Hi saints, I have read many of the posts here and I hear some of the resident "scholars" assure us that No doctrines are changed in the various versions like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, Holman Standard etc.

Well, is this really true?  Let's look at some concrete examples.


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.

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

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

Hi,

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

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


Hi Reba, I appreciate your spirit in this particular response.  However it appears that you too do not believe The Bible IS now the inerrant and infallible words of God.  

If I misjudge your position, then please tell me exactly what is is that you think is now the inerrant Bible preserved by God Almighty.

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

Reba, If God chose the KJB, then are you saying God chose a Book to carry the gospel to foreign lands by hundreds of English and American missionaries, and was used in this way like no other in history, but that this God chosen Book contains what you consider to be errors?

Is there any bible or any singular text in any language that you think is without errors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless,

Will K

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

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

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

 

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

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."

"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."

Number Three - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"


Daniel 9:26 "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."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, 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. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. 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.

Versions like 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".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

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, Isa. 53:8. 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."

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."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

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

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

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

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

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

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will Kinney

Number Two - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy

There are literally hundreds of examples of how the New KJV has changed the meaning of the Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. One of these hundreds of examples is found in Isaiah 66:5.

There we read: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."

This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 (42 years before the KJB), the subsequent Spanish versions of 1602, 1909 and 1960, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, Green's interlinear translation 1985 and Modern KJV 1998, the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century Version.

However a host of modern versions, including the NKJV, give a very different meaning to this passage of Scripture. The NKJV, along with the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard, says: "Who cast you out for my name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY'. But they shall be ashamed."

Again, the good Doctor Daniel Wallace and his NET version render this verse: “so that we might witness your joy.” Then Wallace significantly remarks in his footnotes: "The point of this statement is unclear."

Well, Duh. Sure it's unclear NOW. You just changed the whole meaning of the verse!

What happened to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the true meaning "But He shall appear to your joy" or "That We may see your joy"?

The verb used here is # 7200 variously translated as "to see, to appear, to provide". It is a very common verb, but this particular instance is what is called a Niphal participle. It is only found three times in this particular form and the other two both refer to God or the Lord. Genesis 12:7 "the LORD who appeared unto him"; Genesis 35:1 "God that appeared unto thee", and here in Isaiah 66:5 "but he shall appear to your joy."

Jamison, Faucett and Brown comment: They cast you out for my name's sake - excommunicate, as if too polluted to worship with them. So in Christ's first sojourn on earth. So it shall be again in the last times, when the believing shall be few (Luke 18:8). Let the Lord be glorified - the mocking challenge of the persecutors, as if their violence towards you was from zeal for God. "He shall appear to your joy," --giving you "joy" instead of your "rebuke"

John Gill comments: "but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed: that is, the Lord shall appear, either in a providential way, as he did for the Christians at Jerusalem... or else this may respect the second coming, the glorious appearance of Christ, which will be to the joy of those believing Jews, and of all his people; since he will appear to their salvation, and they shall appear with him in glory, and see him as he is, (Hebrews 9:28) (Colossians 3:4) (1 John 3:2) , and to the shame, confusion, and destruction of those that have pierced him, despised and rejected him, and persecuted his people."

John Calvin remarks: "But he will be seen to your joy. As if he had said, “God, by his coming, will cause believers to know that they have not hoped in vain; for he will appear for the advantage of believers, and for the destruction of those who maintain that he will appear as the defender of wickedness, of which he will be the severe avenger. The former shall enjoy gladness and consolation, while the latter shall be ashamed and shall blush, for they shall quickly feel that the judgment of God, which they now laugh at, is at hand.”

I believe this verse has a great deal of application to the Bible version issue being fought today. "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."

We who really believe God has given us an inerrant, complete, preserved and inspired Holy Bible, and tremble at His words, are called ignorant fanatics, church dividers and members of a Cult, from which we need to repent.

Those who deny there is any Bible or Hebrew or Greek text that is the inerrant word of God actually think they are the ones who are glorifying God by promoting a multitude of conflicting, and admittedly non-inspired bible versions, while ridiculing our position on the King James Holy Bible. .

There are two camps in this battle for an inerrant Bible. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians who believe God has kept His promises to preserve His pure, inspired words and that He has done so in the King James Holy Bible for the last 400 years. And then there are those who SAY the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when closely examined, will admit the "originals" no longer exist. They then will tell you what they really believe: "No Bible is 100 percent correct; All translations have errors; The correct text is...; I think a better rendering would be..." yada, yada, yada. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes, and submits to no final, written word of God.

The battle lines are clearly drawn and you cannot sit on the fence. By the grace of God, may we be found among those who tremble at His word. We have God's promise that He will appear to our joy, and they shall be ashamed.

Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong.

Will Kinney

 How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples

Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations

One of my favorite hymns, O Come, O Come Emmanuel, has the line "O come Desire of nations, come." Handel’s beautiful work, The Messiah, also has this line in one of the hymns taken from the King James Bible. "And the Desire of all nations shall come. But who may abide the day of His coming? For He is like a refiner's fire."

This line comes from Haggai 2:6,7: "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land: And I will shake all nations, and THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

There are also references to this event in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews says in 12:26: "Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Again, in Hebrews 10:37 we read: "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."

Matthew Henry comments on Haggai 2:6-7:

"He shall come as the desire of all nations — desirable to all nations, for in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed with the best of blessings — long expected and desired by the good people in all nations, that had any intelligence from the Old-Testament predictions concerning him."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on Haggai 2:7

“So Hebrews 12:26, which quotes this passage; the apostle compares the heavier punishment which awaits the disobedient under the New Testament with that which met such under the Old Testament. At the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, only the earth was shaken to introduce it, but now heaven and earth and all things are to be shaken, all kingdoms that stand in the way of Messiah's kingdom, "which cannot be shaken," are to be upturned. Paul condenses together the two verses of Haggai 2:6-7 and 2:21-22, implying that it was one and the same shaking, of which the former verses of Haggai denote the beginning, the latter the end."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown continue: "There is scarcely a prophecy of Messiah in the Old Testament which does not, to some extent at least, refer to His second coming."

"While the Jews as a nation desired Him not, the Gentiles, who are plainly pointed out by "all nations," accepted Him; and so to them He was peculiarly desirable. The "good tidings of great joy" were "to all people" (Luke 2:10). The Jews, and those in the adjoining nations instructed by them, looked for Shiloh to come unto whom the gathering of the people was to be, from Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49:10). The early patriarchs, Job (Job 19:25-27) and Abraham (John 8:56), desired Him."

"fill this house with glory-- As the first temple was filled with the cloud of glory, the symbol of God, so this second temple was filled with the "glory" of God (John 1:14) veiled in the flesh at Christ's first coming, when He entered it and performed miracles there ; but that "glory" is to be revealed at His second coming, AS THIS PROPHECY IN ITS ULTERIOR REFERENCE FORETELLS." (Caps are mine)

John Gill comments on Haggai 2:6-7 (Caps are mine):"and the desire of all nations shall come; NOT THE DESIRABLE THINGS OF ALL NATIONS, or them with them, as their gold and silver; and which is the sense of Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra; but this is contrary to the syntax of the words, to the context of Haggai 2:8, and to facts; ... but one far more glorious and excellent, is intended, EVEN THE MESSIAH, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed;... HIS PERSONAL COMING; his spiritual coming; his coming to take vengeance on the Jews; and HIS LAST COMING, of which some understand the words particularly."

John Calvin remarks on Haggai 2:6-7 "But we may understand what he says of Christ, Come shall the desire of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory. We indeed know that Christ was the expectation of the whole world, according to what is said by Isaiah. And it may be properly said, that when the desire of all nations shall come, that is, when Christ shall be manifested, in whom the wishes of all ought to center, the glory of the second Temple shall then be illustrious."

Other Bible versions that agree with the King James Holy Bible "and the desire of all nations shall come" are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Green's interlinear and Modern KJV 1998, Darby, Douay 1950, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation into English, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (el Deseado de todas las naciones vendrá), the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster’s 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and Third Millenium Bible.

The NIV is pretty good here with "and the desired of all nations will come."

Miles Coverdale 1535 gives the same idea with: " the comforte of all Heithen shall come"

God's Word to the Nations version 1995 - "and the one whom all the nations desire will come." This gives the same sense as that found in the King James Bible.

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 also reads similar to the King James Bible - "and the delight of all the nations, shall come in."

However things begin to go awry in the NKJV with its: "and THEY shall come to the Desire of All Nations." This is incorrect because it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is coming to us; not we who are not going to Him.

But with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation everything has changed, and this is no longer a prophecy about Christ at all. The NASB reads: "And I am going to shake all the nations and THEY WILL COME WITH THE WEALTH of all nations."

The Message - "And I'll shake down all the godless nations. They'll bring bushels of wealth and I will fill this Temple with splendor. GOD of the Angel-Armies says so."

The RSV, NRSV, ESV (2001 English Standard Version) and the 2004 Holman Standard all unite in reading: "and I will shake all nations so that THE TREASURES OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME IN, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts." Again, any prophesy about the return of Christ has been eliminated from this passage.


The word used here for "desire" - #2532 khem-daw - does not mean "wealth", as the NASB says, nor "treasures" as the ESV, RSV, NET and Holman have it. The correct meaning refers not to THEY who will come, but to Christ, the Messiah, and the Desire of all nations. The NASB has only once translated this word as "wealth", and yet has the same word rendered as "desire" in Daniel 11:37 - "he will show no regard for... the desire of women".

This noun "desire" comes from the verb "to desire" # 2530 and is used in 1 Samuel 9:20 referring to the first king over Israel, when Samuel said to Saul "and on whom is all the DESIRE of Israel?." It is used again in Isaiah 53:2: "and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should DESIRE him." The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, at His first coming in the flesh.

The same verb is used in Genesis 3:6 where the woman saw that the tree "was a tree to be desired to make one wise", and in Psalm 19:10 where the judgments of the LORD are described as "more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold."

The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who now works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and results in total confusion.

Will Kinney

Did the Son of God have an origin?  Micah 5:2

Some modern versions undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the King James Bible that the Lord Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, or the Jehovah Witness versions that He had an origin? Yes.

Micah 5:2 "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 of old, FROM EVERLASTING."

John Gill comments on the traditional, Trinitarian exposition of this verse and the meaning of the phrase "whose goings forth have been...from everlasting."

John Gill - "whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was "in him, in his loins," as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his "goings forth" were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his "going forth"; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase "from everlasting" cannot be ascribed."

"As commonly interpreted - his eternal generation and sonship, the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation; So Eliezer produces this to prove the name of the Messiah before the world was, whose "goings forth were from everlasting, when as yet the world was not created."

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown likewise explain: "goings forth . . . from everlasting--The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 8:22) Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting."

John Wesley tersely remarks: "Going forth - Whose generation, as he is the Son of God, equal with his father, is eternal."

Matthew Henry says: " How the Messiah is here described. It is he that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Here we have, (1.) His existence from eternity, as God: his goings forth, or emanations, as the going forth of the beams from the sun, were, or have been, of old, from everlasting, which is so signal a description of Christ's eternal generation, or his going forth as the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, that this prophecy must belong only to him, and could never be verified of any other. It certainly speaks of a going forth that was now past, and must here be taken in the strictest sense (the same with Ps. 90:2, From everlasting to everlasting thou are God), and can be applied to no other than to him who was able to say, Before Abraham was, I am, Jn. 8:58."

The King James Holy Bible - Micah 5:2 "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 of old, FROM EVERLASTING."

This is the reading - "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" - found in the KJB, NKJV, Bishop's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Miles Coverdale version 1535 -"And thou Bethleem Ephrata, art litle amonge the thousandes off Iuda, Out off the shal come one vnto me, which shall be ye gouernoure i Israel: whose outgoinge hath bene from the begynnynge, and from euerlastinge."

NASB - "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

The NASB at least agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible in that it shows the two natures of the Son of God. He is both man and the eternal God. He was born in Bethlehem as a man, but His goings forth are from everlasting.

However, in the RSV, NRSV, and 2001 ESV we read: "But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose ORIGIN is from of old, FROM ANCIENT DAYS."

The NIV - "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGINS are from of old, FROM ANCIENT TIMES."

The Holman Standard - "One shall come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His ORIGIN is from antiquity, from eternity."

The Jehovah Witness version, called the New World Translation, says, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."

Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, and the JW bibles say “origin”? Christ did not have an origin or 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 Christ is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, and less by nature than God the Father. The true word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, Christ said: "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 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!

As you can see from the King James Bible and those that agree with it, they clearly teach the two natures of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who would come forth to be ruler in Israel. The first major version to alter the meaning and teach that the Son had an origin was the liberal RSV, which was put together by scholars who did not believe in the full deity of Christ. This version was generally rejected by Fundamentalist Christians as being " too liberal". Then later the NIV "softened up" the body of Christ with this heretical reading and now the ESV and Holman Standard continue this blasphemy.

I have heard some who try to defend the NIV, ESV reading of "origin" by telling us that His origin refers to His family lineage and they tell us His ancestry is from ancient times. There are two big problems with this explanation.

If the NIV, ESV, Holman versions wanted to communicate this idea, then just come out and say "whose FAMILY LINE is from ancient times". But they don't do this.

Secondly, if only the family line is from ancient times, then there is nothing special about the Son of God. Everybody's family line is from long ago and ancient times. We all come from Adam!!! It can be said of John, Peter, Paul, Joseph or anyone else that their family line is from long ago. So what is so special about this? It wouldn't prove His deity.

But if we say "His goings forth are from everlasting" then we have witness that He is the eternal Son of God, and the two natures of our Redeemer are clearly revealed. You cannot get this from the NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman and JW versions.


Will Kinney

Reba
Gold Member


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

Will Kinney


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless,

Will K