The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[PrincetonGuy]

You are distorting Dr. Logsdon's words in order to say he lied.

Please stop lying. I made no comments about Dr. Logsdon's words.

So you are calling the late Dr. Logsdon a liar,

I did not call Dr. Logsdon a liar—I simply proved that he was a liar.

and using that as an excuse to ignore the tens of thousands of changes and deletions between only two editions of the NASB one year apart.

Please stop lying. In 1960, the Lockman Foundation published their translation of the Gospel According to John as a part of what was to become the NASB. Their publication of the four gospels followed in 1962, and in 1963 they published the New Testament. In 1968, they published a revised New Testament in which Greek verbs in the historical present were no longer translated using the English present tense, but rather translated using the English past tense as they are in nearly all translations of the New Testament, including the KJV. However, these verbs were marked using an asterisk to alert the reader to the fact that in the Greek text, the historical present was used. This helpful feature is part of the Lockman Foundation’s translation policy to give the reader a more accurate translation of the Greek tenses as they are used in the Greek New Testament. The complete NASB was first published in 1971 and underwent very minor revisions in 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. A much more thorough revision was published in 1995 as the Updated New American Stand Bible. This revision was mostly a revision of the English grammar to make it more contemporary and thus easier to read.

The claim that “tens of thousands of changes and deletions” were made to the NASB “between only two editions of the NASB one year apart” could, therefore, refer only to the 1973 edition. I own a copy of that edition, and it is almost identical to the 1971 edition that I also own. Therefore, the claim is nothing more than another of the thousands of lies circulating within the KJO crowd.

This is typical of people like Dr. White, ignore evidence, twist words, and trash the character of the person you disagree with.

Is it impossible to tell the truth? Please post proof that DR. White has ignored any evidence that God has preserved his word in the KJV and that all other translations are perversions. Of course you cannot, because there is NO evidence that God has preserved his word in the KJV and that all other translations are perversions. Furthermore, please post proof that DR. White has twisted words and trashed the character of persons that he disagree with.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

First of all being a book publisher is NOT a sin as you seem to imply. And saying new translations are easier to understand than the KJV id not a lie it's a fact. The Bible, even new translations, have brought many people to salvation before they were filled with the Holy Spirit. It's the Spirit that calls them to salvation through the Bible.

Sir, I'm sure you are an excellent servant of our Lord and uphold the highest standards of honesty. I have stated facts about copyright law and the legal requirements of substantial changes to secure profits for the publishers. That's all. If you think that implies sin on behalf of any certain publisher, I would suggest you investigate deeper into the matter regarding that publisher, and I would suggest you examine the motives of the editors and translators who secure profits for themselves by inventing enough substantial changes which must differ from the derived source so they can own the rights to all sales of their work.

If you want to believe you do not have God's word and whatever you think is the most accurate translation is as close as you can get to knowing exactly what God said, you can believe that. If you want to pay people to give you their own version of God's word, go ahead and pay them, buy all the versions, parallel versions, gender-neutral versions, whatever. I don't give money to people who claim they are serving God by making their own translation of His word and profiting from it.

As for readability, the King James Bible scores at a fifth grade reading level by national scholastic standards. Because of the changes necessitated by copyright laws, all versions that were invented after the Authorized Version score at least one grade level higher. This is do to changes in words from simple words to more difficult words and changes in phraseology which make comprehension more difficult. It is in these changes that fundamental doctrines of the faith are presented in ways which can be interpreted as heretical. Modern versions are sold by the gimmickry of claiming to be current vernacular, and people buy that claim blindly without examining the facts, without noticing the thousands of changes and deletions, without noticing how so many of those changes and deletions are in wordings which alter, deny, or blur fundamental doctrines of the faith. It is sold ad "cool", and "politically correct" to discard the "thines and thous".

Most people who argue against the preservation of scriptures and God's hand in bringing us His word in our own language will ignore all of the FACTS I have presented and spit on the detailed studies which support those facts.

If you want to use modern copyrighted books which are called Bibles go ahead. I know what they are. They are fake Bibles.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Please stop lying. I made no comments about Dr. Logsdon's words.



I did not call Dr. Logsdon a liar—I simply proved that he was a liar.



Please stop lying. In 1960, the Lockman Foundation published their translation of the Gospel According to John as a part of what was to become the NASB. Their publication of the four gospels followed in 1962, and in 1963 they published the New Testament. In 1968, they published a revised New Testament in which Greek verbs in the historical present were no longer translated using the English present tense, but rather translated using the English past tense as they are in nearly all translations of the New Testament, including the KJV. However, these verbs were marked using an asterisk to alert the reader to the fact that in the Greek text, the historical present was used. This helpful feature is part of the Lockman Foundation’s translation policy to give the reader a more accurate translation of the Greek tenses as they are used in the Greek New Testament. The complete NASB was first published in 1971 and underwent very minor revisions in 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. A much more thorough revision was published in 1995 as the Updated New American Stand Bible. This revision was mostly a revision of the English grammar to make it more contemporary and thus easier to read.

The claim that “tens of thousands of changes and deletions” were made to the NASB “between only two editions of the NASB one year apart” could, therefore, refer only to the 1973 edition. I own a copy of that edition, and it is almost identical to the 1971 edition that I also own. Therefore, the claim is nothing more than another of the thousands of lies circulating within the KJO crowd.



Is it impossible to tell the truth? Please post proof that DR. White has ignored any evidence that God has preserved his word in the KJV and that all other translations are perversions. Of course you cannot, because there is NO evidence that God has preserved his word in the KJV and that all other translations are perversions. Furthermore, please post proof that DR. White has twisted words and trashed the character of persons that he disagree with.

Please stop calling me a liar. I am not calling you a liar. I am only saying you are taking in all honesty a biased approach. You are using a lot of arguments which were designed to smear a man's character and cast doubt on his words.

White is a borderline psychopath. I say this because of the way his main method of arguing is to assault the character of those he disagrees with rather than to discuss factual evidence objectively. You are doing the same thing, but I believe you are doing in in honesty making an honest mistake.

 

[revrobor]

The KJV is NOT written in our language. It is in the language of the streets in 1600 England. No fundamental doctrines have been changed in modern translations (and I'm not talking about the perversions like the "gender neutral Bible and such). I remember how one mislead preazcher spoke against the Living Bible because that paraphrase used the word "sacrifice" instead off "blood" in a verse. He apparently did not know it means the same thing. The "blood" is talking about Jesus "sacrifice".

 

[Jessica01]

Please stop calling me a liar. I am not calling you a liar. I am only saying you are taking in all honesty a biased approach. You are using a lot of arguments which were designed to smear a man's character and cast doubt on his words.

White is a borderline psychopath. I say this because of the way his main method of arguing is to assault the character of those he disagrees with rather than to discuss factual evidence objectively. You are doing the same thing, but I believe you are doing in in honesty making an honest mistake.

I don't think it is White who is the one who assaults the character of the ones he disagrees with. Gail Riplinger does that.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Age Bible Versions Refuted[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now we need to remember that New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible versions, or who would dare to defend translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, as not just non�Christians, but as anti�Christians who are opposed to God's work in this world and who actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gail Riplinger's unique view of the world and theology is, in fact, a New Ager in sheep's clothing. A quick review of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, his image, and religion[/FONT]�[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lucifer worship. She describes the historic Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, as a "scandalous and sacrilegious" belief that "will stun and shock the reader" (NABV, p. 231). Riplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer with everyone from Blavatsky to Hitler to Charlie Manson! All are in one boat according to New Age Bible Versions. No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position. In light of this, I hope no one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gail's book.[/FONT]

 

[PrincetonGuy]

White is a borderline psychopath. I say this because of the way his main method of arguing is to assault the character of those he disagrees with rather than to discuss factual evidence objectively.

Is this really an accurate description of White, or is it an accurate description of his accuser? Most certainly it is NOT an accurate description of James R. White—and everyone who knows the man and has read his book ( The King James Only Controversy ) knows better.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I don't think it is White who is the one who assaults the character of the ones he disagrees with. Gail Riplinger does that.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Age Bible Versions Refuted[/FONT]

When people claim to be qualified to be our leaders as Christians, and their lifestyle or statements of beliefs disqualifies them, it is good to point that out. To be honest and accurate is not character assassination.

Would you say Jesus was assaulting people's character when He called them liars, thieves, vipers, children of Hell? Or was he pointing out the truth? There is a difference between using insults and innuendo as a means of avoiding discussing facts, and using accurate words to point out sin.

If you want to model yourself after Dr. White with his bogus doctoral degree, go ahead. I'll follow Jesus.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I don't think it is White who is the one who assaults the character of the ones he disagrees with. Gail Riplinger does that.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Age Bible Versions Refuted[/FONT]

Have you read any of Riplinger's books, or do you allow slander like this to prevent you from looking at the facts for yourself?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I don't think it is White who is the one who assaults the character of the ones he disagrees with. Gail Riplinger does that.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Age Bible Versions Refuted[/FONT]

Now we need to remember that New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible versions, or who would dare to defend translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, as not just non�Christians, but as anti�Christians who are opposed to God's work in this world and who actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gail Riplinger's unique view of the world and theology is, in fact, a New Ager in sheep's clothing. A quick review of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, his image, and religion�Lucifer worship. She describes the historic Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, as a "scandalous and sacrilegious" belief that "will stun and shock the reader" (NABV, p. 231). Riplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer with everyone from Blavatsky to Hitler to Charlie Manson! All are in one boat according to New Age Bible Versions. No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position. In light of this, I hope no one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gail's book.


This whole thing is nothing but slander designed to make you angry in order to keep you from looking at the facts which support the King James Bible as the word of God in English. Look at how it is inflammatory, designed to push your buttons and make you feel like you are righteous if you hate Gail Riplinger

Look at this honestly, look at what they are doing trying to make you hateful:

"No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position."

A statement like this, if true, spoken against any person on the planet, is reason why every good person on the planet should hate that person. The statement is obviously a lie, but it is placed after a series of similar statements which build on top of each other to fuel your anger in order to keep you from looking at Riplinger's work. If this statement were true, her books would be nothing but personal attacks on other people. Her work is extremely detailed and fact based, focusing on the word of God and the differences between versions, and part of her work also discusses the strange beliefs and questionable public behavior of many of the editors and translators of modern versions. By ignoring all of her scholarly and fact based work and focusing only on the way she exposes the habits and beliefs of the people who guided the formation of varying versions, a criticism like the one above pushes your buttons to make you feel you have a righteous hatred against an evil person, and you should ignore any factual evidence she presents. That is key to how fascism inspires people to murder, it is how the Nazis inspired Germans to kill innocent Jews, it is how the world today is conspiring to kill Christians by painting them the way this paragraph is painting Riplinger.

When faith is a crime, do you think there will be enough evidence to convict me? So many Christian, so few lions is a common saying on college campuses today. I wonder if you would cheer while I am jailed for my refusal to renounce the word of God being preserved in the King James Bible and everything it says against homosexuality and for the righteous judgment of eternal condemnation in the Lake of Fire? Will you cheer if they imprison Riplinger? Will you sit silent and say, "oh well, KJVonly folks deserve to be punished"?


I think Dr White is psychotic, but I will defend his right to speak and not forbid others from listening to him. The inflammatory statements above are only designed to make you hateful and in that way make it impossible for you to hear what Riplinger is saying, effectively silencing her, dehumanizing her, and preparing her to be marched off to the gas chamber when you are brainwashed enough to say "oh well, that's what happens to KJVonly types" and sit back and watch.

Notice how they say "a quick review" of her works supports their attack against her. They are trying to inflame you to prevent you from honestly investigating her works, to prevent you from actually reading them to hear what she is saying. They want you to look at her works with nothing more than "a quick review", and you don't even need to do that because they are assuring you that they have done it for you and it supports everything they are saying. This is brainwashing to keep you from reading Riplinger's books for yourself.

Friend, it's ok for you to read Riplinger's books for yourself and make your own decision. It might be hard to do after being inspired to be biased and hateful toward her with the garbage in the slanderous paragraphs above, but I suggest you do it. I gain nothing by saying this. You are not buying my books, you are not buying my copyrighted translation of the Bible. Jesus said the truth would make you free. The attack on Riplinger is designed to make you hateful. I don't think you want to be hateful.
I do recommend watching and listening to Dr White to see the weaknesses of his arguments and approach, and if you agree with him and want to watch him, that's ok, I still love you but I do not try to make him shut up. Go ahead and watch him all day long. I get bored by him quickly because to me he comes across as psychotic, but many find him interesting and entertaining and that's ok with me.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The KJV is NOT written in our language. It is in the language of the streets in 1600 England. No fundamental doctrines have been changed in modern translations (and I'm not talking about the perversions like the "gender neutral Bible and such). I remember how one mislead preazcher spoke against the Living Bible because that paraphrase used the word "sacrifice" instead off "blood" in a verse. He apparently did not know it means the same thing. The "blood" is talking about Jesus "sacrifice".

I only know one language, it's English, and I have no problem reading the King James Bible. Maybe you need to take some English classes.


Jesus' sacrifice is not specific about how your sins are paid for. He had no place to lay his head, he sacrificed a lot of things. There is only one thing that pays for your sins, and that is His blood. To say His sacrifice pays for your sins is doctrinally weak and if not heretical. The blood is talking about the blood. The sacrifice can be talking about many other things. Why take out the simple word and replace it with a word that is broad in meaning and has to be explained in order for you to know it's limited and simple in what it is saying? The blood is the blood, plain and simple.

Why do you feel that you have to discredit the King James Bible and uphold varying versions which have thousands of changes and deletions? Why can't you examine the facts about how many things have been changed and deleted, and why so many of them are things like "holy" "blood" "Christ" ?




Why is the gender neutral version a perversion but the NIV which was tailored by a lesbian as one of the editors equal in authority to the other editors, and well known to be a lesbian was not a perversion? How do you know the difference between a version and a perversion? Guess which passages in the NIV are changed? Guess which words are changed in the NIV thanks to the lesbian editor? Could one of those be "sodomites"? hmmmm, I wonder why the word of God was changed that way in the NIV? How can it be the word of God if it can be changed?

 

[Jessica01]

Now we need to remember that New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible versions, or who would dare to defend translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, as not just non�Christians, but as anti�Christians who are opposed to God's work in this world and who actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gail Riplinger's unique view of the world and theology is, in fact, a New Ager in sheep's clothing. A quick review of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, his image, and religion�Lucifer worship. She describes the historic Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, as a "scandalous and sacrilegious" belief that "will stun and shock the reader" (NABV, p. 231). Riplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer with everyone from Blavatsky to Hitler to Charlie Manson! All are in one boat according to New Age Bible Versions. No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position. In light of this, I hope no one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gail's book.


This whole thing is nothing but slander designed to make you angry in order to keep you from looking at the facts which support the King James Bible as the word of God in English. Look at how it is inflammatory, designed to push your buttons and make you feel like you are righteous if you hate Gail Riplinger

Look at this honestly, look at what they are doing trying to make you hateful:

"No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position."

A statement like this, if true, spoken against any person on the planet, is reason why every good person on the planet should hate that person. The statement is obviously a lie, but it is placed after a series of similar statements which build on top of each other to fuel your anger in order to keep you from looking at Riplinger's work. If this statement were true, her books would be nothing but personal attacks on other people. Her work is extremely detailed and fact based, focusing on the word of God and the differences between versions, and part of her work also discusses the strange beliefs and questionable public behavior of many of the editors and translators of modern versions. By ignoring all of her scholarly and fact based work and focusing only on the way she exposes the habits and beliefs of the people who guided the formation of varying versions, a criticism like the one above pushes your buttons to make you feel you have a righteous hatred against an evil person, and you should ignore any factual evidence she presents. That is key to how fascism inspires people to murder, it is how the Nazis inspired Germans to kill innocent Jews, it is how the world today is conspiring to kill Christians by painting them the way this paragraph is painting Riplinger.

d


I think Dr White is psychotic, but I will defend his right to speak and not forbid others from listening to him. The inflammatory statements above are only designed to make you hateful and in that way make it impossible for you to hear what Riplinger is saying, effectively silencing her, dehumanizing her, and preparing her to be marched off to the gas chamber when you are brainwashed enough to say "oh well, that's what happens to KJVonly types" and sit back and watch.

Notice how they say "a quick review" of her works supports their attack against her. They are trying to inflame you to prevent you from honestly investigating her works, to prevent you from actually reading them to hear what she is saying. They want you to look at her works with nothing more than "a quick review", and you don't even need to do that because they are assuring you that they have done it for you and it supports everything they are saying. This is brainwashing to keep you from reading Riplinger's books for yourself.

Friend, it's ok for you to read Riplinger's books for yourself and make your own decision. It might be hard to do after being inspired to be biased and hateful toward her with the garbage in the slanderous paragraphs above, but I suggest you do it. I gain nothing by saying this. You are not buying my books, you are not buying my copyrighted translation of the Bible. Jesus said the truth would make you free. The attack on Riplinger is designed to make you hateful. I don't think you want to be hateful.
I do recommend watching and listening to Dr White to see the weaknesses of his arguments and approach, and if you agree with him and want to watch him, that's ok, I still love you but I do not try to make him shut up. Go ahead and watch him all day long. I get bored by him quickly because to me he comes across as psychotic, but many find him interesting and entertaining and that's ok with me.

You wrote:

This whole thing is nothing but slander designed to make you angry in order to keep you from looking at the facts which support the King James Bible as the word of God in English. Look at how it is inflammatory, designed to push your buttons and make you feel like you are righteous if you hate Gail Riplinger

The only thing I see slanderous is calling Dr. White psychotic. No one said we are to hate Gail.

And you wrote this:

I think Dr White is psychotic, but I will defend his right to speak and not forbid others from listening to him. The inflammatory statements above are only designed to make you hateful and in that way make it impossible for you to hear what Riplinger is saying, effectively silencing her, dehumanizing her, and preparing her to be marched off to the gas chamber when you are brainwashed enough to say "oh well, that's what happens to KJVonly types" and sit back and watch.

Well, that is making a bunch of drama and carrying something to an extreme. The non-KJV onlyists are not brainwashing people or advocating gas chambers or trying to make people hate.

I read much of Gail's book a number of years ago and looked into the whole KJV onlyism movement then, and saw too many flaws in the arguments she presented. It did not help when dealing with one of Dr. Ruckman's buddies at another site, and that fellow could not help but call everyone names and say terrible things about them for not being KJV only. It is a divisive belief, imho, and based on some errors. I love the KJV but also really like the NASB for study and especially like to read the Bible at sites like scripture4all, and to prayerfully study the language and the text in an inductive way.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You wrote:

The only thing I see slanderous is calling Dr. White psychotic. No one said we are to hate Gail.

And you wrote this:

Well, that is making a bunch of drama and carrying something to an extreme. The non-KJV onlyists are not brainwashing people or advocating gas chambers or trying to make people hate.

I read much of Gail's book a number of years ago and looked into the whole KJV onlyism movement then, and saw too many flaws in the arguments she presented. It did not help when dealing with one of Dr. Ruckman's buddies at another site, and that fellow could not help but call everyone names and say terrible things about them for not being KJV only. It is a divisive belief, imho, and based on some errors. I love the KJV but also really like the NASB for study and especially like to read the Bible at sites like scripture4all, and to prayerfully study the language and the text in an inductive way.

Whew, that's a relief. So you are nice and don't hate me. You had me worried for a minute by the way you let whoever that was slander Riplinger the way they did. Riplinger is a good woman, the kind who anybody would want to have as a next door neighbor, and Dr White is probably equally suited to be a good neighbor. I suppose "psychotic" is too strong of a word and I should have been more accurate in what I meant with it. I didn't mean it as badly as it sounded. The way Riplinger was painted in that slanderous paragragh, any decent person would have to hate her actively if not ignore and shun her totally. If you sat down and had lunch with her, you would probably find her to be much like yourself the same as I would find Dr White much like myself.

With Dr White, I would do the same as I did with my beloved and much missed mentor who was not a KJV only man. I would state my simple faith in believing that I have God's word in English and will accept no other version than the King James Bible, and I would say it's ok if you don't want to believe the same thing for yourself. The main thing is knowing that our sins are forgiven, paid for by the blood of God Himself as the Son of God sent by the Father, Jesus Christ who died in our place to save us from the eternal torments of death in the Lake of Fire.

I'm sure Dr. White is an honest law abiding citizen and from what he said, he does work hard to defend the faith of Jesus Christ against groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. His comments regarding Gail Riplinger were similar to what you posted in that paragraph, and that is extremely unfair to Riplinger. You're right, I did add some drama, but really not much. The comments against Riplinger are very exaggerated inflammatory and unfair geared toward making you hate her in order to keep you (or others) from reading her stuff. That is why I say people who use this kind of approach are borderline psychotic. It is not civil discourse, it is dehumanizing.

Dr. White is obviously well disciplined and well educated and probably completely harmless...except in using inflammatory speech which if believed, any decent person would have to hate the person he is talking about. Some of my friends are much more psychotic than Dr. White, but they are decent people and I enjoy their company.

The battle lines are being laid, the forces against freedom of speech are lining up to outlaw Christianity, outlaw the Bible as hate speech. I'm suspicious of people who will not stop fighting over things that are not vital to our salvation. Many people get saved believing all modern versions are better than the King James Version, and never reading the King James Version. I think that's sad because the King James Version is the crown jewel of versions, head and shoulders above all other versions in power of wording and eloquence of speech.
I'm glad you love the KJV. My mentor loved it too, and used nothing else when he taught or witnessed to others even though he was not a KJV only man. He knew it was special because of the beauty and power of the language and wording. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

When I got saved, it was only a couple weeks before I became a King James Bible only believer. Somebody showed me the doctrine of preservation in the Bible, it's very clear and simple and when I realized I was lost and needed to be saved and I believed on Jesus and received Him and was born again, that was simple too......dynamically profound, changed me, changed my life forever, and changed some lives around me by those changes....but simple, so simple. The gospel is simple, and believing God's word is kept pure for me in my own language in the Authorized version is also simple. I like simple faith...but trust me, if I want to I am fully trained and able to use complicated arguments which build on and support that simplicity.

I was a Ruckmanite back then. I think he came to our church one time when I was a new Christian. He was the name, the leader of the KJV only movement at that time and because of his trigger happy style of insulting up and down when people did not agree with him, he did more harm than good to the movement. Most KJV only people today have distanced themselves from him as I have. Even as a new Christian, eagerly learning from more mature Christians as much as I could, it bothered me sometimes when he seemed to go much father than called for with the insults. Jesus did call people names without pulling punches at times, but it was straight and to the point and not going on and on and on in anger. He spoke the truth and then walked away until it was time for Him to let them crucify Him. Ruckman is a pastor today, and that is an office ordained by God and he is serving God as best he can or as best as he knows how. He still deserves some respect, he is a brother in Christ and we are commanded to love each other.

Yes the issue of KJV only is divisive, but there was no division if the Authorized Version was not attacked by versions which came later, which were backed by people who had very unbiblical beliefs and ungodly habits which were permitted in light of unbiblical beliefs they held. The division is because of the modern versions, and there is a huge disinformation and cover up campaign which is trying to hide the history of the King James Version and the facts about the thousands of changes in wording and doctrine of other versions. I don't want to be offensive with you in criticizing the NASB, but I can show you hundreds of changes and omissions in it which alter and weaken basic doctrines of the faith. The King James Version is practically untouchable if you critique the upholding of doctrines in all passages and verses, many of which have been.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Which of Riplinger's books have you read? I have actually read none entirely. I use some of her comparison charts which are meticulously accurate and well done. In maybe one out of one hundred lines, she mentions people who have authored modern versions. That slanderous paragraph you posted about her was explosively and purposefully inflammatory, extremely unfair, character assassination which in my book is psychotic behavior..... designed to make people hate Riplinger before they give her a chance and read her materials.

I'm happy to say you don't come across in any way as psychotic.

 

[revrobor]

I only know one language, it's English, and I have no problem reading the King James Bible. Maybe you need to take some English classes.


Jesus' sacrifice is not specific about how your sins are paid for. He had no place to lay his head, he sacrificed a lot of things. There is only one thing that pays for your sins, and that is His blood. To say His sacrifice pays for your sins is doctrinally weak and if not heretical. The blood is talking about the blood. The sacrifice can be talking about many other things. Why take out the simple word and replace it with a word that is broad in meaning and has to be explained in order for you to know it's limited and simple in what it is saying? The blood is the blood, plain and simple.

Why do you feel that you have to discredit the King James Bible and uphold varying versions which have thousands of changes and deletions? Why can't you examine the facts about how many things have been changed and deleted, and why so many of them are things like "holy" "blood" "Christ" ?




Why is the gender neutral version a perversion but the NIV which was tailored by a lesbian as one of the editors equal in authority to the other editors, and well known to be a lesbian was not a perversion? How do you know the difference between a version and a perversion? Guess which passages in the NIV are changed? Guess which words are changed in the NIV thanks to the lesbian editor? Could one of those be "sodomites"? hmmmm, I wonder why the word of God was changed that way in the NIV? How can it be the word of God if it can be changed?

In King James English Me thinks you protesteth too much.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

When people claim to be qualified to be our leaders as Christians, and their lifestyle or statements of beliefs disqualifies them, it is good to point that out. To be honest and accurate is not character assassination.

These things are true, but to be grossly dishonest and devoid of truth when writing about the character of Christians who have devoted their lives to giving us the Bible in the best possible English translations is not only character assassination, it is bowing down to and serving Satan with all of one’s heart, mind, sole, and strength.

Would you say Jesus was assaulting people's character when He called them liars, thieves, vipers, children of Hell? Or was he pointing out the truth? There is a difference between using insults and innuendo as a means of avoiding discussing facts, and using accurate words to point out sin.

Jesus was speaking to a “brood of vipers”; He was not speaking to Christians who have devoted their lives to giving us the Bible in the best possible English translations.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

As for readability, the King James Bible scores at a fifth grade reading level by national scholastic standards

.

This is a lie, and the fact that it is a lie has been thoroughly documented in this thread and several other threads.

Because of the changes necessitated by copyright laws, all versions that were invented after the Authorized Version score at least one grade level higher.

This is a lie, and the fact that it is a lie has been thoroughly documented in this thread and several other threads. Moreover, all of your claims here and elsewhere about copyright laws are either non-cognizant gibberish—or outright lies.

This is do to changes in words from simple words to more difficult words and changes in phraseology which make comprehension more difficult.

This is a lie, and the fact that it is a lie has been thoroughly documented in this thread and several other threads.

It is in these changes that fundamental doctrines of the faith are presented in ways which can be interpreted as heretical.

This is nothing but non-cognizant gibberish.

Modern versions are sold by the gimmickry of claiming to be current vernacular, and people buy that claim blindly without examining the facts, without noticing the thousands of changes and deletions, without noticing how so many of those changes and deletions are in wordings which alter, deny, or blur fundamental doctrines of the faith. It is sold ad "cool", and "politically correct" to discard the "thines and thous".

None of these statements are true; they nothing are nothing but outright lies and non-cognizant nonsense.

Most people who argue against the preservation of scriptures and God's hand in bringing us His word in our own language will ignore all of the FACTS I have presented and spit on the detailed studies which support those facts.

These statements are NOT true; they are nothing but outright lies and false suggestions that you have presented facts in support of the nonsense that you are advocating for.

If you want to use modern copyrighted books which are called Bibles go ahead. I know what they are. They are fake Bibles.

The King James Version is in the public domain in most parts of the world, but in the United Kingdom the right to print, publish, and distribute it is still a Royal prerogative protected by laws regarding “Letters Patent.” To put it more simply, the King James translation of the Bible is still protected by copy rights. The protection of “intellectual property” is a basic human right, and is used by Bible publishers to protect their translations from abuse and theft. Unfortunately, that protection from abuse does not protect them from all satanic onslaughts through men and women who are all too anxious to bow down before him and do his bidding.

 

[now faith]

You wrote:

The only thing I see slanderous is calling Dr. White psychotic. No one said we are to hate Gail.

And you wrote this:

Well, that is making a bunch of drama and carrying something to an extreme. The non-KJV onlyists are not brainwashing people or advocating gas chambers or trying to make people hate.

I read much of Gail's book a number of years ago and looked into the whole KJV onlyism movement then, and saw too many flaws in the arguments she presented. It did not help when dealing with one of Dr. Ruckman's buddies at another site, and that fellow could not help but call everyone names and say terrible things about them for not being KJV only. It is a divisive belief, imho, and based on some errors. I love the KJV but also really like the NASB for study and especially like to read the Bible at sites like scripture4all, and to prayerfully study the language and the text in an inductive way.

Respectively,KJV only is not a movement.
The King James has been the Bible of choice for English speaking people for Hundreds of years.

It is the other translations that are much newer,and have brought on a anti King James movement.

I have talked with one Pastor that because I use the King James,I would not fit into his teaching out of the new versions.

Inductive reasoning is a difficult way to seek the wisdom of God's Word.

A inductive example would be to say there are many paths to God.

Inductive reasoning suggest broad generalisation, logic dictates that truth is fact it cannot be

generalisation.

Example of deductive reasoning : Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life,no man cometh to the father but by me.

You cannot generalise this statement without making another way for man to come to God
Other than Christ.

It becomes a Gospel of uncertainty and innuendo.

 

[Jack Koons]

The KJV is NOT written in our language. It is in the language of the streets in 1600 England. No fundamental doctrines have been changed in modern translations (and I'm not talking about the perversions like the "gender neutral Bible and such). I remember how one mislead preazcher spoke against the Living Bible because that paraphrase used the word "sacrifice" instead off "blood" in a verse. He apparently did not know it means the same thing. The "blood" is talking about Jesus "sacrifice".

Just a small note:

A study of the English language used in the 1600's will show that the common person, on the "stree", did not 'speak' in the manner that the KJV was written.

Jack

 

[tall73]

Just a small note:

A study of the English language used in the 1600's will show that the common person, on the "stree", did not 'speak' in the manner that the KJV was written.

Jack

And a trip outside your door for a few minutes would show that the common person "on the street" currently does not speak in the manner that the KJV was written either.

 

[Jack Koons]

And a trip outside your door for a few minutes would show that the common person "on the street" currently does not speak in the manner that the KJV was written either.

You are current; I was simply correcting an improper implication made about the vernacular of the KJV.