22 Tough Questions for King James-Only Advocates

[brandplucked]

Hi all, I have noticed a lot of folks keep talking about the Hebrew texts and how they were/are the inspired Scripture. I agree with this, but did you all know that while the King James Bible always follows the Hebrew masoretic texts, beginning with the RSV and now in the NASB, NIV, NRSV, ESV, that these modern versions ALL frequently reject the Hebrew readings?



Quote:
6. In what language did Jesus Christ teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

Christian says:
Hebrew. And thanks be to God that the King James translators used the God-preserved Hebrew text


Quote:
7. Is only the KJV, to the exclusion of all other translations, infallible? If so, how do you know?


It is the only translation whose OT is based on the right Hebrew text.


If you want proof of where the NASB, NIV depart from the Hebrew, and often not even in the same places, I have written two articles that clearly show this. And the ESV is even much worse than the NIV, NASB.

Here is the first link. From there you can access the second one if you are interested.

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

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Hi all, I have noticed JefftheFinn and others extolling the virtues of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. For those who may not know what these two manuscripts are really like, I have put together the following information from my own studies.

I will be glad to answer any questions about this as well.

God bless,


The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-

Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

Matthew 6:13 What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and the NIV omits them while the NASB puts them in brackets.

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense.

Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This reading of both Aleph and B has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.

This reading also has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".

Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.

Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

Mark 6:22 "And when the daughter of Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod..." both Aleph and B read, "And when HIS daugher Herodias came in and danced", thus making Herodias the daughter of Herod.

Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea.

Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face." Here, B reads 72 sent and so do the NIV, ESV but Aleph reads 70, and so do the RSV, NRSV, and NASB.

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Sinaiticus joins the KJB reading with, "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version, NIV, but B says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ESV, thus making our Lord a liar.

Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

John 17:15 "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

I Corinthians 13:3 Instead of reading, "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing", both Aleph and B read: "and though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST". The NRSV actually adopted this reading, but the RSV, and the new ESV went back to "to be burned".

I Corinthians 13:5 ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51 "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55 "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children". "But we were BABIES among you." according to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The older Nestle-Aland text read "gentle among you" but the newer Nestle-Aland, UBS texts have now adopted the reading of "we were infants among you".

2 Peter 3:10 . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND". The old RSV stayed with the reading of "shall be burned up" and does the NASB, but the NIV, ESV say the works "shall be exposed" or "shall be discovered".

Revelation The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

"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." Jeremiah 6:16

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

[Harry the Heretic]

I find that there are certain things that a minority become passionate about, ie;

rear wheel drive sports cars
gas stoves
single ended triode amplifiers
vynil records
forged golf club heads
King James bible

All of the above have been rejected by the main stream, however, if you look into each, there is certainly something more than emotion that provokes these allegiances, and the list above certainly represents a quality in their respective categories that is anything but mainstream

 

[herev]

I try to stay out of this argument--it makes me crazy!!!
I've tried to read most of this thread, but admittedly it is long--what I have noticed here and everywhere I have run into someone from the KJV-only croud is circular reasoning:

Q. Why do you think the KJV is the only inspired Word of God?
A. because we walk by faith, not by sight
Q. But what if I have faith in my NRSV?
A. You'd be wrong.
Q. Why?
A. Becaue it disagrees with the KJV

Q. Why should I trust the KJV more than my NEV?
A. Becuase it's been around for 400 years, the NEV hasn't.
Q. Why not go back to the Greek and Hebrew if oldest is what matters?
A. Because that really doesn't matter. God can make something that is authorized without having to go back to the oldest--where is your faith?

Q. But the KJV is so hard to understand, why not move it forward to an easier language so everyone could understand it?
A. It's really not that hard to understand--the spirit will give you guidance.
Q. Couldn't the Spirit give me guidance in my NASB?
A. No, He doen't work that way. Your modern translations left out so many words
Q. But they didn't really leave out words, they translated the oldest manuscripts differently. YOu can go back to the Greek and Hebrew and see that.
A. Why would God expect you to go back to the Greek and Hebrew--it's so hard to understand, he made it much simpler with the KJV so everyone could understand

Q. What makes the scholarship done for KJV better than the scholarship done for my NIV?
A. Because one of the translators of your precious NIV was a homosexual, didn't you know that?
Q. No, but isn't what is important the translation, not the person doing it, dont you think? And besides, wasn't King James a homosexual?
A. How dare you say that, besides, God can used even flawed men to do a good thing, what matters is the translation, not the person who commissioned it.

Q. Why are you so concerned with my reading another translation? Why do you attack me so for liking the NLT?
A. We don't attack anyone, we live and let live--it's you folks who are always attacking our Bible and that makes us angry
Q. But, we've never said you shouldn't read the KJV, nor have we attacked the KJV (at least I haven't). I've only said we don't like you saying it's the only one that valid--that's very insulting.
A. But it is the only one that is valid--read anything else and your being mislead by the devil, contribuing to the downfall of Western Civilization, and leading the world towards the one-world church that is prophesied about in the Bible, but no offense--please don't take that as an attack---nothing personal, you understand.

Q. How do you know that your KJV is the one that has actually been inspired by God and that the others were not?
A. It says so right here in the Bible.
Q. But wasn't that written 15 and 1/2 centuries prior to the KJV--and in another language--and about what THEY considered scripture to be--in other words, the Jewish Bible or OT?
A. Are you denying that God can speak of the future accurately?
Q. No. I never said that--OK, let's assume that it can be proven by the text itself--doesn't it say "all scripture is inspired?"
A. Yes, that is what I've been saying.
Q. So, why is my Living Bible not inspired?
A. It's not scripture
Q. Why not
A. It's not the KJ
Q. But how do you get that out of this verse?
A. We walk by faith, not by sight

I'm dizzy I've gotten so spinned around trying to follow the logic--I need to lay down.

 

[Abba]

lol herev

 

[Abba]

I hope you KJV-Onlyist realize how dumb this whole argument is...

Elizabethian English is no more "pure" than modern english. Just because it sounds poetic, that does not mean a thing as far as accurateness goes.

The creation of the word Jehovah is one appaling mistake the translators made as well. The name is Yahweh.

English is merely a branch off of the Germanic languages; it is not at all related to the biblical languages.

-And you say we follow traditions of men.

 

[Abba]

I would also like to hear the biblical verses which say that the version made in England in 1611 is inspired, and that it is more accurate than the original language that was written.

 

[brandplucked]

Hi Herev, I think I understand why you would feel dizzy. Please consider these facts. God promised to preserve His words. He either did this or He lied and didn't.

God cannot lie. If I pick up a bible version that contains an obvious lie, then I know that at that point it is not from God. Remember, a true prophet had to always tell the truth in his prophecy or he would be put to death. Not one single lie was allowed, otherwise he was found to be a false prophet. God set these standards, not man.

You speak of the Hebrew as being the inspired text, and I believe that too. Yet, as I pointed out, the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NEB etc. all frequently depart from the Hebrew texts, and often not in the same places as the others.


When Jim Miller first started this thread waaaay back, he said it would be hard to prove that the new versions teach false doctrine anywhere. Well, I ask for a little patience and thought on your part. Please consider the following examples that I myself have come up with while reading and comparing the various bible versions. This is not a cut and paste job. I did this myself.

Ask yourself as you look at these examples, Which doctrine is the truth and which ones are false. There is only one Holy Bible left standing that can possilbly be the infallible, preserved words of the living God, and that is the one He has born witness to like no other on this earth - the King James Bible.

Thanks for your time and consideration. I hope you get over your dizzy spell.


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 "ORIGENS from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, 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 origen 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 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, 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 teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says 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 upcoming 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/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV 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 NewKJV, ESV, the NIV 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 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/brandplucked/hastingunto.html

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

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, 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/brandplucked/controlworld.html

 

[brandplucked]

More examples of false doctrine in the mvs.

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 Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

<

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, 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 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

No Doctrines Are Changed?

 

[herev]

Hello Will,
personally, I have never suggested that doctrinal interpretation would be the same with all translations, in fact that is why I recommend that people use mulitple versions when studying--unless they are fluent in Biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek--then I suggest they read multiple versions AND the Greek or Hebrew.
While certainly not all of your arguments are based on what I am about to say--most of them are: You compare other versions primarily to the KJV as proof that they are inaccurate--this is circular logic.
Additionally, is the Bible the innerant, inspired Word of God--depends on what you mean by that. I have never beleived that God erred, but unfortunately we don't have the originals to compare to, so we don't know that ANY of the current translations are inerrant compared to them. You are comfortable in believing that this one translation is it--good for you, stick to it. You argue your point well and are obviously devoted to your belief--I pray you are rewarded for it.
But in studying text criticism, the history of the Bible (not in the Bible, but of the Bible), I find no evidence at all--and I mean none, to believe that God chose to wait until 1611 to produce the "right" translation.
I complement the scholars who studied and worked so hard to come up with the KJV--a monumental task at any time, but especially at the turn of the 17th century. The goals of producing the KJV Bible (assuming the best possible scenario) were to take the best and oldest manuscripts that could be found, translate them as accurately as possible, and produce a Bible that was accessible and readable for the common man and woman in that culture. Many condemned event the notion that the Bible should be translated once again into English--that had already been done and some weren't over being made about that! But they did it anyway--and the results were this incredible, beautiful version of the Bible.
The latin Vulgate, used for 100's of years, was no longer the only way people could hear the word of God in church--how wonderful that people could really hear it in a new and exciting way--grasp and understand like they never could before.
Now fast-forward the the 20th century and here comes another group with the same goals: to take the best and oldest manuscripts that could be found, translate them as accurately as possible, and produce a Bible that was accessible and readable for the common man and woman in that culture. What a wonderful notion--but a lot has changed since the KJV was published. We have accesss to more knowlege of the Bible and of the times it was written about, we have the ability to ask more questions and to understand better Ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew because we now have access to more documents--yes, even non-biblical ones.
With all of this change, we see many different translations appearing--not all of which are very accurate, but certainly some are just as accurate as the KJV. Why is the idea of producing a new text in the 17th century viewed as inspired but one in the 20th century is not? There can never be justification within the Bible--even the KJV, that there is only one viable translation. Paul, John, Matthew, Peter, Mark, Luke never heard of the KJV, none of them ever said that this was the inspired word of God while they were holding an "authorized" version.
I personally have NOTHING against the KJV, but I refuse to believe that my God is so small that out of all the world's Bibles in all the time of the church, the only good one was in England, written in old English, and published in 1611--it is simply not rational for me to accept. I will begin taking Hebrew in about a year, when I'm done with that, I'll take Greek, when I'm done with that, I'll study the different translations for accuracy, but until then, I must rely on those who have studied those things to tell me where I can place my trust--so far, With all of the well known, recognized, and published scholars I have studied under--none--not one single one--has ever said anything to even remotely support your position--never. I know them, I have watched them, I trust them.
Sorry, I'll still listen, but I'm no more convinced than I was last night.
You say when you read a Bible and it contains a lie, you know it's not from God, but how do you know it contains a lie? Because it's not what the KJV says--circular logic--very well stated, though!
Thanks
Tommy

 

[brandplucked]

Hi Tommy, I appreciate your thoughts and the spirit in which they were expressed. However, as I see it, your whole view is humanistic and more in line with evolutionary theory than with the sovereignty of God Almighty.

The Bible itself is quite clear about the doctrine of 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."


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."

Tommy, what I believe is what the Book says about itself. Your present view of things leaves you with no infallible, complete, inerrant, and true words of God. All you have is a mystical, potential bible version, and yours differs from all the others out there. I think I have shown quite a bit of common sense evidence that the other versions are not the pure words of God. If you cannot see this yet, I trust and hope God will open your spiritual eyes to find that He has indeed done just what He said He would do - He has preserved His inerrant, complete words in a Book we can hold in our hands and believe every word.

The "scholarly findings" of today are in complete disarray. Each new version that comes out differs from the others in both texts and meanings in literally hundreds of verses.

I see this confusion and doubt as being part of the plan of God. He said there would be a falling away from the faith in the last days and we are witnessing it. Did you know that today's Christians are the most Biblically ignorant generation to ever exist in this country, and that the majority of today's "evangelical teens" no longer believe there is such a thing as absolute truth?

"When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

I'm sorry that you no longer believe in an infallible Bible. There really is one, and God has clearly stamped His seal of approval upon it like no other. It is now known as the King James Bible, but it formerly had only one title - The Holy Bible. That is exactly what it is.

May God be pleased to open more eyes and grant His faith.

Will Kinney

 

[Abba]

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.

So you are basing your whole argument that the KJV is inspired because it promotes "unity" then?

Have you considered that the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome, was used for centuries, much longer than the KJV was used, and there were no other versions? There were times when the only known bibles was the Latin Vulgate. Yet that does not give it any other authority over any other bible version.

 

[herev]

Hi Tommy, I appreciate your thoughts and the spirit in which they were expressed. However, as I see it, your whole view is humanistic and more in line with evolutionary theory than with the sovereignty of God Almighty.

The Bible itself is quite clear about the doctrine of 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."


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."

Tommy, what I believe is what the Book says about itself. Your present view of things leaves you with no infallible, complete, inerrant, and true words of God. All you have is a mystical, potential bible version, and yours differs from all the others out there. I think I have shown quite a bit of common sense evidence that the other versions are not the pure words of God. If you cannot see this yet, I trust and hope God will open your spiritual eyes to find that He has indeed done just what He said He would do - He has preserved His inerrant, complete words in a Book we can hold in our hands and believe every word.

The "scholarly findings" of today are in complete disarray. Each new version that comes out differs from the others in both texts and meanings in literally hundreds of verses.

I see this confusion and doubt as being part of the plan of God. He said there would be a falling away from the faith in the last days and we are witnessing it. Did you know that today's Christians are the most Biblically ignorant generation to ever exist in this country, and that the majority of today's "evangelical teens" no longer believe there is such a thing as absolute truth?

"When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

I'm sorry that you no longer believe in an infallible Bible. There really is one, and God has clearly stamped His seal of approval upon it like no other. It is now known as the King James Bible, but it formerly had only one title - The Holy Bible. That is exactly what it is.

May God be pleased to open more eyes and grant His faith.

Will Kinney

Hello Will, I am always open to what the Lord may choose to teach me. You're right of course, the Bible does suggest (when interpreted the way you propose) that God will maintain and preserve His word--assuming again, you mean His Word to mean scripture and not Jesus Christ. Assuming all of that, you really haven't convinced me that the KJV is the one.
You have said it is because others "lie." Why do they lie? because they are different from the KJV. You have said it is evident because it has been around for nearly 400 years. If we could fast forward to 350 years from now, will you accept the NAS if it is still around? You have suggested (in earlier posts) that it has born much fruit over that time. I was saved reading a NASB, I choose most of the time to read NIV and NRSV. I preach from the NIV. I have seen many people saved, many convicted, many transformed--I have many pastor friends that will testify to the same thing, so does that not negate that argument?
Quoting scripture does not validate a KJV only. If there is a direct preserved literal word for word rendering of what God inspired the original writers to write or the orignal orators to speak, there is nothing to suggest that the KJV is it. How could there be--there is no original document left, and the KJV cannot be supported by the scriptures that were written at least 1521 years earlier. If you want to say, "Hey, I believe there can be only one, so I CHOOSE the KJV as it." More power to you, but to suggest that there is some special knowledge that you and other KJV only folks possess is tantamount to gnosticism. If you can't show me logically, and with some factual basis--that the KJV is the only one, then it is only supposition and belief.
Thanks
Tommy

 

[Harry the Heretic]

I hope you KJV-Onlyist realize how dumb this whole argument is...

Elizabethian English is no more "pure" than modern english. Just because it sounds poetic, that does not mean a thing as far as accurateness goes.

The creation of the word Jehovah is one appaling mistake the translators made as well. The name is Yahweh.

English is merely a branch off of the Germanic languages; it is not at all related to the biblical languages.

-And you say we follow traditions of men.

"Jehovah" was Tyndale's mistake. He was strangled and burned at the stake by Rome for translating the word of God into english. Now how dumb was that?
Does Rome make the same mistake with "Jesus" and "Joshua" in their NAB and JB? I guess so, If you say that transliterating a word or names is taboo. And even though I strongly prefer the AV and so do not technically fit the KJV only definition, I do not find the argument dumb. I think there are valid points that have been made on both sides. BTW, have you ever read an entire book of the AV, or made a side by side comparison with a modern version. Most people I know who dismiss this argument, or the KJV have never even done this. I hope that is not the case.

 

[herev]

"Jehovah" was Tyndale's mistake. He was strangled and burned at the stake by Rome for translating the word of God into english. Now how dumb was that?
Does Rome make the same mistake with "Jesus" and "Joshua" in their NAB and JB? I guess so, If you say that transliterating a word or names is taboo. And even though I strongly prefer the AV and so do not technically fit the KJV only definition, I do not find the argument dumb. I think there are valid points that have been made on both sides. BTW, have you ever read an entire book of the AV, or made a side by side comparison with a modern version. Most people I know who dismiss this argument, or the KJV have never even done this. I hope that is not the case.

Hello Harry, I appreciate the sincerity of your post. Let me suggest, however that to make a side by side comparison between a modern version and the KJV would only tell you which you preferred, not which was more accurate or in keeping with God's "word". The question comes in (IMHO) as we try to decide the best way to translate the Greek--do we look at the oldest manuscript? The most widely used? The one the traditional church has used? The one that comfirms our beliefs? Or possibly, do we recognize that none are the original, so some textual criticism is in order to determine which is closer to the original. I vote for the last, but that's my opinion, based on years of study. It doesn't have to match your opinion in order for us to be Christian brothers and treat each other with respect, wouldn't you agree?
Tommy

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Hello Harry, I appreciate the sincerity of your post. Let me suggest, however that to make a side by side comparison between a modern version and the KJV would only tell you which you preferred, not which was more accurate or in keeping with God's "word". The question comes in (IMHO) as we try to decide the best way to translate the Greek--do we look at the oldest manuscript? The most widely used? The one the traditional church has used? The one that comfirms our beliefs? Or possibly, do we recognize that none are the original, so some textual criticism is in order to determine which is closer to the original. I vote for the last, but that's my opinion, based on years of study. It doesn't have to match your opinion in order for us to be Christian brothers and treat each other with respect, wouldn't you agree?
Tommy

Absolutely,

I believe there are two components to this debate, one (unless I missed it) which has not been addressed. The first is the text. The second is the integrity of the translators.
By the second, I do not mean the morality of the translator, but the "honesty" of the translation. Does the bible in question tend to enforce or detract from a particular doctrine by, its use of punctuation, capitalization, word choice etc.
It has been argued by some for instance, that the NIV is skewed towards a Calvinistic viewpoint. I think that side by side comparisons with different versions can be helpful in this regard. I think it was a little naive to declare this debate as "dumb", especially since this is one of the longest, if not the longest thread in this category. (btw I will move my thoughts on my text preference to the "new" AV thread that deals specifically with this issue, but I may post some of ideas on what I perceive as a bias in different translations, but it would be foolish to do so without being prepared.)

Peace to you

 

[brandplucked]

Hi Abba, you say: "So you are basing your whole argument that the KJV is inspired because it promotes "unity" then?

No, I argue that the KJB is the only true inspired word of God because it has no proven errors and no lies or theological contradictions as do the nkjv, niv, nasb, rsv, Message stuff.



Abba>>>Have you considered that the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome, was used for centuries, much longer than the KJV was used, and there were no other versions? There were times when the only known bibles was the Latin Vulgate. Yet that does not give it any other authority over any other bible version.

Uh, Sorry Abba, but you better do a little more research on this. There were lots of other bibles around besides the Latin Vulgate. Try the Old Latin and the Waldensian bibles. Then there was the Syriac Peshitta, the Harkelian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Armenian and even early Anglo-Saxon versions.

The simple fact is you brethren who embrace the modern versions do not believe any Bible or any particular text is the complete, inerrant, words of God, do you? Why don't you just come out and admit it? Each of you places your own understanding as your final authority and you all have a mystical bible in your own minds that you consider the true words of God. All you end up with is a bunch of multiple choice versions that you feel free to correct whenever the mood strikes you.

If I am wrong in this, then tell us all plainly where the complete, inerrant and inspired words of God are today.

Thanks,

Will Kinney



Will Kinney
__________________

 

[brandplucked]

Hi Tommy, you said: "You have said it is because others "lie." Why do they lie? because they are different from the KJV."

Tommy, have you actually read the one I posted about No Doctrines Are Changed?

It is obvious that the niv teaches stuff that is not true at all. Here is just one of the many examples. Can you explain this for us?

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 upcoming 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/brandplucked/begotnSon.html


Will K

 

[brandplucked]

For those who wrongly assume the name JEHOVAH is incorrect, consider the following.

Also, Scott Jones has written a well researched article showing that JEHOVAH is correct, and that Yahweh is an Egyptian slur. For Scott's article go here:

http://www.kjbbn.net/jehovah_by_scott_jones.htm

Here are my findings about this.


The Significance of the Name JEHOVAH

In regards to JEHOVAH, a remarkable thing about the King James Bible is that the name is found exactly 7 times - Genesis 22:14; Exodus 6:3, 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. Seven is the number of spiritual perfection. This Hebrew word is translated three different ways by the KJB. As LORD, GOD, and JEHOVAH.

The NKJV, NIV and NASB only translate this word in two ways--as LORD, and GOD. But God is a triune God, and the KJB has translated it in three ways. God is the creator, Lord is the sovereign ruler of His creation, and JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God, who redeems His people.

The first time JEHOVAH appears is in Genesis 22 when Abraham is stopped from offering up his son Isaac. All of this of course is a type of the Father offering up His Son. "As it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen". God will provide, JEHOVAH JIREH.

The second time the name appears (and Christ is the second person of the trinity) is in the second book of Exodus, which is the book of redemption. In Exodus 6:3-6 God appears to Moses and here the name is used again in connection with REDEMPTION. "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Likewise the second time the word 'redeem' occurs in the Bible is found right here in this context. Verse 6 "And I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments." So JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God.

The word JEHOVAH, as the personal name of God, is found not only in the KJB, but also in Tyndale 1530, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1902, Young's, Darby's, Webster's 1833 translation, the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Pub. Com. New York), the Spanish Reina Valera 1902, 1960, the KJV 21st Century, the New English Bible 1970, and the Third Millenium Bible. This name has disappeared from the RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB.

Some people tell us the name of God should be something like YAHWEH, Jahweh or Yaweh, rather than JEHOVAH. The problem with this argument is that there are a multitude of Biblical personal names that all have JEHOVAH as part of the name. We read in all English versions that I am aware of names such as JEHOiakim, JEHiah, JEHOshaphat, JEHOhanan, JEHOiachin, JEHOiada, JEHOram and JEHOshua. I have yet to see one of these English bibles come out yet spelling these as Yahhosaphat, Yahoiakim, Yahoiada etc.

Another significant thing about the KJB is found in Psalm 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."

This word JAH is found only once in the entire Bible. It is one word composed of three letters. Thus representing the triune God. And it is the eighth time total that this personal name occurs. What is the significance of the number 8? Eight is the number of a new beginning. Seven days in a week, 8 is a new beginning. Also the males were circumcised on the eighth day, to signify a new covenant relationship with God.

In Leviticus 25:22 we see the land was to rest the seventh year and they were to sow a new crop in the eighth year. Noah was the eighth person saved during the flood when God began again to repopulate the earth. Even in Revelation 17:11 when the Beast begins his reign of the Antichrist, he is the eighth.

Seven is the number of spiritual perfection and in the KJB the name JEHOVAH is found 7 times. Three in one is the Trinity and we have the name JAH found only once. Eight is the number of a new beginning, and it is through the redeeming grace of JEHOVAH that we are made new creatures in Christ and begin a new life in Him.

In addition to this, another interesting thing found only in the King James Bible is the name JEHOVAH in capital letters is found four times in the Old Testament - Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12: 2 and 26:4. Likewise the name JESUS in capital letters is found only four times in the New Testament - Matthew 1:21, 25; 27:37; and John 19:19. Four is the number of the earth and JEHOVAH God Himself has come to this earth to save His people from their sins.

So, only in the King James Bible do we have these precious truths revealed. This is just one of the many marks of God on this Book that shows it is indeed His inspired word in the English language.

Will Kinney

 

[herev]

Hi Tommy, you said: "You have said it is because others "lie." Why do they lie? because they are different from the KJV."

Tommy, have you actually read the one I posted about No Doctrines Are Changed?

It is obvious that the niv teaches stuff that is not true at all. Here is just one of the many examples. Can you explain this for us?

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 upcoming 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/brandplucked/begotnSon.html


Will K

yes, I read and disagreed.
First, you have to say that it is your interpretation that it is changing doctrine--when you say it is obvious that the niv teaches stuff that is not true--not true according to what? I read the NIV, I believe Jesus is the only begotten son of God and has been for all eternity, but what do the original texts say? WE don't know--we don't have them. to get closest to what God told those men to write down, we have to translate something.
If the goal of translating the texts is to get closest to the original, which would seem to be where we would find the most accurate of God's inspired word, then there are differing theories as to how to do that, some go for the oldest manuscripts, some go for the ones most widely used, others look at as many manuscripts as they can and use logic to try--try to determine which brings us closest to the originals.
as to the difference between today I have begotten thee and today I have become your father, I fail to see the distinction:
from webster's
Main Entry: be·get
Pronunciation: bi-'get
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): be·got /-'gät/; also be·gat /-'gat/; be·got·ten /-'gä-t&n/; or -got; -get·ting
Etymology: Middle English begeten, alteration of beyeten, from Old English bigietan -- more at [size=-1]GET[/size]
1 : to procreate as the father : [size=-1]SIRE[/size]
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
- be·get·ter noun