Prefer the KJV?

Takes one to know one? You have no proof of your claims Brian and I for one am weary of giving you truth with references and then you say it is not true or that you forgot. Go back to previous threads and look them up.

 

That's your response to Riplinger's admitted "speculation" about the connection between theologian B.F. Westcott and occultist W.W. Westcott, based only on their same last name??? I gave the proof. Footnote 128 in chapter 30 of her book. You see, when I make a claim, I also include the reference *along with the claim*, so people can't say "you have no proof", which you did *despite* the proof I included that you could *easily* verify for yourself.

I'm sorry Steve, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously. For example, with the NIV quote issue, I provided TWICE the info that refutes your claim, yet you have completely ignored it. If you are going to do the same with the other responses I can create from other "quotes" you produce, why should I bother? You have obviously made up your mind, no matter what truth I can provide. You are not interested in truth, you are interested in opposing everything that disagrees with your preconceptions.

 

Brian there is no speculation in the quotes from the letters between the men. You choose not to believe it because you will have to admit there is spiritual involvement dark spiritual involvement in their work and thus admit they should not be followed in their teaching.

 

Steve, you don't get it. You simply don't get it. I've debated with JWs who are less slippery in their debate tactics than you are.

Once, *just once*, I would like to have a discussion with a KJV-only supporter who can be honest with the issues. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Oh well, I'm done casting pearls for a while. Slander away, my friend.

 

Once a skeptic always a skeptic.I see a trend.

 

Steve K. said:

Mary worship as I have proved in the past is deeply rooted in the text behind many MV's. I have printed quotes from Wescott and Hort that prove it.

And I have the context to prove that Westcott and Hort's alleged Mariolatry is just another KJV-only fairy tale.

 

BrianT said:

Perhaps Ransom will again provide that information for you.

Ask, and thou shalt receive.

The following comes from Chapter 8 of Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s book An Understandable History of the Bible:

</font>[/QUOTE]This letter of Westcott's comes from Arthur Westcott, ed., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (New York: Macmillan, 1903) pp. 80-81 (unfortunately, at the time I photocopied these pages, I neglected to note which of the two volumes they came from). Here is Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s citation in context. The Gipper's excerpt is shown in boldface. Notice what he could have quoted, but didn't, and suggests the exact opposite of what he would have us believe (in italics).

Only a lawyer or a KJV-onlyist could take a letter in which Westcott denounces the "Romish church," its excessive finery, its theological error, the monastic lifestyle, crucifixes, and the spiritual bondage of the Irish people, and use it to make him out to be a closet devotee of Rome and the Virgin Mary.

 

I had never seen that quote before. That is amazing that people lack so much integrity, people who claim to be representing the truth. Why would you stoop to such levels? And then there are people who continue to believe what these men and women write, even after they have been shown for what they really are.

 

Ssteve K --
Where did you live before you moved to Minnesota?

 

Thanks Ransom. That's classic stuff.

 

Issue Date: November/December 2002

By David W. Daniels

The NIV has undergone a sex change. The new version, called "Today's NIV" or TNIV for short, is supposedly a "gender-accurate" version of the NIV Bible. What makes it "gender accurate"? It removes most occurrences of seven masculine words: father, son, brother, man, he, him and his.

For instance, the TNIV changes father to parent, son to children or people, brother to brother and sister, someone or person, etc. But this is of major concern to modern Bible scholars, since the most reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts actually use the masculine terms as they are found in the King James Bible.

Over 100 Evangelical ministers and scholars have signed a document rejecting the TNIV as a bad translation. But even they are missing the point. Most of these leaders still accept the NIV as a good Bible version. They only dislike the TNIV because of the changes that have been made to the NIV.

But the NIV is not God's words in English, either. God gave His words through godly apostles and prophets who wrote them down. Those Bible books were passed on by faithful believers, many of whom were persecuted for their faith and for their Bible.

But the devil had made a counterfeit. His "scholars" in Alexandria, Egypt perverted God's words horribly. The mutilated manuscripts from their "school" have become the foundation documents used by the translators of all the modern Bibles including the NIV.

Over a hundred years ago, Bible "scholars" concluded that Psalm 12:6-7 was wrong. God did not, indeed, preserve His "words." They decided that only the original documents written by the apostles and prophets were God's Word. Any copies of them were not reliable.

So the only reliable Words of God were lost. Now, they claim, all we have are copies of questionable accuracy. In the scramble to determine the "best" manuscripts, they ignored the thousands of manuscripts supporting the Textus Receptus used by the King James translators.

Instead they settled on just two manuscripts from the Alexandrian heresy, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. These became the foundation of the Wescott and Hort Greek text from which all modern Bibles derive.

Yes, the TNIV is a badly written Bible. Yes, it does take out God's clear masculine words and replace them with "gender-neutral" ones. But the NIV and modern Bibles are phonies to begin with. Don't follow the latest fad. The way to be sure you have God's preserved words in English is to stick with your King James Bible. In it God kept his Psalm 12: 6-7 promise. It is the only one we can use to confidently declare, "Thus saith the Lord!"

For a complete treatment of the perversions of the NIV, see IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, by Chick Salliby, available from Chick Publications. Or, read the answers to many of the difficult questions asked about Bible versions.

 

quote from Frank Logsdon's testimony:But nevertheless, that's where the New American stands in connection with the Authorized Version. I just jotted down what these versions, translations, and paraphrases are doing. Consider:

One, they cause widespread confusion, because everywhere we go people say, What do you think of this; what do you think of that? What do young people think when they hear all of this?

Two, they discourage memorization. Who's going to memorize when each one has a different Bible, a different translation?

Three, they obviate the use of a concordance. Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren't going to find one. If we're going to have a concordance for every one; you're going to have a lot of concordances.

Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth. There are all these translations and versions, each one trying to get a little different slant from the others. They must make it different, because if it isn't different why have a new version? If makes a marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in his perverting influence.

Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult. And I'm finding that more and more as I go around the country. I mentioned this thing the other night. How could a mathematics professor or instructor teach a certain problem in a class if the class had six or eight different textbooks? How about that? How could you do it?

Six, they elicit profitless argumentation. Because everywhere we go they say this one is more accurate. Which one is more accurate? How do they know? And this is not a reflection against those saying this, because I would have done this a few years ago. In Christian Life magazine I got this. My dear friend, Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute-one of the sweetest, dearest men you've ever met; he's wonderfully named-he's starting today right down near my home at southern Keswick, and if I'm back by the end of the week I expect to see him and I'm going to talk to him about these things. When he was asked for his recommendation for the New American Standard, he said, 'I like it because it reads freely." You can read it yourself; it's in the ad in various magazines. And he said, "I particularly like it because it's so near to the original." I'm going to say, "Now George, what is the original? Have you seen it?" There isn't any original.

 

I use the KJV, NKJV, NIV, CEV, and the Hebrew and Greek. I preach from the NKJV.

Rufus

 

neal4christ said:

Steve, your point?

Oh, he's just gone into "avoidance" mode again. Once you realize that the "sex change" post (I believe this is now the 5th time I've seen it this afternoon) is just another way of saying "Prov. 26:5" over and over again, you'll do fine.

 

Whew! Back to the question. I prefer the the New Scofield Reference Bible, followed by the NASB, followed by the NAS Electronic Bible Library, followed by Srong's Exhaustive Conciordance dictionary, followed by Vines' Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, followed by the Englishman's Greek New Testament, followed by the Amplified New Testament, followed by The Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley Version), followed by Wuest's Expanded Translation of the New Testament, followed by Good News for Modern Man, followed by the Living Bible, followed by the NIV, followed by whatever you have to say and then, as luck would have it, I make up my own mind, thank you very much.

 

On second thought, I will say a couple of more things. I think it is an error to say that the KJV is letter for letter, word for word inspired. I also think it is equally in error to say that ALL Bilbles are the Wod of God. There are some pretty rediculous versions out there and some pretty good ones and more are coming more and more frequently as people want their ears scratched. It is my responsibility to discern what God says to me and no one else's. I have spent my 30 years of being a Christian trying faithfully to know exactly what God said and exactly what he meant. I will use every tool and resource available to me in my limited capacity I will be like the Berean's who searched the scriptures daily whether these thing were so and they had neither the KJV nor the NIV, nor the NASB nor anything else in English, but they somehow managed to muddle through.