• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Authorised King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Thunderchild, Feb 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    I invite you to take any new version that you wish and compare it with the King James Bible as we look at some selected portions of scripture. You are going to find that some of the most important doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a New International Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of scripture (including the New King James Version), you are going to see with your own eyes that Satan is alive and well on the revision committees of the new translations. Let's compare Bibles.


    Let's Compare Isaiah 7:14

    "Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

    Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word "virgin" with "young woman" or "maiden." A young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus, WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23, when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word "VIRGIN." What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?


    Let's Compare Luke 2:33

    "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

    The King James credits Mary with being the mother of Jesus, but does NOT refer to Joseph as His father. However, many new versions imply that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus by changing out the word "Joseph" with the word "father."


    Let's Compare Acts 20:28

    "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

    Many of the new versions attack the Blood Atonement of Christ in this verse by OMITTING the word "blood." Does your's? The Blood Atonement is a MUST for anyone to be saved (Matthew 26:28; Revelation 1:5; Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22), yet the new versions are taking it out of the Bible!


    Let's Compare Colossians 1:14

    "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

    It is THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT "blood" from the text. What about YOUR version?


    Let's Compare Daniel 3:25

    "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

    This is one of the great Old Testament verses which magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ. As you can see, the verse says that the Son of God, which is Jesus Christ, actually appeared in the fiery furnace nearly 600 years before He was actually physically born. This shows us that Jesus Christ is ETERNAL. He is DEITY, a member of the Holy Trinity, the "Son of God." So the King James Bible EXALTS Jesus Christ.

    However, if you have a new translation you may have trouble finding the "Son of God" in the passage, for many have changed it to read "a son of the gods," or something similar. Does your translation magnify the Lord Jesus Christ by properly referring to Him as the "Son of God," or does it pervert the text with pagan nonsense?


    Let's Compare Micah 5:2

    "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting."

    The King James gives us the superior reading by telling us that Christ is from "everlasting." That is, He is eternal, as we've already seen.

    Do the new versions contain this reading? No, most of them do not. Some say that He's from "ancient times," and others say that He's from "days of old," but these terms do not imply that Jesus is Deity. The term "everlasting" DOES imply Deity. The King James is SUPERIOR, for it EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ.


    Let's Compare Luke 23:42

    "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

    In this particular case, the dying thief is being saved. Romans 10:13 tells us that we are saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord," and this man addresses Jesus as "Lord." The new versions, however, rob Jesus of His Lordship by stealing the word "Lord" from the text! Is your version guilty or innocent?


    Let's Compare Matthew 6:13

    "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

    The King James says that the POWER, the KINGDOM, and the GLORY belong to God, but many new translations omit these important words. Does yours?


    Let's Compare Revelation 11:17

    "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."

    This verse reminds us that Jesus is COMING AGAIN, or at least it does in the King James. In many versions (or perhaps we should say "perversions") the words "art to come" have been taken out of the text.


    Let's Compare I Timothy 3:16

    "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

    This verse tells us that Jesus Christ walked on this earth as"God" in the flesh. We know this is true, for "Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) means "God with us." So it is correct to say that "God was manifest in the flesh." Do the new versions say this? No, most do not. Most new versions have taken the word "God" out of the verse and used the word "he" in it's place. As you can see, this is a much weaker reading.


    Let's Compare II Timothy 2:15

    "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

    This is probably the greatest verse in the New Testament on Bible Study. Naturally, the new translation editors couldn't resist the temptation to change it. The word "Study" has been omitted by most all new versions. Does II Timothy 2:15 in your version tell you to "study," or has the verse been butchered to pieces by Satan's scribes?


    There you have it, friend, eleven good examples of how the new translations are NOT better. Satan has been very successful in convincing our generation that the new translations are necessary and that they are better. They are UNNECESSARY and they are SATANIC! In fact, the Greek text from which ALL new translations are produced was constructed by men who were deeply involved in the OCCULT (B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort)! BEWARE OF ALL THE NEW TRANSLATIONS!

    The King James Bible is based on over FIVE THOUSAND pieces of manuscript evidence, which is NINETY-FIVE percent of all manuscript evidence available. The new perversions (all of them) are based on the remaining FIVE percent.

    Friend, if you've been led to believe that there are better translations than the King James Bible, then you've been deceived by the Devil. We urge you to forsake the new translations and return to the grand old Book that God has used and blessed for centuries. Use the Book that God uses: The King James Authorized Version.
     
  2. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Let's compare Bibles. "

    Okay, let me get out my greek NT and we can see which is better ;)
     
  3. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    In Hebrew, there is no distinction. But of course, you wouldn't know this. Besides, the modern "perversions" do say "virgin" in the NT because the Greek word is specific, and quoting the Septuagint. No evil intent here.

    This is simply a matter of textual dissention. Besides, in the KJV, Luke 2:27 AND 2:41 BOTH refer to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' "parents."

    Well, sir, modern Bible versions do refer to the importance of blood in atonement in EVERY OTHER REFERENCE YOU QUOTED! The only reason the translators left it out in these instances was because LUKE AND PAUL left it out in these particular instances. And we both know they both believed in blood atonement! Some zealous scribe (maybe under the influence of Satan!!!!) added the references to blood for clarification.

    Even YOU know the Hebrew word for "God," which is Elohim, which is plural. Hence, it could be translated either "God" or "gods," depending on context. Now, would the polytheistic pagans of Babylon have any idea that there was ONE son of ONE God? No. So the modern translators chose the logical interpretation.

    Sorry, pal, King Jimmy's men goofed on this one. The word means "ancient times" or "days of old." Either they let their poetry get in the way of good translation or the Latin word they translated from was a bad translation of Hebrew.

    The only reason all the translations read "Jesus" instead of "Lord" is because they all are following a better source than the KJV had! How many other places do they acknowledge Jesus as Lord?! Why do they have to do it here, even if Luke didn't?

    Here again, a zealous yet obviously SATANIC scribe (lol) added these words to make it sound more nice. Imagine! Adding words to Jesus' words!! :eek:

    And because John didn't happen to actually write those words in this particular passage, how are we supposed to believe that Jesus is coming again? I mean, surely that thought doesn't appear anywhere else in the Bible, right? Simply tragic.

    I don't know what version you're looking at, but my Nestle Aland 26th edition Greek NT and the NIV say "God." Another false alarm, Ed.

    Speaking of butchering, the actual word, "spoudazo" found in ALL manuscripts, means "give diligence," which, incidentally, is also what "study" meant to the KJV translators. The NIV says "Do your best." Really, if you're going to read Elizabethan English, you should know something about it.

    There, I've replied to your points. Reply to mine. If you can.
     
  4. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    God Always Translates Perfectly

    The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

    In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

    When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

    Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord's leadership (Jn. 16:13).

    The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through "holy men of God" (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: ". . . . because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . "

    I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because God is very capable of using anyone He pleases as His very own instruments of righteousness in order to preserve His word.
     
  5. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
    The KJV is not the only valid Bible.
     
  6. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    A maiden IS a virgin by definition.

    Can anyone really consider that the translation by men of one language into another is the same as God translating people from one condition into another? Surely this
    is satire.
     
  7. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    The Lord Jesus said that every good tree will bring forth good fruit, and we can know them BY their fruits (Mt. 7:17-20).

    God had the KJV translated for the purpose of bringing forth fruit, and it has been very obedient to the call. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than questioning its authority.

    The KJV produces good fruit. I was led to Christ with a King James Bible. Nearly every Christian I know was led to Christ with a KJV. Why? Because it produces good fruit.

    The new translations produce EVIL fruit. The modern perversions of scripture are producing infidels who do not even know what the word of God is, much less where to find it. The new translations produce spiritual babies who are totally incapable of discussing Bible doctrine. The new versions produce NEWER versions, which produce MONEY for the publishers, and I Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of MONEY is the root of all EVIL.

    The Holy Spirit doesn't bear witness to the modern translations, but He DOES bear witness to the King James. I've always believed the KJV to be God's word, even before I was saved. No one ever told me to believe this, but the Holy Spirit just bore witness to the King James--not the others. After being saved, I spent several years of my Christian life not being aware of the big debate going on these days between King James Bible believers and New Age Version believers. The whole time I believed only ONE BOOK to be God's word, and even then I was suspicious of the new versions, although no one had told me to be. When I discovered that over eighty percent of the "Christian" schools in our nation do not believe the KJV to be the word of God, I was shocked.

    How is it that one comes to believe the KJV naturally, but must be EDUCATED OUT of his belief in it? Why is it that King James believers are accused of following men when GOD is the One Who led them to believe it? Why do opponents of the KJV accuse us of following men, when THEY are the ones who allowed MEN to talk them out of believing the KJV?

    The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It's easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a Book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author. We shall know them "by their fruit", and I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because it produces GOOD fruit.
     
  8. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    The problem, ed, is that the KJV was written in a way that the everyday person of 17th century England could read it as any other book. And the New Testament was written in koine Greek because that was "common" language of everyday people. The New Testament authors specifically avoided the "high sounding" "more correct" and "more ancient" Greek.
     
  9. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Colossians 2:8
    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
     
  10. TorahsDisciple

    TorahsDisciple I Come To Serve

    86
    +0
    :wave:

    The Bible tells us clearly that the word of G_D is Holy and is NOT to be tampered with. A careful study comparing the KJV to new versions such as the NIV will show that books such as the NIV and others are completely corrupted and inferrior. Such books are NOT the true words of G_D. They distort and corrupt meanings, blasphemy the SON of G_D, and omit entire verses at a time. This is NOT acceptable. When the KJV was compared with other versions on a standard grading scale, the KJV consistantly ranked easier than the other versions- which proves that the "new versions are easier to understand" line is a complete LIE that the book sellers have used to convince you to buy their books.
    G_D has told us that those who are truly seeking to unerstand HIS word will have the HOLY GHOST to help them, what can man ever do to teach us better than that?

    (For more info. try New Age Versions by G.A. Ripplinger)
     
  11. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Those who claim that the modern versions of the Bible are corrupt and that the AKJV is not have put the modern translations on trial. The people who have attempted to promote their Bible of choice above all others have made a dispute - and a dispute about mere words at that. Those who decry the modern versions have not only failed to prove that the modern versions are more corrupt than the AKJV, they have in fact demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that the AKJV is no better than the versions they are attempting to villify.
     
  12. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Oh dear - EdJones him(?)self proved that there is at least one error in the AKJV.

    And what standard is used to show that this is so? If the only valid standard is used, comparing the AV against the texts from which it was originally translated, and any other version compared against even the same texts from which the AV was translated, there is precious little to criticise. Nor can the AV be shown to be entirely faithful to the texts it used as the basis for translation - no more so than any other version for its own foundation texts. Who has been appointed by God to declare which texts are the more faithful to his word? Not those who are in the flesh, that is certain.

    Omitting Verses? No-one has shown that those verses were ever in the original autographs - it is a matter of opinion whether they truly belong.

    Distort and corrupt meanings? Has anyone ever actually demonstrated these charges to be true? No. The only supporting arguments I have so far seen presented have been based on distortions and corruption of the meaning of the text in the AV: people for the most part pretending that the verses do not match when in fact they do - this charge has no foundation in fact.

    As for blaspheming the Son of God - I have found no version of the Bible to do so.

    In short, the advocates of "King James alone" have been the ones consistently slandering the translators of the more modern versions, misrepresenting the text of both the modern versions and the AV, and refusing to heed instruction from those who have actually looked into their charges and answered each one to the best of their ability.

    The AV is compared against the NIV, which is among the weakest of the modern translations - the AV is almost never compared against such works as the NAS.... but that is understandable. Making a case against the weakest is always the easy option.
     
  13. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Welcome to the Forum TorahsDisciple :wave:
     
  14. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You showed the KJV advocate's true colors by ignoring the points of my post. It is obvious now that you have no desire to hear from God, but from man, and one group of men in particular: the KJV translators. You have also shown your ignorance of basic points of Elizabethan English, including the word "translate," which has a wholly different meaning in that context from language translation. But I think you knew that - you just wanted to confuse people, like your master Satan, seeking whom you may devour with your lies. Behold Satan's handmaiden!

    I know very few people led to the Lord by the KJV Bible. You are a deceiver and a usurper of God's role as the judge of men's souls if you tell me that no one who is led to the Lord using any other translation than the KJV is not truly saved.

    I always thought the KJV was an inferior translation based on faulty sources, but always considered it the Bible like any other translation. No translation has the monopoly on God's Truth. But if I follow your test of knowing them by their fruits, I must conclude that because the KJV led you to the Lord, it must be the verbatim dictation of Satan. Good thing I don't think it's my place to be a fruit inspector.

    PROVE to me that the KJV holds different doctrines than modern translations! If it doesn't, then modern translations ARE being faithful to God's words, but worded differently in English. I DARE YOU to present any evidence that the KJV is doctrinally superior.
    If you don't try, then let everyone reading this know that Ed Jones isn't interested in the Truth, but rather his own dogma.
     
  15. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    In these modern Bibles, salvation is shown as a "process" which requires good works. All this is brought out by the straining of the tenses in the modern Bibles. Let me show you exactly what I mean.

    When you read the following, please notice the straining
    of the tenses:

    Luke 13:23 (new versions), "Are there few who are being saved?"
    KJV, "...be saved."

    II Cor. 2:15 (new versions), "are being saved."
    KJV, "are saved."

    I Cor. 1:18 (new versions), "those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved"
    KJV, ...are saved."

    Acts 15:19 (new versions) "are turning to God."
    KJV, "turned."

    Luke 15:32 (new versions), "your brother was dead and has begun to live."
    KJV, "is alive."

    Acts 2:47 (new versions), "were being saved."
    KJV, "should be saved."

    2 Cor. 4:3 (new versions), "are perishing."
    KJV, "are lost."
     
  16. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    YAAAa what he said!
     
  17. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
  18. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Don't King James Bible believer's "worship" the Bible?

    No.
    Many critics of the perfect Bible have become very frustrated in recent years. This is due to the fact that their entire argument against the Bible has been systematically destroyed by historical fact, their own shortfall of scholastic ability and the consistent blessing of the King James Bible by the Holy Spirit.

    In a desperate attempt to "sling mud" at Bible believers, they make the statement found above.

    Do King James Bible believers worship the Bible? No. They do not pray to it as they do to Jesus Christ. They do not preach that "the Bible saves" but that Jesus saves. They blissfully mark notes all over their Bibles, though none would dare to do so to Jesus Christ.

    There is not even enough evidence to mistakenly believe that King James Bible believers worship the Bible. Therefore, the charge is unfortunately born of malice not sincerity.
     
  19. Caedmon

    Caedmon kawaii Supporter

    +538
    Catholic
    US-Others
    Was the KJV altered by men?

    Is there anything in the KJV that indicates alteration by its translators? Let's examine one particular incident that involves a rather prominent literary figure.


    Drama in the Woodworks

    Psalms 46 of the KJV is a particularly interesting chapter of the Bible, but not just for its spiritual message. Let's observe a rather interesting fact about its contents.

    1. What is the 46th word from the top?
    *shake*
    2. What is the 46th word from the bottom?
    *spear*
    3. When was the KJV released?
    *1611*
    4. How old was Shakespeare in 1611?
    *46*
    .... :eek: ....
    Apparently, the person that translated Psalm 46 for the KJV had a particular penchant for Renaissance drama, and altered the song's verse to suit his fancy.



    (Disclaimer: In accordance with post #128, I have not addressed ed personally, but rather have posted this for the benefit of the forum community at-large.)
     
  20. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    The Bible always runs a few thousand years ahead of "science". Notice the following facts that were revealed in the Bible long before man discovered them with telescopes, microscope, and scuba divers:

    No actual "moon light" Job 25:5

    Light travels Job 38:19

    Stars cannot be counted Genesis 15:5; 22:17

    Cosmic light Gen. 1:3; Psa. 74:16

    Empty place in North Job 26:7

    Earth suspended in space Job 26:7

    Entropy increases Psa. 102:25-27

    Sound waves from stars Job 38:7

    Pleiades star cluster Job 38:31

    Sea mounts Jonah 2:3-6

    Sea springs Job 38:16; Pro. 8:28

    Submarine canyons II Sam. 22:16

    Ocean currents Psalm 8:8

    Earth not flat Isaiah 40:22

    Running water more sanitary, Leviticus 15:13

    Circumcision on 8th day Genesis 17:10-12

    Electric telephone & TV Job 38:35
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...