Hi Bep, I wish the other topic had not been shut down.  I would like very much to answer some of the things that were brought up there.  I also would like to clear up the fact that I was in no way suggesting you are going to hell. Sammi completely misunderstood what I was saying.  That thought never entered my mind at all.  I believe you are a brother in Christ and we will spend eternity together with our Lord and Saviour, where we shall know even as we are known, and love Him and all other children of God with unsinning hearts.

Modified to delete Bible bashing.

Hi blackeyedpeas, I will repeat some of your statements and then comment.

Among the things you say are the following: "The KJV is obviously not complete, nor is it anywhere near accurate and true to the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. The KJV was and is ONLY A TRANSLATION!"

Bep, you never identify for any of us which Hebrew and Greek texts you are referring to.  The Greek texts vary wildly among themselves, and since you do not believe ANY BIBLE OR ANY TEXT IS now the inerrant words of God, you keep entertaining us with your pious sounding, but ultimately empty, rhetoric.


Here comes your usual pious sounding baloney -"The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are the standard for comparison, NOT THE KJV!"

Bep, WHICH Hebrew and  Greek?  You never tell us.  Also, if it is the Hebrew, then why do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman all frequently reject the Hebrew readings?  You never answer this either.

 Now, here is a brilliant statement: "The location of the complete and perfectly preserved Word of God is also not material because it couldn't possibly be the KJV."


Bep, you are so hardened against the true Holy Bible that your faculties have become unhinged.  What a ridiculous statement you make.  You tell us "it is not material where the preserved word of God is"  (Is this your "mystical and unknown bible"?), but you personally are sure it is not the KJB.   So, you admit you don't know or even care where the true words of God are, but it is your humble opinion that it definitely is not in the King James Bible.  But of  course you never do get around to telling us where the true words of God ARE found, do you?



 
Bep, the following statement proves that you have made your own mind and understanding the Final Authority. "Every translation of the Holy Bible has strengths and weaknesses."

If you know where all the weaknesses are, then why don't you write your own bible version and set the whole thing straight for us?  You sit in judgment on all versions out there, and you decide for yourself what parts you like and what you don't, what parts are stong and what parts are weak.  You are your own final authority.

 You close with this: "Finally for this 2 cents worth: we should be spending our time preaching JESUS, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace - not arguing about translations or preaching doctrines about translations."

Bep, again may I point out the obvious?  Most Christians confess and affirm that "The Bible" is the inerrant word of God.  If it really is from God, then it cannot lie or contain errors.  But the ONLY SOURCE we have that tells us anything at all about the Lord Jesus Christ, the cross, and His redemptive work, is The Bible.  But what do we have today in "the Bible"?  We have over 100 versions in English alone, and none of them agrees 100% with any other out there, and they are getting worse.

The NIV omits literally thousands of words from its texts.  The NIV teaches that the Son of God has origins and there was a day before which God was not His Father. The NIV frequently rejects all Hebrew texts and makes up its own readings.

The NASB teaches that God can be deceived (See Psalm 78:36) and that there are two Gods (See John 1:18).  The NASB also frequently rejects the Hebrew readings, and differs from the NKJV in thousands of words in the New Testament alone.

Yet, somehow  we are supposed to believe that all these multiple-choice, conflicting, and textually different "bibles" are the true words of God.  This god of yours appears to be really confused.  

If we have no infallible Book, and all have weaknesses and errors, and different texts, then how does anyone know that what it says about Christ and the cross are in any way true or not?  At what point does God begin to tell the truth?

Didn't God promise to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth?  If He lied about this, then what else did He lie about?

The bottom line is that you yourself do not believe The Bible (any Bible or any text in any language) IS the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

Get all upset about this if you want, but it is the unvarnished truth of where you now stand.  You NEVER ONCE identify for us WHERE we can get ourselves a copy of the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  That's because you don't believe such a thing exists and "it is immaterial" to you.

Have it your way, Bep.  Go for it.  God will hand you over to the logical outcome of your present way of thinking.

Have a nice trip.

Will K

Hi Allinall, thanks for your comments.  I, in turn, would like to make a few observations about what you say here.

I agree with you that God is sovereign and that He has promised to preserve His words here on this earth in a Book.  Do you deny this?  It seems from your remarks that you do not believe in the preservation of God's words.  If I am wrong in this, please correct my misunderstanding.


You criticize the KJB believer saying: "They put question into the minds of those who never had questions, and had never been led astray."

Brother, (I'm assuming you are a "he"), it is the modern version promoters who are now the ones who are openly stating that "NO Bible is Inerrant or Inspired".  All the recent polls show that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is fast fading all over the world.  God is sovereign. I completely agree.  And God Himself has predicted in His word that the last days will be characterized by a falling away from the faith, and that many will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned unto fables.  This is happening now and no one is going to stop it.


It is an undeniable fact that most Christians today know very little about The Bible and hardly ever read it.  The pendulum is swinging towards a mystical, subjective, and all inclusive New Age type of watered down Christianity.  

God doesn't "need" me or other KJB defenders for anything.  But I believe He has called me to defend the truth of an inerrant and pure Holy Bible in the face of the modern apostasy of unbelief.  I don't care whether you think I am right or wrong about this.  I'll leave it up to God and I'm sure He will let me know one way or the other very soon.


And Yes we do claim that several doctrines are being perverted in all the modern multiple-choice and contradicting versions - but part of the falling away from the faith includes "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" - 2 Timothy 4:3.

The absolute Truth is found in EVERY VERSE of the King James Bible.  All modern versions pervert Truth in several individual verses.  If it is not 100% truth, then it is a false witness.  This is God's Standard, not mine.

You then say:  "News flash: the 1611 translators were Catholic for the most part if not in their entirety!  You would trust the work of a doctrinal approach you deny while arguing the theology from whence it came?"

Allinall, this is unmitigated BALONEY.  How you could possibly speak such a bald faced Lie as this is utterly amazing.  By the way, I do not defend the KJB translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could be assembled today.  But to say they were Catholic is beyond all reason.  In addition to this, I do believe there are some Catholics who are true born again, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb children of God - and this, in spite of their false church.  I likewise by no means believe that every professing Protestant or Evangelical is a true Christian just because he/she makes a profession of faith.  

Brother, the central issue is this.  Is there such a thing as an inerrant, complete, 100% true Holy Bible on this earth or not?

What is clearly happening in the Christian church, is that more and more professing Christians no longer believe ANY BIBLE or any text in any language IS NOW the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  Apparently God has lied to us and His words are not true after all.

All you guys with no infallible Bible keep giving us your theories and pious sounding phrases about "good and reliable translations", but none of you comes right out and tells us exactly where we can find The 100% True Holy Bible today.

Instead, each of you sets up his own mind as his final authority, and each of your favorite versions or mystical bibles that exist solely in your own imaginations, differs from all the others.  "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."


Will K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES ON GENESIS:

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

NOTES ON JOB:

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

NOTES ON JONAH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Will K

There are numerous good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and the KJV is only one of them. Arguing about translations and putting down various translations simply hurts God's Work.

Hi blackeyedpeas, You talk about good to excellent translations and how putting down various translations hurts God's work.  You seem to be unaware of the facts that it was the promoters of the modern versions who first started all the criticisms of the King James Bible, telling us what a horrible translation it is.

Here are some facts you may not be aware of.



On page 103 of his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"

Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".

I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.

This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.

Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.

"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."

Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible. "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."

"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .

Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!

"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered - in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds - even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.

Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)

These men have swallowed the lies about the so called "oldest and best" (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and continue to harshly criticize the King James Bible, all the while promoting such versions as the RSV and the NIV which both reject many clear Hebrew readings and pervert sound doctrine in various places.  The irony is overwhelming.

And, bep, it is your side which now is telling everyone that there is no inspired and inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth.

In my next post, I will show you what the men behind these modern perversions really think about the Bible.

Will K

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all bibles are the same, at all.

Please check it out.

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

Then click on the second part and continue your comparisons.

God bless,

Will K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's examime briefly your response, OK?

[quote ]

KJV Only = Nonsense

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

1-  The Holy Bible could not have existed before 1611 because that's when the KJV was first published. Do you really think that God allowed the world to go without a Holy Bible for so many years? In fact, the Holy Bible would not exist without the KJV according to the KJV Only-ists. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Bep, The KJB believer DOES believe the Holy Bible existed before 1611.  It most likely was found among the Waldensian believers which arose around 120 A.D. and lasted well into the Reformation era.  We affirm that God has always kept His promises to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth.  It is YOUR side which denies the existence of a complete, inerrant, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible.

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

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!

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

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!

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

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

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!

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

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

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!

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

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

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!

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

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!

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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.  

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

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

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

Have a good day,

Will K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Kinney

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The orthodox view of the Person of Jesus Christ is that He is the only begotten Son by eternal generation, eternally proceeding from the Father. He is also eternal God. I Timothy 3:16 tell us, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” You cannot prove that God was manifest in the flesh from the Jehovah Witness bible, nor from the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, or NASB versions using this verse. They say something like “He appeared in a body” - NIV. All of us have appeared in a body too, but we are not God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Kinney

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

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

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

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

 NIV John 1:1-5

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Will K

[That]

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

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are just a FEW of the MANY examples.



Will Kinney

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

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

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

Will K

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Will K

[of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGINS [c] are from of old, from ancient times. [d]Footnote of online NIV:Micah 5:2 Or from days of eternityfootnote of mine at home:5:2 In contrast to the dire prediction of v. 1, Micah shifts to a positive note. Ephrathah. The region in which Bethlehem was located(see Ru 1:2: 4:11: 1Sa 17:12).ruler.Ultimately Christ, who will rule (see note on 4:8)for God the Father. ORIGINS....from of old. HIS BEGINNINGS were much earlier than His human birth(see Jn 8:58). FROM ANCIENT TIMES. Within history(cf. 2Sa 7:12-16: Isa9:6-7: Am 9:11),and even from Eternity(see NIV text note).Acts 13:33 " 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'[c] 34The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'[d] 35So it is stated elsewhere: " 'You will not let your Holy One see decay.'[e]footnote:Or have begotten youcross reference: Psalm 2:7 : 7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son [d] ; today I have become your Father. [e]I am not falsely accusing "the Bible believer" of anything. I am a Bible believer also, I just choose to read the NIV TRANSLATION of THE BIBLE.]

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

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


Acts 13:33

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

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


I am not falsely accusing "the Bible believer" of anything. I am a Bible believer also, I just choose to read the NIV TRANSLATION of THE BIBLE.

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

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

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

Will K

[impression]

gotcha104,

As for your false allegations that we KJB believers think we are better than anyone else or the only ones saved, this is totally untrue.

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

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

In Christ,

Hi Roger, what you said was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will K