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

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

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

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Is all the Bible scripture?

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Thunderchild, Feb 8, 2002.

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

    edjones Active Member

    Why Does it Bother You That I am
    King James Only?

    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 12:6,7

    Let me ask you to answer the following questions about my position:

    1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the AV1611 is infallible?

    2. How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

    3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

    4. How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

    5. If I am not allowed to believe the AV1611 is infallible, then which version should hold that distinction?

    6. If no version can hold that distinction, what do you suggest I tell my grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?

    7. If I am forced to learn Hebrew and Greek before I can study the "words" of God, will you pay for our lessons?

    8. Please tell me why you still "preach from" the AV1611 but do not believe it is infallible?

    9. Which Bible do you use in your private studies and which one is the "best translation"?

    10. Why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?

    I know I will continue to receive tons of comments telling me how stupid I am, and how ignorant of the truth I am, and how I am leading my friends astray holding up the "infallible" AV1611. But somehow, I cannot see the Lord condemning me for trusting Him and His promise in Psalm 12:6,7. Can anyone imagine I would make God angry because I believe He has preserved for me His inspired words, just as I believe He has promised?

    Come on..... What's wrong with believing the King James Bible Only?

    What do YOU have to offer in its place other than confusion - hundreds of different versions all saying different things - hundreds of different Greek texts all saying different things because you DO KNOW that the 'originals' are not available, right? You do know that, I hope!

    And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

    What do you have to offer us regarding that EVERY word of God that we are to live by?
  2. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    If you find it advisable to teach your children or their descendants Psalm 12 - you would do well to teach them to properly interpret verse 7 - which is not about the words of God but about the people who are being oppressed. That should not need to be told to anyone - "Thou shalt preserve them FROM this generation" - preserve meaning to keep safe from/protect. It is clear that "You will protect them from this generation" refers to the people that the Lord declares he will set in safety in verse 5. Verse 6 is an emphatic declaration that the words of the Lord are reliable.

    There is a discrepancy between the AV and the NAS - the NAS saying "him" in verse 7, rather than "them" - so also at verse 5. Checking the verses in a concordance shows that either "him" or "them" is valid on the Hebrew grammar. I will leave it for you to decide which of the renderings ("I will set ~ in safety" and "protecting ~ from this generation") makes it easier to understand that it is the people, not the words, that are protected from the predations of the wicked.

    To say that any given version of the Bible is better than all others is divisive - to say that any given version of the Bible (assuming that the declaration is factual) is better than most others can be factual.

    Controversy and dispute about mere words does not serve the truth. There are indeed Bibles which are (shall we say) less reliable, and others (though precious few among the mass market Bibles) that are more reliable.

    As the Bible is quite clearly demonstrated to NOT be wholly the words of God, teaching people that it IS wholly the words of God is false teaching. Even if those two paragraphs of 1 Corinthians 7 were the only times that the Bible included words that are not from God - the fact remains that those two paragraphs ARE in the Bible - the Bible includes references that are not from God.

    Even if the King James was THE most reliable of the mass market Bibles, it is still not a perfect translation - nor is a perfect translation possible - which the translators of the AV themselves acknowledged.

    Study courses in Hebrew and Greek are not absolutely necessary - using two or three different versions of the Bible in combination will easily highlight conflicts, and for the most part a concordance will resolve those conflicts. I personally use eight versions, but that is probably over-kill, and even then I use but three for purposes of intensive study - referrring to the others and the Greek or Hebrew only when the main three (Concordant, AV, NAS) are in conflict.
  3. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    I'll bet your grandmother didn't buy that.

    Always correct the greek with the English AV1611

    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    Wow, in this verse it looks like the word of God can discern our thoughts and intents of our heart?!?

    Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
  4. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    Except in this case Psalm 12 is in Hebrew, not Greek. Or should we use the Septuagint to correct the Hebrew?
  5. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    How much does God value His Word?

    That God places supreme importance upon His written word is abundantly clear. The Lord has revealed this to man by His praise of His word, and by His condemnation of those who would tamper with it. The exaltation of God’s word is a theme which runs throughout the Bible. In the 119th Psalm, God’s servant, David, continually exalted the Scriptures. He wrote of his “delight” in His testimonies, and implored the Lord to teach him “the way of thy statutes.” In the third chapter of 2 Thessalonians, the Bible reads: “…that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified.” God’s words are to be praised, and revered. The Lord highly esteems His word, elevating its importance even above that of His name. First, consider the following verse:

    “If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses…” (Deuteronomy 28:58-59)

    God’s name is glorious and fearful. The penalty for not fearing God’s name makes it obvious that He does not take disrespect for His name lightly. In light of the value the LORD places on His name, consider the following:

    “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.” (Ps 138:2)

    The Lord also informed us of His view of His word by giving us three grave warnings to those who would corrupt the Scriptures. God warned against adding to His word:

    “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

    Note that He also warned would-be correctors that they were not to subtract from His word.

    “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

    God gave us the words that He wanted us to have, and we dare not alter them. If we are to keep His commandments, we certainly need to know precisely what they are. Hence, the Lord provided ample warnings to us, so that we might not be tempted to change His words. Lest anyone be confused about the utter foolishness of tampering with the holy word of God, the Lord provided a fearsome final reminder in the last verses of His inspired word:

    “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19)

    How can anyone read the preceding without recognizing the immense importance the LORD has placed on His word? God promised to severely punish anyone who adds to His word. Worse, He promised to expunge those who would take away from His words, from the book of life! In this light, should we not highly value the Holy word of the living God?
  6. Jaysun

    Jaysun Junior High Lay Pastor

    One question. If the King James version of the Bible is the most reliable version. What did they use proir to 1611, since there was no King James version then, are you saying that previous versions where all in error? Imean there was English speaking Ministers, so there had to be English translations.

    And beside's if NIV and all the others are false, God would confirm things through the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of Godly, Holy Spirit filled people. And on top of that rebuking is to be done in love, it seems as if you are harshly cramming your private convictions, as to which translation is right, down people's throats. If I could read and write Greek, Hebrew and Aramic (or whatever) I am sure I would find something that could have been translated differently in the KJV. I mean dude, just pray.. and if you are so sure about your convictions pray that the Holy Spirit would convict everyone else's heart as He did yours. Prayer works better than words, more people have come to Christ thru someones prayer life than from someone just talk to them about Jesus.

    I use NIV and a few others, I do use KJV but I dont like the manner it is interpreted in. No one speaks in that poetic manner this day and age, does that make it bad? No, I still read it, study out of it, and trust it.. But I do believe there are other reliable versions.

    2 versions that are in ERROR are the Mormon's translation, and the Jehovah Witness translations.

    In Christ,
  7. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    So why did the KJV translators mess with it by changing it when they took it from the Hebrew of Deuteronomy and put it into English. You talk about "messing with the Word"! :)

    I think those who are Christians on this board recognize the immense importance the LORD hs placed on His word. We do "highly value the Holy word of the living God."

    Do you ever answer questions?
  8. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    The Mormons use the AKJV Bible - being as how they believe it to be the only reliable Bible in the English language. They study it alongside the book of Mormon - or rather, they mostly study the book of Mormon and occasionally open the Bible.

    The updated version of the Jehovah's Witness Bible version (Kingdom Bible) I looked at back in the 1980s (which by now may be an outdated version) was not markedly different from the various Bibles in mass circulation today - including the AV. There were a couple of verses having marked variance, but there are a couple of verses in all the versions that are markedly at variance with the others at some point.
  9. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    Both inspiration and preservation are actions by God and we are assured by God as stated in Psalm 12:6,7 and are found ONLY in the KJV1611 Bible.

    And again, Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with scripture - but with the promises of God. God's given word is pure, he will preserve the faithful from the corrupt. "He will preserve (save) scripture FROM this generation? EdJones's need for a Bible he can understand is extreme.
  10. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    It thats what you want to believe Thunderchild, help yourself.

    Contrary to the implication the term "the Greek text" carries in books and lexicons, there is more than a single Greek text. A reference to the "Greek text" can be to any one of thirty some compiled texts. Some of the texts have as many as 5000 differences between them. Needless to say, "scholars" cannot agree on which text is best and often they disagree on the translation of certain Greek words. The world of Christian scholarship is by no means a word of unanimity, each "scholar" seems to have his own "preferences" thus they can't come to a consensus. This is why there are over thirty compiled Greek texts and over 100 English translations, and no two read the same! Greek/Hebrew scholarship is not always as concrete and consistent as many are lead to believe. Very little is a certainty in their philosophical world; it is ruled more by subjective preferences and opinion than they care to admit.

    Smile, have a good day, God loves you!
  11. Jaysun

    Jaysun Junior High Lay Pastor

    No comment, huh..... *shrugs*
  12. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    Greek vs. AV 1611

    Where the Greed reads one way and the A.V. 1611 reads the other, rest assured that God will judge you at the Judgment on what you know. Since you don't know the Greek (and those who know it, alter it to suit themselves), you had better go by the A.V. 1611 text.

    1. The Greek texts are NOT the originals.

    2. YOU are not a Greek, and if you were, you couldn't find "the originals."

    3. God showed Larkin, Scofield, and Bullinger more from an English text
    than he did W & H, A.T. Robertson, and nestle from a Greek text.

    4. If you HAD "an accurate translation" of the Greek,
    it wouldn't make any kind of reading in English,
    due to differences in idiom, sentence construction, and grammar.

    5. The "modern" versions, in the "common language,"
    are NOT from the originals, or even from the God honored Greek text.

    6. If anyone led you to believe any differently,
  13. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    Since you don't know Greek, how can you make this assessment?

    So why did the KJV translators bother with the Greek texts?

    There is at least substantial room for debate and disagreement on this point.

    So, does the KJV do this? I think you have posted elsewhere that the KJV is the most accurate translation. So it isn't anymore? BTW, how do you know, since you don't know Greek or Hebrew?

    As much so as the KJV.

    Is someone trying to take your money, Ed? Did you pay for your copy/copies of the KJV?
  14. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    Don't you have anything better to do than to try to destroy peoples faith in the Perfect Preserved words of God?
    Try posting something edifing for the child of God.

    Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

    God has placed a lot of importance upon His words.

    Matthew 24:35 reads, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away.

    Psalms 138:2 says, ". . . for thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name."

    Psalms 119:89 says, "For ever, O LORD, thy WORD is settled in heaven."

    Jesus Christ said in John 6:63, ". . .the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE."

    And the first time Satan attacks the human race was a direct attack on the word of God!

    Genesis 3:1 says, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD SAID. . .?"
    Satan planted a small seed of doubt into the mind of Eve. And as Eve questioned the truthfulness of God's Word - the fall of mankind was only a bite away.
  15. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    I haven't done any such thing. Do you ever read any of the posts that other people make?

    After your repeated name-calling, berating tirades, and accusations that we are not Christian and even in league with the devil, and now you have the audacity to tell us to "post something edifying for the child of God"? :D

    My goal is that people have their faith placed rightly in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not a substitute that sounds religious or even authoritative - even the Pharisees claimed that for themselves.

    Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.
  16. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    Satan's aim of attack hasn't changed!

    In Luke 8, Jesus Christ tells the parable of the sower, verses 11,12 read, "Now the parable is this: The SEED is the word of God. . . THEN COMETH THE DEVIL, and taketh away the word. . ."

    Satan knows - if he can supplant even a small seed of doubt in God's word - MANKIND WILL LOOK ELSEWHERE!

    Never in history has such doubt and confusion over the Bible existed as is today. And nothing has flamed the fire of confusion and doubt over the Bible more than the scores of different translations flooding the scene. Time magazine (April 20, 1981 p.62) reports, ". . . there is an UNPRECEDENTED CONFUSION of choices in Bibles. Never have so many major new translations been on the market." Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared. Every six months a new English version appears!


    The question has to be asked - is God the author of this flood of new versions? Is God the author of CONFUSION in His word? 1 Corinthians 14:33, clearly states, "God is NOT the author of CONFUSION."

    BUT SATAN IS! He knows, if he can plant the smallest seed of doubt and confusion - that individual will not take God's word serious!

    God promised to preserve His word...

    God promised in Psalms 12:7 that He would preserve His word, "Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."

    And God keeps His promise! I believe, without a doubt, the King James Bible is the preserved word of God. And the new versions are satanic counterfeits to cast doubt, cause confusion and ATTACK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!
  17. Jaysun

    Jaysun Junior High Lay Pastor

    A Response to a Brother in Christ

    Dr. Morris' "Defense" of the King James Bible Reviewed

    by James White

    The June, 1996 edition of Back to Genesis contains a short, 3-page article titled, Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version? The article, unfortunately, repeats the same erroneous arguments that KJV Only advocates have been putting forth for a number of years now. It is regrettable that Dr. Morris would lend his weight to these kinds of arguments. I was heartened, to some degree, a few years ago when Dr. Morris withdrew his endorsement of Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, a work that has been rejected as utterly inaccurate and without merit by nearly every knowledgeable Bible scholar and minister that has reviewed it. When I spoke with Dr. Morris at that time, he repeated his preference for the KJV, but admitted that he had not read Mrs. Riplinger's work well enough to realize what it really contained.

    The arguments put forward by Dr. Morris are thoroughly examined and, in each case, refuted, in my full-length work, The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House, 1995). However, as the questions that are raised by Dr. Morris are common, I would like to comment on them in passing.

    Dr. Morris, throughout the article, falls into the trap of making the KJV the "standard" by which all others are judged. The problem is, the KJV is not the standard, and cannot be the standard. Think about it for just a moment. Were there not translations before the KJV? Of course. Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and so forth, all served the needs of English speaking Christians prior to 1611. So why not choose one of these as the "standard"?

    We are told immediately that the KJV translators were all creationists. Of course, since the theory of evolution had not yet been propounded, one must ask, "What else could they have been?" This introduces a serious historical anachronism, for the issue wasn't an issue at the time. We are also told that the KJV translators were great scholars, and this is true. However, those same scholars denied the idea that the KJV was perfect, or not to be improved upon, in their introduction to readers. Those same scholars made positive reference to the Septuagint, and we shall see later that Dr. Morris disagrees with modern scholars doing what the KJV translators suggested. And while the KJV scholars were indeed great, they were not perfect, and were not aware of some important items (such as the proper way to translate Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 so as to safeguard the deity of Christ) and were a bit too attached to the Latin text for their own good as well.

    Dr. Morris says the KJV translators "were familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence." Unfortunately, he does not document this assertion. While the KJV translators chose from various of the earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament (the versions of Erasmus, Stephanus' text, and most importantly, Beza's revision of Stephanus), they did not have access to the vast majority of Greek manuscripts available today, including the papyri manuscripts which go back to within generations of the originals.

    Dr. Morris asks a very important question under the sub-title, Which New Translation? "Even if one really feels that he ought to switch to a modern translation, how can he decide which, if any, is really the inspired word of God?" If Dr. Morris agrees with the KJV translators, any translation that accurately renders the original languages is worthy of the title "the word of God." But is Dr. Morris claiming that the KJV is somehow "inspired" in and of itself? Did God re-inspire the Bible between 1604 and 1611? And if so, which of the many differing editions of the KJV is the "real" one today? It is hard to say.

    Dr. Morris throws out a number of arguments very quickly under the sub-title, Is God the Author of Confusion? For example, he laments the fact that with many translations being available, congregational reading is difficult. This is quite true. Of course, someone probably made the same statement in 1604 when they heard about the KJV. "Why not just use the Bishops' Bible as we have been for years?" could have been the comment. In Chapter Two of my book I document the fact that the Church has a long history of attachment to particular versions and translations. This is nothing new. Dr. Morris likewise blames a decline on Scripture memorization upon the use of modern translations, though why using a modern translation should stop you from memorizing the Bible is not explained. I know many people who memorize the Bible in the NASB or NIV who could never memorize it in the KJV.

    Next Dr. Morris makes a very brief comment on "dynamic equivalency" translations when he writes, "And what about our belief in verbal inspiration? If it's only the 'thought' that counts, then the words are flexible, and we can adjust them to make them convey any thought we prefer." Of course, any translator providing a dynamic translation is immediately going to say, "Gracious sakes, no! The issue is to convey the meaning of the original author. The idea of 'adjusting' them to convey what I prefer is not what we do at all." But beyond this, Dr. Morris surely must be aware that the KJV itself used dynamic translations at places. There is no strictly formal, word-for-word translation of the Bible, including the KJV. Does Dr. Morris simply mean to communicate the idea that formal equivalency (a more literal rendering) is better? If so, then he can't have any problem with the NKJV or NASB, since both are formal equivalency translations.

    The article then moves on to the issue of the manuscripts of the Bible. Again, there is a great deal of information on this topic that needs to be understood to properly evaluate the claims made by advocates of the KJV. Dr. Morris repeats a number of less-than-solid assertions regarding the text in his article. He lumps all modern translations of the NT together under the rubric of the Westcott-Hort text, ignoring the major differences between modern texts (UBS4th and Nestle-Aland 27th ) and the WH text. He likewise ignores the existence of a number of different versions of the Textus Receptus, or TR, and ignores the more than 1,800 differences between the TR and the Majority Text, treating the TR as if it is in fact the Majority Text itself. This is a common error that is often repeated in KJV Only literature.

    Dr. Morris needlessly undermines confidence in modern Hebrew texts by vilifying Rudolf Kittel, calling him a "German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism." All of that may be true, but can Dr. Morris demonstrate that this had anything at all to do with the resultant text? Is he aware that the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia differs from the 1525 Bomberg Text (used for the KJV) in a whopping eight places, not a single one of which impacts the meaning of the text? Does Dr. Morris believe that all conservative, Bible-believing Christian scholars who use a text other than the KJV or the 1525 Bomberg edition are unable to examine the information for themselves and, if there were some kind of "perversion," make note of it? And if he is against all differences in translation based upon source-material, why did the KJV translators make positive reference to the Septuagint themselves? Many of the differences we find in modern translations in the OT have to do with further discoveries regarding the Septuagint and DSS, as well as our great advances in knowledge of the Hebrew language due to the discovery of cognate languages. Should we allow these advances in our knowledge to go unused simply to maintain a traditional text?

    Dr. Morris uses the "evolution" tag to attack modern Greek texts by identifying Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland as "evolutionists." Again, is this solid argumentation? Is this something a Christian should be doing? Erasmus, the former of Dr. Morris' Greek text, was the "prince of the humanists," a Roman Catholic priest, a defender of transubstantiation in the Mass. So? The issue is not the personal beliefs of the individuals but, did those beliefs materially impact the text? If Dr. Morris would like to provide examples of textual decisions in our modern Greek texts that he thinks are perversions of the truth, let him do so. I have yet to have a defender of KJV Onlyism back up their allegations against modern texts from the original sources themselves. While a few have pointed to variations, they have never been able to demonstrate that any theological "bent" on the part of the editors resulted in a particular textual choice.

  18. Jaysun

    Jaysun Junior High Lay Pastor


    Dr. Morris is again quite free with his epithets when he identifies the great Christian historian and scholar, Philip Schaff, as "another liberal evolutionist." Again, is this a valid argument? Does Dr. Morris use this kind of ad-hominem argumentation in his defense of creationism? We can only hope not.

    The article then says that the Westcott-Hort text was based mainly on Sinaiticus (a) and Vaticanus (B). To that point, he is correct. The problem is, he has already erred in asserting that the modern texts are basically warmed-over versions of the Westcott-Hort text, which is untrue. Hence, the reader is led to believe that modern translations are nothing more than a and B in modern clothes, which is simply untrue. Dr. Morris says these two manuscripts were "rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century." Well-deserved? Upon what basis does Dr. Morris make this assertion? Hopefully he is not simply repeating the cavils of the likes of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, or D. A. Waite. He then makes the statement, "Since these are both said to be older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus, they were called 'better.'" Dr. Morris is here confusing the Majority Text with the TR. There is not a single Greek manuscript in the world that reads like the TR in every place. Not one. Dr. Morris does not seem to understand the issues regarding the Byzantine text type, the families within the Byzantine type, and the unique (and indefensible) readings of the TR.

    Dr. Morris goes on to say, "So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His word? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?" This kind of argument, which appeals to the emotions (but not to the facts) is very common, and often carries the day. But Christians should be very careful about the kind of arguments they use. Is Dr. Morris calling Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest, a Bible-believer? And since he has not even begun to demonstrate that a single variation in the modern texts is based upon any "tampering" by any "liberals, rationalists, or evolutionists," how can he bring such a serious charge against translations that have been used of God to bring people to a knowledge of the truth? Has Dr. Morris bothered to contact any of the godly men who worked on the NKJV, NASB, or NIV translation committees? Does he think Dr. Ken Barker, for example, of the NIV translation committee, would sit idly by when faced with obvious tampering of the text on the part of "liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists"? Does Dr. Morris really think that all of us who use modern versions, teach from modern Greek texts, and promote the superiority of these texts to the TR, are liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists?

    Finally, Dr. Morris discusses the beauty of the KJV language. I have only one question to ask: Did the Apostles write in formal, literary Greek? Did they communicate in a way that was completely different than the everyday speech of the people to whom they were writing? The answer is a simple, "No." So why should we put God's Word in a form other than the Apostles? I'd like to know Dr. Morris' answer to that.

    I titled this article "A Response to a Brother in Christ," since Dr. Morris is my brother in Christ. I appreciate his stand for truth in many, many areas. But Dr. Morris has erred in believing less-than-honest materials put forward to defend a traditional text, and he has utilized argumentation that is not honoring to the truth, nor helpful to his own work in other areas. I call upon him to consider the issues more carefully. Take the time to read Dr. D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate (Baker, 1979) or my own work on the same subject. If he can respond to the information presented therein, I, for one, would like to see the response. If not, I would hope that he would be kind enough to undo some of the damage he has done by promoting bad arguments and false information about modern translations. Surely there are modern translations that are not acceptable: but Dr. Morris did not differentiate between such works and credible, godly translations like the NKJV, NASB, and NIV. I hope he will reconsider his position.
  19. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    Thanks, Ed, for those edifying words. You really have a way of encouraging people. :D
  20. edjones

    edjones Active Member


    Are the new versions different?

    Most people believe the different versions are basically the same. They believe the newer versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand.


    One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".

    The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE". "He appeared in a body"? Big deal! Everyone has "appeared in a body"! The KJV is clear and definite, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT even make grammatical sense!


    In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV(1979 ed.), etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,"

    Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ!


    They attack the virgin birth!

    In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtle, attack at the virgin birth.

    Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are over 6,000 changes!

    They remove the Blood!

    Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out! Friend, salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

    They attack John 3:16!

    And something has to be done with John 3:16! So the NIV and company reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN"! If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens to the wonderful promise to believers like 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God. . ."? AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

    They tell lies!

    A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV and "buddies" in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way -a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ."

    A better translation! Easier to understand! BY A LIE!

    Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE"

    How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in these new versions? Either the translators of the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, "crowd" can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi (which is likely!) or somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT!

    Who would do such a thing?

    I'll give you a hint - he's called the "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

    Oh, by the way, did you think David killed Goliath? Not according to the NIV, NRSV, NASV, and "boys". In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, ". . . Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

    They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ - THE SAME!

    In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star". According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ! What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change! The Hebrew word for star (kokab) is not even found in Isaiah 14:12! Is there any doubt who is the "daddy" of these new versions?

    They take out hell!

    If Satan is the author of these new versions, one subject he will aim his attack, is the place the Bible calls hell. And the new versions go "into loony land" removing it!

    Many times they change "hell" to "grave" or "death", but the word "hell" is far and few in the new versions! Like Psalm 9:17: in the King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL. . ." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE. . ." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"!

    Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "Sheol"! (See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the NEW King James does this 29 times!) Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT!

    And this is a better translation? And these new versions are "easier to read" and "understand"? Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word "Ouranos" for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called hell!

    In Isaiah 14:15, the King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The new versions refuse to send Lucifer to hell! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." The NASV, NRSV, NEW King James (NKJV) places him in "Sheol"!

    hmm. . . I wonder which one the Devil prefers?

    The Lord's or The Devil's Prayer?

    An alarming display of Satanic perversion is found in Luke 11. The "The Lord's Prayer" is subtly (see 2 Cor. 11:3) transformed into "The Devil's Prayer".

    The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Incredibly, the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. take out: "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Heaven is completely removed! The "father" of the new versions is NOT IN HEAVEN and DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!

    I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)

    Are you getting the picture? Do you see how subtil (see Genesis 3:1), seemingly, harmless the changes are - AND YET HOW DEADLY THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD'S WORD!

    They attack the Lord Jesus Christ!
    They attack the plan of salvation!
    They glorify Lucifer!
    And they deny hell!

    Yes friend. Satan has launched an attack on your Bible!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.