What has happened to "Thus saith the LORD?

Actually, Deborah, it was the Holy Spirit that did the saving, not a translation of the bible.

The KJV is just that, a translation. It is no more special than any other translation other than its age...but, then, there are other translations that are much older.

"Thus saith the Lord" is a catch-phrase used by some "country" preachers to back up what they are screaming at the time. Not always, I am sure, but that has been the case when I have heard it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

It is amazing how polarized this KJV vs Modern translations is. It even leaks over to this thread.

I am going to give you my two-cents to what happened to "Thus saith the Lord".

Yes, some preachers are falling away from the Bible and preaching "feel good" sermons. This has nothing to do with KJV vs. Modern versions. They are falling away from all translations.

But, on the other hand, many preachers still believe:

"Thus saith the Lord" never existed in that particular form until the Greek and Hebrew (and possibly Aramaic) texts were translate into English.

This is the same thing that has happened to music over the years. This does not mean it is bad, it means people don't like to change.

Some changes can be bad, others may not be and if it is a change in the way the words are said in more modern English, then that is not a "bad" change.

It is my understanding in the 1700's and early 1800s songs were not even allowed in churches from the origin of the Baptist Churches of today. Then came hymns that the first generation complained about, the next generation felt that they needed change so they brought in musical instruments in the form of keyboard (piano, later organ). That generation complained. To the next generation the music was acceptable as it was sung with instruments.

New hymns were added, people complained, until the next generation.

My point is: When I was a little boy, we went to church camp and heard songs like "Set my Soul Afire Lord" among other new songs. The adults didn't like them. They were different. They were not the old hymns they grew up with.

Now they are in the hymn book and are accepted by the general churches. Now churches are coming up with new songs and more musical instruments are being brought into the church. Is this bad? Only if that church is getting away from the what the Bible teaches.

Is it wrong to have a new translation, absolutely not, we speak a different form of English today. The KJV was and still is the Word of God, but so are many newer translations. Yes, God maintains his word for all generations, just as he did for about 1,600 years before the King James Version ever existed.

The churches are only wrong if they stray from the Bible, whatever mainstream translation they use.

 

2Peter 3
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

I don't think most Christians today realize just how close we are to the end. If the Bible says there is going to be a falling away in the last days, how do you know you are not part of it?

2Tim 4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

If we are in the last days, and we can expect people to not endure sound doctrine, we should be able to expect people to heap to themselves teachers, yes? Why not heap to themselves bibles as well? How often do we hear a teacher/preacher say 'I think the blah blah revised blah says it best' or something similar? Christians today do not like to be under the authority of the word of God any more than the rest of the world. They like to go to church and hear the sermon and leave feeling holy without having to do anything. If preachers stood for the word today, and told the truth from the pulpits, you would have a lot less people showing up for church, which wouldn't be good for business.

2Cor 5
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


The bible says we are all going to stand before the Son and be judged for our works. How many people believe that today? In another thread, someone said that 'knowing the terror of the Lord' was referring to the horror of knowing that God was going to ask you questions that He already knows the answer to. Does that sound like terror? Is that like the terror you had when your father asked you who broke the lamp? Why would we have to fear anything from a God who doesn't chasten His children? Oh wait... He DOES chasten His children.

Look at terror throughout the bible
Deuteronomy 32:25
The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.

Job 6:4
For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.

Job 20:25
It is drawn, and cometh out of the body; yea, the glittering sword cometh out of his gall: terrors are upon him.

Psalm 73
18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.
19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.

The terror of the Lord is NOT losing crowns. It is NOT being ashamed and feeling sorry for your sins. It is knowing the awful truth that we will be judged for our works, and if our works be burned, we shall suffer loss! We shall be saved, yet so as by fire!

We need to wake up! Our Lord does not delay His coming. I hope I'm preaching to the choir...

 

I am not judging anyone. The profound ignorance of the members of the KJO sect is a very well documented fact. They themselves actively discourage each other from getting a formal education and they viciously attack those of us who do have an education, implying that our education is proof that we are neither spiritual nor conservative. We have been to school, we have studied the facts, we know the truth—and the truth is the very thing that they hate the most.

The facts are that millions of people have been saved throughout history all over the face of the earth. Only a small percentage of them ever heard or read one word from the King James translation of the Bible. But, of course, the facts are the truth—the arch enemy of the KJO sect.

The King James translation of the Bible may be good enough for you, but my standards are as high as the needs of the people, and for most people, the King James translation of the Bible is inadequate—and that fact has been proven over and over again by the members of the KJO sect on this message board as they have quoted it to teach things that it does not teach.

 

And when the KJO sect is asked for the meaning of verses from the King James translation of the Bible that use archaic language structure, they either propose a radically ignorant meaning or they ignore the request completely. Several times I have asked in vain for an explanation of the meaning of the last clause in Matt. 4:2, a clause for which I have personally found, in my own copies of the King James translation of the Bible, five different renderings:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

The NASB, 1995 renders this verses as follows:

And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

If the King James translation of the Bible is “good enough” for you, please tell us publicly on this message board what the translators of the King James translation of the Bible were trying to express by their rendering, and which of the above five renderings is the correct rendering (four of them are errors). And once you have told us which of the five renderings from various editions of the King James translation of the Bible is correct, please explain to us how that meaning is different from,

He was afterward hungry

The meanings are NOT the same. What is the correct rendering in the King James translation of the Bible and what does it mean? How is it different from saying that Jesus was hungry? If you can not answer these questions, and so far no KJOist has, the King James translation of the Bible should NOT be good enough for you.

And need I comment that we are so far only at the second verse of the fourth chapter of the New Testament and we reading a verse that is talking about Jesus our Lord.

 

One thing that we can all agree upon is that these verses are a prophecy about the KJO sect.

 

Why do liberals ALWAYS refer to obedience as legalism? Is it because it so goes against their desire to have a relationship with God on their terms?

Face it liberals, if you don't OBEY Him, you don't know Him and according to the word of God you are liars.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:3-4)

Obviously, Jon was a legalist who promoted legalism.

And what about Jesus? Why He also was very legalistic, because he said:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

And even later, this same legalist said:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (verse 21)

And went on to say:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (verses 23-24)


So lie and call it legalism if you must. We who actually believe the Bible call it what it is, obedience, and love for our Saviour.


Jim

 

Nonsense, sound doctrine is not rooted in a single translation (as your statement would imply) Sound doctrine is rooted in the life, teachings and example of Jesus Christ. John 5:37-40.
Those that make the KJV any kind of issue pertaining to Christianity are taking away from true sound doctrine and adding legalistic chains. Notice what Paul said in Galatians 1:6-9

 

My point is this: I believe that we are supposed to fear and obey the Lord, I think(hope) you can find that in any bible version. If I choose to believe that one translation is adequate for all my needs, based on its perfect internal consistency and its fruit, and then choose to believe that version and obey what it says... why is that a problem? Even if I go so far as to say I believe that it is the perfectly preserved word of God, how is that detrimental to my walk?

 

James,

You are correct, we are to fear and obey the Lord, and contrary to some sugar-coated teaching, "fear" doesn't always mean to "respect the Lord" it does at times mean to fear him.

As for your view on the Bible that you believe is the perfectly preserved word of God, it is not detrimental to your walk at all. In fact, you are more stable then those who belong to the Bible of the Year club, and those who belong to the Bible That Best Says What I Want To Believe group.

We keep gettign new versions of the Bible, and new denominations and schisms as a result, yet a segment of what is called Christianity refuses to open their eyes to the obvious truth.


I thank you for your stand.


Jim

 

As I've read my Bible these past 50 years of my saved life, I see God's true Holiness and want to be just like Him. He's never lead me to mock or stray from Truth. The closer I get to Him, the further away from the world I go.

 

AMEN!

 

It is not. No one here has ever said that it is.

Because it is always detrimental to hold false doctrine. Just because "it doesn't hurt" doesn't mean anything. God calls us to hold to truth and abandon error. You may "walk" just fine with such a belief. But you will be in error since God's word does not teach that. It in fact teaches the opposite.

 

I don't have 50 years, but I understand and share you sentiment. That is why we on this side are so troubled by your side. We see those on your side constantly mocking the Truth. They attack it and malaign it because they don't like it. That is troubling and detrimental to the cause of Christ.

 

Your post is a little vague. Can you be specific about what morals you're referring to? You mentioned "be ye separete", but what context are you referring to?

 

I don't have 50 years, but I understand and share you sentiment. That is why we on this side are so troubled by your side. We see those on your side constantly mocking the Truth. They attack it and malaign it because they don't like it. That is troubling and detrimental to the cause of Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]PastorLarry that's funny, because we beleive God to have preserved His word for us, see your side as being the ones who mock, attack, malign the truth that you don't like. And you are right, it is troubling and detrimental.

Just remember, Westcott and Hort fired the first round of attacks on truth and it has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.


Jim

 

Wow, it only took 6 posts to inject false doctrine into the thread.

 

Wow, it only took 6 posts to inject false doctrine into the thread. </font>[/QUOTE]You accidently typed your 9 upside down.

 

It is not. No one here has ever said that it is.

Because it is always detrimental to hold false doctrine. Just because "it doesn't hurt" doesn't mean anything. God calls us to hold to truth and abandon error. You may "walk" just fine with such a belief. But you will be in error since God's word does not teach that. It in fact teaches the opposite. </font>[/QUOTE]So what your saying is that it is not wrong for me to obey God's will, but it is wrong for me to say I know what God's will is. While any member of the MV fan club will say that they know God's will, in fact they can pick it out of a lineup. I don't see your point, maybe you could elaborate.