Apparently I'm not saved

[OnlyHis]

I only have a NIV but have ordered a KJ3 , I have found no problems with the NIV but have been told it is not as accurate, also the NIV is printed by the same company that prints the satanic bible if the info online is correct.

For comparisons I use E-SWORD , it makes it a lot easier to compare.

What is the "satanic bible" are you talking about the new world translation or the message?? I would agree with you on that those versions are very corrupt!!

 

[2thePoint]

stuff I've written about KJVO

 

[whatfor]

What is the "satanic bible" are you talking about the new world translation or the message?? I would agree with you on that those versions are very corrupt!!

No the satanic bible is something used by satanists.

What is the Satanic bible?

 

[NOTurTypical]

stuff I've written about KJVO

"If the authority is God then it is NOT the KJV unless one wishes to worship that translation above all. So even at this early point in the document we see a view bordering on idolatry of the KJV."


Who worships a Bible sis? It's the Word of God, it's not God. A copy of "Moby Dick" is not Herman Melville. It's just a collection of his words on paper.

 

[NOTurTypical]

What is the "satanic bible" are you talking about the new world translation or the message?? I would agree with you on that those versions are very corrupt!!

No no, the same publishing company that publishes the "satanic Bible" also publishes the NIV.

 

[Catherineanne]

I told the pastor that my husband and I let our 8 year old daughter read the NIV because she has tried to read the KJV and she cannot understand the language. He then told me that I am preparing her to go to hell.

That is complete nonsense. I recommend that you do not return to that church, and that you have nothing more to do with that pastor. He is treading very dangerous ground indeed, and constructing an alternative gospel all of his own, with using any Bible other than KJV as the unforgivable sin.

Really; don't go back there.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well yeah, people in England in 1611 didn't use those terms either to speak.

I am afraid you are mistaken. People in England in the 17th century did indeed use thee, thou, ye etc. In fact it may surprise you to learn that some people in England still do; in parts of Yorkshire 'thee' is still used as a familar form of 'you.'

It doesn't make sense to make these kinds of assertions when you really don't know the facts; it calls the credibility of all the rest of your comments into question.

As for versions of the Bible; pretty well any version will do to start with, and when people have got used to that, they can compare it with another version or two. Eventually they may well find that they have several, and use them all, for the simple reason that the message of the Bible is spirit, not words, and the spirit is found by a consideration of several versions, plus prayer.

 

[2thePoint]

"If the authority is God then it is NOT the KJV unless one wishes to worship that translation above all. So even at this early point in the document we see a view bordering on idolatry of the KJV."


Who worships a Bible sis? It's the Word of God, it's not God. A copy of "Moby Dick" is not Herman Melville. It's just a collection of his words on paper.

Bro, we've gone around on this already and I was trying not to start that up again, but giving info for any who might be reading. I'll just give the full context of the part you quoted, and let people decide:

Under II. The Question of Final Authority, the article says that “If you have two authorities and they differ, you need a third authority to tell you which one is correct. (Such as in the courtroom). The same is true of translations. If the KJB says one thing and the NASV (New American Standard Version) says something else, you need a third authority to tell you which one is right (such as a pastor, teacher, scholar, etc.). When you do, then they become your final authority, not the Bible (Psalm 118:8).

So the KJVO side wishes to end the debate before it begins by claiming that if two translations differ, one wins by default because any third party would be a higher authority than the Bible! Of course this begs the question about which version should be the default winner, which is the point under debate. If the authority is God then it is NOT the KJV unless one wishes to worship that translation above all. So even at this early point in the document we see a view bordering on idolatry of the KJV.

When people make slanderous statements about the translators of other versions, they are holding up their own translation or interpretation as the highest authority. And whatever is that highest authority is being worshiped. If we truly worship God rather than the translations, we will see the intent behind the words as what truly comes from God. And that intent surely must include the Golden Rule, control of one's tongue, and an attitude toward perceived error as helping, not condemning.

I see in the KJV Only movement a very critical and negative spirit that refuses to acknowledge the validity of other views though they all affirm the essentials of the gospel. I see them repeating rumors and lies about people who aren't here to defend themselves. I see them being shown the two primary families of Greek texts side-by-side (remember that one?) and refusing to admit that the charges made against the W/H text are proved false, over and over again. I see the same war going on and on and on, dividing the Body and turning many from Christianity. I could go on, but I know it would do no good.

"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible (in any version) tells me so." Go thou and do likewise.

 

[czilla85]

I am afraid you are mistaken. People in England in the 17th century did indeed use thee, thou, ye etc. In fact it may surprise you to learn that some people in England still do; in parts of Yorkshire 'thee' is still used as a familar form of 'you.'

It doesn't make sense to make these kinds of assertions when you really don't know the facts; it calls the credibility of all the rest of your comments into question.

As for versions of the Bible; pretty well any version will do to start with, and when people have got used to that, they can compare it with another version or two. Eventually they may well find that they have several, and use them all, for the simple reason that the message of the Bible is spirit, not words, and the spirit is found by a consideration of several versions, plus prayer.

People in parts of Yorkshire? That's like saying a needle in a haystack. Your argument against him here is meaningless and your logic should be questioned if anything. I'm not meaning to insult, but "parts of Yorkshire" is like saying a remote lost village in the Himalayas.

That aside, why has no one pointed out the one big problem with the KJV? I use KJV and NIV, but KJV has a few translational issues. King James personally had his translators change words. He had the word "rapture" purposely changed to "caught up", for example. It was also under him that the word "baptize" was created, instead of dip in water" due to the fact King James was Catholic and Catholics do not do full water baptisms.
That said, the NIV does have it's downfalls. Many have been cited here. Arguments against them are strong but that doesn't deny the truth behind them. There have been recent news stories on this, following the 2011 NIV release.
Again, I'm not taking sides. I use both. I am only pointing out things some are either blantetly refusing to ignore or are completely ignorant of.
Bless y'all.

XP

 

[Bella Vita]

That is crazy talk translation does not matter the only difference are a few wordings here and there the message is the same. I read ESV and have an ESV study bible that I love and find it the easiest to do historical bible study with. I don't judge people bu what bible translation they read. I look at their hearts and their relationship with God as well as their behavior.

 

[czilla85]

That is crazy talk translation does not matter the only difference are a few wordings here and there the message is the same. I read ESV and have an ESV study bible that I love and find it the easiest to do historical bible study with. I don't judge people bu what bible translation they read. I look at their hearts and their relationship with God as well as their behavior.

I have studied Hebrew and after using a slew of different versions, I can assure the KJV is the best for direct transration (no version fits sentence structure perfectly).
I also have a degree in history and have studied theology and the bible in history intensely. What I said about how King James changed things or even made up words for his version is very accurate. Also, many of the criticisms of the NIV are accurate (some have changed over time).
I have no clue to what reference I made that you are talking about on judging people by version. I admittedly said I use both versions and I was receding to the heated debate that was about the two. You judging me this was is wrong and I pity you. I love all of God's creatures. Use whatever version you want to. I use ASV at times. Whoopedeedoo. It has no relevance to the discussion that I was referring to.
Bless y'all.

XP

 

[Bro.T]

Sorry, Tanzel, I read the first paragraph and lost count of all the inaccuracies.

But instead of going over this ground again for the umpteenth time, I'll just say that if anyone ever asks me and honestly wants to know my opinion on this topic, I'll be happy to give it. I will no longer take part in these divisions based upon baseless slander of translations, translators, and self-righteousness. I'm strongly considering leaving this board for good because it's a morass of bickering and I'm just tired of it all. Too much legalism, too little grace.

If there was to much legalism, then it would seem that there is a lot of truth, so there shouldn't have been no need to say that there was inaccuracies in the post. I rather be legal then illlegal, any way thanks for reading the post. This is a upside down world anyway, what I write is for the people who can see straight.


peace in jesus name

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jesus is greater than the Bible. If we put the Bible before Jesus, we are being idolators.

In the first verse of John's Gospel it does not say, "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God. The Bible was in the beginning with God. All things were made by the Bible; and without the Bible was not anything that was made. In the Bible was life; and the life was the light of men."

If we want to be purists we need to use the version that Jesus Himself used. That was the Septuagint - the Greek version of the Old Testament Scriptures.

To show the lack of common sense with some people, an ardent believer in the KJV said, "Well, if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!"

Don't get me wrong. I love the KJV, and I know that most of the world's greatest Christian revivals in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries had only the KJV to use. So there can't be much wrong with it.

But I also use the New American Standard and the Amplified Bible. I use the latter if I want to know exactly what a verse means because it gives all the possible meanings of a Greek word or expression.

It is sad that this particular church believes that people who do not use the KJV are going to hell. It seems that the pastor there is preaching another Gospel than what has been given to us by the Gospel writers.

 

[czilla85]

@Oscar Jesus did not use the Greek Old Testament. He was Jewish, living in Israel. The purest form he used would have been the Hebrew version.
I think a few here have lost site of God's love over which version they use. But they do have a point. What are they to know exactly on certain issues if the translation is wrong? All versions have falicies in them. But some ARE more accurate than others. In the end, translation is better than pure ear-comfort. Then we can get the whole message. If something is confusing, we ask a teacher of the word to clarify.
Bless y'all.

XP

 

[gideon army]

This past weekend I tried a new church. I met with the pastor and his wife afterwords and he told me that their church only used the real bible which he said was the KJV. I said that I agreed that the KJV is wonderful but I do read from other translations. Then he preceded to tell me that anyone who reads from "perverted" versions are deceived and not truly saved. He also said that they burn other versions of the bible. I couldn't believe it, I have been researching and their are many people who are KJV onlyists who burn the bible and accuse anyone who reads anything else a worker of satan. It really hurts me that people are putting their faith in translations more than Jesus Christ.

(1) The Pastor you're speaking off is obviously NOT a pastor to Christ & it shows that he obviously doesn't know his bible. Let me illustrate:-

(1a) In Ezekiel, the children of Israel commited gross immorility against the LORD but the Holy Spirit lingered & didn't wanna leave them (Temple), however in acts- the Holy Spirit came like a rushing wind to fill the believers.

(1b) In the OT, Abraham/ Jacob/ Issac/ Moses/ king David/ king Solomon (all the champion of 'faith' as deemed fit to be mentioned by the holy spirit in hebrews) did NOT have the holy spirit IN them- it's only ON them. However after Jesus death, HE shed HIS Spirit in ALL Believers!

(1c) In Revelations, satan is known as the accuser of our brethren, that pastor in question is obviously accusing you.

(2) If the Pastor in question is a serious Bible person then he'll known that even the KJV isn't entirely correct/ accurate

Any self respecting child of GOD (Jesus) whom wants to dig/search out the truth will refer to:-

James Strong of Strong's Concordance/ Young's Literally Translations & such.

 

[2thePoint]

@Oscar Jesus did not use the Greek Old Testament. He was Jewish, living in Israel. The purest form he used would have been the Hebrew version.
I think a few here have lost site of God's love over which version they use. But they do have a point. What are they to know exactly on certain issues if the translation is wrong? All versions have falicies in them. But some ARE more accurate than others. In the end, translation is better than pure ear-comfort. Then we can get the whole message. If something is confusing, we ask a teacher of the word to clarify.
Bless y'all.

XP

We know Jesus was Jewish and living in Israel. But they did in fact use the LXX at that time, even in Israel. Most NT quotes are of the LXX. And many "teachers of the word" are not trained in the original languages or even important aspects of grammar, both of which can alter one's understanding of a passage. The best most of us can do is consult a variety of translations and teachers from various points of view, then pray about it.

 

[czilla85]

We know Jesus was Jewish and living in Israel. But they did in fact use the LXX at that time, even in Israel. Most NT quotes are of the LXX. And many "teachers of the word" are not trained in the original languages or even important aspects of grammar, both of which can alter one's understanding of a passage. The best most of us can do is consult a variety of translations and teachers from various points of view, then pray about it.

Many teachers/preachers/reverends/etc. have degrees in theology and/or ministry and original biblical language is usually a required part of the course. Many others are also starting to go back to school for these types of educations.

XP

 

[2thePoint]

Many teachers/preachers/reverends/etc. have degrees in theology and/or ministry and original biblical language is usually a required part of the course. Many others are also starting to go back to school for these types of educations.

XP

Yes, and the point is that we cannot just say "the preacher told me this...", even if he has that education; we have to get more than one opinion. And it's the same with claiming Jesus only quoted the Hebrew OT; the evidence points to the LXX as being almost exclusively quoted by the NT. There is legitimate disagreement, so we have to be good Bereans and make sure we've heard all the expert opinions.

 

[His_disciple3]

my two cents worth is this: I love the good ole King James Bible and yes I do have a copy of the orginal 1611 King James Bible. but here is my belief concerning the other translations ( note when I say other translations i am referring to the new modern day translations that have sprung up like weeds since 1950'S with the dead sea scrolls). and I do believe that this is the reason the modern day translations have so dangerously came about. two points here the first and most dangerously is the fact. for about 350 years the KJB was the Bible, it was preached as the infalible Word of God, then came the other translations and along with them the lies that would be told so that the producers of the modern day translations could get us to lay our Good ole KING JAMES down and convince us that we needed their translations, well we only took out the thee's and thou's, LIE# 1, well we made it easier to read! LIE# 2 then when Bible scholars started to point out that there more changes than the thee's and thou's, the other side started attacking the Holy Word of God, well the King James has errors in it also, a dear friend of mine can only say against the KJB is that they put a comma in the wrong place, in one verse. ok sure man has had His hand in it, and typos and corrections have been made. but none of these so called errors have taken away from the Word or added to the Word, as do the new modern day translations. but instead of God fearing Men who loved God, attacking the ones that were trying to tear down the Holy Word of God. We listen to them, we started believing them. so instead of the KING JAMES being Held as the Holy/ Word of God, it has been reduced to just another good translation. so when something God breathed got attacked/put down, instead of joining the ones that were tearing down, we should have fought.
point two. one world religion is prophesied to come in the last days, and this is another dangerous point or purpose should I say for the new modern day translations is that all religions can use the same bible, example the Niv which in my opinion is not the best translation but rather the most dangerous translation as far as attacking or taking away from the Deity of Christ, in the prayer the Jesus gave us to pray, says our Father, which art in Heaven. the NIV takes out "which art in Heaven" which then reads our Father, hallowed be your name. see any religion can pray this prayer now to their god, and not be praying to the one which is in Heaven.

you don't have to go to a devil worshipper or even an unbeliever any more to hear that God's Holy Word is not true and that it is full of Lies anymore you can hear it plenty of times in Church when someone defends why they use something diffferent that the 400 year old English translation of The Holy Word God, or even in these types of forum we hear that the Holy Word is not so Holy: so if it has errors in it then it can't not be the HOLY WORD of God for God Himself said a little leaven will leaven the whole Lump, but then again if the Word is full of errors then how do we know that a little leaven messes up the whole lump or that God so loved the World !!!!!!!!

 

[mrmccormo]

If someone in Christianity says "Gee, the King James sure is hard to read. Here's a more modern translation that is more easily read", then we say "Okay! Thanks for the advice!"

But King James defenders like to rant about how all these modern translations are terribly corrupted. Why not simply say this? "Hey, these modern translations are nice, but why not check out the Bible that was used for hundreds of years by well-known Christians like CS Lewis, Andrew Murray, John Wesley, Eric Liddel, DL Moody, RA Torrey, and Charles Finney?"

Why not just say that? If the Spirit of Truth is in us, the value of the King James will speak for itself.