Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

You just showed me verses that say his soul would not be left in hell or curropted by what He see.  Not once did you show me anything that says he did not descend, you showed me things that said He did, but was not left there.  I just think what you showed me says He did not sin in flesh, and that he would not stay in hell for paying for our sins.  Also before Jesus dies\d there were 2 parts of Hell.  Abraham's bossom and then Hell.....

Walter

I didn't change the directory, and I never downloaded any add ons yet.  It won't load KJV+.bbl, and the strongs numbers.  I don't know what else to do?

In His Service,
Walter P. Karroll

Romans1013@walterkarroll.com

They have Bibles that are translated into hundreds of lanquages.  That shouldn't be a problem at all.  I know one of my churches missionaries is in Romainia, and I believe he is working with some firm, and are planning on  making a Romainian Bible translation.  Not sure if I spelt that wrong, but I am positive that is what was said.  KJV is translated to most languages, but there are some that are not because of the extreme varience in context.  So in that case, they would need to make translations from original mauscripts, which I believe they already do.

In His Service,
Walter

Romans1013@walterkarroll.com

I believe what your parents were told is accurate.  The only reason it seems that that no one can accept the KJV is because of pride of being different then the norm.  Be humble, and take heed with an open heart.  I have looked into the new versions, and the greek mauscripts, and there are many contextual disagreements between the both.  The KJV seems to have the most accurate translation, but everyone has a right to thier opionion, just don't have a different one, just to say so...That would be moronic, not to say anyone is like that, but I am sure there are souls that feel just that way.

In His Service,
Walter

Romans1013@walterkarroll.com

Brother Tom,

I tried exactly what you said to do, but it still does not work.  i don't understand, I never have a probem like this.  It says it can't load kjv+.bb, and it can't load strongs numbers.  I don't get it.

In His Service,
Walter

Thanks...The only Bible I will ever recommend to anyone is the KJV, it is completely reliable, and has the closet, and best translations.

In His Service,
Walter

I did what you said, and it said it can't load kjb+, and it can't load stongs....I turned all sercurity off...I don't understand whats wrong.  I heard it was really great, and I would love to use it.  Please HELP!

In His Service,
Walter

As of now, It says error loading kjv \_bible, and then a error box for each of the addons I installed, just saying coldn't load.  After all that the main progrm loads and thats it nothing in it.  I have xp, sp2 installed, and norton anti virus software.  I installed main program but never installed the udate....Figured I didn't need it.  I will try shutting down all my security features and do the install like you said...I will let you know tomarrow what happened...Where is this thread going to be?

In His Service,
Walter

Hey Tom, can I link to your site when I have a chance?

Does anyone know of free Bibe study software.  I tried e-sword, but it never loads properly, and i tried bible database, but I don't like it as a studty tool.  So if anyone knows something out there let me know, or if anyone knows how to fix my problem with e-sword let me know?

In His Service,
Walter

Tom,
Thank you for the warm welcome, and yes so far I am enjoying it, and having fun learning, and teaching at the same time.  I will talk to you later, and thanks again for the warm welcome.

God bless you,
Walter

please visit my website  and go under creation vs. evolutions, to see what I feel about the topic, and maybe it will give you some insight as well.

I have been studing the Apostles' Creed, and I want to know what other people thought about the verses that talk about Jesus's descent into hell?  Do you believe this is true, or do you think it has a deeper meaning?  My conclusion to this is that it does mean He went to hell.  Hence, He had to suffer the full price for our sins.  The full price would be us burning in hell forever.  The second note I would like to make is that in the apostls's creed, it says he desended into hell, and ascended to heaven.  If he ascended to heaven, that it would be silly for people to fight the notion that he didn't descend to hell.  They go together.  I just don't know why the catholic church decided to change doctrine around to fit thier needs, but I will save catholic doctrine for another thread.  Just wondering what you think?  I was never taught this before, and when I came upon it, it wowed me, it gave me a whole new love for Jesus Christ, it hits me harder knowing that he paid the price of actually being in hell for us.

I think that there is only one Bible that Christians should be reading, all others are corrupt.  Let me explain why:

Theological Reasons

Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Revised Standard Version)

The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that, “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V translation of this verse. The word used in the original Hebrew has long been understood to mean specifically a virgin in this context, and is incorrectly rendered “young woman” by the R.S.V. To make matters worse, this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the Revised Standard Version, but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No Christian should accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the R.S.V.

The Good News Bible, (or properly, Today’s English Version) Was translated by neo-orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word “blood” with the word “death” in many of the New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word “virgin” with “girl” in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Philips translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox religionists. For this reason we will not use them.

Textual Reasons

Many Christians do not know that most of the more than one hundred new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain version in the King James Version is “unfortunate,” usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800s, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee, This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

When the reader comes to John 7:53-8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this:

(“The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11.”)

Something similar is done to the Great Commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, and what the new versions are saying, is that a large amount of New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new textual theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4). Every man needs every word of God! A man’s needs will not be met unless he has received “every word” that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35). With this promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved through the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation.

So-called “textual criticism” is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions that one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guesswork and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James.

Practical Reasons

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the “thees” and “thous.” The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise from of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is “you.” Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is “I,” while the plural is “we.” The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is “he.” While the plural is “they.” Modern English, however, has only “you” for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the scripture means a singular “you” or a plural “you.” “Thou” or “thee” mean one person is being addressed, and “ye” or “you” mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.

We also find the use of italics in the old Bible a great help. The translators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language. The new translations do not do this. We appreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know what was added and what was original, and are disappointed that modern translators have let us down in this area.

The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. The King James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not have them. The reader determines where the quotation begins and ends by the context, and by other means of interpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us the luxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because they have inserted quote marks according to the translators’ interpretations of the various passages. John 1:15-18 and 3:27-36 presents examples of places in the Bible where the length of the quotations is a matter of interpretation.

Such features make the King James Version the most helpful translation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the “New King James,” which is partially translated from the traditional texts, denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, and the absence of quotation marks.

For all these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative, Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as their standard text. The new versions present too many problems and simply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for so long. Let’s stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it will move us from clarity to confusion, form authority to anarchy, from faith to doubt. We ought not to make such a move!
The following material was developed by Dr. Richard Flanders, Pastor of Juniata Baptist church in Vassar Michigan. For more information and pamphlets, call Dr. Flanders at 517-823-7848