William and Myself

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DesiderioDomini, Apr 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for replying to my PM.

    I have an idea. How about you give your reasons, as specific as possible, of why you believe in KJVO.

    Please remember to follow the rules....I dont want them to close us down.

    After that, I will post my questions. (Some of them may not apply to you, so that is why I wish to understand your belief rather than throw you under the blanket of KJVO).

    We ask that the other members keep this a one on one thread, so that A) no one is getting ganged up on, B) we stay on topic, C) so no one gets sidetracked trying to answer 3 people.

    Thanks everyone!
     
  2. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK: the AV1611 is the "WORD OF GOD" not contains, or part of it is, But is the Inspired , Infallible, Inerrant,word for word The "Word of God". Now then "All" others may contain, or have some here and some there; (that is After the AV 1611) that have copyrights (here in the USA) and may have errors,falibilities,and Questionable refrences as far as I"M concerned. I will have to Study up on some versions as you hit me with your questions, so please bear with me. I will not insult any version but will listen to my heart and keep unfounded comments to myself; ones that I have been tought as I became IFB, and I hope you do the same. since I've returned to work I will try to answer as swift as possible in eithe early A.M or later P.M. Like I said I have never claimed to be a KJVO since I speak Spanish and English But Th AV1611 is By Far (in the english language) all I need toKnow more about my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Thanx and God bless! P.S. the words in Itallics are what was inspired in English; AV 1611: and maybe after this I just might be a KJVO!
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    William : //OK: the AV1611 is the "WORD OF GOD" not contains, or part of it is, But is the Inspired , Infallible, Inerrant,word for word The "Word of God". Now then "All" others may contain, or have some here and some there; (that is After the AV 1611) that have copyrights (here in the USA) and may have errors,falibilities,and Questionable refrences as far as I"M concerned. //

    Would you identify 'AV1611' to me.
    I have several KJVs;

    1. KJV1611 Edition
    2. KJV1769 Edition
    3. KJV1750 Edition (American Bible Society)
    4. KJV1873 Edition

    Unfortunately I know (and am qualified to
    teach in a secular secendary school) logic.
    What you have done is assume (AKA: selected
    as axiomatic):

    the AV1611 ... is the Inspired , Infallible, Inerrant,word for word The "Word of God"

    Unfortunately, as quoted above, this leads
    to know FALSE STATEMENTS. Therefore your
    assumption is in error.

    I assume (select as axiomatic):

    Each and every faithful English Translation
    is individually and collectively
    the Inspired , Infallible, Inerrant,
    word for word The "Word of God".

    I also make a second axiom:

    If there appears to be a discrepancy
    among one Version or between two or more
    Versions of the Bible - it is NOT God's
    fault, it is our problem to try to figure
    out why.

    BTW, I don't appreciate the lack of information
    present in the 'copyright' statement.
    The USofA has failed to observe the
    Royal COPYRIGHT of the King of England,
    James I and his heirs to the King James Versions
    (KJVs). The fact is: the KJV is copyrighted,
    so dising other THE WORD OF GODs because they
    are copyrighted will not be tolerated
    (nor will another disrespect brought upon
    my copies of THE WORD OF GOD.

    William s. correa: //P.S. the words in Itallics are
    what was inspired in English; //

    What about the punctuation?
    It sure wasn't in the Greek.
     
  4. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the above. Those are revised after the 1611 and are the Word of God not translated. It is no assumtion; the AV 1611 is God's Word all KJB are Gods Word thanx and goodby. punctuation is God's Word too
     
  5. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, I love Brother Ed, but I didnt read his answer on purpose. Please remember that we "requested" a private thread, and I understand that no one is bound by that, but perhaps they may be gracious.

    OK, to business.

    Ok, good claim, now where is the evidence? So far, I am unaware of any scripture which supports this, I am unaware of any prophecy which foretold a perfect English translation, but what I am aware of are MANY statements by the AUTHORS in direct opposition to what you have claimed. Are you aware that the KJV translators wrote a preface which is completely NOT KJVO? Have you ever read this? If not, would you like for me to post some important quotes? If so, Do you think they were foolish in writing this? Wouldnt God be rather foolish for allowing this (and the apocrypha for that matter) to be found inside the covers of his perfect English bible?

    Once again, these are all nice claims, but what makes them true? It seems to me like you are simply assuming this to be true.
    I tell you what, if Paul disagreed with me about the meaning of Ephesians, I would be forced to take heed.
    Who claimed the italicized words were inspired? Did the authors, or someone else much later?

    OK, on to my real questions.

    "1. Where was the "word of God" in English before 1611?

    2. If there was a "word of God" in English before 1611, what was the need for the KJV?

    3. In which edition of the KJV are the promises for preservation fulfilled? Remember, there are still typos and differences in the KJV. Which one is 100% right?

    4. IF God did inspire the KJV1611, why did he allow so many errors which needed to be revised?

    5. Why did God include the apocrypha in the KJV1611? Why did he include the translators preface, which clearly did not agree with KJVO? Why did he include the margin notes? Couldnt he have made sure these were not included?

    6. If the KJV is word-for-word inspired, why would italics be necessary?

    7. Why must the "word of God" in English be found in one volume? Does any verse of scripture say that it should?"

    8. Since KAI PARESTAI (CT), KAI PARESTIN (Aleph-c), KAI PALIN PARESTAI (Aleph*), and KAIPER ESTIN (TR) all are different and translate differently, is there any record of the reading "KAIPER ESTIN" , as found in the TR and the KJV before 1516? How is this reading anything but a typo on the part of Erasmus or the printers, which found its way into the KJV?

    There you go. Feel free to ask me anything you want.

    PS: After the fact, I read your response to Ed. I must ask....
    What about when they disagree? Can 2 bibles which disagree BOTH be the word of God?
     
  6. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the above. Those are revised after the 1611 and are the Word of God not translated. It is no assumtion; the AV 1611 is God's Word all KJB are Gods Word thanx and goodby. punctuation is God's Word too </font>[/QUOTE]Who spoke the first english word? God! who came up with puncctuations in english? God! Who wrote the Bible? God! "In the beggining God", Wo wanted you to have a AV 1611 and KJB in the english language with the Apocrypha and all the comas , Question marks etc... God! Who owns it all? God! If God would have said you have to climb trees in order to get saved, I would be preaching Tree Climbing. So God says "man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word of God" So we must have every word. And if God has called me to preach His Words, well then His word is what He will Give me! Not Erasmus's or W/H, or what ever, But His Words. And mindless trivia persuit of why the KJB and AV are mans problem, I disagree cause the battle is the Lords
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am guessing that since you are making these grand assertions about things that God did... you have some sort of scriptural proof right?

    No. He inspired men to write it... in Greek, Hebrew, and perhaps Aramaic... but there is no proof whatsoever that He ever inspired any scripture in English.
    In the beginning of scripture, God inspired very special men with certain qualifications... qualifications that no one has met since John drew his last breath.
    Yes. By the same token, He wants us to have MV's and the critical texts as well.
    If you are so faithful to what God actually said why are you putting words into His mouth and declaring a belief about the KJV that God never declared?
    Word has more than one definition. The one that applies here is "saying".
    Au contrare.

    When people are running about slandering God's Word as translated in various MV's... it is very much more than "man's problem".

    What you've said here amounts to "I've lost on every point of fact, evidence, and scripture but I'll never admit it".
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry about ruining your Black Panther party... I'll but out since this is a private thing.
     
  9. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, good claim, now where is the evidence? So far, I am unaware of any scripture which supports this, I am unaware of any prophecy which foretold a perfect English translation, but what I am aware of are MANY statements by the AUTHORS in direct opposition to what you have claimed. Are you aware that the KJV translators wrote a preface which is completely NOT KJVO? Have you ever read this? If not, would you like for me to post some important quotes? If so, Do you think they were foolish in writing this? Wouldnt God be rather foolish for allowing this (and the apocrypha for that matter) to be found inside the covers of his perfect English bible?

    Once again, these are all nice claims, but what makes them true? It seems to me like you are simply assuming this to be true.
    I tell you what, if Paul disagreed with me about the meaning of Ephesians, I would be forced to take heed.
    Who claimed the italicized words were inspired? Did the authors, or someone else much later?

    OK, on to my real questions.

    "1. Where was the "word of God" in English before 1611?

    2. If there was a "word of God" in English before 1611, what was the need for the KJV?

    3. In which edition of the KJV are the promises for preservation fulfilled? Remember, there are still typos and differences in the KJV. Which one is 100% right?

    4. IF God did inspire the KJV1611, why did he allow so many errors which needed to be revised?

    5. Why did God include the apocrypha in the KJV1611? Why did he include the translators preface, which clearly did not agree with KJVO? Why did he include the margin notes? Couldnt he have made sure these were not included?

    6. If the KJV is word-for-word inspired, why would italics be necessary?

    7. Why must the "word of God" in English be found in one volume? Does any verse of scripture say that it should?"

    8. Since KAI PARESTAI (CT), KAI PARESTIN (Aleph-c), KAI PALIN PARESTAI (Aleph*), and KAIPER ESTIN (TR) all are different and translate differently, is there any record of the reading "KAIPER ESTIN" , as found in the TR and the KJV before 1516? How is this reading anything but a typo on the part of Erasmus or the printers, which found its way into the KJV?

    There you go. Feel free to ask me anything you want.

    PS: After the fact, I read your response to Ed. I must ask....
    What about when they disagree? Can 2 bibles which disagree BOTH be the word of God?
    </font>[/QUOTE]1ST,In the available Antiochian manuscripts ,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 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's edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.

    , THAT WERE TRANSLATED by William Tyndale, that became the KJB 2ND), It's up to YOU to find the Book that God was talking about in Psalm 12:6,7 and Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:35.3rd)there are no typeos in God's Holy Word, AV 1611 4th)God's Word does not contain errors, God is not the Author of confusion, the trnslation is inerrant There have been several editions but no revisions; "ANY hippie can burn down a building, but I've NEVER seen even one building that a hippie built". 5th)There were more Editions after the AV 1611 and all of it was inspired.Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the [attack on God's Word deleted--this may be private but it is public on the Baptist-Board-you must follow the rules] Alexandrian manuscripts.
    That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
    1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
    2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
    3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
    4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
    5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
    6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
    7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
    If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be [another attack on God's Word deleted--and the "author's" of God's Word--which happens to be God, not the scribes in Alexandria] of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. . 6th)Imagine the confusion which would arise if the translators had not used the italicized words:

    "Salvation unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah."

    This is Psalm 3:8 with one italicized word omitted. As you can see, the reading implies that the Lord needs to be saved! The correct reading is:

    "Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah." 7th) God only wrote ONE BOOK 8th)The more Erasmus became involved in the study and editing of the New Testament, the more his theology and convictions began to change. He came to reject the typical Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16:18 establishing papal primacy. He began to vehemently attack the abuses and scandals of the Roman Catholic clergy, particularly as they violated their vows of celibacy. He even attacked celibacy as fallacious (171).

    My qustions to you are: #1 Are you 100% sure if you died right now, Are you are saved and on your way to heaven? [Moderator's Warning--This is awfully close to an accusation, please do not question another member's salvtion.] #2 which edition KJB do You use? Which MV Version do you accept as "GOS'D WORD" 100% sure in your heat of hearts:
    not contains, partly has or maybe is? The Infallible, Inerrant "WORD OF GOD" #3 What does your pastor preach out of?#4 Why do we need so many versions when thre is only ONE GOD? #5 Why does the RCC think they are the Final Authority and not The AV 1611?

    [ April 14, 2006, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
  10. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    In heaven maybe, but not on earth. Somewhere along the way some human spoke the first english words. Do you have anything to back this statement up?

    Technically, yes, however, you seem to be very confused as to HOW he did so. No manuscript fell from heaven. God chose to use PEOPLE to communicate his word to us. Now, I charge you to show the first shread of evidence that God wrote a single word in English.

    Very well, Who wanted YOU to have access to the NASB, in all its glory as well? What evidence do you have that God chose the KJV, and did not choose the NASB?

    Probably the best point you have made so far!

    By the same token, if God would have said I need to use the KJV if I want to have his word, I would throw away all my other versions and cling to it. However, you seem to either completely MISS every time I or anyone else asks you for the evidence as to why the KJV is a perfect translation, or what verse proclaims this fact. No evidence whatsoever, so what is to keep me from claiming the very same thing about the NASB, and claiming that you must use it if you want God's word?

    Awesome! Now tell me, WHERE do you get your definition of "HIS WORD(s)" from? What unavoidable fact was it that sold you that ONLY the KJV is the Word of God?

    Very well, show me where you heard, by scripture, prophecy, or other revelation, that the KJV is "HIS WORDS". Please show me why they are not just the best work a group of anglican translators could do, albeit very well done, but was elevated to perfect status. What evidence led you to this fact?
     
  11. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    So basically, the inspired word of God did not exist in one volume before the KJV? How did those people get along if they didnt have God's word?

    Exactly! So, please tell me, what is it that makes the KJV right, and the NASB wrong? Is it simply your personal conviction, or is there proof?

    There are no typos? Are you serious? It has been edited several times to remove all the typos! Do you really not know that there is a difference between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1769? Did you not know that there are hundreds of mispellings, even if you are to claim perfection of the KJV.

    Which translation? Tyndale? Geneva? NLT? Why the KJV?

    Tell me this, what changeds were made from the first edition to the 2nd. Would you name 3 examples (specific examples).

    not real sure what this has to do with anything, but thanks!

    Ok, hold up: You just said that God is not the author of confusion, so how can God inspire 2 different translations of the same passage which disagree? How can God inspire "He" in Ruth 3:15, and "SHE" in Ruth 3:15?

    Perhaps you should read this: Revision is no myth
    Tell me, if these arent revisions, what changes must be made in order to qualify for a revision?

    Great! What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

    So, why did they take it out, if it was only for historical value? What was YOUR KJV revised, and many entire books removed from what God "inspired"? Why change it if its not broken?

    Why are the alexandrian manuscripts corrupt? Is this your opinion, or is there some fact here?

    Great, so if they had this strong conviction that these books were not scripture, they chose something very interesting:
    RATHER than discuss the issue of their conviction that the Apocryphal books were not scripture in their preface, they decided INSTEAD to discuss their conviction that KJVO was INCORRECT.

    I ask again, have you read the preface written by the KJV translators?

    As most other KJVO, you miss the forest for all the trees. No one claims PERFECTION on the part of those 2 manuscripts. YOU claim PERFECTION for the KJV. THE KJV CANNOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OTHER MANUSCRIPTS MAKE!!!!! You cant say "well, you did it too!" God cannot be holy if he sins and then says to us "well, you sin too"

    So, are you claiming that God left something out of his originally inspired word?

    Which language did he "write" it in? Do you have any evidence that he was involved in the translation of the KJV and not any others?

    How does this even REMOTELY address my question #8? Is this reading in Revelation 17:8 a typo or not? Can you find one single manuscript on the planet, or one quote from a church father which reads as the TR/KJV does?

    yep! and whats funny, I have never before, nor will I ever use the KJV for personal study or to preach out of.

    I dont use any of them. The only one even in my possession is a keepsake bible given to me when I was little, which I have never used.

    Several, actually. NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV are the ones I use the most, in that order.

    NASB. I have just recently joined a new church (since I moved) and God blessed me by calling me to a church that encourages the priesthood of the believer, unlike many IFB. My pastor uses the NASB to preach with, and I use it as my main bible in English.

    1. Because God decided for it to be that way. 2. Many people simply cannot read 17th century english and understand it. WHy not give them a bible in their language? When a 5th grader today reads "fetched a compass", I would have to tell him what that means. 3. Why are there so many different KJVs if there is one God?

    I dont know, and cant care less what the RCC thinks.

    I ask you again, WHY DO YOU think the KJV 1611 is the Final Authority? What evidence do you have for it?

    So far, you have all the appearances of someone who has been indotrinated with KJVO, and has never used his own brain to figure anything out. I asked you several questions that you simply avoided.

    Is this what I should understand of your position? That you are so convinced of it that you are incapable of answering simple questions?

    I hope you do better this time around.
     
  12. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the beginning of scripture, God inspired very special men with certain qualifications... qualifications that no one has met since John drew his last breath.
    quote: Well Scott J What prey tell are those Qulification. I hope one them must have been that they must Be saved!
     
  13. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    So basically, the inspired word of God did not exist in one volume before the KJV? How did those people get along if they didnt have God's word?

    Exactly! So, please tell me, what is it that makes the KJV right, and the NASB wrong? Is it simply your personal conviction, or is there proof?

    There are no typos? Are you serious? It has been edited several times to remove all the typos! Do you really not know that there is a difference between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1769? Did you not know that there are hundreds of mispellings, even if you are to claim perfection of the KJV.

    Which translation? Tyndale? Geneva? NLT? Why the KJV?

    Tell me this, what changeds were made from the first edition to the 2nd. Would you name 3 examples (specific examples).

    not real sure what this has to do with anything, but thanks!

    Ok, hold up: You just said that God is not the author of confusion, so how can God inspire 2 different translations of the same passage which disagree? How can God inspire "He" in Ruth 3:15, and "SHE" in Ruth 3:15?

    Perhaps you should read this: Revision is no myth
    Tell me, if these arent revisions, what changes must be made in order to qualify for a revision?

    Great! What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

    So, why did they take it out, if it was only for historical value? What was YOUR KJV revised, and many entire books removed from what God "inspired"? Why change it if its not broken?

    Why are the alexandrian manuscripts corrupt? Is this your opinion, or is there some fact here?

    Great, so if they had this strong conviction that these books were not scripture, they chose something very interesting:
    RATHER than discuss the issue of their conviction that the Apocryphal books were not scripture in their preface, they decided INSTEAD to discuss their conviction that KJVO was INCORRECT.

    I ask again, have you read the preface written by the KJV translators?

    As most other KJVO, you miss the forest for all the trees. No one claims PERFECTION on the part of those 2 manuscripts. YOU claim PERFECTION for the KJV. THE KJV CANNOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OTHER MANUSCRIPTS MAKE!!!!! You cant say "well, you did it too!" God cannot be holy if he sins and then says to us "well, you sin too"

    So, are you claiming that God left something out of his originally inspired word?

    Which language did he "write" it in? Do you have any evidence that he was involved in the translation of the KJV and not any others?

    How does this even REMOTELY address my question #8? Is this reading in Revelation 17:8 a typo or not? Can you find one single manuscript on the planet, or one quote from a church father which reads as the TR/KJV does?

    yep! and whats funny, I have never before, nor will I ever use the KJV for personal study or to preach out of.

    I dont use any of them. The only one even in my possession is a keepsake bible given to me when I was little, which I have never used.

    Several, actually. NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV are the ones I use the most, in that order.

    NASB. I have just recently joined a new church (since I moved) and God blessed me by calling me to a church that encourages the priesthood of the believer, unlike many IFB. My pastor uses the NASB to preach with, and I use it as my main bible in English.

    1. Because God decided for it to be that way. 2. Many people simply cannot read 17th century english and understand it. WHy not give them a bible in their language? When a 5th grader today reads "fetched a compass", I would have to tell him what that means. 3. Why are there so many different KJVs if there is one God?

    I dont know, and cant care less what the RCC thinks.

    I ask you again, WHY DO YOU think the KJV 1611 is the Final Authority? What evidence do you have for it?

    So far, you have all the appearances of someone who has been indotrinated with KJVO, and has never used his own brain to figure anything out. I asked you several questions that you simply avoided.

    Is this what I should understand of your position? That you are so convinced of it that you are incapable of answering simple questions?

    I hope you do better this time around.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Very well, In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV [1979 ed.,] etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped."

    Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ!

    They attack the virgin birth:

    In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The CHILD's FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD's FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God...A subtle attack at the virgin birth.
    Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out. Friend, salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS."


    Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are over 6,000 changes.

    They attack John 3:16:

    And something has to be done with John 3:16...so the NIV and company read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN." If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens to the wonderful promise to believers like 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...?" AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

    They tell lies:

    A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way - a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah. "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1. The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS..."

    A better translation...Easier to understand...BY A LIE

    Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE..." John 17:17 says, "...thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "God, that CANNOT LIE."

    How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in these new versions? Either the translators of the other versions can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi [which is likely] or somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT.

    Who would do such a thing?

    I'll give you a hint - he's called the "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44.

    Oh, by the way, did you think David killed Goliath? Not according to the others. In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, "...Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

    They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ the same:

    In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star [kokab] is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. Is there any doubt who is the father of these new versions?

    They take out hell:

    If Satan is the author of these new versions, one subject he will aim his attack is the place the Bible calls hell. And the new versions go to extents to remove it.

    Many times they change "hell" to "grave" or "death," but the word "hell" is far and few in the new versions. Like Psalm 9:17: in the King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL..." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE..." We ALL "return to the GRAVE."

    Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "sheol." [See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the NEW King James does this 29 times.] Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT.

    And this is a better translation? And these new versions are "easier to read" and "understand?" Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word "Ouranos" for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called hell.

    In Isaiah 14:15, the King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL ..." The new versions refuse to send Lucifer to hell! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE..." The NASV, NRSV, NEW King James [NKJV] places him in "Sheol."

    hmm... I wonder which one the Devil prefers?

    The Lord's or The Devil's Prayer?

    An alarming display of Satan is found in Luke 11. The "The Lord's Prayer" is subtly [see 2 Cor. 11:3] transformed into "The Devil's Prayer."

    The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads, "...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." Incredibly, the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. take out: "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN... Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth... but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Heaven is completely removed! The "father" of the new versions is NOT IN HEAVEN and DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL.

    I wonder who it could be? [hint: see John 8:44]

    Are you getting the picture? Do you see how subtle [see Genesis 3:1,] seemingly harmless the changes are - AND YET HOW DEADLY THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD's WORD.

    They attack the Lord Jesus Christ
    They attack the plan of salvation
    They glorify Lucifer
    And they deny hell
    Yes friend. Satan has launched an attack on your Bible.

    YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT

    Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.

    They take out whole verses:

    In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
    They take out whole verses:

    In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The other versions read - woops, they took the whole verse out! One of the best verses in the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they ripped it out...why?

    Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in the book of Acts - THEY ATTACK IT? In Acts 9:5,6: Paul is getting saved, and they take out 20 words. In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor is getting saved, the word "CHRIST" is delicately removed. Why do these new bibles so fiercely attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?

    Who would do such a thing?
    Would you "inject" it into your child, loved one, or congregation? And would you "inject" them with a Bible that is "defiled" because it has some "good?" It could be far more costly than their physical life - THEIR ETERNAL SOUL! Galatians 5:9 says, "A LITTLE leaven leaveneth THE WHOLE lump."

    One of the lies used to promote these MV's is "they're easier to read and understand." But according to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23!

    Dr. Frank Logsdon was co-founder of The New American Standard Version. As people begin confronting Dr. Logsdon on some the NASV's serious omissions and errors. He re-examined the evidence and this was his verdict:

    "I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...I wrote the format...I wrote the preface...I'm in trouble;...its wrong, terribly wrong; its frighteningly wrong ...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
    New American Standard Version

    Let the lying lips be put to silence. Psalm 31:18

    Also silenced was Philip Schaff, collaborator on the New Greek Committee and director of the American Standard Version, which formed the foundation of the New American Standard and The Living Bible. Paralleling Taylor's pathology, Schaff's son finds the same "frog" in Philip Schaff's throat. Even as early as 1854, the warning was given, "his voice so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard." Finally by 1892...

    the power of articulated speech gone.

    [David S. Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897,) pp.171, 446]

    Westcott and Hort Greek Text:

    [RV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, CEV, New Century Version, Good News for Modern Man, Jehovah Witness bible, The Book, The Everyday Bible, All Catholic bibles et al.]

    Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" [Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 198] and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer." [Ibid., p.272]

    Galatians 6:1 in the NIV vs. the KJV by Lance Schmidt

    The NIV has a very weak rendering as they use dynamic equivalency of thought [man's opinion of the meaning] rather than take the precise approach of translating from the original language to the new language of English using literal precision accuracy as did the KJV translators. The KJV renders the Greek text word for word [Textus Receptus] even retaining the right word order to communicate and preserve faithfully God's full-intended meaning.

    NIV

    Brothers, If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

    KJV

    Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:1

    The problems are subtle but serious...

    Why do we need any more proof? God open their eyes; you are searching and wandering around but when you are converted you will see you were wrong just like TCassidy and all of the MV's who are grasping at straws. Give it up! There is no MEAT of the Word on your plate.
     
  14. pastorchanon

    pastorchanon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, the eternal discussion. I often wonder about the KJVO view. First and foremost, the men who translated "for" King James were men, not the inspired men spoken of in Timothy, who were tasked with converting from Greek into English. Secondly, and yes, I know that the Bible is the spoken word of God and no, I am not being blasphemist either. But if the KJV is it; then how in the world did the thousands in Acts get saved? How did Paul accept the free gift? How did you? How in the world did Paul and Barnabas ever preach with no KJV Bible in hand? The fact remains, it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins through faith that saves our soul, not the english versions of the Bible. If we are all truthful and this was truly substantial to salvation then we would all learn Greek, Hebrew and yes, even some good 'ol Aramaic. God Bless
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    DesiderioDomini:
    //OK, I love Brother Ed, but I didnt read his answer on purpose.
    Please remember that we "requested" a private thread,
    and I understand that no one is bound by that,
    but perhaps they may be gracious.//

    I love you also, Brother DesiderioDomini. I didn't read
    your post (by accident). Oops - My Bad. I'll bow out,
    sorry for the intrusion.

    However, I will read the Topic and reserve the right
    to comment in related threads ;)
     
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Give mw the Good and bleesed old BOOK AV 1611
    God Bless
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll let this one slide since it is only part of the name (unless another modertor wants to chnge it. Please do not use people's user names in the title of a thread. Whether it is your own or anothers.

    Your coorporation will be appreciated.

    Sorry to interrupt, you may continue.
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    William, I want you to be very careful in your arguments here. If you insist in continuing to call the Alexandrian Manuscripts corrupt, the MV's corrupt, the "authors" of the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt then you are violating BB board rules.

    We as moderators, may even prefer the KJV, but I will not allow you to call other versions of God's Word in English corrupt just because they are not a King James Version. There are English versions that are corrupt; but, to call the NIV, NASB, etc. you are violating the rules. I am here only to enforce these rules. If you continue this will be ended and so could your privileges of posting.
     
  19. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can I Expose and rebuke and exhort and correct if I cant Identify certain Frauds and blatent attacks on all that has been said so far in order to keep it fair? just bleep them out? Thanx and God bless
     
  20. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    hey, im out of town, ill answer on sunday night or monday morning.

    Have a great Easter
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...