King James Bible vs New age versions

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
"What really bothers me,is I dare say not one of those liberal,NIV toten rascals ever looked up
one of those scriptures and compared it side by
side with The King James Bible,"

Why, we already have Bro. Will Kinney doing it right here on this board, and he's a KJVO. Why do WE need to do it again when all we need do is read Will's posts? So far, he's been able to prove that every English BV is different from any other.


(The Bible This Nation Was Founded On)

That would be the Geneva Bible, brought over on the Mayflower. The first Bible to be printed in what would later become the USA was the Algonquin-language Eliot Bible of 1663.

",and prayed asking God to
reveal to them the truth.You know why they didn`t
cause they have s spirit of rebellion...that`s the Hebrew word pronounced "mer-ee" , found in
1st Sam. 15:23!"

To the KJVO, "rebellion" means, not believing their false, man-made doctrine.I'm happy to see we have another clairvoyant on this board who, like Daniel, can tell us what we've prayed about, and what God's answers were.


"No wonder the sodomites,women preachers and
Rock-n-Roll music is coming into the church...
there is no POWER because we`ve rejected and
thrown behind our back the True Word of God...
The King James Bible...KJB...IT`S NOT A VERSION
OF THE BIBLE,IT IS THE BIBLE!"

So, man didn't have God's word before 1611, although God said He'd preserve His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS? I see...

Lemme ask ya two questions: First, is KJVO of God, or man? Please present proof for your answer. Second, where was God's word in English in 1610?

 

Dianetavegia, thanx for the reminder of what the AV translators themselves wrote. You've doubtlessly read the little discussion in this forum about churches or individuals who claim to be "AV 1711" while actually using the 1769 KJV, which leaves out the message of the translators to the reader, their list of Holy Days, the Apocrypha, etc. This is part of the phoniness of the whole KJVO myth.

 

"Study Before You Type"? I think you'll find most have studied already, and continuing to do so. Funny,Will even says "Modern Scholarship" is a joke, and you say to "study". Let me encourage you to study what the very translators of the AV1611 says in their preface, as some have already pointed out. Or do you believe in the double standard that the translators were some how "inspired" while translating, and then they became Bible rejecting Bible correctors in their preface? Bro Tim: Study more than biased "scholars" BTW, KJVO advocate David Cloud says that Riplinger's book can't be trusted. At least he was honest, and not promoting a view that by and large agrees w/ him regarding versions...
and, speaking of "jot and tittles", your position becomes inconsistent when you compare the 1611 to the 1769.
Hava nice day!

 

What bothers me is that you actually believe this.

was the Geneva Bible. The Pilgrim puritans brought the Geneva Bible with them on the Mayflower in 1620, and left behind the persecution they were experiencing at the hands of the British church and those who produced the KJV.

Do you really wanna play "guilty by association". I don't think you do. You'd lose.

 

The Pharisees also thought they could distinguish what was of God and what was only a pretender. They also accused the good of being evil. Jesus said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"

If Satan is responsible for all other versions, he's shooting himself in the foot.

Scripture (even the KJV) tells us that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord, except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). Modern versions say that Jesus is the Lord. Translators of modern versions say that Jesus is the Lord. Users of modern version say that Jesus is the Lord. According to 1 Cor 12:3, how are these saying that Jesus is the Lord?

2 Cor 3:6 says "...not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." - so why are you arguing so hard for the letter of scripture, and not for the Spirit who can guide someone to the correct interpretation despite minor differences in the letter?

 

"What really bothers me,is I dare say not one of those liberal,NIV toten rascals ever looked up
one of those scriptures and compared it side by
side with The King James Bible,"
I don't own a NIV, I do own a KJB (1769 version thank you Ed).


"The King James Bible...KJB...IT`S NOT A VERSION
OF THE BIBLE,IT IS THE BIBLE! "
The States Bible is more "THE BIBLE!" than the KJB especially in it's the Old Testament.

 

First of all, comparing translation to translation bears no fruit, since one has no authority over another. However, comparing a translation to its source texts will indeed bear fruit. If you know of any place a version digresses from its source texts, feel free to point it out and discuss it.

Second, the US was not founded on a Bible, it was founded on the concept of taxation without representation. If, however, you're referring on the first colonists, the colonies were not founded on the KJV either. The colonists from England used the Geneva Bible, and the colonists from the Netherlands used the Dutch Pulpit Bible.

Please show me scripture which states that these are due to multiple translations. Lacking scriptural support, your accusation is flat wrong.

Says who? King James? I'm looking at one right now. On the front cover it says very clearly: The Holy Bible, King James Version.

 

Bro. Tim L. Bynum said:

What really bothers me,is I dare say not one of those liberal,NIV toten rascals ever looked up
one of those scriptures and compared it side by
side with The King James Bible

On the contrary: we did make the comparison, and when we did we found the KJV-onlyists' false witness to be so much hot air.

 

Bro. Tim L. Bynum said:

Baptist-City.com where Christians aren`t persucuted for believing The King James Bible is THE Word of God

He said "persecuted."

and ALL others are perverted and corrupted devil sent versions straight out of HELL !!!

Well then . . .

Hail Satan and pass the NIV!

 

Amen to that.

G.A. Riplinger is no fine example of a scholar. She even misquotes the KJV in her book. I also loved (NOT) the way she cut and pasted words and phrases together from as far as 5 or 6 pages apart and then called it a direct quote. At least I now have an idea of what not to do when writing college papers. Thanks GA.

 

"Don't.....trust....me" (Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, pages 12-417)

 

KJVOnlyism is not fundamental. Fundamentalists accept doctrines that are biblical and only doctrines that are directly derived from the Bible. KJVOnlyism is man-made therefore KJVO and Fundamental are mutually exclusive terms.

Can you point to the place that you were persecuted? I think I have read most of your posts and haven't seen any persecution.

Can you point to someone here that doesn't believe that the KJV is the Word of God? I think pretty much everyone would affirm that it is... we simply wouldn't follow you into the error of believing that it is the only valid version of God's Word available in English.

I responded more indepth on another thread but you should really think about what you are saying here. Did God say this? If He did, please cite the chapter and verse. If He did not, what qualifies you to make this declaration? What makes your opinion the "final authority" on this issue?

What if sinners are being saved and sanctified having only used MV's? Did Jesus not tell us:

Mark 3
23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Why would Satan give man "perverted and corrupted devil sent versions" that would be understandable to modern readers and be used by many of them to attain a saving relationship with Jesus? Isn't that against his purpose? Would this not divide his house against itself in contradiction to the principle Jesus taught above?

 

Read the King James Controversy by James White. It will give you a different perspective.

 

Gail's quotations are mistaken in her book, however James's quotations are incorrect in his book.

 

Gail's quotations are mistaken in her book, however James's quotations are incorrect in his book. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you cite a quotation that is incorrect in his book? I would like to check it out for myself.

Thank you.

 

RIPLINGER VS WHITE!!

Haven't seen that one in a while. Bro Tim Bynum I'd suggest you not rely on Gail Riplinger's book for any reliable proof of anything. She may be a nice person (I've not met her, only heard her debate James White on tape though) but her book is WEAK. She takes things out of context and misquotes ALOT of stuff.

By the way - your favorite verse is John 6:37 - one of my favorites too! Does it not say that whoever seeks after Jesus He will "in no wise cast out"? It does not say He will cast them out ony if they use the NIV!

I can read Greek and Hebrew pretty well but I use only the KJB in English - so you don't need me to extol its virtues to me. You just shouldn't be too quick to judge anyone by his/her bible.

BY the way, glad to see another bluegrass guitar player.

 

Did someone say "New Age Bible"?

I have never read Riplinger's book, but here is my vote:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001118

 

Ransom? Huh! You just hung yourself! You'd actually jest about worshipping satan? Figures.

 

Ro. 11:16, "For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches."(KJV) Grace?

Acts 8:37, " Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (NIV)

In Is. 14:12, The MT translates to "shining one son of dawn." So where's your complaint?

Show us how the MT compares to your favorite translation and how all the others do not. The KJV is not the standard, the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are.