Print Page - "The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

God said: "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." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

What Christians really believe

A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."

This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters: 95% of Episcopalians, 87% of Methodists, 82% of Presbyterians, 77% of American Lutherans, and 67% of American Baptists said "No."

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/articles/christianstudents.shtml

According to pollster George Barna:

*   Less than 10 percent of American Christians actually posses a biblical worldview.

*   Two out of three born-again believers assert there is no such thing as absolute moral truth.

Indeed, ideas do have consequences and today, we are reaping the consequences of a humanist worldview that is based on moral relativism that says there is no right or wrong, situational ethics; the end justifies the means, pluralism; all religions and ideas are equal, and tolerance; no one is to speak from a worldview based on moral absolutes. Unfortunately, the desire to be non-judgmental and tolerant is now a growing problem among Christian students, thus causing them to reject biblical truth.

The 1994 Churched Youth Survey conducted by the Barna Research Group for the Josh McDowell Ministry revealed the following facts through a scientifically designed process that randomly selected youth groups from thousands of churches throughout the U.S. and Canada. Over 3,700 youth were extensively and confidentially surveyed. The participants were youth involved in church activities and who overwhelmingly identified their parents as loving and their family experience as positive. This survey reveals the same troubling data as does the national PEERS test results.

The Churched Youth Survey revealed the following:

*   Only 44% asserted that humans are capable of grasping the meaning of truth

*   57% could not even say that an objective standard of truth exists.

*   85% are likely to reason "just because it's wrong for you doesn't mean its wrong for me."

*   Only 29% disagreed with the statement: "When it comes to matters of ethics, truth means different things to different people; no one can be absolutely positive they have the truth."

*   Only 38% disagreed with the statement: "Nothing can be known for certain except the things that you experience in your life."

No absolute truth

The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. HAVING A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS AVAILABLE IS A PRECIOUS TOOL IN THE STRUGLE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM." (Caps are mine)

Here are some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal, editorial page, that appeared on the internet in July of 2004. It is an article written by Dale Buss, titled "Christian Teens? Not Very"

Mr. Buss writes: "It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical... Some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today."

"About one-third of American teenagers claim they're "born again" believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings." And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life."

"Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism's central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes--and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute."

"When you ask even Christian kids, 'How can you say A is true as well as B, which is the antithesis of A?,' their typical response is, 'I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me,'" says George Barna, president of the Ventura, Calif.-based research company. "It's personal, pragmatic and fairly superficial."

Mr. Buss continues in his article: "Some commentators produce even more startling statistics on the doctrinal drift of America's youth. NINETY ONE PERCENT OF BORN AGAIN TEENAGERS surveyed a few years ago proclaimed that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, says the Rev. Josh McDowell, a Dallas-based evangelist and author. More alarmingly, that number had risen quickly and steadily from just 52% of committed Christian kids in 1992 who denied the existence of absolute truth. A slight majority of professing Christian kids, Mr. McDowell says, also now say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred."

"There's a greater disconnect now than ever in the history of the church in America between what a Christian young person says they are and what they actually believe," says Mr. McDowell, who has ministered mainly to youth for more than 30 years. "Christianity is based on truth; Jesus said, 'I am the truth.' But you have an overwhelming majority even of Christian kids saying there is no absolute truth."

A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. (http://www.religioustolerance.org)

This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?

"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."

"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."

They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)

What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)

Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)

The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."

Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".

As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with:

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

The true Holy Bible IS the inspired and inerrant word of God

Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

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."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8

"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." Revelation 22:19

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos.html http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos2.html

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/transinsp.html

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

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

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"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." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

See article on The Only Begotten Son

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

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"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." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.

See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:

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

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

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

For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney

Quote from: cris on July 12, 2005, 03:25:48 PM

DID YOU KNOW?

Go to Theology, page 3 thread, "Irrefutable Facts of the KJV", then on to reply 12 on page 1 of same thread for my May 18, 2005 comment.

Hi Chris, I'm guessing I got the right post. In it you say:

DID YOU KNOW---------------

That the New Testament part (Rheims) of The Rheims Douay Bible (catholic) was used extensively by the King James revisers?

Sorry Chris, but this is totally not true. The preface to the KJB speaks directly against all Catholic translations and considers them to be vastly inferiour.

..... " The OT rested upon the same Masoretic Hebrew text as all subsequent versions, but inasmuch as no ancient manuscripts of the Greek NT arrived in England until 1628, those responsible for this greatest of all versions did not have the advantage of the best Greek text."

Chris, part is true and part is pure baloney. The Old Testament is indeed based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, however ALL modern versions like the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV and Holman Standard frequently reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow other things like the Syriac, the so called Greek Septuagint, the Vulgate or they just make up their own text, believing that the Hebrew texts have been lost. Want me to prove all these facts? I will gladly do so. This is not a fabrication on my part, but proveable FACTS that I can document for you. If you want proof of these charges, please be specific in your questions and I will try to answer them for you.

Chris, exactly what is this "best Greek text" you speak of? Exactly what are you talking about here? Name it or them for us, will you? Aren't you saying in effect that we STILL don't have an inerrant Bible, but it is a work in progress with much disagreement among the "scholars"?

In 1613, the text showed over 300 differences from the original 1611 version. ...
The KJV gradually came to be accepted as so far absolute that in the minds of myriads there was no distinction between this version and the original texts, and they may almost be said to have believed in the literal inspiration of the very words which composed it.-------Albert S. Cook

Uh, Chris, the "300 differences" you speak of had nothing to do with the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, but were minor printing errors that were soon corrected. By innuendo you are distorting the facts.

As for the alleged "Revisions" of the King James Bible, may I suggest you read one or both of the following.

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

Or

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mythofearly.htm

Chris, it seems your arguments are meant instead to prove that there is no such thing as The inerrant and inspired Bible anywhere on this earth, and so you prove my original point.

If you believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God, then by all means, please tell us exactly where we can get a copy of it. If you do not believe the Bible IS now the inerrant words of God, then have the integrity to openly admit what I strongly suspect is what you really believe about this issue.

Thanks,

Will Kinney

Quote from: gotcha104 on July 12, 2005, 04:26:43 PM

Quote from: cris on July 12, 2005, 03:25:48 PM

DID YOU KNOW?

Go to Theology, page 3 thread, "Irrefutable Facts of the KJV", then on to reply 12 on page 1 of same thread for my May 18, 2005 comment.

Everything I typed was written by Albert Cook. None was my opinion.

THE PREFACE? The preface says? Is the preface the Word of God? Is the preface truth? Is the preface inerrant? I'm sure that preface was the opinion of a protestant. It couldn't have been a catholic. The catholics could have a preface saying whatever, also. As far as I'm concerned, I believe the Douay-Rheims is closer to the original. Jerome translated the entire bible into Latin and then that Latin bible was translated into English. The King James followed shortly after that translation by a group of anti-catholics. The catholic faith was believed for 1500 years until 100 years before Luther. I am not catholic...........first of all. I have to say, from what I've read, that the catholic church was in dire need of reform but it was taken too far, hence, all the different denominations today. When one person disagreed with the theology of another, then a different denomination was started. It's just gone on and on and on. There are different interpretations of the bible, even the KJV. Different denominations use the KJV and obviously disagree or they would be of the same denomination. The catholic interpretation of the bible has not been changed since it was written. Modern man doesn't like that either, especially a lot of catholics. They want the doctrine of the catholic church changed but the catholic church won't budge.

As for me, I believe God preserved His Word in my heart, all of our hearts for that matter, which have been given to Him. I'm accountable to Him only.

I don't like the old English of the KJV. I use the NASB. If that bible led me astray, then I'm accountable to God for that. I don't think it has.

Grace and peace,
cris

Hi Chris, thanks for your response. First of all, I agree with you in that neither do I accept the Prefatory remarks of the KJB translators as inspired or inerrant in any way. I agree with many of their held beliefs but not all, and I do not try to defend anything they said or did not say in the Preface.

Secondly, and more importantly, you say: "As for me, I believe God preserved His Word in my heart, all of our hearts for that matter, which have been given to Him. I'm accountable to Him only.
I don't like the old English of the KJV. I use the NASB. If that bible led me astray, then I'm accountable to God for that. I don't think it has.
Grace and peace,
cris

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

Without the Bible you are left to pure speculation, private interpretation and mysticism.

If God's words in our hearts do not match the words of The Bible, then we are off into the land of make believe and "What is true for you, may not be true for me."

Thirdly, you mention the Douay version as being "the best" but then turn around and say you use the NASB. Why? The NASB is very different from the Douay.

You really do not believe there is any such thing as The inerrant, inspired and compete word of God, do you?

This has been my whole point. I wonder why some of the "scholars" I have seen on this board do not come over here and address this issue. Let them come, and maybe we can then have a reasonable discussion about this crucial topic.

The fact is, though most will not openly face what they REALLY believe, Most Christians today do NOT BELIEVE that The Bible IS now the inspired and inerrant word of God.

If you are not a King James Holy Bible only believer, then you do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is the inerrant words of God.

God can and does save His people even using inferiour bible versions. I do not dispute this. But has God kept His promises to preserve all His words of truth and life here on this earth in a Book, or did He lie? This is the central question.

Also Chris, do you personally think either the Douay or the NASB is now the complete and inerrant words of God? Don't tell me they are both inerrant, when they both read completely differently in literally hundreds of verses and many verses found in the Douay are omitted in the NASB.

God bless,

Will

gotcha104,

Let's just use ONLY your logic and argument on this issue and see what we come up with. God's Word didn't exist before King James.

Now, that's silly - isn't it?

Much of your logic and argument is like many other "King James Only-ists", and it really isn't very logical. I understand and agree with many of the things that you state, but you ignore many facts. Further, you limit God with many of your comments.

Let me just ask you a few questions and see how you respond:

1 - Do you use the 1611 version of the King James? If not - why not? Again, let me help you out some. you probably use a revision of the KJV from about 1769 like I do. Reversing the "u" and "v" and other quirks of Old English make the 1611 version very difficult to use. Using your complete logic, you should be using nothing but the 1611 version.

2 - Is the KJV THE BIBLE - or just a translation of THE BIBLE? Let me help you some with the answer. It is a translation, and the translators admitted errors and short-comings in the preface.

3 - Why did the translators of the KJV recommend the use and comparison of other translations?

4 - Did the KJV translators purposefully use a single English word in the translation of numerous Hebrew or Greek words that would have had an English equivalent?

5 - If the KJV is a completely accurate translation, why is there still a need to do word studies in the Hebrew and Greek for many portions of Scripture?

6 - What is the purpose of the following disclaimer in the KJV?

Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.

7 - Does the KJV have errors? YES!
_______________________________

In short, I believe the KJV is the best English translation of the Holy Bible. BUT, the Word of God existed before King James, and it exists without King James now. I think that many "KJV Only-ists" harm the work of God with some of their claims and arguments. It really amounts to hypocrisy that harms the lost in many cases. I would say the "KJV" if someone asked me what translation of the Holy Bible is the best. BUT, I certainly wouldn't say all other translations are works of the devil, nor would I make the ridiculous statement that the KJV is the only Word of God. In short, I would conclude with a very simple statement:

King James is nothing compared to ALMIGHTY GOD!!

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

Quote from: Reba

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

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

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

Quote

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

Rom 1:19-20

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless,

Will K

Hi Tom, thanks for the thoughts and questions.

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

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

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

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

Here it is again: http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/before1611.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I await your answer. Thanks,

Will

Can a Translation be Inspired?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will K

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

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

Variety of translations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Kinney

Quote from: gotcha104 on July 14, 2005, 05:09:28 PM

Quote from: Reba

Quote

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

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

The inerrant word of God:

"-- King James
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

-- American Standard
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

-- Living Bible
1 John 4:1 Dearly loved friends, don't always believe everything you hear just because someone says it is a message from God: test it first to see if it really is. For there are many false teachers around,

-- Revised Standard
1 John 4:1 BELOVED, DO not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

-- Simple English
1 John 4:1 My dear , many false prophets are now in the world. So, don't believe every spirit. Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.

-- Transliterated, Pronounceable
1 John 4:1 Agapeetoi', mee' panti' pneu'mati pisteu'ete alla'dokima'zete ta' pneu'mata ei ek tou' Theou' estin, ho'ti polloi'pseudoprofee'tai exeleelu'thasin eis to'n ko'smon.

-- Transliterated, Unaccented
1 John 4:1 Agapetoi, me panti pneumati pisteuete alladokimazete ta pneumata ei ek tou Theou estin, hoti polloipseudoprofetai exeleluthasin eis ton kosmon.

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
1 John 4:1 My dear friends, not every spirit is to be trusted,
but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,
for many false prophets are at large in the world.

-- Young's Bible
1 John 4:1 Beloved, every spirit believe not, but prove the spirits, if of God they are, because many false prophets have gone forth to the world;

-- Darby's Bible
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but put the spirits to the test to see whether they are from God; for many false teachers have gone out into the world.

-- Webster's Bible
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

-- King James
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

-- American Standard
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

-- Living Bible
1 John 4:2 and the way to find out if their message is from the Holy Spirit is to ask: Does it really agree that Jesus Christ, God's Son, actually became man with a human body? If so, then the message is from God.

-- Revised Standard
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

-- Simple English
1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: One Spirit says, ``I believe that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus came to earth and became a human being.'' That Spirit is from God.

-- Transliterated, Pronounceable
1 John 4:2 Entou'too ginoo'skete to' Pneu'ma tou' Theou', pa'n pneu'ma ho'homologei' Ieesou'n Christo'n en sarki' eleelutho'ta ek tou'Theou' estin,

-- Transliterated, Unaccented
1 John 4:2 Entouto ginoskete to Pneuma tou Theou, pan pneuma hohomologei Iesoun Christon en sarki eleluthota ek touTheou estin,

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
1 John 4:2 This is the proof of the spirit of God:
any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ, come in human nature,
is from God,

-- Young's Bible
1 John 4:2 in this know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is,

-- Darby's Bible
1 John 4:2 Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God;

-- Weymouth's New Testament
1 John 4:2 The test by which you may recognize the Spirit of God is that every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come as man is from God,

-- Webster's Bible
1 John 4:2 By this ye know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is from God:"

All the translations I have studied make this confession about Jesus Christ, so they must be of God.

ollie

Quote from: blackeyedpeas

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

Love In Christ,
Tom

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will K

Hi Ollie, here is part of your post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Will K

Quotes are from gotcha104:

Quote

Hello,

Quote

Ollie, it has to do with the central and critical doctrine of an inerrant Bible.

You mean in the saving power of Jesus Christ for having paid the price for sin? I would say your statement is untrue and a display of ignorance of most translations. Including the KJT.

Quote

What is happening today is that most seminarians and future pastors, and more and more "laity" in the pews, no longer believe The Bible or any bible IS now the inerrant words of God.

Scripturally there is no such thing as a seminarian or a laity. There are pastors. So how can one say any Bible is inerrant when the one saying it seems ignorant of scriptures.

Quote

If you think this is a minor issue, then maybe it is already too late for you.

It is not an issue at all.

Quote

The Bible is the foundation of everything a Christian believes. It is God's revelation to sinful men. Satan always tries to get man to question the truth of the Bible and he has been largely successful, particularly in the last 100 years or so.

It would seem that you are trying to get men to question the inerrancy of the Bible. Are you Satin or one of His worshipers, helping to further his cause against God? If so your time is short.

Quote

Most Christians today do not believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God.

You can only speak for yourself. You donot have the power to judge other hearts in that respect. Only God can do that.

Quote

Sure, there are a lot of verses that are the same (as you pointed out), but there are literally HUNDREDS of verses that are totally different in both meaning and text.

Is the gospel of Christ different in the varying translations? The verses I pointed out were pointed out for showing how we know the spirit of anything is of God. It so happened the verses agreed in most translations. I went on to say that most translations confess Jesus has come in the flesh so we know the spirit in them is of God.

Quote

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

That does not change the message of Christ and His good news one minuscule, found in all the translations mentioned.

Quote

Tell me which bible version out there you personally think is the closest to the non-existent and never seen "originals", and I will point out just a few of the many very real and significant differences for you.

If they are nonexistent for me and never seen originals for me, then they are also for you. How could I possibly tell you which Bible is closest to something you say is non existant or never seen? One cannot compare with that which does not exist or has never been seen. Get Real!

Quote

Is it the NIV, the NASB, NKJV, ESV, or what? Give it a name and then we will look at some concrete examples rather than theories and speculations, OK?

You have laid out the affirmative of such, It is up to you to present the evidence from non existing and never seen original manuscripts. Is that an oxymoron or what? The Bibles I use have never led me into anything that denies Jesus Christ. Therefore i know they are of God. It is faith, you silly.

I am looking forward to your knowledge on those never seen original, non existing manuscripts. :D

Quote

Thanks,

Will K

You are very welcome Will K.

ollie

gotcha104,

I'm not surprised that you didn't attempt to answer a single one of my questions, and they were the easiest questions I could think of to ask a "King James Only-ist".

I am surprised that I twice tried to explain to you that the Holy Bible is also known as God's Word and the Word of God, but you still didn't get it. Either that or you danced to avoid a single question again.

Here's the bottom line for you. "King James Only'ists" create a credibility problem, not only for themselves, but for Christianity. The reason for the credibility problem is simple and quite evident: they can't answer simple questions about their position. I just gave you the easiest questions I could think of, and you didn't attempt a single one. Dancing lessons might help you to dance around issues if you even had possible answers or reasonable logic, but you don't have either. So, dancing lessons won't do you any good.

It would be reasonable to present information about why you believe the KJV is the best translation, and that's what you should start doing. You and other "King James Only-ists" paint themselves into a corner that they can't get out of, and it doesn't take a very bright person to prove that they aren't and can't be telling the truth. As a result, Christianity suffers because of the credibility and hypocrisy issues constructed by the "King James Only-ist". So, you are really hurting the unsaved with your stance.

The blunt truth is very simple:

The KJV is just a translation of the Holy Bible.

THE KJV DOES CONTAIN ERRORS, AND ALL TRANSLATIONS DO!

The Holy Bible did exist before 1611 and would exist after 1611 without the KJV.

Some translations of the Holy Bible are only fair, and some are pitiful. In fact, some of the latest translations to come out are awful or contain intentional lies.

The KJV is an excellent translation of the Holy Bible - the best in my OPINION. It's easy to prove that the KJV is an excellent translation and maybe the best.

In conclusion, do yourself and Christianity a favor and simply present information and evidence about the KJV being one of the best translations of the Holy Bible. Stop calling the KJV perfect and without errors BECAUSE IT ISN'T! Don't make claims that don't stand up under simple questions. AND, by all means, please don't make the silly statement that all Bibles except the KJV are works of the devil like some "King James Only-ists" do. WHY? Your claims won't stand. When your claims are shot down, JESUS and the Cross becomes almost impossible to believe.

I want people to believe the truth about JESUS and the Cross, and I would hope that's your highest goal also. I would not want claims about a translation that are impossible to defend to result in disbelief by an unsaved person. Further, you would not want impossible to defend claims to harm the faith of a babe in Christ.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on July 15, 2005, 11:31:06 PM

Yeah what he said ;)

Well said Mr. Bepster worth repeating....

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

Quote from: JudgeNot

BP asked:

Quote

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

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

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

Fairly heated discussion for a non-salvation issue."

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will K

Quote from: Rhys

Versions of the Bible:
There are too many English language versions and too few in other languages - proving that the real reason for all the new versions is to make money by convincing people they need to buy the latest version....

My church has abandoned the KJV for the NIV.

One of the real problems with people questioning the authority of Scripture is that most of them seldom read the Bible, much less seriously study it.

Quote

Hi Rhys, I agree that a lot of the reason for so many new versions is to make money. I'm sorry to hear your church has abandoned the true Holy Bible for an inferiour perversion.

The NIV is not the true Bible. It perverts sound doctrine in several ways; it rejects many Hebrew readings, and omits some 5000 words from the New Testament.

I also agree that most Christians today are woefully ignorant of what the Bible teaches. I believe this is all part of the falling away predicted in the Bible. God Himself is sending a famine into the land.

Here is part of a recent article showing how "the cream of the crop", from most evangelical churches are Biblically ignorant, and this article was not written by a King James Bible onlyist.

By David Alan Black

The Covenant News ~ May 13, 2005

Our God could have spoken to us in a heavenly language that no one would have understood. Instead, He revealed Himself through a book we call the Bible and in a message all can understand. It is a gory, bloody story, repulsive to the “refined” among us. It is foolishness to this age, for the cross is a scandal to unregenerate Adam.
Never has evangelical Christianity needed this message more than today.

For several years, my friend Gary Burge, who serves as Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, has been testing incoming freshmen on their knowledge of the Bible. What he has discovered is shocking.

These students from evangelical churches could average only 50 to 55 percent correct on his simple exam. Burge points to the results of his tests to prove that we are living in a post-Christian era.

We can be strong in the Lord only as we are strong in His Word. How well do you really know God’s Word? Try testing it with Burge’s quiz and then check your answers with the key. If we should discover that we are biblical illiterates, may the grace of God lead us to repentance!

1. Which one of these books is not in the Bible?
a. Isaiah; b. Jude; c. Hezekiah; d. Amos; e. Song of Solomon
2. Who was Israel’s first king?
a. Saul; b. Solomon; c. David; d. Samuel; e. Moses
3. Sarah and Abraham had a son in their old age and named him “laughter.” What was his real name?
a. Samuel; b. Moses; c. Isaac; d. Jacob; e. Ishmael
4. Which of the following is not an Old Testament prophet?
a. Elisha; b. Elijah; c. Aaron; d. Isaiah; e. Joel
5. Place these events in their biblical order:
a. the giving of the law at Mount Sinai; b. Creation; c. the Fall; d. the Exodus led by Moses; e. the flood of Noah
6. Place the following characters in their biblical order:
a. Moses; b. Adam; c. David; d. Solomon; e. Abraham
7. Which of the following books is from the New Testament?
a. Judges; b. Malachi; c. Deuteronomy; d. Hebrews; e. Isaiah
8. Who wrote Philemon?
a. Philemon; b. Paul; c. Peter; d. Onesimus; e. John
9. Which one of the following was among Jesus’ 12 apostles?
a. Paul; b. Matthew; c. Luke; d. Timothy; e. Silas
10. Whom did Pontius Pilate release during Jesus’ trial?
a. Barnabas; b. Peter; c. Silas; d. Barabbas; e. Paul
11. How many temptations did Jesus face in the wilderness?
a. one; b. two; c. three; d. four; e. five
12. Place the following events in their biblical order:
a. The Holy Spirit descends on Pentecost; b. John has a vision on Patmos; c. Jesus is baptized in the Jordan River; d. Paul, Barnabas and Mark are sent out on a mission by the church; e. Peter denies that he knows Jesus
13. Place the following events in their biblical order:
a. Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem; b. Mary’s song; c. Nicodemus’ conversation about rebirth; d. Peter’s denial of Jesus
14. Where would you find the Ten Commandments?
a. Isaiah; b. Exodus; c. Genesis; d. Numbers; e. Matthew
15. Where would you find the first Passover?
a. Genesis; b. Numbers; c. 1 Samuel; d. Exodus; e. 2 Kings
16. Where would you find “Create in me a clean heart, O God”?
a. Proverbs; b. Ezekiel; c. Psalms; d. Deuteronomy; e. Luke
17. Where would you find the Lord’s Prayer?
a. Matthew; b. Acts; c. Ephesians; d. Malachi; e. Isaiah
18. Where would you find “in the beginning was the Word”?
a. Acts; b. Isaiah; c. John; d. Leviticus; e. Romans
19. Elizabeth and Zechariah were the parents of:
a. Jesus; b. Samuel; c. Paul; d. Timothy; e. John the Baptist
20. Jesus was crucified during:
a. Passover; b. Hannukah; c. Tabernacles; d. Sabbath; e. Purim

Click Here for Answers

Dave Black
daveblack@daveblackonline.com

Quote from: blackeyedpeas

gotcha104,

Your arguments and logic are perfect examples of why many groups of "KJV-Only-ists" rise to near cult status. Actually, the circular type of logic and arguments issued do nothing except cause division among Christians and doubt in the Holy Bible.
This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written, against the flood of falsehood propagated by King James Onlyism."

Hi BEP, I find your post to be highly ironic. Brother, it is not the King James Only people who are the ones telling people that "There is no inerrant Scripture or translation" - YOU are.

We are affirming the truth that God has given us an infallible Bible. But in your opinion, those who deny there is such a thing as an inerrant, inspired and complete Bible of any kind are now "orthodox", and we who believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Holy Bible that we can actually hold in our hands and believe every word, are now "a cult". The irony is simply overwhelming.

You continue with: "Your argument also obtains some unintended results - doubt of the KJV. If the older texts and manuscripts the KJV was derived from are not the inspired Word of God, neither is the KJV. You've already advanced the notion that the translators of the KJV could have been inspired and, thus, the KJV becomes the inspired and the older texts and manuscripts it was derived from should be ignored in favor of the KJV. BUT, this doesn't work because of the large number of obvious errors and revisions in the KJV.

My conclusions are fairly simple. "KJV-Only-ists" do approach cult-type status, harm the whole of Christianity, and do not serve God with their destructive and divisive claims."

BEP, We by no means deny the inspiration of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts which were providentially used by God and translated into the English language of the King James Bible.

Rather it is your side, the Whateverists, the "No translation is inerrant", the "No Bible is inspired", the Bible of the Month Club members like yourself who affirm that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted and that no one can be sure which Greek texts are the true ones.

Why don't you come right out and say it very plainly? You have already told us in plain words that "no translation is without error". So just finish the line of your own logic and admit what we all know you really believe - "The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word(s) of God".

Just admit it, BEP, and be done with it. The truth will make you free.

I also find it interesting that people like yourself who think all Bible translations have errors in them, have yet to "correct" them all and given to the world the "perfect Bible with no errors". If you know where all the errors are, why haven't you come up with a bible that is totally true?

We do live in interesting times.

May God have mercy on His people.

Will

gotcha104,

The preserved and perfect Bible is in Hebrew and Greek primarily, not English. Almighty God doesn't need countless revisions before HE gets it right.

God never promised to put a perfect and preserved Bible in the hands of every person on earth in every language and variation of language.

I have a couple more questions for you since you still don't have a clue about what you are doing to harm Christianity. I won't ask the hardest questions because I like the KJV and think it is an excellent translation. I don't wish to do any harm to the work of God with any translation of the Holy Bible. I really think that you should pray about this same issue.

Is there some reason why the number of revisions of the KJV are almost impossible to count?

There were so many different versions out at the same time during one period that they had a committee meet for the purpose of standardizing it.

Does this really sound like the KJV is the perfect and preserved Holy Bible?

Is and was the KJV a Catholic Bible?

I'm fully aware that the 1611 KJV and a large number of KJV revisions were published with the Apocrypha.

Is the Apocrypha part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible?

If you think the Apocrypha is part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible, would you please list the authority for that opinion?

I worship Jesus Christ - not King James, and there are many reasons for that. If the King James Bible starts to resemble an idol, I'll quickly change to one of several other excellent translations. It does appear that is becoming the case with many people. If I do change, I'll really only miss some of my Hebrew and Greek study tools that are specifically designed for the KJV. However, some of the better translations have been and are being adapted for use by those same study tools. Maybe it won't be a problem at all, and I'll get rid of what many people are making an idol of.

I do appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention. After looking at this issue pretty hard, I find there are other translations that are actually superior to the KJV in some regards. So, thanks.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

Something to think about and really research here. There is a difference between scripture and the inerrant word of God. Some of the inerrant word of God is contained within scripture.

If the KJV is perfect then why is it that many scriptures that were used by the prophets, apostles and Jesus and referenced in the KJV is not to be found anywhere today? They used these scriptures for teaching yet many are not available for us now. Here we have another problem. One of these books referred to in the Bible is the Book of Enoch. There are two different versions of the Book of Enoch that have been found. Do we use this book and if so which one? Another book mentioned is the Book of Jasher, yet the only version of this book available does not agree with any of the Bibles we have today.

This argument sounds very much like the argument of the law. Where is the law today? Many say that it is still a written law. Others say that it was done away with. The Bible tells us it is written in the fleshy tables of our hearts.

Now I am not saying that scripture is not important. It is very highly important as we see in: 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Here though we must be carefull what we consider as scripture. There are many books out today that are called "The Holy Bible" that in no way resembles either the KJV, NIV, NASB or others mentioned. There are also many old manuscripts that are also considered scripture that in no way resemble the teachings of Jesus Christ.

With all this information, all these arguments and confusion in regards to this we are chasing away many a person from the saving grace of God. For if we, who are Christians, cannot agree on this then we are considered unknowing fools in their eyes. How do we convince anyone that the saving grace of God is real when Christians cannot agree on such a subject as this?

If we are to use scripture for proper doctrine, for proper reproof, for proper correction and for true instruction in righteousness should we then use many versions that do not agree with each other? Should we omit those that may help a person better understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Should we throw out the most complete version because it is hard to understand?

God is not the author of confusion, yet all this creates and is confusion.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Should we not be teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead of arguing over words?

Jam 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

Amen Pastor Roger!!

You are completely correct. We should be teaching and preaching Christ, the Cross, and Salvation. There might only be a short time left.

I see all of this KJV only stuff as a work of the devil. It obviously is since many translations of the Holy Bible contain complete and accurate doctrine. Those who are lost and dying in their sins thirst for the Gospel of the Grace of God. However imperfect our own words might be, we can still give them the GOOD NEWS. Further, the Holy Spirit will help us in our witnessing if we just yield and ask HIM to help us. There might be a day when our Bibles are confiscated, but HIS WORD in our hearts can't be destroyed. NO - I am not hinting that I have the entire translation of any Bible memorized.

Here's what really bothers me about much of this discussion. Christians all over the world witness with and without their Bibles with every language known to man. HINT: We would be wasting our breath to witness in Hebrew and Greek in the vast majority of the world, yet that is the language of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible. Even if we had every Hebrew and Greek word memorized perfectly, it would be an ineffective witness. The lost person would obviously require hearing in their own language. Further, it would be completely unnecessary to witness word for word from whatever Bible translation we were used to using. The power in the witness is the message, and the Holy Spirit helps a willing witness with the message. We all know that the Holy Spirit also draws the lost person with the hearing of God's Word, and faith for the lost comes by such hearing. Is anyone aware of any requirement for any kind of word by word perfection from any translation before the REAL message is transmitted and heard? NO!

I see discussions like this as being discouraging and confusing for every Christian who hears or sees it, especially for those who are babes in Christ or less grounded in God's Word. Much of the discouragement and confusion would be gone if we were simply having a pleasant discussion about various excellent translations of the Holy Bible. That type of discussion could be done in a very positive manner, and it would be encouragement instead of discouragement, and confidence instead of confusion.

I'm positive that the devil loves it when Christians get together and try to discard the works of God and His children designed for God's Glory, the Saving of the lost, and the building up of the Saints. I've prayed about this matter numerous times now, and I won't be party to it.

Lord Willing, I will give God all the Glory, Honor, and Praise and try to put away the things of men that get in the way. That would certainly include King James or any other man that became a hindrance to sharing the Good News and fellowship with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Our focus for fellowship and LORD over our lives is JESUS, not King James. This should be a matter of prayer for every Christian, and every hindrance should be cast aside.

Love In Christ,
Tom

2nd Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I have been quietly following this thread for a while. The Word of God is not errant. Its living, breathing!

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Mat 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.

Does the KJV contain jotts and tittles? We know that it doesn't. Jotts and tittles are used in Hebrew. Further more, is the law THE word? The law is only half of the story. The Word Himself however says....

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And just as JN has pointed out....

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

If I speak a word saying that "God loved the earth so much that He sent His only Son, so that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life" Is this the text of God, or the Word of God? Is a word spoken, or typed? ;)

Gods word is intact friends. His message is living and true, and sitting at the right hand of the father. We can read about Him in numerous translations. Sure, there may be paraphrasing, but that Living Word (not the text) is what responds and breaths life into us the moment we believe on Him.

The entire crux of brandplucks argument hinges on this:

Quote

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

This is speaking of a particular prophecy, not all the words God has ever spoken. This is the device from the beginning that you have used to force others to admitt KJV is the only book, or that the word of God is errant.

If this verse meant what you try to make it mean, the same book you worship denys your claim in the end. God opens BOOK(S) at the last judgment, not just one. Rev 20:12

I'm happy to say Gods word is infallable praise His name! Its breathing, living. KJV, NIV, NASB etc etc....they all speak of the infallable WORD of God. If KJV ONLY is the only way to truth, we as christians had better start spending our money on language teaching rather than translated bibles.

Don't worship the text, worship the Author....it is He who IS the Living word forever and ever...A to Z, Jott and tittle, beginning and ending, alpha and omega. Text did not hang on a cross, the Word that took on flesh did. Text did not bleed and die, the living word did. Text, was not ressurected from death, the Living breathing Word of God was. Text did not fulfill Gods justice on our behalf, The living Word did.

If you're walking in the spirit, and forgivness of Christ, you are walking in the word of God plain and simple. King James is not the one who stands at the door and knocks, Jesus is. Trust me, its all about the author of life, not the text of a king.

Grace and Peace!

Quote from: gotcha104 on July 16, 2005, 09:24:56 PM

BEP posted this site:
For Numerous Articles & Links:
http://www.kjvonly.org/ (http://www.kjvonly.org/)

This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written, against the flood of falsehood propagated by King James Onlyism."

Pea, I have seen this site before and I recognize many of the names and have read quite a few of their articles. I have even debated with Rick Norris online many times at various sites, and I have responded to a lot of Doug Kutilek's articles.

NOT ONE of those people believe The Bible IS now the inerrant, inspired, complete word of God - not one of them.

They are among "the originals only" crowd. It is so funny to see these "scholars" trying to defend "the originals only" when the Bible itself never even mentions "the originals".

Don't get me wrong on this. I too believe the originals WERE (not ARE) inspired, but no person alive today has ever seen one word from "the originals". They do not exist and everybody knows this.

So, these fellas take a book (the Bible, any bible) that they do not believe is the inerrant word of God, and use a couple verses out of it to try to prove that the originals were inspired. Now, think about it. Does this make sense? Yet, they deny what this Book says about itself, and don't believe that God in fact preserved His words in a Book here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. Doesn't this strike you as a bit inconsistent and hypocritical?

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

Will K

"Don't get me wrong on this. I too believe the originals WERE (not ARE) inspired, but no person alive today has ever seen one word from "the originals". They do not exist and everybody knows this."

This statement seems to deny God and the power of God and His Spirit to deliver His message/will/purpose of salvation through Jesus Christ. to man today, but was only done sometime in the past.

ollie

Ollie, I think (at least the way I understood the flow of the discussion was) that JN had pointed out there was no evidence of salvaic alterations in any of the well known translations.

I must say, neither have I heard from any KJVonlyists, what altering beliefs and NEW doctrines have risen from the different translations? Can they site any? I mean, give a hundred men 1611 KJV bibles and you will probably have 100 differing interpritations on many points all from the same translation :D

Numerous people have met the Author of scripture without ever having read a word of text from scripture. I know I have led a few to Christ via converstation....I was using the 2TV ;) But it was not my word that saved them...it was His. And I'm pretty sure my grammer may have missed a jot or tittle here and there :-X

One doesn't need to buy a book to be introduced to the Author. Yes, reading the book may give great insight to the Author, but a first hand introduction is the only way to get an intimate perspective on the authors thoughts and message.

In the case of scripture even moreso. It is quite necessary to know the Author.

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 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.
1Co 2:13 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.
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.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Want to get your hands on the accurate word of God Brandpluck? All you gotta do is reach out and take His hand friend. This Living Word is the way, the truth, and the life! And He is fluent in all tongues ;)

The anyversionists claim that the "message" is still retained in the modern versions, that no important doctrine is messed with. As we'll see, apparently salvation is not an important doctrine to modern version supporters:

Is the "narrow way" HARD?
KJV Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

ESV 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Holman 14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

CEV 14 But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it.

Nkjv 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

        The modern versions make salvation hard/difficult, when it is actually quite easy. That's a serious difference dealing with the vital doctrine of salvation.

        The narrow was is EASY. Getting saved is easy, just believe on Jesus Christ. No effort at all. The scriptural examples of how easy it is are things like, opening a door, drinking water, eating bread, and all them actually require more effort than believing on Jesus.


Is it HARD to get into God's kingdom?

KJV Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

        The KJV notes that it is hard for those who TRUST in RICHES to enter the kingdom - that's because we must TRUST in CHRIST - and then entering the kingdom is EASY.

But the modern versions still make it hard:

NIV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (the NASV reads almost the same)

NASB The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Holman But the disciples were astonished at His words. Again Jesus said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NWT But the disciples gave way to surprise at his words. In response Jesus again said to them: "Children, how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!"

ESV And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NLT This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to get into the Kingdom of God."

CEV The disciples were shocked to hear this. So Jesus told them again, "It's terribly hard to get into God's kingdom!"

        Now it is not just hard, not just difficult, not just very hard, it is now terribly hard. At this rate the next version that comes out will have to say "it is impossible".

Will Kinney

Quote from: blackeyedpeas

gotcha104,

The preserved and perfect Bible is in Hebrew and Greek primarily, not English.

BEP, there are multiple different Hebrew readings, and the Greek is far, far worse. There are at least 25 very different Greek texts in print, thousands of varying manuscripts, and the Greek Nestle text and UBS that are behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV continue to change every few years. You have no settled text.

I agree, the Hebrew was the inspired text, but why then do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman all often reject the Hebrew readings?

I list many examples of this here.

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

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/NIVapos2.html

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminsh ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"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 30:5,6.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; 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." Revelation 22:18, 19.

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.

Will K

Quote from: blackeyedpeas

I have a couple more questions for you ...
Is there some reason why the number of revisions of the KJV are almost impossible to count?"

Sorry BEP, but the King James Bible has never been "revised". The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed. All that has happened is that the spelling was updated (like Sonne to Son), the type was changed from Gothic to Roman, and minor printing errors were corrected. The underlying TEXT of the KJB has never changed.

BEP>>>I'm fully aware that the 1611 KJV and a large number of KJV revisions were published with the Apocrypha.

Is the Apocrypha part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible?

If you think the Apocrypha is part of the perfect and preserved Holy Bible, would you please list the authority for that opinion?

Bep, this apocrypha thing gets really old after awhile. Maybe this will help you.

WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.

Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including Miles Coverdale 1535, and the Calvinist Geneva Bible of 1560. ... The deliberate omission of the Apocrypha from an English Bible is first noted in the 1640 edition of the Geneva Bible, ... Not until the nineteenth century, however, did the omission of the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles become normal.

The Protestants in those days were obviously a victim of their times. Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the Westminster divines wrote,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (WCF 1:3).

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on July 17, 2005, 04:56:33 AM

Amen Pastor Roger!! I see all of this KJV only stuff as a work of the devil. It obviously is since many translations of the Holy Bible contain complete and accurate doctrine.

Sorry BEP, but not all bible versions teach correct doctrine.

Please read through the following examples, and then come back and explain how they all teach the correct doctrine, OK?

No Doctrines Are Changed?

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, ESV when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard,and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV, Holman, and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too :-)

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/Eze14deceive.html

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/begotnSon.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Kinney

gotcha104,

I'm through with this foolish conversation. I've decided not to point out other facts that prove you are simply not telling the truth. In fact, I could have said nothing from the start, and that would have been obvious to all except your fellow "King James Only_ist" cult members. Trying to elevate the KJV to the only complete, perfect, and preserved Word of God is ridiculous. This becomes an absolute fact with only one error in the KJV, and there are many errors in the KJV. Hint: this is only one reason why Hebrew and Greek study tools will always be used by anyone wishing to study the deeper things of God's Word.

It is exceedingly easy to prove that the KJV is not complete and it contains obvious errors that are also easy to prove. SO, the KJV is not what you claim it is. It's simply a good or excellent translation of the Holy Bible. The translators of the KJV admitted error from the start, and that would be a requirement for anyone wanting to be honest, especially if they were trying to serve the Lord and not just King James. The countless revisions of the KJV simply illustrate this fact. The translators of the KJV didn't make any ridiculous claims that they were inspired by God and published a perfect translation. They did the opposite and told the truth. I'm positive they did the best they could, and they did an excellent job. The work was used by God in a mighty way, and the same is true for other excellent translations of the Holy Bible. However, all require Hebrew and Greek reference texts for detailed Bible Studies.

I'm really left with a question about who you are serving with what you're doing, God or the devil. If you are a Christian, maybe you don't realize what you're doing. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'll repeat that you should pray about what you're doing.

You've just about convinced me to change translations of the Holy Bible for my personal use. I don't want to be associated with any group trying to do what you are currently doing. This is something I will pray about and probably change. I worship Jesus Christ, not King James. I want to serve Jesus Christ, certainly not King James or his translators. I think that "King James Only-ists" will advance the same actions by others.

gotcha104, it wasn't much of a debate, mainly because you have a position that is impossible to support. It doesn't stand under any questions, even the most simple ones. The best arguments you have involve pointing out problems in other translations, and the same can be done with the KJV. I might add that you pointed out those problems in a very biased way and untruthful in some cases. I didn't enjoy this discussion at all because I view it as destructive to God's Work. I won't wish you God's Speed for that very reason. I'll simply say bye and tell you that I have better things to do with my time. I will hopefully spend my time in doing something positive for God's Work, and I pray that whatever I do will be God's Will. I'm sure that won't be anything destructive to saving the lost or building up the Saints.

You are preaching King James, and I'll preach Jesus Christ.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 2:8-10 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them. (ASV)

Quote from: 2nd Timothy on July 18, 2005, 09:46:55 PM

You know, I was going to let this drop, I even deleted my previous post, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

blandpluck, Why is it that all of your posts are cut and pasted? The entire last 3 posts can be found on the web by cutting and pasting parts of it into a search engine on the web. This certainly explains why you cannot answer questions that have been posed to you. Unless you have an answer source on the web to cut and paste, you simply don't have an answer it seems.

Answer these in your own words please, otherwise I too have nothing further to add or read on this thread.

Hi 2 Tim, the reason you can find these articles on the web is because I wrote them myself. They are not copied from anyone else or from another site. They are my own writings based on my own studies.

1. Provide evidence that a translation other than the KJV has caused uncertainty, doubt and unbelief due to translated error.

2 Tim, didn't you look at the examples I gave? There are several false doctrines taught in the modern versions.

2. Give me one doctrine from your translation of choice that is based on only one verse. (You keep sighting particular verses that are in error doctrinally, but you forget that scripture always interprits itself elsewhere which makes it virtually impossible for #1 to be proven )

2Tim, The true Bible (The King James Bible) always tells the truth. It is Satan and false witnesses who mix in the lies among the truth. The JW version teaches that Jesus is God too, but because of Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 where the JW version as well as the NIV both teach that Christ has an ORIGIN and that there was a certain DAY when God BECAME HIS FATHER, then all the verses that point to Jesus being God are necessarily combined to say that Jesus is a "God" who was created - not that He is eternal and everlasting God equal to the Father.

If you cannot see this, then you are blind.

3. Is it your assertion, that one cannot come to the truth in anything other than the KJV....Yes or No?

2Tim, if you had been reading what I said before, I said that you do not need to be a KJB only to get saved. But if you use something other than the pure words of God as found only in the KJB, then your faith will necessarily be weakened and you will imbible false doctrines along the way.

This is not to say that all KJB onlies understand all truth. We all see through a glass darkly, but the KJB alone has pure doctrine in every passage, whereas the modern versions have all perverted sound doctrine in several places.

4. Does the infallible word of God only exist on text?

Yes, be it a text here on earth or in heaven. Aside from the WRITTEN WORD there is no infallible word of God.

5. Do you believe that the word of God is infallible?

Absolutely.

6. Do you believe there are no errors in the KJV?

None at all. Other than the occasional printing errors and the changes in spelling, the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never been changed in the King James Bible.

I'll be waiting for a response specific to these.
Grace and Peace!

You just got them.

Will K

Quote

1. Provide evidence that a translation other than the KJV has caused uncertainty, doubt and unbelief due to translated error.

Tim, didn't you look at the examples I gave? There are several false doctrines taught in the modern versions.

I was not asking for taught false doctrines, I was asking for evidence that said claims were in fact altering peoples beliefs. I realize this may not be verifiable, but the onus is on KJVO.

Quote

2. Give me one doctrine from your translation of choice that is based on only one verse. (You keep sighting particular verses that are in error doctrinally, but you forget that scripture always interprits itself elsewhere which makes it virtually impossible for #1 to be proven )

2Tim, The true Bible (The King James Bible) always tells the truth. It is Satan and false witnesses who mix in the lies among the truth. The JW version teaches that Jesus is God too, but because of Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 where the JW version as well as the NIV both teach that Christ has an ORIGIN and that there was a certain DAY when God BECAME HIS FATHER, then all the verses that point to Jesus being God are necessarily combined to say that Jesus is a "God" who was created - not that He is eternal and everlasting God equal to the Father.

This is stretching it quite a bit, and falls more on the interpriter rather than allowing the whole word to interprit itself. John 1:1 NIV should make things clear if if the reader is allowing the word to interprit itself, not the other way around.

Quote

2Tim, if you had been reading what I said before, I said that you do not need to be a KJB only to get saved. But if you use something other than the pure words of God as found only in the KJB, then your faith will necessarily be weakened and you will imbible false doctrines along the way.

I'm still waiting for evidence that this so called conspiracy to twist text has in fact caused damage to readers.

Quote

We all see through a glass darkly, but the KJB alone has pure doctrine in every passage, whereas the modern versions have all perverted sound doctrine in several places.

As Christians, do we ever base sound doctrine on ONE verse in the bible? This is what I was saying before. Basing any doctrine on ONE verse is not really sound doctrine at all, and if we have other verses to back up the doctrine (even if there is questionable translation) then the bible is capable of setteling such matters on its own, which most do!

Quote

4. Does the infallible word of God only exist on text?

Yes, be it a text here on earth or in heaven. Aside from the WRITTEN WORD there is no infallible word of God.

Just to be sure here...you do know that Christ is the living word right?

Quote

None at all. Other than the occasional printing errors and the changes in spelling, the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never been changed in the King James Bible.

A quote from Rapture ready.

There is no existing copy of the original manuscript produced by King James' faithful translators. The pre-print text and the original autographs confirming the validity of the translation have all been lost to history. There is no way the KJVO advocates can be certain that the 1611 translation has not been tampered with.

According to a pamphlet written in 1660, the king's printers possessed the finished product five years before it was published. Because the KJVO camp is fond of conspiracies, the time gap should cause great concern. After all, they have no way of knowing if the original KJV translation made it to the print press.

The 1611 KJV Bible has indeed seen several revisions - 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the final one in 1850. The concern over the validity of the modern KJV Bible is silly because the vast majority of the changes were simply spelling changes or single word updates.

I tend to agree wth BEP on this. KJVO's are creating more of a distraction with these claims more than anything else. Distraction is another tool Satan uses to hinder the work of God. If we get so caught up in perfected translation, then we are loosing sight of the Spirit of the Letter. He is and always will be the Living Word who guides us to truth and sound doctrine. He is the embodiment of everything the Father wanted to say to mankind. Praise His name...If someone were to burn every translation there was, I will still have the infallible Word of God, because it is HE who Lives in me.

Grace and Peace!

Well, I'm a late comer to this debate, and have been rather untimely in my participation for quite sometime! But I do see some things here that must be addressed:

Quote

This is why a contextual approach to scriptural interp is a must. gotcha104, you yourself had just said:

Quote

Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman...

And now you're trying to take a lie Joab put in the woman's mouth and make a biblical, doctrinal truth from it. God does take lives! Imagine that. A lie that doesn't agree with scripture...you need better argumentation my friend. :)

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again, God has said that He is in control of creation, ultimately, this world. And yet, the same God, in the KJV, has said that Satan is the "god of this world." The accurate translation is found in each translation.

The need here is for a much deeper study. Holding a KJV only conviction is fine. Holding a KJV ONLY doctrine, is fallible at best.

His,

Kevin

Quote from: Pastor Roger on July 18, 2005, 11:29:33 PM

gotcha104,

A few more points for you.

For every post that you provide here in support of the KJV, I can provide you with a cut and paste post that proves the errors in the KJV. Following are just a couple.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion.html

Now I ask you, what has all this accomplished for our self edification and for the edification of the lost? Nothing at all. It has generated confusion, doubt in and of Jesus Christ. It has brought none to Him and in fact it more than likely has turned many away from God. For many will now think that there are no valid Bibles.

Hi P, as for those links supposedly showing errors in the King James Bible, they are really pathetic. Have you bothered to check what those guys are calling errors with all the other translations out there? They criticize things as errors which several other modern versions translate in exactly the same way as the KJB. This is what happens when every man does that which is right in his own eyes and he becomes his own Final Authority. You guys are a hoot.

I read through the posts of Reba, and several others here, all of whom have openly affirmed themselves that "There is no inerrant Bible", "All translations have errors", "No Bible version is inspired", and yet you all accuse me, the only Bible believer of the bunch, of being the one who is sowing doubt as to the inerrancy of the Bible!!!

"Woe unto those that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight." Isaiah 5:20-21

Brothers and sisters, I am not the one who is denying that the Bible IS NOW the inerrant words of God and that He has been faithful to preserve His words as He promised. It is you guys with your "All bibles have errors" - not me.

Here are some facts about what is happening with Christians today. I did not make up these statistics.

Another article on the apostasy in modern Evangelicalism by David Clould found here:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns450.html

With the flood of modern Bible versions it seems there is less and less believed about the pillars of the Christian faith. These versions were translated from different manuscripts than the KING JAMES BIBLE. For their New Testaments their translators used questionable Greek texts from which to translate, two of which were SINAITICUS and VATICANUS.

These same modern Greek texts, often referred to as the Critical Text, are used in most seminaries and Christian institutions of higher learning in courses of higher textual criticism. Whether the text is Nestle's 26th or 27th edition, Nestle-Aland's, or that of the United Bible Societies, this appears true even if the institution is liberal or conservative. Each of these texts relies upon the Westcott-Hort text. Bible textual criticism does not mean the Bible is criticized but that readings from other manuscripts or Greek texts are examined, whether they are credible or not.

It is somewhat like being in a Bible study where someone says my NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION says. . . and someone else remarks but my LIVING BIBLE says this. . .and one ventures that the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD has this reading. . while yet another says the NEW KING JAMES has a slight variation.

The result is, What does the Bible really say? Which one is right? All the readings cannot be correct because that would be inconsistent and if there is one thing God IS NOT - is inconsistent.

This undermines the faith of seminary students and they cannot say with absolute certainty, I hold here in my hands, beyond a shadow of a doubt, God‚s infallible, inerrant Word. The situation may fit with 2 Timothy 3: 7 „Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. This is definitely one of the characteristics of the present day apostasy in which we live.

Is it then a coincidence that at one leading Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid 1970's, a survey presented the following information in a thesis? A group of statements regarding the Christian faith were presented to (1) Diploma, (2) lst year Divinity, (3) Final year Divinity, and (4) Ph.D./Th.D. Students. Findings on the answers to some of the statements given by each group were:

# I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it.
(1) Diploma- 100% Final Year Divinity (2) Ist year Divinity - 74%
(3) Final Year Divinity - 65% (4) Ph.D./Th.D. - 63%

# Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it.
(1) 100% (2) 87% (3) 63% (4) 63%

# The Devil actually exists. (1) 96% (2) 96% (3) 42% (4) 37%

# I believe the miracles happened just as the Bible says they did. (1) 96% (2) 61% (3) 40% (4) 37%

# There is life beyond death: Completely true.
(1) 100% (2)89% (3) 67% (4) 53%

# Jesus was born of a Virgin: Completely true.
(1) 96% (2) 66% (3) 33% (4) 32%

# Jesus walked on water: Completely true.
(1) 96% (2) 59% (3) 44% (4) 22%

# I definitely believe Jesus will return to the earth some day.
(1) 100% (2) 87% (3) 63% (4} 63%

HOW NECESSARY FOR SALVATION DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING TO BE?

# Belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour: Absolutely necessary.
(1} 100% (2) 85% (3) 60% (4) 59%

# Loving thy neighbor: Absolutely necessary.
(1) 43% (2) 54% (3) 65% (4) 53%

Is it true that the more and more Bible versions we have, and the more and more Seminary education one receives, the less and less one believes about the Bible?

Sad Statistics

A previous issue of Christianity Today published the results of a poll of Protestant clergymen conducted by sociologist Jeffrey Hadden. He contacted 10,000 clergymen of whom 7,441 replied.

They were asked if they accepted Jesus' physical resurrection as a fact.

51% of Methodists said "No"
35% of United Presbyterians said "No"
30% of Episcopalians said "No"
33% of American Baptists said "No"
13% of American Lutherans said "No"
7% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

They were asked if they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.

60% of Methodists said "No"
44% of Episcopalians said "No"
49% of Presbyterians said "No"
34% of Baptists said "No"
19% of American Lutherans said "No"
5% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

They were asked if they believed in evil demon power in the world today.

62% of Methodists said "No''
37% of Episcopalians said "No"
47% of Presbyterians said ''No"
33% of Baptists said "No''
14% of American Lutherans said "No"
9% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

They were asked if they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters.

87% of Methodists said "No"
95% of Episcopalians said "No"
82% of Presbyterians said "No"
67% of American Baptists said "No"
77% of American Lutherans said "No"
24% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

Each of these questions concern a basic belief in Christianity. These ministers, by their own confession, are denying the faith they proclaim from the pulpit and are using their churches to destroy Christianity; many of them are acting in innocent ignorance because of their denominational teaching, but many are Satan's emissaries being transformed as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:14) and are operating in the pulpit.

--Copied from a tract, as published in FGB July-August 1979.
~~~~~

THE CONDITION OF EVANGELICALISM TODAY

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders.

"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"Most people outside the evangelical community itself are totally unaware of the profound changes that have occurred within evangelicalism during the last several years--in the movement's understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in its social concerns, cultural attitudes and ecumenical posture, and in the nature of its emerging leadership. ... evangelical theologians have begun looking at the Bible with a scrutiny reflecting THEIR WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM ... The position--affirming that Scripture is inerrant or infallible in its teaching on matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in all its assertions concerning history and the cosmos--IS GRADUALLY BECOMING ASCENDANT AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS. ... these new trends ... indicate that evangelical theology is becoming more centrist, more open to biblical criticism and more accepting of science and broad cultural analysis. ONE MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE NEW GENERATION OF EVANGELICALS IS CLOSER TO BONHOEFFER, BARTH AND BRUNNER THAN TO HODGE AND WARFIELD ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE" (Richard Quebedeaux, author of The Young Evangelicals and The Worldly Evangelicals, "The Evangelicals: New Trends and Tensions," Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 197-202).

"A SURPRISING ARRAY OF EQUALLY DEDICATED EVANGELICALS IS FORMING TO INSIST THAT ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF IN AN INERRANT BOOK. ... What has made it a new ball game today is the emergence of a new type of evangelical. These persons accept the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in their full and literal meaning but agree that the higher critics have a point: there are errors in Scripture, and some of its precepts must be recognized as being culturally and historically conditioned" (G. Aiken Taylor, "Is God as Good as His Word?" Christianity Today, Feb. 4, 1977).

"I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM, THAT STARTED SO WELL AND PROMISED SO MUCH, WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY" (Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319)

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

"My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call, surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. ALMOST ALL OF THE LITERATURE WHICH IS PRODUCED IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD TODAY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. NOT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT SYMPOSIUM IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY WAS PREPARED TO REJECT HIGHER CRITICISM. All came to its defense. It became evident that all the scholars from the leading seminaries in this country held to a form of higher criticism. These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that it is almost impossible to find an evangelical professor in the theological schools of our land and abroad who still holds uncompromisingly to the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. The insidious danger is that higher criticism is promoted by those who claim to believe in infallible inspiration" (Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, The Battle for the Bible, 1993, pp. 2,3).

Amazing Statistics - This was posted at Study Light Forum where I have been discussing the Bible Version issue. I didn't post this. It was from another brother there who has been following the discussion.

It may be latter than we think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted.

Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
95% of the Episcopalian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
82% of the Presbyterian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
77% of American Lutheran Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
67% of American Baptist Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

If the above stats are even close to being accurate, then the church of America is in sad shape today.

The Apostasy, or the falling away from the faith, predicted in the Bible, is here and no one is going to stop it.

Get yourself a copy of the true words of God as found in the King James Bible. Read it, believe it, and don't try to "correct" it. There really is an inspired and inerrant Bible on this earth and it is called the King James Holy Bible - accept no inferiour substitutes.

Will Kinney

Quote from: 2nd Timothy on July 19, 2005, 11:49:18 PM

Quote

I was not asking for taught false doctrines, I was asking for evidence that said claims were in fact altering peoples beliefs. I realize this may not be verifiable, but the onus is on KJVO.

Quote

Hi 2 Tim, God's true words, the King James Bible, ALWAYS tells the truth. This was the test of a true prophet. One lie mixed in with the truth disqualified him as being a true prophet of God.

The NIV clearly says in Micah 5:2 that Christ has "origins" (just like the Jehovah witness version) and the NIV teaches that there was a day when God became the Father of Jesus. (just like the Jehovah witness version). Tell me, 2 Tim, when was this "day" the NIV refers to? At what time or when did God become the Father of the eternal Son of God? On what "day" did this happen?

You are hardening your heart and stiffening your neck by refusing to admit the NIV is perverted.

If you take all the verses in the NIV and put them together regarding the Son of God, we would have to conclude that the Son of God has both origins and there was a time when God was not his Father. Face the facts and quit trying to avoid them or justify error.

Will K

Quote from: Allinall on July 20, 2005, 12:35:40 PM

Well, I'm a late comer to this debate, and have been rather untimely in my participation for quite sometime! But I do see some things here that must be addressed:

Quote

This is why a contextual approach to scriptural interp is a must. gotcha104, you yourself had just said:

Quote

Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman...

Quote

Kevin says: And again, God has said that He is in control of creation, ultimately, this world. And yet, the same God, in the KJV, has said that Satan is the "god of this world." The accurate translation is found in each translation.

The need here is for a much deeper study. Holding a KJV only conviction is fine. Holding a KJV ONLY doctrine, is fallible at best.

His,

Kevin

Quote

Kevin, by your own admission the world is under God's control, not Satan's. Yet the NIV teaches the whole world is under the control of the Evil One. This is a false doctrine.

Sure, Satan is called "the god of this world", but that does not mean he is in control of it. It means that the spiritual power behind all world religions other than the O.T. and N.T. revelation is Satan. See 1 Cor. 10:20 "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God".

By your own admission the NIV is theologically wrong, and it is. Just one lie makes a witness a false witness. Face the facts.

Will K

Quote from: Allinall on July 21, 2005, 08:58:08 AM

Quote

Kevin, by your own admission the world is under God's control, not Satan's. Yet the NIV teaches the whole world is under the control of the Evil One. This is a false doctrine.

You lack greatly in your escatalogical understanding. Read up on Revelations. Satan rules this world because God allows him too, and yet, still calls him in to give an account of his activities (ref. Job).

Quote

Sure, Satan is called "the god of this world", but that does not mean he is in control of it. It means that the spiritual power behind all world religions other than the O.T. and N.T. revelation is Satan. See 1 Cor. 10:20 "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God".

Devil made me do it theology?

Quote

By your own admission the NIV is theologically wrong, and it is. Just one lie makes a witness a false witness. Face the facts.

Hi Kevin, your example of Job does NOT teach that Satan is the ruler of this world, or in control. It teaches the opposite. God is the controlling Ruler, and Satan can only do what God allows him to do.

God or Satan?

Who is in control of the world? Is it God or Satan? Jesus Christ said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Mattthew 28:18. The Lord's prayer in Matthew 6:13 ends with :"For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen." This phrase is in brackets in the NASB and removed in the NIV, RSV and ESV. Jesus either said it or he didn't; they can't all be right.

In Ephesians 1:20-22 it is said of Christ that God "raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet."

Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." 2 Chronicles 20:6 affirms: "O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?"

God is the sovereign ruler and controller of this world, as well as the entire universe. There is only one King, and Satan is not the king, the controller, or the ruler of this world - at least according to the true Holy Bible - the King James Bible of 1611 - which is pure in all its precepts and true in all its doctrines. However such is not the case with a multitude of inferior bible versions on the market today.

Satan is a liar from the beginning. In Luke 4:6, when the devil tempted the Lord Jesus Christ in the wilderness, Satan told Jesus that all the kingdoms of the world were his and that he gave them to whomsoever he would. He lied. He is a liar and the father of it - John 8:44. Satan's statement directly contradicts Daniel 4:17 which says "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will." But the NIV, NAS, ESV and NKJV have bought Satan's lie and are passing it off onto God's children.

All Greek texts read the same in 1 John 5:19, so it is not a textual variation, but a simple matter of sound and consistent doctrine as opposed to a lie. The Greek texts read: "oidamen oti ek tou qeou esmen kai o kosmoV oloV en tw ponhrw keitai".

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

Wycliffe's Bible says: " We witen, that we ben of God, and al the world is set in yuel." Or the modernized version would be: "We know that we be of God and all the world is set in evil."

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

Many commentators who are usually sound in their doctrine become very confused in their thinking when they try to explain this passage, yet the meaning as it stands in the true Holy Bible is quite clear. We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees his sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

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

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

Before you rush to your school boy Greek to defend this obvious lie, check out any of your own preferred bible versions and notice how they frequently translate nouns that have the definite article. See for instance Romans 12:9 in the NIV, NKJV, NASB, or the NASB in Matthew 5:37 and 6:13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel chapter 10 reveals that there are spiritual "princes" of Persia and of Grecia, and the angel Michael is one of the chief princes of the nation of Israel. These are members of the spiritual principalities and powers in the heavenly places, Satan being the "prince of the power of the air" Ehpesians 2:2, but he is not, as the NKJV and the NASB teach, the RULER of this world.

I have asked people who use the NIV or any of these modern versions a simple question. Who is in control of this world, God or Satan? I usually get the response that God is in control of this world. Then I show them what the NIV, NASB, and NKJV say in 1 John 5:19, or in John 12:31; 14:30 and 16:11. Usually they are a bit shocked and begin to doubt the reliability of these versions (as well they should). But unfortunately what I have most often found to be the case is that after a short while they then try to defend this obvious error by a series of silly explanations.

It is a very simple question. Does the King James Bible teach that Satan is the ruler of this world, and that the whole world is under the control of the Evil One? Answer: NO

Do the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV teach that Satan is the ruler of this world and that the whole world is under his control? Answer: YES.

Will Kinney

Hi Kevin, First of all, what the KJB and several other translations say about "God is no respector or persons" is NOT A LIE. The LIE is found in such versions as the NIV, NKJV, NASB where they say "God does not take away life" - THAT is the lie. It is your bogus bibles that have the lie, not the KJB.

Kevin says:
''Exactly Brother! A lie generated by Joab...not the NIV/ESV/whateverelseV translators. The reading is consistent. The content is accurately translated. The lie was put there by Joab to deceive David, not the readers of the text. The readers are expected to deferentiate between the two."

Kevin, the two different readings "neither doth God respect any person" (KJB and many others) versus the NKJV, NIV, NASB reading of "neither does God take away life" are completely contradictory in meaning. The NKJV, NIV, NASB reading is a lie, but you say it was a lie put in the mouth of the woman by Joab. However, David saw the message of the woman as being good advice on how he should behave toward his son.

The KJB reading is the truth. If we accept your view that the NKJV, NIV, NASB reading is the correct one, then we have a problem. David is then believing an out and out lie which is against all Scripture. God does take away life. You position would have David following the advice of a woman who is telling a huge whopper of a lie and David couldn't tell the difference between the lie and the truth.

Quote:
So, which reading is correct? Both cannot equally be the inspired word of God at the same time.

Kevin: Why not?

Simply because they cannot both be the inspired words of God at the same time, because they are totally opposite in the meaning of what she said.

Here it is in more detail.

2 Samuel 14:14 - Does God take away life or not? A Theological error in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard versions.

Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.

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

In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard. John Wesley briefly comments: "Respect - So far as to exempt him from this common law of dying."

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

The Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the Geneva Bible of 1599 say: "For we must needes dye, and we are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered vp againe: NEITHER DOTH GOD SPARE ANY PERSON, yet doeth he appoynt meanes, not to cast out from him, him that is expelled."

However when we get to the New KJV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NIV, The Message, Green's MKJV, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David, in his adulterous affair with Bathseba, that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." 1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

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

The same Hebrew words used in 2 Samuel 14: 14 are also translated as "not RESPECT PERSONS" in other places in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The word RESPECT is # 5375 nah-sah, and has many meanings such as "to accept, to respect, to regard, to take up, take, lift up, carry away, to pardon, to set up and to bear."

PERSONS is # 5315 nephesh and the NASB itself has translated this word as "persons" some 90 times. It also can mean spirit, soul, life, ghost, heart, breath, and himself or herself. Both words have multiple meanings and the context and sound theology must determine how they are to be translated correctly.

The NKJV has translated this same verb as "to respect" in Lamentations 4:16 "they do not respect the priests" and as "you shall not be partial to the poor" in Leviticus 19:15.

Likewise the NASB and NIV have translated the verb as "respect, accept and show partiality" many times. The NASB has "the LORD accepted Job" in Job 42:8, and in 2 Kings 5:1 says that "Naaman was a great man with his master and highly RESPECTED." The NIV has "without RESPECT for the old" Deut. 28:50 and in 2 Kings 3:14 "If I did not HAVE RESPECT for the presence of Jehoshaphat I would not look at you."

At least eight times the NIV, NKJV and NASB translate this verb as "to show partiality". For example, in Deuteronomy 10:17 the KJB, the ASV, Young's, Darby and the Jewish translations say: "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, WHICH REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward." Here the NIV, NKJV and NASB say: "God..who SHOWS NO PARTIALITY."

So it is not a case of the Hebrew not being able to carry the meaning as found in the King James Bible and all the others, but the modern bible translators were blinded to an obvious truth of Scripture - "Neither doth God respect any person". God does indeed take away life.

Commentators are not inspired. Lexicons are not inspired. And any bible version that contains a falshood is not inspired. Only the true Holy Bible providentially given to us by God Almighty is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I firmly believe all the true words of God are found in the King James Bible, and not the others.

I thought it would be instructive to show just how the Bible Babel is going in regards to other translations of this phrase "neither doth God respect persons".

The New English Bible: "God WILL SPARE THE MAN WHO DOES NOT SET HIMSELF TO KEEP THE LAWLESS in banishment."

Today's English Version, and the Good News Translation 1992: "We will all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which can't be gathered again. Even God DOES NOT BRING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE". (He doesn't?)

The Greek Septuagint is little help here to the modern versionists. It says: kai leepsetai ho theos psuxen - "God receives a soul"

The New Jerusalem bible: "NOR DOES GOD RAISE UP A CORPSE".

New Living Bible: "that is why God TRIES TO BRING US BACK when we have been separated from him."

God's Word translation: "But DOESN'T GOD FORGIVE A PERSON?"

Bible in Basic English: "God WILL NOT TAKE AWAY THE LIFE OF THE MAN WHOSE PURPOSE IS THAT THAT HE WHO HAS BEEN SENT AWAY MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY CUT OFF FROM HIM." - say what?

Easy To Read Version 2001 - " No person can gather this water back from the ground. YOU KNOW GOD FORGIVES PEOPLE. God made plans for people who are forced to run away for safety--God doesn't force them to run away from him!"

There you have it. All of these are modern "bibles" written by scholarly men who have gone to seminary and have given us the various fruits of their labours.

I hope this clears up everything for you. Remember the famous words of James White "It is good to have a variety of translations so you can get a better understanding of what it says."

Will Kinney

Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?
By Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson

During a question and answer session at a recent speaking engagement, a university student asked me, “Why do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God?” Now this is a very interesting question; and probably one of the most important questions any Christian could ask themselves. What is so special, so unique about the Bible that Christians believe it is literally the inspired word of God?

In answering this student’s question, I encouraged him to consider the following facts about the Bible:

First, the Bible is not just one single book. This is a more common misconception than many people realize, especially with people who do not come from a Judeo-Christian background. Rather than being a single book, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic just to name a few.

Second, these 66 books were written by 40 different authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never knew one another personally.

Third, these 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet again, this is another reminder that many of these authors never knew or collaborated with one another in writing these books.

Fourth, the 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different languages. In the Bible we have books that were written in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books were written.

And finally, these 66 books were written on 3 different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. Once again, this is a testament to the varied historical and cultural circumstances of God’s people.

Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What’s more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God’s people; a common theme- God’s universal love for all of humanity; and a common message- salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books contain no historical errors or contradictions. God’s word truly is an amazing collection of writings!

After I had shared the above facts with this student, I offered him the following challenge: I said to him, “If you do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, if you do not believe that the Bible is of a supernatural origin, than I challenge you to a test.” I said to the student, “I challenge you to go to any library in the world, you can choose any library you like, and find 66 books which match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However, they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common message, with no historical errors or contradictions.” I went on to say, “If you can produce such a collection of books, I will admit that the Bible is not the inspired word of God.” The student’s reply was almost instantaneous, he emphatically stated, “But that’s impossible!”

“But that’s impossible!” It truly is impossible, for any collection of human writings. However, the Bible passes this test. The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine inspiration.

The next time you encounter someone who asks you why you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, try sharing this challenge with them. Better yet, don’t wait until you’re asked, just go ahead and share this challenge with a friend today. You don’t even have to mention the Bible up front, just ask them if they think it would be realistic to assemble such a collection of books. After they say, “But that’s impossible!” you’ve got a ready-made opportunity for sharing the truth of God’s word with somebody!

Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Hi Judge not. An interesting article but it is way too general. It never gets down to specific verses, names, numbers nor does it mention anything about the literally thousands of words and anywhere from 15 to 40 entire verses found in some Bible versions but not in others.

Why do you suppose that the recent polls show 85% of the seminarians and future pastors at America's largest evangelical seminary openly admit that they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?

I have at least 100 examples I could show you, but for the moment I will limit it to just one such example. Can you tell us which of these various "inspired and inerrant" bible versions is right and which ones have an error?

In 1 Samuel 6:19 the King James Bible reads: “And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”

The Bible versions that read 50,070 are the King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, the Greek Septuagint, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, both the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English translations from the Masoretic text, the New American Standard Version 1960 -1995, modern Italian, the Modern Greek bible, the Portuguese, French and Rumanian bibles, the World English Bible, the modern Hebrew Names Version, as well as the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJV. These versions translate what the preserved Hebrew texts actually read.

However the NIV, RSV, ESV tell us in 1 Samuel 6:19 "But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting SEVENTY of them to death, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD.” These versions completely omit the number 50,000.

The NIV, RSV, ESV just made this number up! The ESV footnote tells us the Hebrew reads "of the people seventy men, fifty thousand men."

But wait. It gets better. Now the new Holman Christian Standard of 2003 has come out and it reads differently than any other version out there. It says: "He struck down 70 men OUT OF 50,000 men."

This time the Syriac reads: "The Lord smote 5,070 men", while the LXX has the correct number of 50,070.

You have to admit, there is a slight difference between 50,070 men slain, or 70 men, or 5,070 men, or "70 men out of 50,000". So, which one is right?

For a more detailed study of this passage see my article at

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/50070.html

Will Kinney

KJV 100% Pure = Nonsense

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!

2- If the KJV was perfect, it would have been right the first time, YET there were countless revisions. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

3- If the translators of the KJV were inspired, where is the original copy of the KJV so we can compare our version to it? It doesn't exist, but this is not material since it was so full of errors. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

4- KJV Only-ists claim all others translations are corrupt and many even claim that all other translations are works of the devil. This is ridiculous considering that the KJV was compiled primarily from translations they now call corrupt. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

5- KJV Only-ists claim that the KJV is perfect and pure, even though it had to be revised many times. Any beginner in the language study of Hebrew and Greek knows that it is impossible to have a perfect translation from Hebrew and Greek. This absolute fact is well known to ALL who study the deeper things of God's Word, so they obviously use Hebrew and Greek word studies. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

6- The devil loves it when a group of people make claims that God's Word is corrupt and works of the devil. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

7- The devil loves it when Christians spend so much time arguing about a Bible translation that they don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the real work of GOD. The real work of GOD is obviously not tearing down the books and materials that GOD uses for HIS work. AND, regardless of intentions, making claims that are obviously false harms the work of GOD. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

8- The Apostle Paul and hosts of other preachers didn't have the KJV for about 1600 years, nor did they need it, and they studied and taught the Word of GOD. The same would be true for modern pastors, with or without the KJV. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

In conclusion: The KJV is ONLY a translation and that's all it's ever been. It's rated good to excellent by the majority of Bible scholars, but NO Bible scholar will ever claim that the KJV is 100% perfect and pure. In fact, no Bible scholar would ever make any of the ridiculous claims of the KJV Only-ists. Bible scholars will always use Hebrew and Greek for obvious reasons. This bears repeating one more time, so I will:

THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

(First Revision for errors. If there are other errors, I want the same number of attempts and years that the KJV translators had.)

ChristiansUnite Forums

Theology => Debate => Topic started by: brandplucked on July 12, 2005, 07:27:46 AM