many debates about this, explainations and I'm still confused..

I've been told the the KJV is the best, most accurate. I find it a bit of a difficult read.

The MKJV is a bit better but still I dont know about it...

The Literal Translation I'm not really comfortable either...

I've been told every Bible outside of these 3 bibles are herectic and garbage and inaccurate....and some are new age garbage..

Is this true any information would be greatly apprecaited..

Godbless
In Christ

There should be a thread around here on CU in reference to this subject.  I don't know exactly where it is at the moment.  Look under debate, theology, bible study, apologetics.  It should be somewhere in there.

I've heard the discussion (argument) over the KJV.  There's lots of information on the net, pros and cons.  Just type in King James Bible in your search window.  It should keep you busy reading for about the next hundred or so years. ;D
You might also (for information's sake) want to check out the Douay-Rheims history.  It's the bible translated into Latin by an early Church father, Jerome.  It was later translated into English and the NT was used extensively by the King James translators.  Douay Rheims is a catholic bible, in case you didn't know.

You know RichkCt, Before i started going online, i had never even heard of the debate between the KJ being the best bible and others being bad etc etc and i really wish that that was still the case and i still hadn't heard of this debate. I think i can honestly say this whole debate has caused me more frustration, harm and confusion in my christian walk than any other issue and even today, i still don't know which one i should be using.  :(

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

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

The Word lives.

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

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

So right there Judgenot.......it's all personal prefence........if you look at most of the bibles and take for instance John 3-6 they all say the same thing......I think commercialism and man's need for money has brought all these different arrays around.  Another of Satan's tactics to confuse and destroy us.  

Greetings in the wonderful name of our lord and savior Jesus!

I personally preach and teach from the KJV, however, I also
tell those under my ministry that there is no set version that
is absolutely the only one to use. Any bible that has enough
truth to let us know that Jesus died for our sins, arose again,
and now interceedes for us is a good bible. Some people can
understand one version better than another. The best version for any one person is the one that they can understand.

Don't let other people influence you when it comes to serving
The Lord. The voice you need to hear is God's voice. When
you hear that voice clearly, then all others tend to fade away.

Respectfully your in Yeshua:

ravenloche

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to hearing from you,

God bless,

Will K

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

I find the translations done back when spiritual concerns were the main preoccupation of the day express spiritual concepts much better than modern translations which try to use our present day technically - oriented language to express them. It makes them easier to read, but we simply don''t have the words available today to express them well. Language develops and changes over time to fit the concerns and preoccupations of the people speaking, and spiritual concepts are not the main concern of present-day America.

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

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

Wrong. But I am aware of the problems in translating any book or document into another language accurately, even if the translators have the best intentions and no personal agenda.

Hi Rhys, could you then please tell us which text or which Bible of all the multiple choice, conflicting, contradictory and totally different in hundreds of verses Bible versions you believe is now the inerrant words of God?

Please give it a name so we can get ourselves a copy of it and compare it to all the others.

Thanks,

Will

Hi Joey!Here is one of your quotes.

I would be tempted to say that "Ignorance is bliss." but I do not think this is really the case here.
I truly believe that you are being confronted with truth,and you have been so long in accepting a lie,that it confuses you to a point,
Why?
Because you are listening to men and not the Holy Bible.
Opinions are not the standard,the Holy Bible is.
The KJV is without proven error,while all other wannabees are riddled with it.Errors abound on every page.

Satan tempted Eve and she yielded to the promise that she would be a god and be the "ARBITER" against God.
This is the foundation of the new versions and modern scholarship.It is built upon the Game of "I PREFER".

This is why all of the divergent words used plus the Copyright laws."...Substantial differences to the original in content and structure..."You know the old saying $m$o$n$e$y $t$a$l$k$s.

If you take a look at Will's posts,you will see the obvious corruption of the modern versions at many turns.

Here are a couple of sites to visit that will expose the necromancers for who they really are.

http://www.historicist.com/necromancers/necromancers.htm

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/wh/wh.htm

These will give you a little insight to the two that have changed the modern versions,and why they ought not to be trusted.

That is nothing short of the Nicolaitan spirit.Having some upper class rule over the people.

KJV has the overwhelming support of evidence verses the modern 1% minority Alexandrian corrupted texts pimped out by heretics such as Origen,Eusebius,Jerome,and in these last days ressurected by the two Apostate church men,that were necromancers during the time of their producion of the new Greek text,and English version.Westcott and Hort.

Let's see now,they hated the Bible,so they wanted to change it.They did not believe in the begining of Genesis,They admired Mary-worship,they did not believe in Jesus'atoning sacrifice,They believed in purgatory,and a myriad of other horrible doctrine perversions.
Obviously they were possessed of Satan for this work.And the Church has believed their lies.Even though many are saying that W&H have not proved their theories,they still use their materials,anyway.Even some of the modern translators and editors had no clue as to the lifestyle of Westcott and Hort.

Make sure to read the links.
Here is a short list of perverted verses.If even one is wrong then you know that you have a perverted Bible.
The standard is the Holy Bible,AV 1611,KJV

John 3:16
2Tim 2:15
1 Tim 6:6,10,20
2Cor 2:17
Well I could put down hundreds and hundres but this alone should expose many fakers for the culprits they really are.

Relentless for him,
PeterAV
Thy word is truth.
John17:17

Peter,

What I saw was false and hypocrisy. So, after 50 years of using the KJV, I'm happily using a different translation. So, thanks for the expose.

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.

Hi Tom, your having abandoned the King James Bible as the most accurate Book on earth is a severe loss we Bible believers will not soon recover from.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.  And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it."   Amos 8:11-12


Will K

gotcha104,

It's all real simple:


Other than the above, your one track is false and is hurting God's Work. So, I don't want to be associated with anything like that.


Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Timothy 6:12 ASV  Fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses.

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

Amos 8:11-12 NIV "The days are coming," declares the Sovereign LORD, "when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD. Men will stagger from sea to sea and wander from north to east, searching for the word of the LORD, but they will not find it.

As my reading of this, it means the same thing. The only difference is the wording is more modern. That is the only difference. Now, I do agreee with you to a point.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Daniel 11:11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated.

Hi Bob, You are correct (to a point ;-) that in many places the NIV basically reads like the King James Bible.  However there are literally hundreds of places where it does not, and the NIV clearly rejects the inspired Hebrew texts.

Here are just a very few of the many examples I can provide you with.

Please consider the following.  Is the NIV the true Holy Bible or just a very poor perversion of God's true words?


Remember, God said that no man should add to or take away from His words.

Genesis 4:8 KJB "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: AND IT CAME TO PASS, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

NIV - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD. And while they were in the field, Cain atacked his brother Abel and killed him."

The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass". In fact, the NIV complete concordance will tell you that they have "not translated" this verb a whopping 887 times. Not only does the NIV not translate this verb here but they also added "Let's go out to the field." The Holman Christian Standard also adds "Let's go out to the field". Their own footnotes say this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

This additional phrase is not found in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV or any Hebrew translation.

1 Sam 8:16 KJB - "And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest YOUNG MEN, and your asses, and put them to his work."

YOUNG MEN is the reading of the Hebrew, the NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Holman CSB, and the new revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version of 2001.

1 Sam 8:16 NIV - "Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your CATTLE and donkeys he will take for his own use." Then in a footnote they tell us "cattle" comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew says "young men".

Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

. This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact. Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB and the ever worsening NIV.

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 unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Proverbs 7:22-23 KJB - Speaking of a young man void of understanding who is deceived by a strange woman: "He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS; till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life."

This is the meaning found in such versions as Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Webster's, the NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936 and 1998.

However, the NIV says: - "like an ox going to the slaughter, LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE." Then the NIV footnotes: Syriac; Hebrew - a fool.(It comes right out and tells us that the Hebrew says "a FOOL", NOT "a deer"). Then the NIV says to see the LXX. However the LXX is little help because it says: "as a DOG to bonds or a hart shot in the liver with an arrow." Likewise the Syriac is of no help either. Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says here: "as an ox to the slaugher, or A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."

Isaiah 5:17 KJB (NASB, NKJV) - "Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones SHALL STRANGERS EAT."

NIV - "LAMBS WILL FEED" instead of "shall strangers eat", Footnote says "lambs" comes from LXX but the Hebrew says "strangers will eat".

Isaiah 53:11 KJB (RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV) "He shall see THE TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and shall be satisfied."

NIV - "After the suffering of his soul, he will see THE LIGHT OF LIFE and be satisfied." Footnote tells us this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls but the Masoretic text does not have "light of life". The NIV does not always follow the DSS either for sometimes they mention the DSS reading in the footnotes but do not use it in their text. There is no pattern to when they choose to follow the DSS, LXX, Syriac, Vulgate or whatever. It is all a willy - nilly process, totally at random.

Jer. 31:3 "The LORD hath appeared of old UNTO ME, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

The Lord hath appeared of old UNTO ME, is found in the NKJV, RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, Youngs, Green interlinear. The NASB says: "The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying..."

The RSV, NRSV and the ESV read the same as the NASB, but they have a footnote that says Greek -to him; Hebrew -to me. The NASB has followed the LXX and rejected the clear Hebrew text.

The NIV has something even different with its "The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying..." the NIV has "TO US" instead of the Hebrew "to me" or the Greek "to him", and just makes up their own text as they go along.

Ezekiel 8:2 "Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance OF FIRE." So read the Revised Version, ASV, Geneva Bible, the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Douay-Rheims, Darby, Young's and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pegotcha2ta.

However beginning with the liberal RSV, and now in the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, these modern versions reject the Hebrew reading and follow the Greek Septuagint saying: "Then I looked and behold, the likeness as the appearance OF A MAN."

The NASB and NIV don't give any footnotes, but the RSV, ESV and Holman do list a footnote telling us the reading of "a man" comes from the LXX, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "of fire".

These are just a FEW of the MANY examples.



Will Kinney

Psalms 12:6-7

I would like to ask the KJVonlyists, what do you say about women wearing or even owning pants in their closet? It may sound like a silly question, but I would really like to hear your answer. Thanks.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!


;D

The argggg isn't directed at you Person in Christ, Sammi, since I don't know your gender.

Christ is love, and love is Christ.
Bob

Genesis 38:20 And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand; but he was unable to find her.

I'm sorry, but I really do have a reason why I'm asking this question, and it may not SEEM to not have anything to do with this particular topic, but it does to me. I really want to hear the answer to my question, if it's possible. ;D

I am not necessarily a KJV only person, but I would have this to ask concerning your question. Are the pants designed for a woman or for a man? This would have to be known before an answer, using any Bible translation, could be forthcoming.

ollie

Pants.

Hi Blackeyedpeas.  I find it of great interest that after I posted a rather comprehensive list of concrete examples of how the NIV is rejecting the inspired Hebrew texts for no apparent reason at all, that instead of addressing these issues, you come back with your unfounded and irrational rants against the King James Bible.

Let's examime briefly your response, OK?

[quote ]

KJV Only = Nonsense

If you really want to believe all of the nonsense taught by the KJV Only-ists, here's the results:

1-  The Holy Bible could not have existed before 1611 because that's when the KJV was first published. Do you really think that God allowed the world to go without a Holy Bible for so many years? In fact, the Holy Bible would not exist without the KJV according to the KJV Only-ists. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!
Bep, The KJB believer DOES believe the Holy Bible existed before 1611.  It most likely was found among the Waldensian believers which arose around 120 A.D. and lasted well into the Reformation era.  We affirm that God has always kept His promises to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth.  It is YOUR side which denies the existence of a complete, inerrant, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible.

If you believe in such a thing, then why haven't you told any of us where we can find it today?


Bep, the KJB has never been "revised".  Don't you read the articles I post?  The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed.  Only the spelling was updated and minor printing errors (which occur in all printed bibles even today) were corrected.  If we apply your man made standard to the Holy Bible, then you cut your own throat.  Your "standard" of "no printing errors" then disqualifies any version you care to mention.



Bep, this is silly.  First, no KJB defender believes the KJB translators were inspired.  It is God's words that are inspired, even if they are translated into another language. Get it?

If we need "the original copy" of the KJB to know for sure what God's words are, then please produce for us "the originals" in Hebrew and Greek so we can compare them.  Again, you cut your own throat.


Wrong info, bep.  The KJB translators did compare other versions, but their source for the underlying text of the KJB was the Hebrew and Greek texts.  Get your facts straight.  

By the way, which position is more destructive to God's work? - #1. Taking the stated position of your side that "No Bible IS the inerrant, inspired and perfect words of God"; "All translations have errors", and "There is no perfect Bible".  Or #2.  God has kept His promises to preserve His perfect words and there is an inerrant, complete and inspired Holy Bible that is the standard for all others to be measured by.  It is called the King James Holy Bible and it is 100% true.


Bep, See previous remarks about the alleged "revisions".  It never happened.  Again, you tell us that "it is  impossible to have a perfect translation from Hebrew and Greek".  Where did you get this idea?  Certainly not from the Bible.  The Bible itself shows us many times where the translation was inspired.  Also, if we need to know the Hebrew, then why do the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman ALL FREQUENTLY reject the Hebrew readings?

You see, Bep, you never identify for us what this "Bible" is you speak about or where we can get a copy of it.  Your whole position is smoke and mirrors, with no content to it.


Uh, Bep, need I remind you that it is YOUR side which is denying the inerrancy of any Bible or any text out there - NOT the King James Bible believer. The devil asks the very first question found in the Bible - "Yea, hath God said....?"


Bep, the only truth and revelation we have on this earth about Who Jesus Christ is and what He did for His people, and many other revealed truths, is found only in The Holy Bible.  Apart from this book, we know nothing about the Son of God - nothing.

It is your side which is telling us that there is no inerrant Bible and that all of them have errors.   He promised to preserve His pure words in a Book here on this earth, yet you deny He did this.  So if all the bibles you recommend have errors, contradictions, and completely different readings in them, then how do we know those parts that tell us about Jesus Christ are true?  At what point does God start telling the truth?


The first part is true.  God had preserved His inerrant words before the KJB came on the scene.  But where among all the often wildly different versions are the true words of God today?

You never tell us, do you Bep. It is your side that says all versions have errors;  "no translation is inspired", and "There is no perfect Bible on this earth".

Bep, your conclusion is quite revealing of where you are coming from.  You close with these words:

Bep, think about what you just said.  If NO Bible scholar would claim the KJB is 100% perfect and pure, and then NO Bible scholar would make the "ridiculous claims" of the KJV Onlyists (That is, 100% perfect and pure words of God), then your Freudian slip is showing.  NOT ONE of your "Bible scholars" believes that ANY BIBLE OR ANY HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT is now the 100% perfect and pure words of God.

You don't.  James White doesn't. Doug Kutilek doesn't, nor John May, nor Rick Norris nor any of your modern version "multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory ballpark approximations" advocates.

All you have to do, Bep, is clearly and unequivocally identify for us exactly where God's pure words are found today and where we can get a copy of them. But you never do this, nor will you.  

Have a good day,

Will K

gotcha104,

Your answers are like those of a politician. You still haven't answered a single question, and you need dancing lessons because all you can do is dance around the questions and avoid them.

There are many good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and the KJV is only one of them. All the KJV has ever been is a translation - YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT! You should also know there is no perfect translation between Hebrew and Greek to English. If you don't, you would need to go back to the basics. This is why all people who do serious studies of the Holy Bible do Hebrew and Greek word studies.

The bottom line is real simple:  KJV Onlyists present obviously false information that does damage to God's Work. I used to say KJV better or best translation, but I no longer say that for fear that someone will think that I'm associated with KJV Onlyists. I no longer use the KJV for the same reason. My focus is and will be JESUS CHRIST, not King James.

KJV Onlyists have made a doctrine out of King James, and that doctrine is false. So, there is nothing evil about those who disagree with you. God's Work is being done with many translations of the Holy Bible other than the King James, and God's Work will continue with or without the KJV. You know that and I know that. We also both know that the KJV is only a translation, and that's all it's ever been. To say otherwise is presenting false information in the name of God. Most Christians wouldn't dream of doing that. Most Christians would also never dream of trying to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible that God is obviously using for His Work. You are hurting God's Work with what you are doing. It's really just as simple as that.

If KJV Onlyists stopped trying to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible and LOVINGLY present TRUTHFUL information about why they think that the KJV is a better or best translation, I could support what you are doing. Otherwise, I will stand against those using false information and hurting God's Work. I will focus on JESUS CHRIST, not King James.

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.

BEP Quote...

 Amen! Well stated Tom. I also believe KJV is a better version, but I would never go as far as some folks who throw around the old familliar attack words such as "evil, satanic, corrupt, ect. Some folks lose sight of Jesus and the book becomes their god.

 I'm really disapointed by Christians who have this KJV elitist attitude. They come across as holier than thou and I have a picture in my mind of a puffy chested, chin in the air, bushy eye browed, stuffy stumblebum. Wearing a gigantic pair of shiny red clown shoes! :D


(I thought I'd lighten it up a wee bit!)

I watched a program on TV awhile back.  It was a group of Christian women who decided to wear skirts only.  They thought skirts (below mid calf) were much more feminine and modest than pants.  Some of the questions they asked men were the following:

When you see a woman in pants walking in front of you, where do your eyes fall first?

When you see a woman in pants walking toward you, where do your eyes fall first?    Answer is obvious!
 
Is it sinful for women to wear pants?  I really don't know.  I guess it's sinful if it causes a man to have impure thoughts.  It would be sinful if wearing those pants caused another to sin.  Everyone has to use discretion in dressing.  I think the OT says that a woman shouldn't wear parted garments..............God must have had a reason.  Was this just true in OT times?  God knew that there would be many different cultures.  Did He mean this for all cultures for all times?  We really don't think much about it today.  

 

I know that God said that women are not to dress as men and vice versa, but I believe that that means to pass ones self off as the opposite sex. Unless when it referred to mens robes it meant pants? I know that women are not supposed to dress sexy to attract attention to ones self, but that was not my question, my question was whether women are not allowed to own or wear pants. The KJV onlyist Church that I was attending that was saying anything other than KJV Bible, was also saying that women are not to wear or even own pants. I guess women should go back to riding side saddle or just not ride a horse? or scrub the floor on her hands and knees in her sunday best? I know this sounds silly, but I just don't see anywhere in the Bible that it says women are not allowed to wear pants, unless they are trying to look like a man.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought the definition of a parted garment meant ............pants.

"parted garment"??   Which verse is this??


   

I'm curious about this also, I've never seen that. ???

I have studied this subject extensively and I use the KJV. I have never come across this before.

I'm having trouble with my computer.  I just tried my son's dial up and it seems to be better but I don't know for how long.

In answer to your question about where the verse is about parted garments my answer is I don't know.  I repeated what someone said about women's clothing KJV.  I tried searching for it but nothing comes up.  The jist of the post was, "well, do you still abide by not wearing "parted garments"" as was a biblical mandate to women.  It was something like that and I think it was about 4 or 5 weeks ago.  It's on CU somewhere.  Maybe that person quoted from the original 1611 KJV.  I'll keep looking.  My first thought when I read that was, huh, there were no such things as "pants" back then.  However, a parted garment today would be a pair of pants, wouldn't it?  I think it might be on the KJV thread somewhere.
Or, could it have been a deleted post?

I went to CU's search and cannot find it.  It's here!  I remember reading it because those words "parted garment" stuck in my mind.  Oh, this is driving me crazy.  Umm, now I'm wondering if there wasn't a link I clicked onto.  I don't think so but I can't find it on here.  I know what I'll do.  I'm going to start a new topic.  Maybe someone can come to our  (my) rescue.

The only verse I know of is this one:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

And just to be fair, I took it from KJV, even though I prefer NIV.

The KJV uses breeches in reference to a garment that was a wrap around their lower half. It also uses garment quite extensively. The 1611 KJV has fewer occurences of the word parted than does the KJV. It never mentions "parted garment".

The only time parted and garment appears in the same verse is in reference to Jesus garments being parted by the soldiers while he was on the cross.


I just found the post you are referring to:

http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=22;action=display;threadid=6809;start=msg101729#msg101729

Sammi,

Which verse was that in the KJV?  I'm willing to bet this IS the verse.  Bettcha it's worded different in the original 1611 KJV or Darby's or Coverdale's bible.

I even checked the net and couldn't come up with it.  I just came up with the verse about parting Jesus' garment at the crucifixion.

OK, when I came back I didn't scroll down to see this post.  I just saw the one under the new topic and immediately clicked on it.  See what excitement can do to ya! ;) ;D :P

It was Deuteronomy 22:5. :)

Also I read that thread, but it didn't give a Bible passage reference. ???

Thank you Sammi.  Now, at least a part of this puzzle is solved.  We'll get the rest of the pieces in place, eventually.  Then maybe your original question can get answered. :P

 

That is Deu 22:5. The following is taken from the 1611.

Deu 22:5  The woman shall not weare that which pertaineth vnto a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that doe so, are abomination vnto the Lord thy God.


I have six versions of the KJV. None of them use "parted garment" in any verses.

I guess we're going to have to wait until Pilgrim logs on again and ask him directly where he got that verse.

So my next question would be this. Would you take that to mean that the Church I was attending was twisting Gods word to fit their "doctrine"? That no woman was allowed to own or wear pants? ???

I'm not sure I can say your chruch is twisting scripture.  They believe this is what the scripture means.  I don't think Amish women wear pants and I think they are Godly people.  Notice, I said "think" because I don't know any Amish personally.  I'm sure there are other denominations that believe women should wear dresses and not pants.  

I guess one really needs to pray about something like this.  If you're not convicted that women shouldn't wear pants, maybe you need to change churches.  I don't really know what the answer is.  I just know the bible says we live in the world but we're not supposed to be part of the world.  Whether this verse includes women wearing pants, I can't answer.  We live in a culture where pants wearing by women is commonplace.  No one even discusses it.  Whether it's right or wrong, I'm not sure.

Anyone else have an opinion about this?

Are they pants that a man would wear? uh... Let me rephrase that. Are they mens pants?

As with any church doctrine .... people will understand what they want to understand. I am against hip huggers, skin tight show everything pants on a man or woman. But I also believe that it is more modest in some circumstances for a woman to wear pants than a one piece over the ankles, up to the chin, long sleeve dress could ever be.

I would have to agree with my Aunt when she told her pastor "You're crazy if you think I'm wearin' a dress to bail hay, milk the cows or slop the hogs." (she did all that and more after my Uncle died and left her nothing but the farm)




 

I don't attend this Church and haven't for many years, this was just one of the reasons why. The pastor was also preaching from the pulpit that if you were reading any but the KJV you were a Satan worshipper, especially NIV. I just wanted to know if this was another thing that the KJV onlyists were in agreement on and were preaching.

The thing that made me so angry about the pant issue was this, The pastors wife came to ME and asked me if I would please work in the nursery the following week, I said sure. So because I was going to be in with a bunch of infants and toddlers, I decided to wear baggy dress pants and a sleeveless button up blouse as it was summer time. And a pair of sandals. First off, I was the first one there and everyone was about 20 minutes late. I had no idea what to do and parents were bringing their children in. I told them I was new, first day and would they mind waiting until the "real" nursery workers came in. So the nursery was full of parents and children. The pastors wife comes in and tells me in front of everyone that I was going to have to leave and come back the following week. I said, why? She said because I was wearing pants and they were not allowed by women to wear. So she embarrassed me in front of all of these parents, and that was the first time I've ever been told by any Church that pants are not to be worn by women. I was livid. I went and told my husband who was in Church that I was leaving with or without him. We left and went home. I had told her I wasn't going to work in the nursery after that. The next week is when the pastor started on the KJV thing. I never went back. :-\

Are they pants that a man would wear? uh... Let me rephrase that. Are they mens pants?



Sorry.......................................but I'm ROFL!

Sammi,

Actually I never knew there was a war of bibles going on until I got on the internet.  I think someone else on this forum said the same thing.

I'm glad you are away from that church.  Sounds like one that brainwashes.

Just keep praying about this if you're still confused.  God will answer you.....................He promised!

Grace and peace,
cris

I wear pants, womens pants!!  ;D

A L L L L L L R I G H T..............there she is..............Miss America. ;)   Can't get that tune out of my head.  Now it's stuck in yours too. ;D hehe

I would not know about KJV onlyists on this issue> Personally I am a KJV advocate as I believe it is the most accurate and complete Bible. I do not believe that people that use other versions are Satan worshippers, just that perhaps they are missing out on some of the Bible because I do admit that many versions do leave out many things.

There are many versions that do not leave those verses out and are easier to understand for most people than any of the KJV versions. (I understand the KJV language as it was my first reader. My second and third reader, too.)

There are some versions that I strongly recommend against as they do twist the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. "The Message" bible and "The New World Translation" amongst a few.

Sorry couldn't resist.   ;D ;D

Naw .... never liked it.

My aunt that I mentioned above wore bibbed overalls but of a design that you wouldn't catch me in! Very modest but also very feminine and she was a very strong, conservative Christian.

I have heard negatives about the Message bible and isn't the New World Translation a JW bible?  If it isn't, it sure sounds like a similar name to theirs.

I use the NASB-------1977 edition and love it.  This particular one is out of print and they are going for a couple of hundred dollars if you can find one.

PR........do you know if something is left out of this NASB bible?  I vaguely remember someone saying that 2 "blood verses" were changed and reworded.  I forget which ones they are now.  I did check it at the time and I didn't think it changed the meaning.  I wrote them down but don't recall where they are now.

WHAT?  YOU NEVER LIKED IT!  IT'S AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE.

Well now, for that you get the following tune.

Gotta wash that man right out of my hair, gotta wash that man right out of my hair and send him on his way!!! ;D

Movie:  South Pacific 1950's

And, I'm turning in for the night.  Goodnight!

The NWT is the JWs bible. I am not that familiar with the NASB. I have not ever had my hands on one.

Another bible that I do not like is the NRSV (New Revised Stand Version) it has changed a verse in Isaiah I believe that includes the name of Lillith. Lillith was a character in an old mystic Hebrew cult that claimed she was the first wife of Adam (some say she was a fallen angel).

Hi Chris, you mentioned the 1977 NASB and asked about what it leaves out.  I have a 1977 NASB right here in my study.

Chris, there is far more missing from the NASB than just a couple of "blood verses".  Here is the site again.  It has two parts to it, but it is very easy to read.  Most of these words and whole phrases are omitted in the NASB.  Some of the whole verses are found in some NASBs but in [brackets], which to them, indicates that they are not really part of Scripture.  The bracketed verses are completely omitted from the NIV, RSV, ESV texts, but sometimes they place them in the footnotes.

However, if you go through these two charts, you will see that the NASB omits hundreds of words that are found in the KJB, NKJV, Youngs, the Spanish Reina Valera and all previous English Bibles like the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishops' Bible.

Not all bibles are the same, at all.

Please check it out.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Then click on the second part and continue your comparisons.

God bless,

Will K

gotcha104,

After considerable prayer, I've decided to start telling the bold and blunt truth about this issue for every impossible claim that you make about the KJV.

The KJV is not, nor has it ever been the standard for comparison for anything. The standard for comparison is Greek and Hebrew ancient texts.

You should know that anyone can check the origins of the KJV. You should also know that any person who studies the Bible will know immediately that your claims about the KJV are not true, and they can't be true. As I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe your statements. I would suggest that you do some checking before you make many more.

The KJV is nothing but a translation, and that's all it's ever been. There has never been any claim of inspiration, in fact the opposite claims were made. The 1611 KJV had thousands of footnotes and side notes that suggested alternate readings, and that was very wise to do that.

In essence, the KJV was a major upgrade ad rewrite of the Bishops Bible, and King James gave specific instructions to the translators that limited what they could or couldn't do. They did consult ancient texts, but they were woefully lacking for the New Testament. As a result, they depended on considerable work from a Roman Catholic Humanist of the time. Anyone can get this information for themselves, so I won't bore everyone. Some of the errors in the KJV are due to relying on work done with the Latin Vulgate and including it in the KJV.

Many of the criticisms of the KJV are 100% accurate and true, even though the KJV is still a good to excellent translation. Many of the criticisms of other translations are also true. It is not honest to simply redirect doubt to something else when there is a question you can't answer. You also have another favorite redirection to the location of the original and complete texts. That's simply another dishonest smoke screen for your KJV Only cause. Trying to use all of this misdirection and smoke screens to make people think that the KJV is the only complete and correct Bible is a waste of time and completely false.

This is only 1% or less of the KJV story, and the KJV story is heavily documented. You need to realize that anyone can easily read the origin and steps of the translation of the KJV for themselves. Saying that the KJV is 100% anything, especially pure, complete, correct, or the only Word of God is total baloney. You should really stop making that claim because it's impossible to defend. It isn't even a close statement to make, and anyone can find that out for themselves in a matter of minutes. So, I really don't understand why you keep trying to do this. You can easily read the truth for yourself, and you should have already done this before you went all over the Internet making false claims.

The original 1611 KJV was the most accurate of the MANY KJV translations because it contains the thousands of footnotes and margin notes with alternate readings and interpretations. So, if you wish to use the best KJV translation, this is the one you should use. Forget about the 1769 version that you are probably using.

In spite of problems, errors, and limited or improper source material, the KJV was and is a masterpiece. 400 years later, it is still probably one of the better or best translations of the Holy Bible. Claiming anything else is false. To claim otherwise, you would have to suggest that God started over and gave the translators of the KJV the inspired Word of God for today. That won't work because God doesn't give alternate readings, and God doesn't need but once to get it right.

Finally, for this post, misrepresentation of the KJV hurts the work of God. Demonizing other translations or the people who worked on them can also be done easily with the KJV, so what is accomplished? The quality of the translation is the only thing that matters, and the rest is simply more misdirection and smoke screen. The location of the original, complete, and correct Holy Bible is not material, and it certainly doesn't apply to the KJV. The original, complete, and correct Holy Bible is in Hebrew and Greek, NOT ENGLISH. That's why we still do Hebrew and Greek word studies.

Brother Will, I am determined that the truth about this matter WILL BE presented here, so you can expect another 1% here and there. My intention has nothing to do with argument, as the KJV used to be the Bible I loved and used for 50 years. My intention involves TRUTH and damage control for the work of God. Many of the newer translations of the Holy Bible are also good to excellent, and they obviously include the NIV, NLT, NASB, and others. They all have pluses and minuses, just like the KJV has pluses and minuses. There are also many good to excellent translations around 1900 and later, not limited to the ESV, ASV, NKJV, and others. They are all translations, so they have strengths and weaknesses - JUST LIKE THE KJV! - AND GOD IS USING THEM FOR HIS WORK!!!!!!

Love in Christ,
Tom

3 John 1:3-4 ASV  For I rejoiced greatly, when brethren came and bare witness unto thy truth, even as thou walkest in truth.  Greater joy have I none than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.

Thank you.  I've been to this website in the past.  It would take an incredible amount of research and time on my part to go way way back in history to try and verify all of the opinions of all of the people, and then conclude on my own.  I'm not, and I can't do this.  I ask God, in my daily prayers, to lead me into all truth.  I believe He does.  It's a process.

I've read (not recently) about the different bible versions.  I've read that the Latin Vulgate was corrupt.  I've never found any real evidence of that.  People can make anything say whatever they want, including the Words of God AND they do.  That is the reason for all the different denominations in the world today.  I do not want to go any further discussing this issue.  As far as I'm concerned there should be ONE Godly authority interpreting the bible for us.  There was at one time, the church.  Since the reformation, Christianity has been fractured.  One says this and one says that in reference to interpretation.  The verses in the bible should mean ONE thing to all people. There should be ONE interpretation.  Unfortunately, this isn't how it is. I really believe the catholic church knew this a very long time ago.  Give the Word to man and watch what happens.  Well, just look at what happened.  Wycliffe, then the Reformation.  Until we can all agree on the same interpretation of God's Word, The Bible, disagreements will continue.  

I'm not good at writing my thoughts.  I'm better, not much ;D, at talking face to face with a person.  I think much faster than I type and leave out too much........a disability on my part.  Come to think about it, I think much faster than I talk, too. ::)

The catholic church was the religion of the Holy Roman Empire.  They WERE the authority.  We have governments with laws that we must abide by.  Just think about it, if we take apart the government like the church was taken apart, what would we have?  You got it.

Here's the deal.................Jesus Christ said to submit to authority.  Did Luther and Wycliffe?  No, they did not.  Jesus Christ Himself never left Judaism to start a new religion called Christianity......................man called it that.  Do you think Jesus Christ (if He came to earth today) would call Himself a Christian?  I don't think He would.  There's an old saying that's true..............."bloom where you're planted."  Christ did, and we should have too, referring to Wycliffe and Luther.  Jesus Christ knew the church (catholic) needed a bit of fixin' up.  Where was the faith of these guys?  God would have used them IN the church for those repairs if they had stayed.  If He couldn't have used THEM, then He would have used those who came after for the repairs.  If your kitchen faucet is broken you don't go buy a whole new house, do you?  Well, that's what happened back 100's of years ago.  The church is a very sorry mess today.  Enough said.

Cris, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, " As far as I'm concerned there should be ONE Godly authority interpreting the bible for us.".  There is one authority but most people don't go to Him. Instead they try to use their earthly wisdom and desires. This has happened even before the Bible became the Bible, when it was the spoken word.

Due to the hostilities that this subject seems to bring out in some people, this thread and any others on this subject are now locked and may stay that way.