King James Version [Archive] - Prophecy Fellowship Forums

PDA

View Full Version : King James Version

Gitana

June 27th, 2005, 06:43 PM

Maverick

June 27th, 2005, 06:53 PM

This might help http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=204797

blitzkreig

June 27th, 2005, 07:10 PM

I was wondering if anyone knows why the KJV should be the "main" Bible we go by?? Because there are more printed copies of the KJV than any other book in the world.

And because of its huge impact on the English Language itself. It consolidated and gave centre to the many dialects which became "English".

And because of its profound impact on literature.

For hundreds of years it became the book from which most of the English speaking world learnt to read.

You might find this interesting from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)

Literary influence

The King James Version has proved to have been an influence on writers and poets, whether in their literary style, or matters of content such as the images they depicted, until the advent of modernism. Although influenced by the Bible in general, they likely could not have helped being influenced by the style of writing the King James Version used, prevalent as it was during their time. John Hayes Gardiner of Harvard University once stated that "in all study of English literature, if there be any one axiom which may be accepted without question, it is that the ultimate standard of English prose style is set by the King James version of the Bible". Compton's Encyclopedia once said that the King James Version "…has been a model of writing for generations of English-speaking people." [2] (http://www.holybible.com/resources/famous_quotes.htm)

A general effect of the King James Version was to influence writers in their model of writing; beforehand, authors generally wrote as scholars addressing an audience of other scholars, as few ordinary peasants were literate at the time. The King James Version, as it was meant for dissemination among the ordinary man and to be read by preachers to their congregations, could not afford the luxury of using such a technique. The simpler, more direct style used by the translators of the King James Version so influenced authors that their prose began to address the reader as if he or she was an ordinary person instead of a scholar, thus helping create the idea of the general reader.

19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon once declared of author John Bunyan, "Read anything of his, and you will see that it is almost like reading the Bible itself." Bunyan's allegorical novel, The Pilgrim's Progress, was a cornerstone of early Protestant literature; frequently, it would be the second piece of literature translated into the vernacular by missionaries, the first being the King James Version itself — though it is noteworthy that The Pilgrim's Progress mostly quoted from the Geneva Bible. According to Thomas Macaulay, "he knew no language but the English as it was spoken by the common people; he had studied no great model of composition, with the exception of our noble translation of the Bible. But of that his knowledge was such that he might have been called a living concordance".

John Milton, author of the blank verse epic poem Paradise Lost, was heavily influenced by the King James Version, beginning his day with a reading from that version of the Bible; in his later life, he would then spend an hour meditating in silence. Milton, who cast two Psalms into meter at the age of 15 while an undergraduate in Cambridge University, filled his works with images obviously taken from the Bible. The poem Lycidas, for example, depicted the Apostle Peter and the keys he was given by Jesus according to a literal reading of the Bible:

Last came and last did go
The pilot of the Galilean lake;
Two massy keys he bore of metals twain,
(The golden opes, the iron shuts amain).

The allusions made to the Bible by John Dryden were inescapable for those who had studied it well; as an example, in the poem Mac Flecknoe, he wrote:

Sinking, he left his drugget robe behind,
Borne upward by a subterranean wind,
The mantle fell to the young prophet's part,
With double portion of his father's art.

Several more famous writers and poets have taken inspiration from the King James Version. William Wordsworth's poems such as Intimations of Immortality and Ode to Duty contained obvious references to the Bible. Poet George Byron even composed poems which required prior understanding of the Bible before one could fully comprehend them, such as Jephtha's Daughter and The Song of Saul Before his Last Battle. John Keats described "the sad heart of Ruth, / when, sick for home, She stood in tears amid the alien corn."

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, an American poet, once wrote "There are times when the grasshopper is a burden, and thirsty with the heat of labor the spirit longs for the waters of Shiloah, that go softly", a clear reference to the King James Version, both in its content and in its style. Herman Melville, too, could not avoid being influenced by the King James Version; his book Moby Dick is clearly related to the Bible, with characters going by names such as Ishmael and Ahab. Walt Whitman was deeply influenced by the King James Version, and especially by the Biblical poetry of the prophets and psalms. Whitman wrote in Leaves of Grass:

I sit and look out upon all the sorrows of the world, and upon all oppression and shame;
I hear secret convulsive sobs from young men, at anguish with themselves, remorseful after deeds done;
I see, in low life, the mother misused by her children, dying, neglected, gaunt, desperate...

The language of Emily Dickinson was informed by the Bible. Mark Twain used the book of Genesis as the basis for From Adam's Diary and From Eve's Diary. The Rise of Silas Lapham by William Dean Howells uses the image of Jacob wrestling with the angel as an important metaphor. Many poems by T.S. Eliot employ images drawn from the Bible. Ernest Hemingway titled his first novel The Sun Also Rises, after a quote from Ecclesiastes, and Flannery O'Connor drew on the gospels for the title and theme of The Violent Bear it Away.

.

Benja32one

June 27th, 2005, 07:16 PM

:thumb
Good, complete post, brother!
:nod

Gitana

June 27th, 2005, 07:22 PM

I did look thru that old thread, but it really didn't help me understand completely
why we use that version.

I just don't see the need to use only the KJV. I know a lot of Christians who say it's the only version that's right and I wonder why.

Thanks,
Gitana

Gitana

June 27th, 2005, 07:24 PM

Patty T

June 27th, 2005, 07:26 PM

Personally I'm very thankful for other versions. If the King James was the only translation we had, I'd be in deep trouble. Try as I have, I can't read nor understand it.

blitzkreig

June 27th, 2005, 09:10 PM

Personally I'm very thankful for other versions. If the King James was the only translation we had, I'd be in deep trouble. Try as I have, I can't read nor understand it.For many many years the Scriptures were only reproduced in Latin.

While the KJV wasn't the first to be produced in another language, and it took quite a while before it became the accepted "Gold Standard", you don't see many Latin copies being quoted now-a-days :lol

.

Harley

June 27th, 2005, 10:01 PM

...Did King James have some divine intervention or something that makes his version special??? ...
A small minority would say "Yes." But I've never heard any good argument to convince me.

JoelH

June 27th, 2005, 10:33 PM

And even among postmodernist literary works such as Peter Shaffer's Equus, you can still see the influence of KJV Bible on its stylistic features and allusions. You won't understand it without the KJV Bible.

Personally, I think if you study English (language, not just England) Literature you must understand KJV Bible.

YBIC,

Joel

roadrunner570

June 27th, 2005, 10:47 PM

I think any translation in which the Lord reveals himself to you is the one to use.

Keep in mind, before the reformation, the RCC thought that English was too vulgar of a language for the scriptures to even be SPOKEN in, let alone an English Bible translation, so lets not get hung up on the language :thumb

zeal4thelord

June 27th, 2005, 11:17 PM

I personally prefer the KJV, although I am not dogmatic about it; I own and have used several different versions, but the KJV is the one I always return to, and the version which stays in my mind. I think being familiar with the Word and being able to call passages to mind when needed is very important.
The King James Version is the version that most lends itself to this, for me.
As for the archaic language, and whether or not our Lord spoke in 'thees and thous', he spoke Aramaic, and I have no idea how people expressed themselves in that language in that time. But if the Bible has to be re-translated constantly to remain current and 'modern' for every generation, there is a danger that the constant re-translating will change meanings.
I think the old-fashioned language of the KJV is a good challenge because it compels me, when I am reading the Bible, to really concentrate on the words and their meanings. If the words are modern colloquial prose, I might not read it as slowly or carefully.
And if the language is old-fashioned, that does not make it unintelligible; after all, people still read Shakespeare, and go to performances of his plays, though he wrote in the same style of English, in the same era, as the King James Bible. Yes, it's a challenge to follow it sometimes, but impossible? No, especially when we consider that the Holy Spirit opens God's Word to us, if we are believers. We don't have to rely on our own flawed understanding.

StinkerBell

June 27th, 2005, 11:22 PM

deja vu, WOW....I think I have been here before...:heh

:hug

toddlemom

June 27th, 2005, 11:43 PM

One thing that some folks say they like about KJV is that it is a word-for-word translation. There are more moderns ones that are word-for-word ... American Standard? :confused

Other versions are translated as thought-for-thought. I think the NIV is one of those.

For many of us, it's what we grew up hearing and no other version sounds right. Also, it seems to me like it's very pithy and earthy and almost blunt in many ways. Passages are not as wordy in KJV as in other translations.

Just some thoughts ..
YSIC
Ann

Gitana

June 28th, 2005, 08:51 AM

Thanks for all the input :nod
My church says we should compare all versions to the KJV. They use only the KJV. That's their standard...but I think other versions are just as accurate and I'm really thankful for the NIV.

Some things I've read about King James depicts him in a bad light...even some things I've read said he might be homosexual.
Things like that have made me question why his version should be viewed so highly.

Has anyone else read things like this??

Thanks,
Gitana

Ladybug

June 28th, 2005, 09:34 AM

70thWeek

June 28th, 2005, 10:14 AM

blitzkreig

June 28th, 2005, 10:56 AM

AWorker4Jesus

June 28th, 2005, 11:34 AM

So, what about this?

QUESTION: Don't the best manuscripts support the new versions?

ANSWER: No. The best manuscripts support the Bible, the Authorized Version.

EXPLANATION: The new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. Critics of the Bible claim that these manuscripts are better than those used by the translators of the Authorized Version. This is not so.
The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted. While the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.
The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless texts, are really rather attractive. But then we have all heard the saying, "You can't tell a book by it's cover". The covers are beautiful but their texts are reprehensible.
And yet in spite of these well known corruptions, they are the basis for many new versions such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version rendering these versions critically flawed and unreliable.
The manuscripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best manuscripts are those used by the King James translators.

Patty T

June 28th, 2005, 11:40 AM

So, what about this?

I suppose we can all find documentation to back up our own personal choice :):

DJHere

June 28th, 2005, 11:47 AM

I use several different translations and prefer the NIV. My Bible study teacher, who has studied Greek, says the NASB is a truer translation of the NT Greek language.

ConservPride

June 28th, 2005, 12:57 PM

I was wondering if anyone knows why the KJV should be the "main" Bible we go by??

Did King James have some divine intervention or something that makes his version special??? Because... I don't think Jesus would be saying "thee and thou and ye and all those English phrases.

I really would appreciate any input on this, thanks.

Gitana

The Bible says in Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The premise is that if God promised to preserve His words, then there must be an infallible book out there somewhere.

The KJV is the only bible to be translated under a king, and the Bible states:

Ecc 8:4 Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

It's also interesting to note that the English name "James" is derived from "Jacob", whom God renamed "Israel" because he had power with God and with men.

JAMES
Gender: Masculine
Usage: English, Biblical
Pronounced: JAYMZ [key]
Extra Info: Popularity, Related Names, Namesakes, Websites, Comments
Options: Contribute Information, Add to List
English form of the Late Latin Jacomus which was derived from Iakobos, the New Testament Greek form of Ya'aqov (see JACOB). This is the name of two apostles in the New Testament. The first was Saint James the Greater, the apostle John's brother, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa in the Book of Acts. The second was James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus. Another James (known as James the Just) is also mentioned in the Bible as being the brother of Jesus. Kings of England and Scotland have borne this name. Other famous bearers include the inventor of the steam engine James Watt, the explorer Captain James Cook, and the novelist and poet James Joyce.

The KJV Bible is also the only translation that has no copyright. So God's word is able to be freely rewritten without permission of man.

ConservPride

June 28th, 2005, 01:05 PM

Thought I would post more of Ecclesiates for perspective:

Ecc 8:1 Who [is] as the wise [man]? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.

Ecc 8:2 I [counsel thee] to keep the king's commandment, and [that] in regard of the oath of God.

Ecc 8:3 Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him.

Ecc 8:4 Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

70thWeek

June 28th, 2005, 01:36 PM

The Bible says in Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The premise is that if God promised to preserve His words, then there must be an infallible book out there somewhere.

The KJV is the only bible to be translated under a king, and the Bible states:

Ecc 8:4 Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

It's also interesting to note that the English name "James" is derived from "Jacob", whom God renamed "Israel" because he had power with God and with men.

JAMES
Gender: Masculine
Usage: English, Biblical
Pronounced: JAYMZ [key]
Extra Info: Popularity, Related Names, Namesakes, Websites, Comments
Options: Contribute Information, Add to List
English form of the Late Latin Jacomus which was derived from Iakobos, the New Testament Greek form of Ya'aqov (see JACOB). This is the name of two apostles in the New Testament. The first was Saint James the Greater, the apostle John's brother, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa in the Book of Acts. The second was James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus. Another James (known as James the Just) is also mentioned in the Bible as being the brother of Jesus. Kings of England and Scotland have borne this name. Other famous bearers include the inventor of the steam engine James Watt, the explorer Captain James Cook, and the novelist and poet James Joyce.

The KJV Bible is also the only translation that has no copyright. So God's word is able to be freely rewritten without permission of man.

:doh I don't know where to begin. First, why does there have to be this imaginary "perfect manuscript?" Where was this manuscript before the KJV? Remember the textus receptus came about shortly before the KJV and it gave itself the name textus receptus.

What does a king have anything to do with this? Other Bibles were translated "under kings" though I don't know how that applies. As for the copyright issue, umm, why does it matter and there are Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to check as well that can freely be translated.

AWorker4Jesus

June 28th, 2005, 02:23 PM

Mar 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

(Mar 10:24) The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Footnote: Some manuscripts is for those who trust in riches

Harley

June 28th, 2005, 02:39 PM

Thanks for all the input :nod
My church says we should compare all versions to the KJV. They use only the KJV. That's their standard...but I think other versions are just as accurate and I'm really thankful for the NIV.

Some things I've read about King James depicts him in a bad light...even some things I've read said he might be homosexual.
Things like that have made me question why his version should be viewed so highly.

Has anyone else read things like this??

Thanks,
Gitana
I have, but I thinks it's moot - it's not like he did the actual translating. I'm not a big KJV fan, I would not recommend it, but I certainly would not argue against it. And even if I did, I'd not use this ad hominem argument.

AWorker4Jesus

June 28th, 2005, 02:43 PM

:doh I don't know where to begin. First, why does there have to be this imaginary "perfect manuscript?" Where was this manuscript before the KJV? Remember the textus receptus came about shortly before the KJV and it gave itself the name textus receptus.
...

FWIW, According to "The Answer Book" by Samuel Gipp

The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers.

Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.

Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.

Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.
Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.

Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ei "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.

So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.

Extra LFs added by me to make it a little easier on (my old) eyes.

Harley

June 28th, 2005, 02:44 PM

70thWeek

June 28th, 2005, 02:46 PM

Yes, Erasmus did put together a text in the 1500s, but he had terribly late manuscipts with which to work. He admitted as much. Subsequent revisions did not really address the inherent flaw of his work, the lateness of the manuscripts. The term "textus receptus" got applied not because this is what the church also called the complete text, but because it contained the text of the earlier work. So even the title "textus receptus" is misleading.

70thWeek

June 28th, 2005, 02:47 PM

Creative, but not convincing.

I hate to say much, but I too am not convinced.

arcticgirl

June 28th, 2005, 10:50 PM

quoting post #27, who quotes Samual Gipp:

"The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers."

I'm thinkin' Moses and David weren't; a. using pens, b. writing in Greek. :):

Jiggy37

June 30th, 2005, 01:45 AM

Some things I've read about King James depicts him in a bad light...even some things I've read said he might be homosexual.
Things like that have made me question why his version should be viewed so highly.Why should that make you question the accuracy of the KJV? (Not that I hold up the KJV as the end-all, be-all of English Bibles.) Indeed, all versions of the Bible were written by sinners, and even the apostle Paul, in his writings, referred to himself as the "chief" of sinners.

It's the same kind of story when someone says "oh, the NIV is clearly uninspired because it went through Zondervan Publishing" or something like that. So what? :hrm Everything in existence goes through some corrupt person. That's just the consequence of living in a fallen world.

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 05:35 AM

Thanks for all the input :nod
My church says we should compare all versions to the KJV. They use only the KJV. That's their standard...but I think other versions are just as accurate and I'm really thankful for the NIV.

NIV BIBLE QUIZ

INTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Versionª Bible (NIV), answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.).
1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?
3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:
7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:"
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible"? If these 25 questions haven't served to show you that the NIV is a very inferior Bible, based on a very inferior Greek text, write me and I'll make up another quiz with 25 more questions, or 250, if you wish; but you will still flunk the text. If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible .
by Rex L. Cobb

NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to...
tell God, OUT LOUD,
that the NIV is correct in deleting these words & phrases?
If not, you need to get a King James Bible
so you can have some confidence.

Dear Reader, please do not write asking me for information on Mr. Cobb, I do not have any. The test is straightforward. I have a cursed NIV (for reference purposes--I believe it is a 1978 edition) and I have verified all the above blanks are missing in my copy of the NIV corruption. For other dangers of the NIV and modern Bibles, please go to our home page. For some specific verses that the NIV ENTIRELY DELETES, go to, Which verses did the NIV delete?
www. jesus-is-lord. com/nivdelet.htm
If you want to give a copy of this quiz to an NIV-reading friend, you can
print this out,
cut off these closing comments by Mr. Cobb and myself,
give them the quiz to take.
then after they take the quiz you can give them our comments if you like.

holyspiritvesse

June 30th, 2005, 07:08 AM

You are asking people to take a quiz using one translation to answer questions that are from another translation.

Someone: Make up a quiz in reverse; I.E., where another translation using the Hebrew and Greek oldest and most reliable copies has things that the KJV doesn't have, like has already been mentioned the past few days.

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THE KJV IS JUST A TRANSLATION AND THAT THINGS WERE ADDED AND TAKEN OUT MORE SO THA IN THE NASB AND NIV!?!?!?!?!?!

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 08:31 AM

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 08:42 AM

It is not a matter of preference. It's a matter of Satan conning us into thinking both are the same. And conning us into thinking they are easier to read, and therefore a matter of preference. When they are not.

The meaning is not always kept intact. Plus, look at the "fruits" they have produced. Some of these new translations are not only watered down, but their serious outright omissions can have very lasting consequences to many souls.

Between 1700 and 1900, The greatest missionary work in church history occurred relying on the Authorized King James version. This alone tells us that the KJV (1611) is the true Word of God because of "the fruits" it produced. On the other hand, look at the fruits these new so-called "dynamic equivalent" versions of the Bible have produced (abortionists, rampant homosexuality, and legislators and judges who back those things - Columbine?).

Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort were the driving force behind the Revised Version of 1881 which these new bibles above are based on. This was a replacement of the pure texts and not a revision of the language of the King James. It can reasonably said that these two men are directly responsible for the spiritual backbone lacking in most pulpits today, because of the changes brought about through their corrupt text. It all began In 1870 when the idea of a modest revision of the King James Authorized Version was sanctioned by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England. This provided the opportunity for Westcott and Hort to introduce their radical changes. Hort and Westcott defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee. The resulting "The New Testament in the Original Greek" was published in 1881, as was the Revised Version based upon it.

When their new bibles appeared in England and America in the late 1800's they were rejected. But, two generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries in both the United States and England. Their theories were universally accepted in modernist seminaries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults bragged about having Bible translations based upon the Westcott and Hort theory.
Westcott and Hort were not only Fathers in the Anglican church. But, according to numerous historians and New Age researchers, appear to be among the Fathers of the modern channeling movement. Channeling and Spiritualism is New Age heresy that are forbidden by the Word of God... In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement. These two "esteemed scholars" were not even fundamental Christians. It is additionally known about Hort and Wescott that they did not believe in: a literal heaven, the literal Second Coming of Jesus and his coming 1000 yr reign on earth. Also, they did not believe in angels, the oneness of the Trinity, and the soul's existence separated from the body. They also did not believe in a literal Devil.

According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the "idea of the infallibility of the Bible". Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot. Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral". In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership. Additionally, many may find it hard to believe this about the two men behind these new bibles. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. According to Fuller (page 157); "Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God."

The heart of the Wescott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaticus of the 4th century. Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus manuscript laid on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it . The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845. These two men were determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

All of the other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc. are based upon another manuscript family known as the Alexandrian Manuscript family which was put together by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in about the 2nd century. Most scholars agree Origen was a heretic because of his denial of essential doctrines. In all, there are over 5,000 major changes between the Majority Text (KJV & Douay Reims) and the Minority Text (all other newer bibles).

The two best renditions of the Bible that have had the least amount of change are the King James and the older versions of the Douay Reims, Catholic Bible. The original King James Bible is the Authorized Version of 1611 (AV). This Bible does a good job in translating the ancient Hebrew texts. The King James, Authorized Version is relatively free from bias and is widely accepted by English speaking Protestants.

This manuscript family behind the KJV is called the Traditional or Majority text because over 99% of the manuscripts that have ever been found support and back this text. Scholars have discovered 5,255 pieces of manuscript evidence. Its been said that Of these, 5,210 of them support the Traditional text behind that of the KJV! That’s why it is called the MAJORITY text! That is 99%! Most important vis-à-vis credibility is that these manuscripts come from all over the known world of the day, not from any central location. And 99% agree with each other.

The Textus Receptus (received text) (aka: "Byzantine Text") from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Pesh itta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version. A second-century date for the Pesh itta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Pesh itta , and so it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century or after. Erasmus gathered many of these documents on his travels himself. The text for these new bibles Hort and Wescott took from finds in Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome . Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated by St. Jerome from the Septuagint Cannon (LXX) of the Old Testament, is considered the "official" Bible of the Catholic Church.

Probably the most important figure in the renaissance of learning and religion was Erasmus. He traveled around Europe's great learning centers, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome and others. He left his mark in history as the editor of the first published Greek New Testament printed in 1516"

Barry Burton says: "The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down thru the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek 'Textus Receptus'. This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation KNEW to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The text Erasmus chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches (also termed "Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text), and ... it constituted an irresistible argument for and proof of God's providence. The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by the Jews in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are few translation problems with the Old Testament.

Now, the truth about Erasmus. The truth about Erasmus is that he was first a Roman Catholic monk who was later ordained and became a Roman Catholic priest, who opposed Luther and the Reformation, was offered by the Pope himself the high Roman Catholic church position of cardinal, refused to leave the Church of Rome and always freely submitted his judgments to the decisions of the Roman Church.

LOOK AT THE BELOW EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES:

Let's look in a 'modern' version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.

Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular 'modern' version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:

" ... and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him" [i.e. of Jesus].

his father" was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?!

The father of Jesus was NOT Joseph! Jesus' father was God!

Now, let's look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:

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

For a 'modern' version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus' father is blasphemy!

The Authorized King James says:

"For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

This one verse, which summarizes Jesus' entire mission to earth, is either ignored in 'new' versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.

Turn to 1st Peter 4:1.

In a 'modern' version it says: "... Christ suffered ..."

In your Authorized King James Bible the full reading is quoted as:

"... Christ suffered FOR US."

Notice the last two words give the FULL meaning. Leaving out "for us" misses the point entirely!

A 'modern' version will NOT tell you how! (in Colossians 1:14). It says (of Jesus):

"in whom we have redemption ..."

The full Christian doctrine is only included in the King James reading of the same verse. Properly stated, it says (of Jesus):

"In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD ..."

With no shedding of blood -- there is NO remission of sins. Leaving out "the blood" misses a key point of doctrine (and leaves us in our sins).

The Lord's prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke 11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:

"... 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."

Look at Luke 11:2-4 in a 'modern' version and re-read the Lord's prayer. The wording will be similar to:

"... Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation".

This modern version states "Father" but then leaves out "... WHICH ART IN HEAVEN ...".

You don't know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to Satan!

This modern version also leaves out "THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH".

By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this 'modern' version is re-directing your prayer away from God and toward someone or something else (in another place).

Look at it again. There is a major omission in the last half of verse 4.

Verse 4 states: "And lead us not into temptation". But this verse then leaves out: "... BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL ..."

The New Revised Standard Version, New World Translation and Revised English Bible take Isaiah 7:14 and discount the prophecy of Mary being a virgin by calling her a young woman.

Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text.

Other examples in some, but not all versions:

Matthew
1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
"firstborn" is missing"

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"bless them that curse you" is missing

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.
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." is missing

6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
"of God" is missing

8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
"Jesus" is missing

9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
"to repentance." is missing

16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
"O ye hypocrites" is missing

17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
missing enrirely

18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
missing entirely

NOW FOR SOME REALLY BIG STUFF

The NASB teaches in John 5:29 that we are saved by doing ‘good deeds’ Rather than doing the one good thing of trusting Christ as Saviour!

The NKJV teaches that it is ‘difficult’ to be saved in Matt. 7:14!

The NIV teaches that Jesus SINNED when you read Mark 3:5 and Matthew 5:22!

The NIV does away with Lucifer! There is no Lucifer in the NIV!

Worse than that, the NIV declares that ‘the morning star’ is the that fell and was cut down and did weaken the nations, not Lucifer!

When we read Revelation 22:16 we see that the Morning star is Jesus!

Why we were spared by the gift of the Authorized King James Version:

Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

The new versions have systematically removed Luke's witness to the ascension of Christ--and of course they have done away entirely with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Remember, these new bibles began to appear in the late 1800's.

On the 18th of September 1846 Our Lady of La Salette said to the 14 year old girl Mélanie Calvat, and the 11 year old boy Maximim:

"In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by little, even in those dedicated to GOD. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls.

Evil books will be abundant on earth and the spirits of darkness will spread everywhere a universal slackening in all that concerns the service of GOD. They will have great power over Nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests, for they will not have been guided by the good spirit of the Gospel which is the spirit of humility, charity, and zeal for the glory of GOD. On occasions, the dead and the righteous will be brought back to life. "

More here: www. av1611 .org/biblecom.html

andy

June 30th, 2005, 08:45 AM

In these days in which we live, we are indeed blessed to have so many resources at our fingertips.

The Blue Letter Bible, E-Sword, Bible Gateway, etc. offers just about every translation that there is.

I use just about every version and compare each to the other. This is more time consuming but I enjoy reading different versions.

I do admit, however, that when I recall verses committed to memory......the verses are the King James version.

Just my view. :wave

frisian1970

June 30th, 2005, 09:20 AM

frisian1970

June 30th, 2005, 09:27 AM

NIV BIBLE QUIZ

INTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Versionª Bible (NIV), answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.).
1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?
3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:
7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:"
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible"? If these 25 questions haven't served to show you that the NIV is a very inferior Bible, based on a very inferior Greek text, write me and I'll make up another quiz with 25 more questions, or 250, if you wish; but you will still flunk the text. If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible .
by Rex L. Cobb

NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to...
tell God, OUT LOUD,
that the NIV is correct in deleting these words & phrases?
If not, you need to get a King James Bible
so you can have some confidence.

Dear Reader, please do not write asking me for information on Mr. Cobb, I do not have any. The test is straightforward. I have a cursed NIV (for reference purposes--I believe it is a 1978 edition) and I have verified all the above blanks are missing in my copy of the NIV corruption. For other dangers of the NIV and modern Bibles, please go to our home page. For some specific verses that the NIV ENTIRELY DELETES, go to, Which verses did the NIV delete?
www. jesus-is-lord. com/nivdelet.htm
If you want to give a copy of this quiz to an NIV-reading friend, you can
print this out,
cut off these closing comments by Mr. Cobb and myself,
give them the quiz to take.
then after they take the quiz you can give them our comments if you like.
KJV Bible Quiz
1. Where is the Aleph tav translated?
2. Where are the use of 'sofits' designated.

Use any English version if you'd like.

B A N E

June 30th, 2005, 09:46 AM

:pop2

B A N E

June 30th, 2005, 09:50 AM

KJV Bible Quiz
1. Where is the Aleph tav translated?
2. Where are the use of 'sofits' designated.

Use any English version if you'd like.

You know Fris, that's about the best response I've heard in a while
to the kjvo's POV.

:thumb

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 09:56 AM

If the textes usded for the Niv and the others are so much more correct. Then why did they not use those same texts for the book of Revelations.

First, you do know that it is the book of Revelation, right?

Second, you do know that the precious Textus Receptus had no Greek manuscript support for Revelation? Erasmus translated from Latin into Greek.

So, I fail to see the logic in your question.

Many, many texts and families of texts were studied when compiling the NA Greek text.

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 09:57 AM

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 09:59 AM

KJV Bible Quiz
1. Where is the Aleph tav translated?
2. Where are the use of 'sofits' designated.

Use any English version if you'd like.

Good questions.

Chris4Christ

June 30th, 2005, 10:10 AM

It's one thing to prefer the KJV. It's another to insist that it is the ONLY true Word of God and that every other version is of Satan. :hrm

I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd oblige. :becky
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kjvo.html

Yet Another Distraction

Distraction is one of Satan's favorite tools for hindering the work of God. If he can't pervert or stop the message, he does his best to sidetrack the messenger with trivial debates. After studying the issue of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO), I’ve concluded that we have yet another prime example of the devil's handiwork.

The advocates of KJVO believe that the King James Version is the only God-inspired translation of the Holy Bible. They insist that all modern translations have been modified to the point that they are unreliable or even dangerous for Christians to use as a resource. One writer claims that these "New Age" translations are somehow preparing the way for the rise of Antichrist.

I have a long list of problems with KJVO folks. First is my inability to find the damage supposedly being caused by all these other translations. I haven’t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology.

Some so-called translations do corrupt the Word of God but these versions are best described as revisions rather than translations. For example, the New World Translation Bible, produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is more of a rewritten version of the Bible than a translation. The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Notice that the word “God” has been changed to the phrase "a god." Another example of a version that’s been rewritten rather translated is the gender-neutral Bible, which tries to rob God the Father of His masculine nature.

Burden Of Proof

Most who promote the teachings of KJVO avoid personalizing the sinister actions of the translators. If all of these scholars were actively involved in perverting the Holy Bible, they would have to be classified as men of evil intent. The Bible very plainly says that those who tamper with the Word of God are destined for the lake of fire.

Because middle-aged scholars translated most of the Bible versions several years ago, a good percentage of them have now gone on to their eternal reward. If the translators of the New International Version, Good News, Amplified, New English Bible, Living Bible, Revised Standard Version, and many others were actually doing mankind a godly service, anyone attacking them would have to answer to the Lord of heaven.

Because the consequences of being wrong are so high, I think the critics of the new translations should build a stronger case against the non-KJVO crowd. I've yet to find one KJVO person who bothers to speculate about how this massive conspiracy might have been pulled off.

Validation Is A Two-Way Street

The errors cited by the advocates of KJVO deal mostly with missing or downgraded words. They point to an example of new versions eliminating the name Jesus by inserting the pronoun "he" in place of the Lord's name. The NIV is repeatedly cited for omitting the name of Jesus, but that version actually uses His name more than the New KJV.

The main problem with these errors is that the KJVO watchdogs only look for examples that have the KJV using a proper name for God, while the same verse in another translation uses a pronoun to represent deity. Error finding needs to be a two-way street. If the KJVO researchers would do even a quick concordance check, they would find the following examples:

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" ( Colossians 2:9 NIV).
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9 KJV).

"Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things?" (Acts 4:25 NASB).
"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?" (Acts 4:25 KJV).

"To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen" (Jude 25 NASB).
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen" (Jude 25 KJV).

Another good example of the King James Only people failing to cross-check their facts is their claim that the KJV uses the proper name "Jehovah" while the modern versions substitute the word "Lord." They claim the switch is meant to depersonalize God and that it is somehow an attack against the Jews. These statements are ridiculous in light of the fact that the KJV uses the same "Lord" dozens of times where the Hebrew word “Jehovah” [“Yahweh”] is found.

Going Concordance Crazy

Gale Riplinger, in her book New Age Bible Versions, takes the practice of one-sided validation to a new height. She makes plenty of comparisons that are intended to show non-KJV translations in a bad light, but she also draws a comparison between "New Age" writers and the modern Bible versions. Riplinger uses quotes from a wide variety of sources with religious views that conflict with Christianity. She implies by example that the thoughts of evil men have been written into all these corrupted translations.

Her quotes are so extremely brief, I don't understand how Riplinger can dare claim that they are from the sources she cites. For example, she implies that "the Blessed One" of Mark 14:61, NIV, actually refers to some exiled Hindu guru named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Even if a demonic hand were at work in the NIV translation, plenty of other evil men have been called "the Blessed One" at some point.

Riplinger goes totally overboard in her "new age," "new world," "new order," "old order," and "former order" examples. Of course, these words are all highly satanic (I'm being sarcastic) and any appearance of them in a Bible translation confirms its evil origin. She put together a nice little list of how these praises appear in non-KJV Bibles. To assemble this list, she needed to reference 18 translations, and in most cases the offending praises only appear once in the various translations.

Her absurdity reaches its peak with her claim that the word "age" in Matthew 28:20 has a sinister meaning. The King James Version says that Jesus will be with us until "the end of the world." The NIV says the Lord will be with us "to the very end of the age." Because the Bible informs us in Isaiah 45:17 that the world will never end, the NIV translation is probably a better interpretation of Matthew 28:20.

"But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end" (Isaiah 45:17).

The King James Version is the only major translation that contains the word "gay." Does this give someone the right to claim that the KJV was written by homosexuals to plant the seeds of the "gay movement?" The answer would be "yes" if we employed the same type of logic as the KJVO crowd.

The Snail Pace Conspiracy

One of the most widely quoted verse used by the folks who argue for the King James version's supremacy is Colossians 1:14. A comparison is made to all the modern translations has them omitting the blood of Christ from this passage. If no one bothered to investigate why those three words were deleted, it would be very easy to conclude that skullduggery was at work.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 KJV).
"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 NIV).

There is a very simple explanation why the scholars who produced the NIV did not include the words "through his blood." When the passage was translated into English, the words did not come from the early Greek manuscripts. The phrase was most likely borrowed from Ephesians 1:7, which happens to be a parallel passage to Colossians 1:14.

The King James translators got a little wordy in their translating. The NIV translators simply corrected what should not have been added to the passage. The KJVO crowd, however, says that we should trust their favorite translation over manuscripts that date back to the third century.

There is a lot of talk about the removal of the phrase "through his blood" as being some sort of conspiracy to destroy the doctrine of the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. If the devil were working to corrupt the Bible, this would have to be his slowest-moving scheme of all times. It makes no sense to do this with only one verse while leaving dozens of other verses untouched. Here are a few examples:

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Ephesians 1:7 NIV)

"But with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" (1 Peter 1:19 NIV).

"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood" (Revelation 1:5 NIV).

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:13 NIV).

"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that led to death, so that we may serve the living God!" (Hebrews 9:14 NIV).

English Bias

Supporters of the King James Only doctrine often claim that Elizabethan English translation is superior to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which it is based. They take this step to try to defend themselves against the contradictions the early translations create for their exclusive view. If the KJV has no source document, it has to be a new revelation from God.

Because we have the original Hebrew and Greek, we don't need to rely on an English translation that was written 1600 years after the fact. If the original Greek was good enough for the scholars who produced the King James Bible, it should good enough for us. Even Jesus said, "I am Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:8). He didn't say, “I am the A and Z.”

If KJVO proponents are right, where does that leave the 2,000 non-English translations? German-speaking people have the same right to claim their version of the Bible as the one and only "infallible translation." The only way to resolve differences between the translations is by checking the ancient original Hebrew and Greek.

Errors In The KJV

Many people believe that the King James Bible is infallible. They boldly claim the translation is so blessed by God that it is 100-percent free of errors. This kind of talk is just bluster because there are several minor translation errors in the KJV.

As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's Holy Word.

In Hebrews 10:23, the word "faith" is erroneously substituted for the word "hope." All of the source documents use "hope." It is very obvious that Paul meant to use faith, hope and love in verses 22, 23, and 24.

"10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works."

In Revelation 22:19, the scholars made the mistake of thinking Jesus was speaking of the "Book of Life." Researchers have found 99% of all Greek manuscripts reading "tree of life." The context of verse 14 verifies that the Lord was speaking of the "tree of life."

"22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

"22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

One of the most obvious errors in the KJV is the word "at" in Matthew 23:24. It's not grammatically proper to say, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The translators should have used the word "out." The most common English translations that pre-date the KJV bear this out:

"Blinde leders; clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel."--(Wyclif, 1380.)
"Ye blinde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammyll."--(Tyndale, 1534.)
"Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a camell."--(Cranmer, 1539.)
"Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel."--(Geneva, 1557.)
"Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel."--(Rheims, 1582.)

There Is No 1611 King James Bible

For many people, it is not enough to just have any King James Bible. They take the extra step of proclaiming the Authorized 1611 KJV translation to be the only true Word of God. Because the King James used today has been revised several times, they don't feel it can be trusted.

I have some bad news for these 1611 KJVO folks: There is no existing copy of the original manuscript produced by King James' faithful translators. The pre-print text and the original autographs confirming the validity of the translation have all been lost to history. There is no way the KJVO advocates can be certain that the 1611 translation has not been tampered with.

According to a pamphlet written in 1660, the king's printers possessed the finished product five years before it was published. Because the KJVO camp is fond of conspiracies, the time gap should cause great concern. After all, they have no way of knowing if the original KJV translation made it to the print press.

The 1611 KJV Bible has indeed seen several revisions - 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the final one in 1850. The concern over the validity of the modern KJV Bible is silly because the vast majority of the changes were simply spelling changes or single word updates.

The Need For Clarity

Language is always in a constant state of change. A word may mean one thing one year and have an opposite meaning a year later. If the Bible is not periodically translated into the language of the common person, the meaning of the original text becomes lost to the reader. Just consider the following KJV words:

Almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes. (1)

Dr. Jack Lewis put together a good example of how the KJV has changed. His original writing goes on for several pages. Here is small excerpt that gets his point across:

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With some we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!" (2)

I'm sure Satan would love to keep the Bible shrouded in mystery. When the King James translation came out, many church leaders complained that it was too easy to read. We've forgotten that church leaders once tried to keep the public in the dark by opposing all efforts to modernize the Bible.

The best way to show how the new translations can help clarify the meaning of the Bible text is by example. Listed below are comparisons between the King James and the New King James Version produced by Thomas Nelson Publishing:

Matthew 10:42

"And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward" (KJV).
"And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward" (NKJV).

Matthew 17:25

"He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon?" (KJV).
"He said, 'Yes.' And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What do you think, Simon?'"(NKJV).

Matthew 18:32

"I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me" (KJV).
"I forgave you all that debt because you begged me" (NKJV).

Mark 8:33

"For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" (KJV).
"For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (NKJV).

John 8:46

"Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (KJV).
"Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (NKJV).

1. Jack Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981)
2. Jack Lewis, Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations (ISBN 0-945441-04-5)

frisian1970

June 30th, 2005, 10:15 AM

It's one thing to prefer the KJV. It's another to insist that it is the ONLY true Word of God and that every other version is of Satan. :hrm
One of the signs of the end of times. Chris and I agreeing on something.

:freaked :thumb

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 10:18 AM

KJV Bible Quiz
1. Where is the Aleph tav translated?

If you definition is not found in Torah then it to is not Biblical.

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 10:22 AM

If you definition is not found in Torah then it to is not Biblical.

Uh,, what?

Fris had a good question, where are the Aleph-Tavs? Is the KJV omitting something?

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 10:25 AM

Uh,, what?

Fris had a good question, where are the Aleph-Tavs? Is the KJV omitting something?

First find out what they are.

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Rabbi Akiva's aleph tav
There are several brief but enticing references to the special status of the alephtav in the Babylonian Talmud.

In Hebrew, the use of the to mark the accusative case is never ambiguous because it is empty of meaning. It stands only as a mark of the grammatical relation between verb and object. Despite this ciphered silence, or perhaps because of it, many rabbis of the Talmud, especially Rabbis Simeon and Akiva, have viewed the as a sign of, an invitation to, amplification. And in Talmudic episteme, wherever there is room for amplification there is an invitation to see the sign of a divine intention for some other, secret or unwritten meaning.

Akiva's teacher was Rabbi Nahum of Gimzo, who attempted to explain every occurrence of in the Torah (see Hagigah 12b). Akiva builds on his work, suggesting that every occurrence of the is meant to indicate the presence of the Divine Hand. Here, Simeon refrains from expanding or expounding on the because in the command to have awe for G-d, any expansion would be heretical, or at least superfluous. Akiva slyly suggests that amplification is indeed possible, though it is in the form of a grace note: here, since the directly defines G-d, then it is also scholars who are to be included.

Akiva's idea is that is the secret sign of G-d, the silent cipher that embraces all the other words of the Torah, and indeed of all creation.
The most resonant of these discussions of the occurs in the Talmudic debate over the very first sentence of the Torah: "In the beginning, G-d created the Heaven and the Earth." The debate between Akiva and another great rabbi, his contemporary of the early second century, Rabbi Ishmael, begins when Ishmael asks Akiva, "Seeing that you have studied twenty-two years under Nahum of Gimzo, who taught that ... is always an amplification, how do you explain the in this verse?"

Akiva replies: "Had Scripture written 'In the beginning G-d created Heaven and Earth' and omitted the , we might have thought that Heaven and Earth were also deities."

"You do not know how to interpret Scripture!" Rabbi Ishmael returns insultingly. "This is the meaning: hashamayin (alephtav the sky) is meant to include the sun and the moon, the stars and the planets. And v'ha'aretz (and alephtav the earth) means to include trees and plants and the Garden of Eden."

Ishmael tries to trap Akiva into using to amplify a verse that needs no amplification. He cleverly begins by reminding him of his duty to follow the teachings of his mentor, Nahum of Gimzo, who used every to amplify the meaning of a verse. It is clear that Akiva is fond of quoting Nahum of Gimzo, since he has gone on to apotheosize the amplification of by associating it with the hidden presence of G-d. But in this instance, Akiva refuses. In fact, he takes an opposite tack. The here is not an amplification - a hidden reference to G-d's presence - but a contraction: it serves to emphasize the objectivity, the factual limitation of the sky and earth and warn us away from idolatry.

Ishmael catches Akiva out in his contradiction; he flings the contradiction back in Akiva's face.

[Even by your own rules] you do not know how to interpret the Torah! See here, even I can use your to amplify the verse: it means the sky including the stars and planets; it means the earth including the plants and Garden of Eden!
So what explains Akiva's hesitation? Why does he use the to constrict rather than expand the meaning of the very first line of the Torah?

Lurking in the background of this debate is the larger religious context of the time. Centuries of occupation, first by Persians and then by Greeks, had left Judaism on the defensive. Even the interregnum of Jewish Kings - the Hasmonean Dynasty (4th-1st centuries BCE) - required constant vigilance by Jewish leaders against Greek influences, especially among the members of the increasingly cosmopolitan royal family. Hellenism meant not only intermarriage and political and social subjugation but also the ever-recurring temptation to multiply gods.

Eventually, the Romans replaced the Greeks. They installed the wickedly inspired Herod, who was the last of the Hasmoneans. He was eager to promote Roman values and he inflicted humiliating cruelty on the Jews, including substituting religious symbols in the Temple. When Herod died, Israel fell into a chaos of competing factions. The uprising against Rome by Jewish zealots in 66 CE finally stung the Romans into action. They smashed the rebellion and destroyed the Temple. The following period in "Palestine," humiliatingly renamed by the Romans for Israel's inveterate enemies, the Philistines, saw the emergence of numerous sects and cults, including Gnosticism and the early seeds of Christianity. One of the common Gnostic principles was that divine forces worked within individual phenomena of Nature. While the Jewish tradition saw a continuity of the Divine Force (Schechina) everywhere in the universe, it insisted on the unity and singularity of G-d.

Though abstract, this Gnostic multiplication of divine entities would echo uncomfortably the many cults and idol-worshipping beliefs that challenged the Jews for fifteen hundred years, going back to the time of the Canaanites: worship of animals, trees, the sky, the sun, the moon ... Rabbi Ishmael is trying to trap Akiva into a Gnostic heresy. Akiva resists, seeing the trap, and in fact reveals the very trap by turning the interpretation of the into a reaffirmation of monotheism. Rabbi Ishmael one-ups Akiva: You could have stayed true to your principle of amplifying the and still avoided the Gnostic heresy by amplifying it in this way, see?

Rabbi Akiva later becomes one of the rabbis martyred by the Romans for supporting the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 CE.

Chris4Christ

June 30th, 2005, 10:31 AM

One of the signs of the end of times. Chris and I agreeing on something.

:freaked :thumb

:fear :faint

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 12:12 PM

First find out what they are.
Direct object marker

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 12:28 PM

Direct object marker

Translate one from the Torah Hebrew to modern english for me. Which if I understand correctly the KJV did. With..... In the Beginning

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 12:32 PM

"the" is a definite article, which Hebrew has.

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 01:53 PM

"the" is a definite article, which Hebrew has.

Maybe this is better:

The Hebrew alphabet begins with the letter, Aleph , and ends with the letter, Tav . In Revelation 22:13, Jesus spoke these words as it is written:

]"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." [/COLOR]
The Alpha and the Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet . The way that this would be said in Hebrew is "I am the Aleph and the Tav."

In Genesis 1:1 it is written:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "
If you examine this verse in Hebrew, you will find that the fourth Hebrew word is "Aleph, Tav."

Therefore, in Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 reads:

" In the beginning (Berei****), God (Elohim) created (bara), (Aleph, Tav) ..."
From this we can understand that Jesus is indeed the Aleph and the Tav, the beginning and the end.

www. backtoyahweh. com/key-of-david.html

frisian1970

June 30th, 2005, 02:23 PM

If you definition is not found in Torah then it to is not Biblical.The Torah defines itself? Is that your assertion? Does the Torah define each jot and tittle, such as those used or known as 'sofits'?

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 02:36 PM

Maybe this is better:

The Hebrew alphabet begins with the letter, Aleph , and ends with the letter, Tav . In Revelation 22:13, Jesus spoke these words as it is written:

]"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." [/COLOR]
The Alpha and the Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet . The way that this would be said in Hebrew is "I am the Aleph and the Tav."

In Genesis 1:1 it is written:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "
If you examine this verse in Hebrew, you will find that the fourth Hebrew word is "Aleph, Tav."

Therefore, in Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 reads:

" In the beginning (Berei****), God (Elohim) created (bara), (Aleph, Tav) ..."
From this we can understand that Jesus is indeed the Aleph and the Tav, the beginning and the end.

www. backtoyahweh. com/key-of-david.html

the aleph tav simply serves to identify what he created. We don't translate it into English because word order identifies the direct object for us. It's not in the LXX either because of the case system.
So, the aleph tav applies to the heavens and the earth.

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 02:46 PM

the aleph tav simply serves to identify what he created. We don't translate it into English because word order identifies the direct object for us. It's not in the LXX either because of the case system.
So, the aleph tav applies to the heavens and the earth.

Then it is one of those things that do not matter in our language or we do it in a diffeant way. But the point in the test that I posted was salvation issues removed by the newer translations.

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 02:51 PM

frisian1970

June 30th, 2005, 03:12 PM

Then it is one of those things that do not matter in our language or we do it in a diffeant way. But the point in the test that I posted was salvation issues removed by the newer translations.So every jot and tittle of the Law, isn't necessary to convey the salvation message. I believe I agree.

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 03:18 PM

Try to look at it from a different perspective. The editors of these Bibles are not randomly tossing out verses. A lot of work has gone into finding what we think most resembles the original text. Some verses, words, phrases had much evidence to suggest that they were not original. so, maybe the KJV is adding to the Bible.

A perfect example is I John 5:7-8. Scant evidence supports the longer reading of these verses. The vast majority supports the short reading.

Yes, and with that logic the majority texts are what the KJV are translated from therfore it has greater support than the new translations which only have a handful of texts to support them. So maybe Wescott and Hort removed verses.

JCISL

June 30th, 2005, 03:20 PM

So every jot and tittle of the Law, isn't necessary to convey the salvation message. I believe I agree.

convey salvation maybe, but to reach salvation I think we need to be carful before we remove any thing.

Harley

June 30th, 2005, 03:28 PM

NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to...
tell God, OUT LOUD,
that the NIV is correct in deleting these words & phrases?
Yes? Just did, but not sure what "Out loud" has to do with it.

70thWeek

June 30th, 2005, 03:32 PM

Yes, and with that logic the majority texts are what the KJV are translated from therfore it has greater support than the new translations which only have a handful of texts to support them. So maybe Wescott and Hort removed verses.

There is much more to textual criticism than simple numbers. The type of text and dating is important as well.

Wescott and Hort are only 1 group of people involved in textual criticism.

frisian1970

June 30th, 2005, 08:49 PM

convey salvation maybe, but to reach salvation I think we need to be carful before we remove any thing.Our salvation is dependent upon what we deem the Bible?

blitzkreig

June 30th, 2005, 08:54 PM

Our salvation is dependent upon what we deem the Bible? :lol

We often think we have a much larger roll to play in Salvation than we truly do. After all it is the Holy Spirit who does all of the heavy lifting when we are saved.

ann s.

June 30th, 2005, 10:21 PM

Here is a list to compare KJV with NIV.

Luke 1:15 "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

NIV: says "from birth."

John 16:31: Jesus words are in the form of a question but the NIV changes it into an answer.

KJV says John 16:31"Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?"
NIV says John 16:31 "You believe at last!"

Additions: Heb. 11:11-Emphasis on the faith of Sarah has been transferred to Abraham who is not mentioned in this verse from any manuscript.

Heb. 11:11 NIV: "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age.....and Sarah herself was barren....was enabled tobecome a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."

KJV same verse: "through faith also Sarah herself recieved strength to concieve seed.....

Omissions: Sentences and phrases are rountinely shortened as in Mark 11:22 - Matthew 13:37, Luke 9:13 and others.

NIV "Jesus answered"
JKV "and answering he said unto them."

Little words are omitted much of the time. Behold occurs 222 timesi n 218 verses of the NT. but is usually discarded (e.g. Matthew l:20, Mark 13:23, Luke 10:19, John 16:32, Acts. 20:22)

NIV frequently interjects novel and even questionable concepts, such as the routine exchanges of CAPSTONE for CORNERSTONE...

KJV: Matthew 21:42...."Head of the Corner"
NIV: ........................ "Capstone"

KJV: Mark 12:10......"head of the corner"
NIV........................"capstone"

KJV: Luke 20:17 "head of the corner"
NIV...................."capstone"

KVJ: Acts 4:11 "head of the corner"
NIV................."capsstone"

KJV: Eph. 2:20 "Chief corner stone."
NIV: .............."capstone."

KJV: 1 Peter 2:7 "Head of the corner."
NIV:................. "capstone."

These were stone pads in the buildings' foundation directly underneath the corner of intersecting walls. These pads hold the weight, interlocked the walls, provided stability for the entire building (as Christ does for the Church.)

Captsone is a crown block which rest on the top of a wall. It undergrids nothing, interlocks nothing and could be removed without effecting the integrity of the building what so ever.

There are many others....I had these...thought I would share.

Dr.GH

July 1st, 2005, 03:03 AM

I wouldn't ordinarily intrude on this discussion, but the distinction between "corner stone" and "capstone" caught my attention.

A corner stone is a critical part of the foundation of a block constructed structure, but so to is a cap stone. A capstone applies weight across bearing wall sections which is a common way to build a non-parabolic arch opening, or door.

So, two different conceptualizations seem to be invoked, Yeshua ben Yoseph as the foundation of an institution, the "Church," and as a "doorway" to salvation. Also, the structural failure of a capstone is rapid where the failure of a foundation is slow.

Because theologians, and Bible translators do not do a lot of house building (they should join with deacon Jimmy Carter sometime (http://www.habitat.org/)), the difference between the "foundation of" and the "door to" might not seem important.

I think a bit of reflection should make the difference clear.

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 04:08 AM

Our salvation is dependent upon what we deem the Bible?

It could be. If one were convinced the jw or even the satanic bible was correct would it not affect salvation.

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 04:14 AM

I wouldn't ordinarily intrude on this discussion, but the distinction between "corner stone" and "capstone" caught my attention.

A corner stone is a critical part of the foundation of a block constructed structure, but so to is a cap stone. A capstone applies weight across bearing wall sections which is a common way to build a non-parabolic arch opening, or door.

So, two different conceptualizations seem to be invoked, Yeshua ben Yoseph as the foundation of an institution, the "Church," and as a "doorway" to salvation. Also, the structural failure of a capstone is rapid where the failure of a foundation is slow.

Because theologians, and Bible translators do not do a lot of house building (they should join with deacon Jimmy Carter sometime (http://www.habitat.org/)), the difference between the "foundation of" and the "door to" might not seem important.
I think a bit of reflection should make the difference clear.

But it is important and why would a young christian reflect on that if they didn't know the differance.

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 04:18 AM

There is much more to textual criticism than simple numbers. The type of text and dating is important as well.

Wescott and Hort are only 1 group of people involved in textual criticism.

Yes but numers is what you relied on for removing I John 5:7-8. Older is not better in all cases. In this case they are corrupt. Wescott and Hort translatated the text now used for the new translations.

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 06:03 AM

Defending the Word of God

Did you know that in the Bible, Thus saith the Lord......., And the word of the Lord came.............. and other such statements are used over 3800 times? This shows Gods direct influence and authority over the men of God in the Bible.

Proofs of accuracy and stern warnings against changing Gods Word. I'm sure that there are many more but these will do.

PROOFS:
Matthew 5: 18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
2 Timothy 3: 16 & 17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1: 19 - 21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Proverbs 30: 5
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
______________________________________
WARNINGS:
Matthew 5: 19
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Revelation 22: 18 - 19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book
Proverbs 30: 6
6 Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

When someone wants proof of the accuracy of the message, have him or her read aloud the verse below.

This is for two fold reasons:

1) After reading, show them that several words could have been " forgotten " and the message is still very clear (i.e.... God loved the world, gave his Son, whosoever believeth have everlasting life). See still very clear, just broken and not proper.

2) As they read it aloud with their own mouth. They see with their own eyes and hear in their own voice with their own ears one of the most important bases of the faith. Thus planting the seed of salvation in their heart and maybe giving you a chance to spread the word!!!

John 3: 16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
________________________________________________________________________

Why do we use the King James?
The New Testament Greek text of traditional Bibles (King James), used continuously for almost two thousand years, is generally referred to as the Ecclesiastical Text, Majority Text or the Byzantine-Antiochian Text.

The text used as a basis for contemporary New Testament (NIV, NKJV, NASV, NRSV, RSV, GN, Phillips, and most of the others) texts is dramatically different, and is referred to among scholars as the Alexandrian cluster of texts. This text was unused and ignored in the Christian community for over fifteen hundred years, and was first used in an English-language Bible translation in 1881. Since then, it has become the basis for most contemporary texts. The Alexandrian Text used in contemporary texts contains almost 3,000 fewer words than the traditional text, reflects the secular bias of the ancient Hellenistic and Alexandrian culture of the third century A.D., and are seriously corrupted with Gnostic doctrines.

The traditional Bible New Testament finds support in over 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, more than any writing in the entire history of literature. By contrast, most contemporary texts are supported by a mere handful of ancient Greek manuscripts, which were ignored by the church for more than a millennium.

The translators of the traditional Bible also translated word for word (formal equivalency), line by line (and translated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, this was for the whole Bible. Hebrew and Aramaic for the old Testament and Greek for the new). Most contemporary text is translated by thought (dynamic equivalency). Meaning it was read and then the translator wrote what he thought the text means. I don't know about you but I don't want someone telling me what he thinks the word says. I prefer that the Holy Ghost lead me, as our Lord Jesus Christ promised the disciples as to how it was to be.

I could go into verse-by-verse examples but I don't feel the need. I do have some printed if you want to see them let me know.

If you would like more info on the deception of the contemporary texts, and see verse-by-verse examples and so much more, follow these links:

kjvo links removed by admin

A standard test determined the AKJV reading level to be 5th grade. Because it contains mostly one and two-syllabic words. Making it one of the easiest to read.
________________________________________________________________________

APOCRYPHA
The reason I am discussing this is because some of the contemporary text (counterfeits) are starting to include these because of ecumenical activities involving Globalist and the Roman Catholic Church. Do I hear something like ONE WORLD RELIGION? This is being done through various ecumenical Bible Societies like the American Bible Society, and also through various ecumenical councils like the National Council of Churches of Christ (formerly the Rockefeller - funded Federal Council of Churches) in the USA and the Canadian Council of Churches.

The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudographia include: The Epistle of Barnabas, Epistles of Clement (founder of Gnostic School of Alexandria....Did someone say Alexandrian Text used in contemporary texts), Shepherd of Hermas, Secret Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Thomas and others. All of which are seriously corrupted with Gnostic doctrines.

The Old Testament Apocrypha was never accepted and still aren't by the Jews as inspired on the same level as the rest of the Old Testament books. However, they were translated into Greek along with the rest of the Old Testament in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the O.T. about 250 B.C.) to make up the Alexandrian (there’s that word again) canon. The first century Jewish historian Josephus said the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (Malachi) and the Talmud (the record of Jewish history) concurs.

Reasons to REJECT the Apocrypha:
1) The oldest known versions date only to the 4th century. No evidence that the copies used by our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles included it. Our Lord Jesus and his Apostles never quoted it although they quoted from the Old Testament hundreds of times.
2) The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God so why even put it before your eyes and run the risk of ingesting poison.
3) Some of its books are historically inaccurate i.e....Tobit, Judith.
4) Some of its books promote deadly poisonous unbiblical concepts:
a) Purgatory & Prayers for the Dead - Maccabees 12: 39 - 45
b) Justification of Suicide - 2 Maccabees 14: 43 - 46
c) Salvation by Almsgiving - Ecclesiasticus 3: 30, Tobit 12: 8 - 9, 17
d) Justification of Slavery and Cruelty - Ecclesiasticus 33: 24 - 28
e) Animism - Wisdom of Solomon 12: 1
f) Reincarnation - Wisdom of Solomon 8: 19 - 20
g) Salvation through Wisdom - Wisdom of Solomon 9: 8
h) Instruction in Magic - Tobit 6: 5 - 8

Most importantly, God being all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent and omnipotent would have did it right the first time and would not require further translations to get His word to us in a language that we can understand.

I think I have gone long enough. My intent is not to offend any but to revive all. I felt lead to do this and we are taught to test the spirits and to follow the lead of the Holy Ghost. I do hope you have found this useful in some small way. Brethren once they get enough lost souls to accept such venomous doctrines the body of Christ will fall under harsh prosecution. Lets keep our eyes towards Heaven and our Hearts in Christ. The time is here, very little is left to be done.

Love and Prayers,

Robert E. Andrews
January 16, 2003

holyspiritvesse

July 1st, 2005, 07:17 AM

Ummmm.

Guess what, JCISL?

THe KJV contained the APOCRYPHA until the 1800's! :lol

:deadhorse

I do not see you keeping your eyes toward heaven and hearts in Jesus. I jsut see you being divisive and ridiculous.

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:

1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; (NASB fruitless discussion; NLB arguing and talking foolishness)

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;

I mean, the PROOF is your vain jangling is in saying how people are starting to use the apocraphal and how bad it is and you DON'T EVEn REALIZE IT WAS PART OF THE KJV!!!!! :laugh

:pound

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 07:46 AM

70thWeek

July 1st, 2005, 08:15 AM

Yes but numers is what you relied on for removing I John 5:7-8. Older is not better in all cases. In this case they are corrupt. Wescott and Hort translatated the text now used for the new translations.

Look at a critical apparatus of I John 5:7-8.

How are these older manuscripts corrupt?

Wescott and Hort are outdated now, most new translations will use the NA text.

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 08:21 AM

Look at a critical apparatus of I John 5:7-8.

How are these older manuscripts corrupt?

Wescott and Hort are outdated now, most new translations will use the NA text.

What is NA text?

JCISL

July 1st, 2005, 08:25 AM

Look at a critical apparatus of I John 5:7-8.

How are these older manuscripts corrupt?

Wescott and Hort are outdated now, most new translations will use the NA text.

From post # 36

All of the other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc. are based upon another manuscript family known as the Alexandrian Manuscript family which was put together by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in about the 2nd century. Most scholars agree Origen was a heretic because of his denial of essential doctrines. In all, there are over 5,000 major changes between the Majority Text (KJV & Douay Reims) and the Minority Text (all other newer bibles).

The two best renditions of the Bible that have had the least amount of change are the King James and the older versions of the Douay Reims, Catholic Bible. The original King James Bible is the Authorized Version of 1611 (AV). This Bible does a good job in translating the ancient Hebrew texts. The King James, Authorized Version is relatively free from bias and is widely accepted by English speaking Protestants.

This manuscript family behind the KJV is called the Traditional or Majority text because over 99% of the manuscripts that have ever been found support and back this text. Scholars have discovered 5,255 pieces of manuscript evidence. Its been said that Of these, 5,210 of them support the Traditional text behind that of the KJV! That’s why it is called the MAJORITY text! That is 99%! Most important vis-à-vis credibility is that these manuscripts come from all over the known world of the day, not from any central location. And 99% agree with each other.

The Textus Receptus (received text) (aka: "Byzantine Text") from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Pesh itta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version. A second-century date for the Pesh itta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Pesh itta , and so it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century or after. Erasmus gathered many of these documents on his travels himself. The text for these new bibles Hort and Wescott took from finds in Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome . Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

70thWeek

July 1st, 2005, 08:32 AM

What is NA text?

Nestle-Aland, now in its 27th edition

70thWeek

July 1st, 2005, 08:33 AM

From post # 36

All of the other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc. are based upon another manuscript family known as the Alexandrian Manuscript family which was put together by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in about the 2nd century. Most scholars agree Origen was a heretic because of his denial of essential doctrines. In all, there are over 5,000 major changes between the Majority Text (KJV & Douay Reims) and the Minority Text (all other newer bibles).

The two best renditions of the Bible that have had the least amount of change are the King James and the older versions of the Douay Reims, Catholic Bible. The original King James Bible is the Authorized Version of 1611 (AV). This Bible does a good job in translating the ancient Hebrew texts. The King James, Authorized Version is relatively free from bias and is widely accepted by English speaking Protestants.

This manuscript family behind the KJV is called the Traditional or Majority text because over 99% of the manuscripts that have ever been found support and back this text. Scholars have discovered 5,255 pieces of manuscript evidence. Its been said that Of these, 5,210 of them support the Traditional text behind that of the KJV! That’s why it is called the MAJORITY text! That is 99%! Most important vis-à-vis credibility is that these manuscripts come from all over the known world of the day, not from any central location. And 99% agree with eac