just curious

This so called "leaving out of verses" can just as easily be called the KJV "adding verses," so let's stick to the issues, okay? (Futile request on this forum)

 

KEVO stated,

How? I'll be the first to admit that the KJV is a more literal translation than the NIV and in this case the KJV is more clearer and literal. The NIV has many weaknesses and the KJV is a better verse by verse translation than the NIV overall but that doesn't mean the NIV is heretical. All translations must be judged by their overall content and not a few isolted verses. The NASB and the NKJV I would say is a better verse by verse translation than the KJV but that does't mean the KJV is heretical.

Actually in some areas the NIV has stronger statements on the Deity of Christ than the KJV. AN EXAMPLE,

The NIV text is much clearer because the KJV text could lead one to think Paul is speaking of God and Jesus separately.

Actually I believe it is the TNIV that has a lesbian and not the NIV. The TNIV is a pathetic translation. Of course many historians say, King James was a homosexual. He was at the very least a nut! but that doesn't mar the KJV.

But that leads to a manuscript debate that has not been conclusively decided. The NIV defenders may say that the 17 verses were added! Of course 17 verses are a small portion of scripture and no doctrine is affected regardless of whether you are KJV or NIV lover when the Bible is read in context.

I have never known anyone after reading the NIV go and join the Jehovah Witnesses. Does anyone know of anyone joining a cult after reading the NIV,NASB, RSV, NRSV, CEV, Amplified etc...?

I have never known anyone after reading the KJV go and join the Episcopal Church. (Remember the early Baptist at first accused the KJV of promoting Anglicanism)

Best advice whether you have a KJV,NKJV, NIV, Amplified, NASB, CEV, ESV, RSV....Read it!

[ July 22, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

I just wanted to jump in here and show support for all of you who are taking a stand for the precious Word (KJB). You all just keep on keepin' on! You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, Amen? It's pretty sad that, according to some folks on this board, not one Christian in America holds the pure Word of God. I can't believe for a second that God would let that happen. God is not the author of confusion and if all these hundreds of "new and improved" (or dumbed down so the television generation can understand them) versions aren't the epitome of confusion ( noun Muddle/disorder) then I need a new dictionary.

Now, go ahead all you MV-onlyists! LOL Pounce away if you like. I won't be around because tomorrow is soulwinning. Have to do my part to fulfill the Great Commision. I'll understand if I don't see you there though 'cause that part might not be in your translation.

 

I just wanted to jump in here and show support for all of you who are taking a stand for the precious Word (KJB).

What do you do? the high jump or the broad jump?

I can't believe for a second that God would let that happen.

And just what is the time limit of your brain functions?

Go ahead all you MV-onlyists! LOL Pounce away if you like.

Ain't it nice to know when we "pounce" it is by your request!

I won't be around because tomorrow is soulwinning. Have to do my part to fulfill the Great Commision.

And how much is your comission? 25%? 20%...

I'll understand if I don't see you there though 'cause that part might not be in your translation.

If you ain't in Texas, bud, you won't see me 'around'

 

[

I can see that you make it a habit of, and probably take great pleasure in, being mean-spirited. What is in your life that has made you so bitter and (by your own admission) cynical? Definition of cynic: n Person who mocks/who doubts that anything is good (websters). If the Holy Spirit dwells in you, why the bitterness and cynicism? Eph. 4:31 Let all bitterness,and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: [32] And be ye kind one to another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. 1Pet 2:21-23 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: [22] Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: [23] Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but comitted himself to him that judgeth righteously:...

If you are a brother in Christ, I will pray that your heart is healed. If you are not washed in the precious blood of Jesus, then I pray for your salvation. Please, if you don't know Christ as your personal savior, pray and ask Him into your heart. Accept His free gift. Please don't put it off. Rom 10:9 John 3:36

Mock me if you feel the need, but know that I am sincere. This whole debate is out of hand on both sides of the issue and I'm sure that Gods Spirit is grieved by it. I apologize for my part in it and I pray that we all keep the main thing, the main thing and that's telling the lost about Jesus. There are enough enemies out there in the world. We don't need to fight amongst ourselves. No matter which Bible you read, I'm pretty sure they all say we should love one another as Christ loved us. That is my goal from now on.

 

> Go ahead all you MV-onlyists! LOL Pounce away if you like....
I won't be around because tomorrow is soulwinning. Have to do my part to fulfill the Great Commision....I'll understand if I don't see you there though 'cause that part might not be in your translation.

which part of this wasn't mocking?

is anyone impressed when the pot turns around n calls the kettle names?

 

I have shown the verse, and tongues is a theological argument from the text of Scripture. You can provide neither from your final authority.

I know how you feel. Being a believer for 25 years and active in ministry for 15, I am glad to have never once doubted where God's is and what he wants me to do. It is a wonderful thing not to wonder about it, and it is a wonderful thing to preach it to others.

However, that is not the issue, Pat. The issue is that God never told us where or how he preserved his word. I have no doubt that he preserved it. I am one hundred percent certain that he preserved it in the multitude of manuscripts available. In the 1500s, when Erasmus made his first edition of the TR, he compared no more than 6 manuscripts (according to Kenyon) and decided from those six what the "Word of God would be." (Obviously I would phrase it differently for me.) But he didn't get it right. He made a second, a third, and a fourth, all in search of the Word of God. One of these editions became the basis for the KJV (we are not sure which one). The problem is, which of the TRs is the Word of God?

YOu have not provided a reasonable answer to the problem of "things that are different are not the same" vs. the version prior to the KJV that were different. You have not provided a reasonable, theological answer to the problem of which KJV today is the Word of God (There are different ones available in your bookstore). You have not given a reasonable, theological answer to the problem of NT quotations of the OT that are identical to the original language text. It seems that the early church took the position that I hold on this matter and you are the ones who have departed from it.

Again, I say, if you love the KJV, use it and love it, teach it, live by it. But do not establish doctrine that is not found in Scripture.

 

If there are errors in one part of it, then there are errors in the book. There is not much that can be gleaned from this book for those who are interested in the facts of this debate. It is an emotional presentation (not logical) that plays fast and loose with the facts. If I had a copy I could show you.

Here you are playing fast and loose with the facts. When I went to this church, I was ambivalent. It was not an issue and so him preaching or teaching or believing it didn't bother me. I was "convincable." The "four of us" did not agree with each other. My girlfriend was on my side though more because of me than that she understood the facts. The other two tried a few times to talk me out of it. But they, like you, could not answer basic questions.

I am willing to be taught. Show me the Scripture (not Grady or anyone else). I want God's word that tells me which version to use. I can show you from Scripture that my view of inspiration, preservation, and translation is biblical. Can you?

Which of the 5000+ differing Greek manuscripts is the Word of God?

And where are your answers to the questions I asked you previously? Those questions are important to find out at what level you are able to carry on this conversation.

 

Whew, Brian, it took me awhile to find where I left off here...so many posts since I was at the computer. To answer your question, no, my post in question does not imply any such thing. My post says what it says.

Nope, I disagree with your statements concerning God's Word. God's true and perfect Word is what is written. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what we read. So, whether or not, I even open my KJBible it is *still* the Word of God! If your Mormon friend is not saved then, no, he will not understand what he's reading even though he's holding God's Word in his hand...much like the Eunuch.

 

Brother Larry,

Isn't wonderful that we are saved by Grace? And that we live in a country that we can freely discuss these issues! "Thank You, Lord" for our salvation and these freedoms!

I can only respond to what and how you type your comments and responses. So, if I took them wrong or was offensive in my comments or responses back to you, then Brother, I am sorry.

We are brothers in the Lord, and if I saw a brother/sister and/or an enemy, walking down the sidewalk of a busy street, and they start walking off the sidewalk onto the street,and into traffic, even though they think it's safe, I would go to them and let them know that they are entering into a precarious situation. As I'm sure you would also. **********************************************

I posted the following earlier and brought it forward for those that haven't read it, because of the numerous posts here.

Yes, the other versions do contain the word of God, but they do also contain some major/minor doctrinal/dogma errors and/or contain information and/or lackof, that can lead someone into believing major/minor doctrinal/dogma errors.

Can someone read them and get saved? Yes!

Can someone read them and learn about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? YES!

Can someone read them and learn about living a separated life for the Lord? YES!

Can someone read them and learn about the history of God and His Attributes? YES!

Can someone read them and learn about God's Righteousness, Love, Santification, etc...? YES!

So now you say, What's the big deal? Would you want to build your home on a foundation that was cracked or sub-standard? In the beginning your home would stand just fine. But through the years these flaws start to take their toll on the foundation that is holding your home up. Thus, the home now starts to come down.

Same with our families!

Study to show thyself approved...

 

I can see where you may have honestly missed my apology in my reply post to Cynic, so please accept my apology for my part in this mean-spirited debate. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

I publicly apologize to any and all that were offended by my post. None of this is glorifying to Christ, and I am ashamed of my part in it, so again, please accept my sincere apology.

In His name.

 

Dear Romans 1:16,

Thank You for your gracious apology.
You didn't offend me but I'll accept.
I'm TRO but not KJVO.

HankD

 

I've never seen this and I've been on here almost two years. Any proof where someone has said this?

[ July 23, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

I've never seen this and I've been on here almost two years. Any proof where someone has said this?</font>[/QUOTE]Hi Tom. Please see my apology in my previous post. I'm done with the bickering. It's just not Christ-honoring. You read/study whatever version/s you prefer and I'll stick with my KJB, Amen?

 

This has been a very interesting thread. It was good to hear from some new folks. I will be out of town from WED.-SAT. God bless all of you.
Bro. Kevin

 

...that is until the Church of England by the authority of the English Crown made the binding, printing, or distribution of any other translation a High Commission crime punishable by long, harsh imprisonment. The Baptist, Independents, etc. resisted the KJV because they thought it to be doctrinally inferior.

 

The KJV also does not contain the word "homosexual" while the NIV does. Wonder why?...

Why? Most if not all of the KJV translators would have been baptized by sprinkling as infants. It is unlikely that any of them received believer's baptism. Yet, you say that these men were so favored by God that He used them to give us a perfect translation of the Bible.

 

This is where I would disagree with you. I cannot find these doctrinal problems in either the English translation or the Greek texts underlying them (and I have read both). There are textual variants but the doctrine is unchanged. The blood is frequently attacked but it is explicit in the MVs. Only one verse reads differently because of the textual basis. And in that one verse, the blood atonement is found just six verses later. Some conspiracy that is. And the deity of Christ is as clear is not more clear in modern versions than in the KJV. That is just a matter of increased fluidity of translation as opposed to the somewhat stilted translation in parts of the KJV. But all of these "doctrinal" issues have been well settled. They are non-issues.

My problem is not with people who prefer a different translation. My problem is with those who want to say that I am an unbeliever, a satanist, a heretic, unlearned, or uneducated because I hold the position that historic fundamentalism has always held--that any faithful translation of the original language texts is the word of God.

Obviously, I don't share your "foundational" illustration. I believe the foundation of the MVs is sufficient to build a home, a church, or a life on. In fact, I think it is better suited. Perhaps a better analogy would be this: If we want to build a foundation for a house in the year 2002, would we do it with a shovel or a backhoe? Both will work but one will do it a lot better and a lot easier. I prefer the backhoe. If others want to use a shovel, more power to them.

 

The original question of this thread had to do with someone asking a question concerning why it was a certain individual with a public job corrected the KJV for his audience.

We weren't told what the correction was which would have helped.
Let me offer this:

Just for the record (again):
Although I am strongly pro-KJV, it is because of the TR (Masorete/Beza-Stephanus) behind the AV which I believe is a superior restoration/representation of the original text than the Wescott and Hort 1881 version (why is not the issue here in this thread).

Perhaps this individual tried to bring an obscure statement up to date:

Exodus 28:25 And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two
ouches, and put them on the shoulderpieces of the ephod before it. KJV1769.

What in the world is an "ouch"?

Exodus 28: 25 And the other two ends of the two wreathed chains thou shalt fasten in the two clasps, and put them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod at the front of it. KJ21

Some time ago here on the BB someone asked what this passage meant:

2 Corinthians 6:11-12 (KJV)
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

2 Corinthians 6:11-12 (NIV)
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.

The Gospel went out in the language of the common people. True, the Book of Hebrews leans more towards a scholarly classical style of Greek, but for the most part the NT is common (koine) Greek.

The AV is 17-18th century Shakespearean English.
IMO, its time to get back to God's original intent.
The Gospel for the common man in the common man's language.
This is the intent of the MVs.
I would like to give credit where credit is due.

HankD

[ July 24, 2002, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]