Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB are Vatican Versions

[Keachian]

following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.

In other words, the New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and other possibly Non-English translations of the Bible such as the Bible de Jerusalem use the UBS/NA27 text as the basis for their translation/revision work. This is a far different claim than that the ESV, NIV, NASB were supervised in their translation by the Vatican.

 

[brandplucked]

The Roman Catholic Church has, at the very highest level, openly recognized the fact that when Roman Catholics and Protestants work together, the faithfulness of our Bibles to the inspired word of God in the original languages is markedly improved. This milestone in Christ’s church should bring joy and gladness to the hearts of all of His faithful.

So, Princeton Guy, before you were basically calling me a liar for saying the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. are the new Vatican Versions because they are all based on the same "interconfessional" Greek text for the N.T. and they also all often reject the Hebrew readings (just like the modern Catholic versions), and now you have completely reversed your opinion and now think it is a GOOD thing that the Catholics and Protestants are working together in your bogus bible versions that NOBODY seriously believes are the infallible words of God.

How utterly ironic. The modern church for the most part has now forsaken the Reformation Bible texts and are now embracing and using and promoting the harlot of Babylon's every changing bible versions.

Wow, maybe the Bible IS true after all. There really WILL be a falling away from the faith before the Lord Jesus comes back and God WILL send a famine of hearing His words. Imagine that!

And you guys apparently think "Every day and in every way we are getting better and better.", while the Bible tells us that the last days will be characterized by "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." 2 Tim. 3:13

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Cor. 14:38

 

[ViaCrucis]

So if an Anglican Bible is the only valid, true word of God, when are you going to go all the way and join the Anglican Church--which, I would imagine since it produced and maintains the King James Authorized Version must be the faithful and only true church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So, Princeton Guy, before you were basically calling me a liar for saying the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. are the new Vatican Versions because they are all based on the same "interconfessional" Greek text for the N.T. and they also all often reject the Hebrew readings (just like the modern Catholic versions), and now you have completely reversed your opinion and now think it is a GOOD thing that the Catholics and Protestants are working together in your bogus bible versions that NOBODY seriously believes are the infallible words of God.

To claim that the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. are “Vatican Versions” simply because they are translated from a Greek text to which a Roman Catholic scholar added his expertise in textual criticism is not to make a valid claim.

Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that no one can cite even a single instance in the ESV, NIV, NASB, or any other Protestant translation of the Bible in which the underlying Greek text reflects a Roman Catholic rather than Protestant preference. Therefore, your entire argument is nothing but a lengthy series of words that prove nothing!

 

[PaladinValer]

Might I suggest ignoring that which regenerates 3 hp/combat round?

And ViaCrucis, thank you for that!

 

[brandplucked]

So if an Anglican Bible is the only valid, true word of God, when are you going to go all the way and join the Anglican Church--which, I would imagine since it produced and maintains the King James Authorized Version must be the faithful and only true church.

-CryptoLutheran

Hi Via. You guys who do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was (66 books in a single volume) the infallible words of God come up with some of the lamest arguments and counterpoints imaginable in order to try to justify your own unbelief in an infallible Bible and feel better about it.

The KJB Bible was also put together by Puritans and it was used by all Bible believing denominations of every theological stripe - Calvinists, Arminians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals - you name it. GOD is the one who acted in history to give us a perfect Bible and it came from England and is in the English language.

But because you yourself no longer believe in the existence of an in hand, in print and in stock Bible that is the infallible words of God, then you resort to mocking and ridicule.

By the way, here is why God's perfect Bible had to come from England and the King James Bible is The Standard of absolute written truth.

Absolute Standard - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

God bless.

 

[PaladinValer]

Hi Via. You guys who do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was (66 books in a single volume) the infallible words of God come up with some of the lamest arguments and counterpoints imaginable in order to try to justify your own unbelief in an infallible Bible and feel better about it.

More personal attacks! No surprise; no ability to counter so just attack attack attack the people themselves.

The KJB Bible was also put together by Puritans and it was used by all Bible believing denominations of every theological stripe - Calvinists, Arminians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals - you name it.

WHAT?

What Lutheran helped put together the KJV? What Pentecostal? Pentecostals weren't even around then! No Methodists either; John and Charles Wesley weren't even BORN YET back in 1611! John Smythe and his congregation departed in 1594, so Baptists never took part in it either.

Lancelot Andrews - Anglican bishop (ordained bishop during the translation)
John Overall - Anglican priest, later bishop
Hadrian A Saravia - Anglican canon
Richard Clarke - Anglican priest
John Layfield - Anglican priest
Robert Tighe - Anglican archdeacon
Francis Burleigh - Anglican priest
Geoffery King - Anglican priest
Richard Thompson - Anglican ordained (deacon or priest)
William Bedwell - Anglican priest
Edward Lively - Anglican canon
John Richardson - Anglican priest
Laurence Chaderton - Puritan deacon
Francis Willingham - Anglican ordained (deacon or priest)
Roger Andrews - Anglican archdeacon
Thomas Harrison - Puritan ordained (deacon or priest)
Robert Spaulding - Anglican ordained (deacon or priest)
Andrew Bing - Anglican priest
John Harding - Anglican priest
John Rainolds - Puritan ordained (deacon or priest)
Thomas Holland - Puritan (deacon or priest)
Richard Kilby - Anglican priest
Miles Smith - Puritan canon, later bishop
Richard Brett - Anglican priest
Daniel Featley - Anglican ordained (deacon or priest) (Puritan leanings; remained episcopalian)
William Thorne - Anglican priest
Thomas Ravis - Anglican priest
George Abbot - Anglican priest, later Archbishop of Canterbury and HUGE defender of the episcopacy and validity of Apostolic Succession of Anglican Orders
Richard Edes - Anglican canon
Giles Tomson - Anglican priest
Henry Savile - Anglican theologian and only one not ordained
John Perrin - Anglican ordained (priest or deacon)
Ralph Ravens - Anglican priest
John Harmar - Anglican ordained (priest or deacon)
John Aglionby - Anglican priest
Leonard Hutten - Anglican canon
William Barlow - Anglican priest, later bishop
John Spenser - Anglican priest
Roger Fenton - Anglican canon
Ralph Hutchinson - Anglican priest
William Dakins - Anglican priest
Michael Rabbet - Anglican ordained (priest or deacon)
Thomas Sanderson - Anglican canon
John Duport - Puritan canon
William Branthwaite - Anglican ordained (priest or deacon)
Jeremiah Radcliffe - Anglican priest
Samuel Ward - Puritan ordained (priest or deacon) (refused to sign the Solemn League and Covenant and was jailed by fellow Puritans)
Andrew Downes - Anglican priest
John Bois - Anglican priest
Robert Ward- Puritan canon
Thomas Bilson - Anglican bishop

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, the Puritans were FURIOUS with the final result, thinking it no better if not worse than the previous Authorized Version the Bible's Bible. Episcopal polity was firmly found within the translation along with Real Presence theology and all sorts of "notorious Catholic (we Anglicans are Catholic anyway) elements".

The KJV a "Reformed" Bible? Hogwash! Every single KJV-O I've ever known of doesn't follow any bit of the specific Anglican theology found in its intended nature. Not a bloody single one.

 

[brandplucked]

To claim that the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. are “Vatican Versions” simply because they are translated from a Greek text to which a Roman Catholic scholar added his expertise in textual criticism is not to make a valid claim.

Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that no one can cite even a single instance in the ESV, NIV, NASB, or any other Protestant translation of the Bible in which the underlying Greek text reflects a Roman Catholic rather than Protestant preference. Therefore, your entire argument is nothing but a lengthy series of words that prove nothing!

Here are some examples of Roman Catholic rather than Protestant preferences.


Matthew 1:25 “her FIRSTBORN son” & Luke 1:28 “blessed art thou among women” - Is your bible one of the new Vatican Versions?



In Matthew 1:25 we read of the birth of the Saviour Jesus who would save His people from their sins. Here it is recorded that Joseph, the husband of the virgin Mary “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.” 

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born - “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18)

However after the birth of Jesus, Mary also had other children; at least 7 other children. We see this as recorded in Matthew 13:55-56 when those astonished at His teaching in the synagogue ask: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are then not ALL (not ‘both’) with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”



However the Catholic church teaches that the virgin Mary was perpetually a virgin. This is called the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, which also omits the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, has a footnote in reference to the brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus. They tell us: “The question about the brothers of Jesus and his sisters cannot easily be decided on linguistic grounds. Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe, not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother or sister, but also for nephew, niece, half-brother, half-sister, and cousin. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.” page 48 St. Joseph NAB.



The textual support for the reading in Matthew 1:25 of “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son” (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκο&#957 is massive and widespread. It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and many uncial copies (capital letters) including C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.


It is also the reading found in numerous early church Lectionaries, the Old Latin copies of aur, d, f, ff1, g2, q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Armenian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by many early church witnesses including the Diatessaron, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome and Augustine.



However the reading of “THE FIRSTBORN” is omitted in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and a few others. The modern versions that omit the word “FIRSTBORN” and merely say something like: “But but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” are the NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NET, Holman and the Common English Bible - all the new Vatican Versions.

The Catholic bibles are interesting in that they continue to change their underlying texts from one edition to the next. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay version of 1950 both included the phrase, saying: “And he knew her not till she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.”

 However the Douay-Rheims gives this lengthy footnote to try to explain away the clear meaning of the verse. They tell us: “[25] Till she brought forth her firstborn son: From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future...St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.”





Well, to get rid of this “problem” and the convoluted, Jesuit reasoning used to try to dismiss what the text clearly says, the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 simply omit the word “firstborn” altogether as also do the other Vatican Versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, NET, Holman, etc. They now read: “he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son.” (New Jerusalem bible 1985)



But wait a minute; there’s more. The 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has now put the word back into their text! It now reads: “And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, THE FIRSTBORN. And he called his name JESUS.”

Bibles that agree with the King James Bible reading of “her FIRSTBORN son” are the following: the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - “et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.”, the Anglo-Saxon gospels by Aelfric Manuscript 140 dated to about 1000 A.D. - "hyre frum-cennedan sunu", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son; and she called his name Jesus.", Wycliffe 1395 - "til she hadde borun her firste bigete sone", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "til she had broght forth her first borne sonne, & he called his name Iesus.", Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's translation 1833, Darby, Youngs, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1997, Hebrew Names Bible, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.


Among foreign language bibles that read like the King James Bible with "her FIRSTBORN son" are the following: the Chinese Union Traditional bible, the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "ce qu'elle eût enfanté son fils premier-né", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "erstgeborenen Sohn", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuovo Diodati of 1991 - "il suo figliuol primogenito" the the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "hasta que parió á su hijo primogénito", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada deu à luz seu filho, o primogénito", the Russian Synodal Version and the Modern Greek N.T. as well as the Greek texts used by the Orthodox Churches all over the world today - "εγεννησε τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον".

 

[brandplucked]

Luke 1:28 "blessed art thou among women"


Another verse having to do with Mary is Luke 1:28. Here we read the inspired words of the angel Gabriel when he was sent from God to announce that the virgin Mary would soon give birth to the Son of God. "And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN."

Notice it does not say "you are blessed ABOVE all women" or "more than other women" but rather "thou art blessed AMONG women", and indeed she was. But to say that Mary was blessed AMONG women does not give her the high position the Catholic church wants to place her in; so many modern Catholic versions remove these words from their text.


The reading of "blessed art thou among women" again is found in the Majority of all remaining Greek texts as well as A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, 1, q, r1 and the Latin Vulgate of 382. It is also the reading found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, some Coptic Boharic mss, the Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

However once again it is primarily Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit this entire phrase and a very few others, and so do the modern versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, ISV and Holman Standard. The ESV omits the phrase and then gives us a deliberately misleading footnote saying: "Some manuscripts add Blessed are you among women." SOME!?! Rather it is the overwhelming Majority of all Greek manuscripts that include this reading and it is only "some" very few that omit it! Their footnote is a deceptive attempt to make us think the opposite.


Once again the Catholic bible versions themselves are in their usual disarray. The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the 1950 Douay both contained these words, reading: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN." But then in 1968 in the Jerusalem bible and again in 1985 with the New Jerusalem bible these modern Catholic bible versions omitted this entire phrase and merely read: "He went in and said to her, "Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you."

But the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible STILL retains the words in their text and reads "Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN." And once again we see that the latest Catholic bible version (the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version) has put these words back into their text too. It now reads: “And upon entering, the Angel said to her: “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN."


So, in the Catholic versions this phrase was first in their bibles (1582, 1950), then taken out, (1968) then put back in (1970), then removed (1985) and now in again (2009)! Both the Catholic and their modern day counterparts - the Evangelicals - keep changing the texts of their respective 'bibles' from one edition to the next. No verse is sure or settled and none of them believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% textually pure and true words of the living God.


Bible translations that agree with the Traditional reading of "Blessed art thou among women" in Luke 1:28 are the following: the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. and 405 A.D. - "benedicta tu in mulieribus", the Anglo-Saxon gospels 1000 A.D. - "þu eart gebletsud on wifum.", Wycliffe 1395 - "Heil, ful of grace; the Lord be with thee; blessid be thou among wymmen.", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE is with the: blessed art thou amonge wemen.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Youngs, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987, NKJV 1982 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.


Other foreign language translations that contain the phrase "Blessed art thou among women" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valeras of 1909, 1960, 1995, and 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "El Señor es contigo; bendita tú entre las mujeres.", the Italian Diodati of 1649 and 1991, as well as the Nuova Riveduta of 2006 - "il Signore è con te; tu sei benedetta fra le donne", the Russian Synodal Version, Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "du Gesegnete unter den Frauen!", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 - "le Seigneur est avec toi; tu es bénie entre les femmes.", the Portugues Almeida Corrigida E Fiel and A Sagrada Biblia - "bem-dita és tu entre as mulheres.", the Afrikaans bible 1953 - "Die Here is met jou; geseënd is jy onder die vroue.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible, the Modern Greek and the Greek Orthodox Church's text all over the world - "ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν." as well as the Modern Hebrew New Testament.

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - Articles - Another King James Bible Believer


Notes from the internet:

Will. The "firstborn" does nothing to prove or disprove that Mary did not remain a virgin. She may have had NO more children, and guess what... Jesus would still be the firstborn. A child did not become the firstborn when the 2nd child was born, did they?

On the surface this may sound fairly reasonable. However when we see how God consistently uses the word "firstborn" in Scripture, and especially in the context of God slaying the firstborn in the land of Egypt when He instituted the Passover and delivered His people out of the land, it is clear that the term "the firstborn" always refers to the first in a series of others that are born afterwards. Otherwise the Scripture would have said "I will slay your ONLY son" and in Matthew 1:25 God would have said "And knew her not till she had brought forth her ONLY son."

Let's look at the first usage of this word "firstborn". It is found in Genesis 10:15-16 "And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite..."

Genesis 19:31 "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth."

Genesis 22:21 "Heth his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram."

Genesis 27:19 "And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy firstborn..."

Genesis 29:26 "And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn."

Genesis 35:23 "The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun."

Now, let's look at the context of God killing the firstborn in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 11:4-5 "And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And ALL THE FIRSTBORN in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and ALL THE FIRSTBORN of beasts."

Exodus 12:12 "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite ALL THE FIRSTBORN in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD."

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote ALL THE FIRSTBORN in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and ALL THE FIRSTBORN of cattle."

IF the word firstborn meant the only son and the only offspring of all the beasts, then there would have been no more Egyptians and no more animal left to repopulate the land of Egypt and their entire history would have disappeared with the death of the parents. Unless, of course there were other sons and other offspring of the beasts. Oh, wait. That's why they're called "the firstborn", isn't it.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Matthew 6:13 & Luke 11:2-4 - Is your bible a "Catholic" bible?


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."

One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. If the Bible critics and "No Bible is the inerrant words of God" crowd can get rid of these words from the Holy Scriptures by means of their so called "science" of Textual Criticism, then no verse or reading is safe and sure. These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k, f, g, and q), which point to a Bible text that predates anything we have in the Greek copies. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.

In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading. At the bottom of this article you will find listed the manuscript evidence for this God inspired reading.

Several early church writings bear witness to these inspired words - "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, FOR THINE IS THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." Didache (100 AD)

"...but deliver us from evil. FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER." Tatian (140 AD), Diatessaron

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, FOR THINE IS THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." Chrysostom (347 - 407 AD), Concerning the Statutes, Homily 17 & Homily 19 on Matthew

"...FOR THINE IS THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (200 - 400 AD), 3.2, 7.2


The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.

However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them [in brackets], indicating doubt as to their authenticity. Even a big name modern day Bible agnostic like John MacArthur (who himself does not really believe that ANY Bible IS the inerrant words of God) comments on these words: "The doxology is simply this; “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever, Amen.” That’s a doxology. You just say it, you just think it, you just offer it to God, you don’t dissect it. And by the way, there’s manuscript evidence that Jesus didn’t even say this, that’s why it’s not included in some of your versions of the Bible. We don’t know whether He said it or not. Some manuscripts have it, some don’t." Agnostic = One who does not know for sure. See - "John MacArthur - pastor with no infallible Bible" -

John MacArthur - Another King James Bible Believer

Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.

The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."

The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.

Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence.

The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, ESV and Daniel Wallace's NET version, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts include the verse". The ESV footnotes: "Some manuscripts add". SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"? As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand. By the way, here is Undeniable Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. versions are in fact the new "Catholic" bibles and not Reformation bibles.

See Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

The ancient Syriac Peshitta reads: " And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.?

These words are also found in the following English Bible translations: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, John Wesley's translation of 1755, the Worsley bible 1770, Webster's 1833, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the New Berkelely Version 1969, the 1987 Amplified Version all read: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." and Green's Modern KJV.

The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: John Calvin's Latin translation, the Africaans Bible 1953, the Albanian, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian, Czech BKR, Chinese Traditional Union Version, Croatian, Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish bible of 1776 and 1938, French Louis Segond 1910, French Martin 1744, French Oservald 1996, the Gaelic, the Greek Orthodox Bible, Hungarian Karoli, Lithuanian, Luther's German 1545, German Schlachter Bibles of 1951 and 2000, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, the Modern Hebrew Bible that includes the New Testament, Hungarian, Icelandic, the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991, Korean, Latvian, Maori bible, Norwegian Det Norsk 1930, Polish Bible Gdanska, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal and Zhuromsky translations, the Shuar translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005 (Lockman), Swahili N.T., Tagalog Ang Dating bible, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and Vietnamese N.T. 1934.

The New Testament from Aramaic, copyright 1940 reads like the King James Bible saying: "Because thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, NET and the New Living Translation. Why? Because they are "Catholic" bibles put together by the United Bible Society which is a joint effort between Catholic and Evangelical scholars, none of whom believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% historically true words of God. Again, see the proof of this charge in the link above.

Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others, in spite of the MASSIVE evidence in favor of these inspired words, deny they are part of Scripture.

(more to come)

 

[brandplucked]

John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."

Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."

Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.

John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755)

Octavius Winslow comments on these words in Matthew 6:13 - “We see no just reason, however, to question its integrity. Found as it is in the Syriac copy, the most ancient version of the New Testament--standing as it does in close harmony with the very first petition of the prayer--and maintaining a strict analogy with the whole tenor of God's Word, we feel no difficulty in accepting it as genuine.”

A.W. Pink expounds upon the passage and includes the Doxology as inspired Scripture. He states: “"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Thus the family prayer closes with a doxology or an ascription of that glory which is due unto God, thereby teaching us that prayer and praise should always go together. It is to be carefully noted that this doxology of the Divine perfections is made use of as a plea to enforce the preceding petitions: "deliver us from evil for Thine is the kingdom," etc....The concluding "Amen" expresses both a fervent desire, "so be it," and an avowal to faith, "it shall be so."

Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.

John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."

Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."

Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.

John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755)
Some Bible critics I have run into try to tell us that the Doxology found in Matthew 6:13 should be omitted because it is not found in a similar prayer recorded in Luke 11:1-4. These critics fail to notice the obvious. The context of Luke chapter 11 is very different from the context of Matthew chapter 6. In Matthew the Lord is giving the sermon on the mount to a great multitude. In Luke it is the disciples who come to our Lord at a different time and request that He teach them how to pray.

There are also some very serious textual changes found in the prayer pattern found in Luke 11:2-4. In the King James Holy Bible we read: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, 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."

All the capital lettered words have been omitted in such versions as the NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV. and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version). Every one of these omitted words are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts and in the previous Reformation Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. They are also found in John Calvin's Latin translation, Luther's German Bible 1545, the Italian Diodati 1649, the Spanish Reina Bible of 1569 and the Reina Valera of 1602, and the French Martin of 1744. This was the text of the Reformation Bibles. BUT Guess which bible versions omit all these words and read just like the ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV. You got it; the Catholic bibles omit the exact same words, including the Catholic Rheims of 1582, the Douay 1950, the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985! Just another coinkidink, huh? So you'll know that I am not making this stuff up, you can check out the 1582 Catholic Rheims bible for yourself, along with Tyndale, Cranmer Bible and the Geneva bible at this site here:

English Hexapla 1841. Greek New Testament according to Scholtz with 6 ancient English translations: Wiclif 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, Geneva 1557, Rheims 1582, Authorised 1611

Then check your ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET etc. to see how they read when compared to the Catholic versions. It's right there in front of you in black and white print. So all this "scholar-speak" about "We now have older and better manuscripts" (Vaticanus) and their constant droning on about "the latest in manuscript discoveries" and "The KJV translators didn't have access to these older readings" etc. is just a bunch of Baloney! Go ahead and choke on it, and then toss those bogus bibles of yours and get yourself the real Bible - the Authorized King James Holy Bible that you can hold in your hands (unlike those phantom "originals only") read and believe that every word is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of the living God.

The NIV, NASB, ISV and ESV omit all these capitalized words primarily on the basis of 4 manuscripts, yet among these four so called "oldest and best" out of the 45 Greek words found within just three verses, no two of them agree with each other in 32 out of the 45 words found here! And the new version Critical Text scholars call this a "science"!

(more to come)

 

[brandplucked]

The Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world reads exactly like the King James Bible and the Reformation Bibles in both Matthew 6:13 and in Luke 11:2-4. Here is the Modern Greek reading for Luke 11:2-4 -Verse 2. - Ειπε δε προς αυτους· Οταν προσευχησθε, λεγετε· Πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις, αγιασθητω το ονομα σου, ελθετω η βασιλεια σου, γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω, και επι της γης· Verse 3. - τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδε εις ημας καθ' ημεραν· Verse 4. και συγχωρησον εις ημας τας αμαρτιας ημων, διοτι και ημεις συγχωρουμεν εις παντα αμαρτανοντα εις ημας· και μη φερης ημας εις πειρασμον, αλλ' ελευθερωσον ημας απο του πονηρου.


The Lord Jesus Christ either said all these words and they are inspired Scripture and belong in the Bible, or they are not and should be omitted. Remember, He emphatically stated "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." So how about it? Are you a Bible believer or, like so many Christians today, a Bible agnostic who says: "We don’t know whether He said it or not."?

Manuscript Evidence for the inclusion of Jesus's own words as recorded in Matthew 6:13


"For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" omitted by DR, RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, NSRB marg., NEB, NWT, JB. AMP italicises the words, NASV places them in brackets, indicating "words probably not in the original writings (sic)."

Fuller (32) p 108, citing Burgon, states that of more than 500 relevant (Greek) manuscripts, all but nine contain the AV l611 reading. Hills (3) p 118 and (38) p 146, states that uncials B, Aleph, D, Z and 6 cursives omit the words, together with 9 manuscripts of the Old Latin and all of Jerome's Vulgate. The TBS (58) "The Power and the Glory" have an extremely detailed compilation on this text as follows:

Evidence for the authenticity of the AV 1611 reading: 1st Century: 2 Timothy 4:1 8b (cross reference); 2nd Century: Didache (document of Apostolic Teaching, discovered 1875, (38) p 117), Tatian's Diatessaron, Old Syriac version (Peshitta); 3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic (i.e. Egyptian) versions; 4th Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Old Latin manuscript k, Gothic (Ulfilas (5) p 208) and Armenian versions; 5th Century: Uncial W, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium ((3) p 147), Georgian version; 6th Century: Uncials Sigma, Phi; Ethiopic version; Palestinian, Harcican and Curetonian Syriac((3)p 118); 8th Century: Uncials E, L; 9th Century: Uncials G, K, M, U, V, Delta, Phi, Pi; Old Latin f, g; Cursives 33, 565, 892; 10th Century: Cursive 1079; 11th Century: Cursives 28, 124, 174, 230, 700, 788, 1216; 12th Century: Cursives 346,543, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1230, 1241, 1365, 1646; 13th Century: Cursives 13, 1009, 1242, 1546; 14th Century: Cursives 2148,2174; 15th Century: Cursives 69, 1253.

Here is a site where you can see the ancient Gothic Version of the four gospels done in the year 360 A.D. by Ufilas. You can clearly see that Matthew 6:13 includes the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." -

The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns, with the versions of ... - Google Books



The TBS (ibid) states that the majority of the "very numerous" 'Byzantine'" copies, including lectionaries, contain the AV l611 reading. The evidence against the AV l611 reading is as follows: 2nd Century: Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, who all fail to mention the words-as do later writers listed below; 3rd Century: Some Coptic manuscripts; 4th Century: Aleph, B, Old Latin a, Caesarius Nazarene, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary; 5th Century: Uncial D, Old Latin b, h; Chromatics, Augustine; 6th Century: Uncial Z, Cursive 0170; 7th Century: Old Latin 1; 9th Century: Old Latin g2; 10-11th Centuries: Old Latin ff.;12-l3th Centuries: Cursive 1, 118, Lectionary 547, Old Latin c; 14-15th Centuries: Cursives 131,209, 17, 130. Clearly, the available evidence vastly favours the AV 1611 reading.

For a much fuller explanation of why modern "Evangelical" versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are in fact the new "Catholic" bible versions, see Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASBs are Catholic bibles here -

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible is right and it's critics are wrong, as always.

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

Will Kinney For a very well done article with lots of research about the Doxology in Matthew 6 please see the article here at KJV Today

Is the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 a late addition? - King James Version Today

Return to Articles - Articles - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[brandplucked]

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?

It is devastating for the modern version promoter to see where the New Jerusalem Catholic bible lands on these verses. Also notice how the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims read. It was a whole lot closer to the historical truth than are these more modern translations.

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$".

Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

(more to come)

 

[brandplucked]

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."

or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem)

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem).

If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

As for the ESV, you can see a lot more examples of how this revamped RSV version often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and has changed over 300 verses from the 2001 to the 2007 editions -

The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Scott4Him]

Ok. Can you provide any Scripture that teaches the KJV is the only valid English version? Or failing that, is there a passage that suggests only one authorized translation should exist?

I've seen lots of "traditions of men" cited here but not a single verse that supports a KJVO doctrine.

 

[Keachian]

I've seen lots of "traditions of men" cited here but not a single verse that supports a KJVO doctrine.

It's in Wilkinson 1:45, interestingly enough the book of Wilkinson, written by the modern prophet Benjamin G. Wilkinson is seen only as Scriptural by KJVO and also supports such doctrines as the Investigative Judgment, and other SDA doctrines.

 

[Scott4Him]

It's in Wilkinson 1:45, interestingly enough the book of Wilkinson, written by the modern prophet Benjamin G. Wilkinson is seen only as Scriptural by KJVO and also supports such doctrines as the Investigative Judgment, and other SDA doctrines.

*snicker*

Well there you have it!

 

[brandplucked]

Ok. Can you provide any Scripture that teaches the KJV is the only valid English version? Or failing that, is there a passage that suggests only one authorized translation should exist?

I've seen lots of "traditions of men" cited here but not a single verse that supports a KJVO doctrine.

Hi Scott. I have lots of reasons for my belief that the King James Bible is God's infallible Book. I will give you the links to a couple of my articles on this.

But first, let's turn this around and ask YOU if YOU have any Biblical basis at all for what YOU believe about the Bible? Is there ANY verse at all that teaches "only the originals were inspired" or that teaches as most here believe "No translation of the Bible can be the infallible words of God."

This sword cuts both ways, you know.

The Christian has only 4 Options when it comes to the infallibility of the Bible. I am in Option Number 4. Which one are you in and do you have any Scripture to back it up with? Thanks. Here they are -

Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? or Does the King James Bible only position “blow up”?

KJB only "blow up"? - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Keachian]

The Christian has only 4 Options when it comes to the infallibility of the Bible. I am in Option Number 4. Which one are you in and do you have any Scripture to back it up with?

Your list of options is too small imo for those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture,

I would add option 5; the Holy Spirit enables the believer to know the word, it is he who guides the believer and uses Scripture (whatever the translation, underlying text, etc.) as a tool in the Sanctification of the believer.

I would also hold that your badly formed pneumatology and exacerbated bibliology causes you to reject this as a viable option, from your website I see that you are Calvinistic in your soteriology, so why is God unable to through his regenerative indwelling of the believer guide them?

 

[brandplucked]

Your list of options is too small imo for those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture,

I would add option 5; the Holy Spirit enables the believer to know the word, it is he who guides the believer and uses Scripture (whatever the translation, underlying text, etc.) as a tool in the Sanctification of the believer.

I would also hold that your badly formed pneumatology and exacerbated bibliology causes you to reject this as a viable option, from your website I see that you are Calvinistic in your soteriology, so why is God unable to through his regenerative indwelling of the believer guide them?

So, prog. Tell us, which of these is your "inerrant scriptures" the Holy Spirit both inspired and is using to guide you into this Sanctification you talk about?

Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."

or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)


As for your question - "from your website I see that you are Calvinistic in your soteriology, so why is God unable to through his regenerative indwelling of the believer guide them?"

God IS in control of everything and one of the big things He is doing with us it to humble our pride in the dust. If it doesn't happen here, it most definitely will happen there before His throne. One sure way to humble the vain pride of man is to have him finally realize at the end of his life when he stands before his Maker is that he has spent much of his life and energy fighting against God's truth - either exalting man's fancied "free will" and "I chose of my own free will to believe the gospel", or fighting against the true Book of the Lord and denying that it exists and having made your own mind and understanding and personal preferences your "final authority" instead. You may well be in for a double whammy, my bible agnostic friend.

"And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day." Isaiah 2:17