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

[brandplucked]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brandplucked]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brandplucked]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Kinney

[nChrist]

gotcha104,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love In Christ,
Tom

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

[2nd Timothy]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'll be waiting for a response specific to these.  


Grace and Peace!

[Reba]

Goodness there is as much justification for the KJonly as there is for Mary being a  co-redeemer. The more I read the more cultist the KJO stand reads.  

KJO is white supremacy.  

Goodness just think of the Church in China and the dieing brothers in Somalia. Why did God only allow them an unfit scripture? Because they are not white?  Are those who do not understand English second class citizens of the Kingdom of God?

I have read enough of this in my view KJO worship the book and their specialness to be the readers of English. God has often brought the proud down.

Those who worship idols are not Christian, in my view, You have made His word an idol. If that is not clear enough,  I do not believe you are Christian.  

I too have read and posted my last here.

[Soldier4Christ]

gotcha104,

A few more points for you.

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

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

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


I can also prove to you that there were major changes in the KJV between 1611 and 1881. These changes are quite marked and do change the meaning of many of those verses. The following link gives just a few of those changes.


http://www.catholicapologetics.net/differences_between.htm

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

http://www.kjvonly.org/rick/norris_spelling.htm



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

Praise God His Word is still alive to day in heaven and in the hearts of those that have accepted Him as their Saviour. Without this reassurance we would all surely be lost.


2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
2Co 3:4  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
2Co 3:5  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.



PRAISE GOD FOR HIS WONDERFUL MERCIES! PRAISE GOD I AM SAVED!

[brandplucked]

gotcha104,

I'm through with this foolish conversation. I've decided not to point out other facts that prove you are simply not telling the truth. In fact, I could have said nothing from the start, and that would have been obvious to all except your fellow "King James Only_ist" cult members. Trying to elevate the KJV to the only complete, perfect, and preserved Word of God is ridiculous. This becomes an absolute fact with only one error in the KJV, and there are many errors in the KJV.

Hi BEP, First of all, it is your "No Bible is inspired and inerrant" side which is the one denying the inerrancy of The Bible - not me.  You have come right out (along with Reba and some others here) and told us up front that No Bible is inerrant.

That was my whole point, and most Christians today are in the same sliding state of apostasy.  Yet you call me and others who believe the Book members of a cult, and perhaps serving the devil.  How ironic.

It was the devil who asked the very first question found in the Bible - "Yea, hath God said....?"

Then you tell us, without listing even one example, that the King James Bible has many errors (according to your opinion).

So why don't you list for us just one or two of these alleged errors and see if you are correct?  I don't want a long list like I see on many "No Bible is inspired" sites;  just give us one or two at a time, and let's see if you are correct.

Will K

[brandplucked]

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

If you cannot see this, then you are blind.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely.

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

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

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

You just got them.


Will K

[2nd Timothy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quote from Rapture ready.

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

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

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



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

Grace and Peace!

[Allinall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His,

Kevin

[brandplucked]

gotcha104,

A few more points for you.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sad Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brandplucked]

THE CONDITION OF EVANGELICALISM TODAY

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


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



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



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



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

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

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



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

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

It may be latter than we think.


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

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

Here is what the poll revealed:

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

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


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

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

Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will K

[brandplucked]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

His,

Kevin

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

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

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

Will K