1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

They Dare Call This Science!

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    How are the examples below *not* "deliberate changes made in both the text and the wording?"


    "And she laid up his garment by her, until *her* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, 1611 KJV)

    "And she laid up his garment by her, until *his* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, today's KJV)

    Whose lord came home -- hers or his?


    "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, 1611 KJV)

    "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels *of silver*, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, today's KJV)

    Just "shekels?" Or "shekels" of a specific type?


    "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *names* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, 1611 KJV)

    "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *name* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, today's KJV)

    One name or many names?


    "And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *an unleavened cake* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, 1611 KJV)

    "And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *unleavened cakes* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, today's KJV)

    How many unleavened cakes are required here? Just one? Or more than one?


    "Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *houses* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, 1611 KJV)

    "Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *house* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, today's KJV)

    One house or many houses?


    "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, 1611 KJV)

    "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep *all* my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, today's KJV)

    Will it be well with Israel if they keep just some of God's commandments, or must they keep all of them?


    "And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *at* the time of harvest,)" (Josh. 3:15, 1611 KJV)

    "And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *all* the time of harvest,) (Josh. 3:15, today's KJV)

    Does the water of the Jordan overflow at some point during harvest season, or does it overflow throughout the entire harvest season?


    "And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple." (2 Kg. 11:10, 1611 KJV)

    "And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple *of the LORD*." (2 Kg. 11:10, today's KJV)

    Is it just "temple," or is it "temple of the LORD?"


    "The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *good.*" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV)

    "The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *God*." (Psa. 69:32, today's KJV)

    So do we seek good or God?


    "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yea further though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, 1611 KJV)

    "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, *yet he shall not find it*; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, today's KJV)

    Are the words "yet he shall not find it" the words of God or not?


    "Sing, O *heaven*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *God* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, 1611 KJV)

    "Sing, O *heavens*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *the LORD* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, today's KJV)

    Is it "heaven" or "heavens?" And is the Divine Name used here or not?


    "So the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, 1611 KJV)

    "So *Zedekiah* the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, today's KJV)

    So is the king mentioned by name or not?


    "Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *God*, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, 1611 KJV)

    "Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *Gad,* and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, today's KJV)

    Have the Ammonites inherited both God and God's cities? Or merely the territory and cities of Gad?


    "And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

    "And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *the children of thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

    To whom is Ezekiel to go -- to his people, or to their children?


    "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

    "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

    So did she pour it out or not?


    "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, 1611 KJV)

    "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *the Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, today's KJV)

    Just Christ? Or THE Christ?


    "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *came* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)

    "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *ran* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)

    Did the man simply come to Jesus, perhaps walking? Or did he run to Jesus?


    "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, 1611 KJV)

    "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *all things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, today's KJV)

    Did Luke have perfect understanding of only a few things, or of all things?


    "Therefore his *sister* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, 1611 KJV)

    "Therefore his *sisters* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, today's KJV)

    Did only one of the two sisters send word to Jesus about Lazarus, or did they both send word?


    "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps in governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, 1611 KJV)

    "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps, governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, today's KJV)

    Is Paul speaking of one administrative gift known as "helps in governments," or is he speaking of two different gifts, a gift of "helps" and a gift of "governments?"


    "In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, 1611 KJV)

    "In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city *of the Damascenes* with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, today's KJV)

    Just "the city?" Or "the city of the Damascenes?"


    "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." (Eph. 6:24, 1611 KJV)

    "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. *Amen*. " (Eph. 6:24, today's KJV)

    Do I hear an "amen" or not? O:)


    "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, 1611 KJV)

    "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *godly edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, today's KJV)

    So is it merely edifying, or is it a particluar kind of edifying, namely, godly edifying?


    "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, 1611 KJV)

    "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, *and the books*, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, today's KJV)

    Was Timothy to bring the books or not?


    "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifice*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, 1611 KJV)

    "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifices*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, today's KJV)

    Is Peter telling us to offer one single spiritual sacrifice, or many different spiritual sacrifices?


    "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)

    "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son of God* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)

    So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"

    These are but a few of the numerous examples of differences in wording and meaning between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV. Which version in each of these cases is correct? And since the "original" translators' copy no longer exists, how do you *know* which version is correct? Which version has God's "pure, preserved words?" How can you *know* this for certain?
     
  2. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're not talking about "spiritually connecting two ideas" (which sounds a lot like "it's the message and not the words that really matters," incidentally). We're talking about the exact words of God. And what we have is a clear-cut case of two different versions of those words in the KJV -- which provides absolute and irrefutable Scriptural proof that any form of "One-Version-Onlyism" is unscriptural.

    BTW, do you also believe a male lamb and a female sheep are the same thing? If so, I hope you never go into raising sheep. [​IMG]
     
  3. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    People, I'd love to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread, but I would be lying like a dog.

    Will, brother, I am sure that you are very sincere in what you believe, but I am quite frankly sick of hearing it. If you want to hold to the belief that the KJV is the only Bible in English, go right ahead...but leave all of us who have ventured forth from the Dark Ages the heck alone. I personally could care less what text you want to use to back your points up, or where they happen to originate from. The entire affair has become a mockery to the word of God.

    Hank, Scott, Archie, Roby, and all of the "little people", please accept my humble appologies for the above outburst. It is not normally my MO, but I've had my 'nuff.

    People, what are we fighting over? And what purpose does it serve? What does it really matter? Look around you...there are people dying and going to hell everywhere you look. And here we all sit, arguing over a translation !

    My wife and I had a very in-depth disscussion on this very topic the other day. I stated that i do not believe in KJV-onlyism, but she took it that I was rejecting the KJV. My wife was raised a good Baptist girl, and holds the KJV close to her heart. We had a two or three hour talk, and I realized that all of this is just sheer stupidity.

    I love the KJV, and I use it quite frequently. It is one of three core translations that I use in study. But I do not see how anyone can rightly elevate it to the level of "God's Only Bible", without tossing in a huge dose of idolatry.

    We do not have the original autographs, but the word of God is not in those. We no longer have the original writers among us, but the word of God is not in them. We no longer have the original work of the 1611 translators, but the word of God was not in it. We have multiple translations in multiple editions, but the word of God is not in them, either. Where, then, is the word of God? It is in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit the quickens the words to give them the supernatural power to work the will of God.

    God does not have to use any particular translation to do His work. The Spirit has used the humble witness of uneducated people to reach the hearts of the unsaved. The Spirit has used the words of song the melt away the ice-encrusted stones that walled in the will of men. The Spirit has used the kindnes shown by God's adopted children to show unrepentant sinners the way to the Father.

    No one can stand and claim any one translation is the only word of God. He could reach His own just as well without it if He so chose. But God has chosen to bless us withmany different translations of His revealed word, and for that we should be most grateful.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,949
    Likes Received:
    2,517
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well said Trotter. Might I add the bottom line is faith for without it we can not please Him.

    However the KJVO just won't stop their attack and I for one wish to meet their well meaning but falsely pious challenge.

    We are well aware that there is a perishing world out there and most of us in our own way do what we believe the Lord has enabled us to do to participate as His human instruments in the spread of the Gospel.

    The original manuscripts are the Word of God by inspiration.
    The copies of those autographs are the Word of God by preservation.
    The translations of those copies are the Word of God by derivation.

    IMO, If we had the originals then we would have sight and not faith (as others have indicated).

    Many/most ancient documents have less then 10 historical witnesses behind them. The Bible has thousands.

    After distilling out the obvious, the text which is in question is about one percent of the original language documents.

    Another bottom line is that the Church down through the ages has fought against error and heresy and I believe KJVOism is both. Nothing has changed and it won't until He returns.

    I am sorry that this debate has upset you and your wife. There are other forums which are milder, although some just as fierce.

    HankD
     
  5. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, you posted: " show me a doctrine that is taught in the KJV and not taught in the NASB or NKJV. "

    Scott, I have several examples of correct doctrines that are perverted in the NKJV, NASB, NIV etc.

    I will give you just two of them for now. I will post one and separately the second. Beleive me, I have a lot more examples and I didn't get them out of any KJB only book or other site. I found these myself just by reading and comparing the different versions.

    Here is the first one.

    Respecter of persons

    There is a subtle twisting of God's inspired words taking place in most every modern version in how they changd the meaning of the phrase "respecteth not persons". This is so subtle, that I believe most Christians have not noticed it. The change in meaning produced by versions like the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB unfortunately fits in with so much of modern theology, that many would actually consider it to be an improvement over the KJB's reading. It fits the philosophy of the natural mind of man.

    The concept that "God has created all men equal" does not come from the Holy Bible. God obviously has not created all men equal, nor does He deal with every single individual or nation in what seems to us as a "fair and impartial" manner. Many have become so influenced in their thinking by the reasoning of the world, that they cannot discern this obvious truth.

    God has created, formed and made each of us. Yet He has not given to all equal intelligence, good looks, physical skills, nor spiritual gifts. "He divideth to every man severally as He will" 1 Corinthians 12:11. Exodus 4:11 reveals: "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?".

    Not all are born in a country which even has the word of God in its culture, or where it would be openly taught and encouraged. Psalms 147:19,20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

    Some are born in abject poverty, disease and ignorance, while others are blessed with abundant crops, education and families that care for them. "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.

    The phrase "to accept the persons of men" or "to respect persons" does not mean, as the modern versions have translated it, "to show partiality" or "to show favoritism".

    Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "respecter of persons" in this way.

    http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=respecter

    Respecter noun. One that respects; chiefly used in the phrase, respecter of persons, which signifies a person who regards the external circumstances of others in his judgment, and suffers his opinion to be biased by them, to the prejudice of candor, justice and equity. "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. Acts. 10:34.".

    Most modern dictionaries either have no entry for this expression, or they changed the meaning beginning around 1913 to mean "does not show partiality". This is an incorrect definition and does not fit its use in the Holy Bible.

    The phrase "God is no respecter of persons" means that His dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality. We all, because of our fallen and sinful nature, are guilty of respecting persons. God does not look to the outward face of a man to determine His dealings with anyone. The literal rendering of this phrase "to respect persons" is "to receive the face". It is to look at the outward appearance and make that the basis for your dealing with such a person. Contrary to our natural ways, God's own sovereign purpose, unsearchable design and pleasure of His will are the only deciding factors in how He deals with His creatures of dust.

    We are told in Deuteronomy 7:6-8 "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people: for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you".

    Now if God is impartial and shows no favoritism, as the modern versions have it, then can we not charge God with hypocrisy or lying for being "unfair" in choosing the Jewish nation and bypassing all the others?

    Deuteronomy 10: 14-17 "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." Verse 17 "For the LORD thy God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward."

    In this context, God says He chose only the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and their seed to be His people, and not the others. That He "regardeth not persons" means that He does this, not on the basis of their nationality, nor their good moral character (for they were a stiffnecked and rebellious people), but because is was His good pleasure to do so.

    Other Bibles that agree with the KJB here are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Hebrew-English, Young's, Darby's, the Spanish versions and Webster's Bible. However the NKJV, NIV and NASB have "shows no partiality". If God chose Israel to be His people, and not the others, is not this showing partiality?

    Deut. 14:1,2 "Ye are the children of the LORD your God...and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Why did not God choose the other nations to be his children and to know his laws? Isn't this showing partiality or favoritism?

    One verse among the hundreds that have been messed up by the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB is 2 Samuel 14:14. Here Joab saw that king David's heart was toward his son Absalom. So Joab sends a wise woman to speak to the king. In verse 14 she says: "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." In other words, we all must die, whether rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, man or woman, king or servant; God does not look at our social station and on this basis exclude some from death.

    Agreeing with the King James reading here are the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America version, Young's, the Geneva Bible, Webster's Bible, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras.

    But many bibles, including the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB have the ridiculous reading of "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE", instead of "neither doth God respect any person". This is a lie and a contradiction. In this very book in chapter 12:15 "the LORD struck the child" of David and Bathsheeba and it died. In I Samuel 2:6 we are told "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up", and in Deuteronomy 32:39 God says "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

    It is not that the Hebrew will not allow the meaning found in the KJB, that the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB have so badly mistranslated 2 Samuel 14:14. They all likewise have translated these same words in other places as they stand in the KJB and others. The modern editors are spiritually blinded and being used to pervert the words of the living God.

    The phrase "no respecter of persons" is found 6 times in the New Testament, and every time these modern versions have distorted the true meaning. Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, James 2:1 and 9, and Acts 10:34. In each case it has to do with not receiving the face, outward position, nationality or social rank of another.

    In Galatians 2:6 the same phrase is translated as: "God accepteth no man's person". The verse reads "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God ACCEPTETH NO MAN'S PERSON:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me."

    This is the same reading or sense found in the RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Douay, Webster, KJV 21, Green's interlinear, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    However, beginning with the liberal RSV both it and the NASB say: "God shows no partiality", while the NKJV has: "God shows personal favoratism to no one". The NIV here surprisingly has the correct idea by saying: "God does not judge by external appearance".

    God does not treat all people the same, nor are we told to do so either. We are to withdraw from some, avoid, exclude, reject, separate from, and not cast our pearls before others. Most importantly, God Himself chose His elect in Christ before the foundation of the world and "of the SAME LUMP" makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour - Romans 9:21.

    Romans 2:11 says "For there is no respect of persons with God." So also read the ASV, Geneva, Revised Version, Spanish "acepción de personas", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the 21st Century KJV and Green's Modern KJV.

    However, the NKJV, NASB, and ESV say " God shows no partiality" and the NIV says "God does not show favoritism". Yet this very book declares in Romans 9 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated...I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

    In Matthew 20 the Lord Jesus Christ told a parable that illustrates the grace of God and how, to our natural way of thinking, it is "not fair". A householder went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. Some started work right away, others at the third hour, the sixth hour and some at the eleventh hour. Yet He paid them all the same. Those who had worked the whole day began to complain. Then the Lord said: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good. So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

    Please consider the true meaning of the phrase "no respecter of persons" and contrast it with the modern blunder of "shows no partiality". I hope you will see that it is not the same at all. Only the KJB contains the whole truth of the counsel of God.

    Will Kinney
     
  6. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Second example of sound doctrine being perverted in the NKJV, NIV, NASB.


    Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God

    2 Peter 3:12

    Promoters of the modern bible versions insist there are no doctrines of the Christian faith which are affected in any way by the differences between the King James Bible and it’s newer counterparts. This is blatantly false in several critical areas. This article will address only one of the several doctrines which have been changed in the NKJV, NIV, and NASB bibles.

    Puny man, who is but of dust, can do nothing to effect in any way the timetable already established by Almighty God. Man can neither speed up this timetable nor slow it down. This view is contrary to much modern Christian theology, that seems to portray God as a grandfatherly figure, wringing His hands with worry, hoping things will turn out the way He wants them, but He just can’t get man to cooperate with His desires.

    I believe the Biblical position reveals a God “who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” When king Nebuchadnezzar’s understanding returned to him, after 7 times has passed over him by the decree of the Most High, he said: “ I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou.” Now, that is the God who is truly worthy of worship.

    Let’s look at some Scriptures which reveal who controls time; is it God or man? Acts 1:7 Jesus said unto them “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own hands.” Acts 17: 26, 31. tell us God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”...”he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness.” Notice God determined the times and the day of judgment is already appointed. It is “circled on His calendar”.

    Revelation 9:15 “And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.” They have already been prepared by God down to the specific hour. Remember even Jesus said that they could not take him captive yet, for His hour had not yet come.

    Daniel 2: 20, 21 “Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: he changeth the times and the seasons; he removeth kings, and setteth up kings”

    Daniel 8:19 the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to give him understanding, and he said “Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.”

    Daniel 9: 24, 25 "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression... And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself”

    Daniel 11: 27, 29, 35 ”yet the end shall be at the time appointed”...”At the time appointed he shall return...” “even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.”

    Habakkuk 2:3 “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it: because it will surely come, it will not tarry.”

    It is just as the Psalmist said in 31:15 “My times are in thy hands.”

    Genesis 18:14 “Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee...and Sarah shall have a son.”

    In Judges 7: 10-14 Gideon is told that if he is afraid, to go down to the host of the Midianites. He goes down, and just as he is there listening, two men relate a dream which reveals that God will destroy the Midianites by the sword of Gideon. Coincidence? No, the timing of God.

    In Esther 6:1 Haman is plotting to kill Mordecai, but the night before Haman requests of the king to slay Mordecai, the king cannot sleep and calls for the chronicles to be read to him. Therein he reads of Mordecai having previously revealed a plot to kill the king, and he saved his life. Whereupon, the king decides to honor Mordecai. Coincidence that the king couldn’t sleep? No, the timing of God.

    Jeremiah 29: 10 - 12 “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.” God sent this judgment upon Israel, and no matter how much or fervently they might have prayed, they would not be delivered from Babylon, till the appointed time of 70 years had passed.

    You might then ask, What does all this have to do with II Peter 3: 12? The verse says in the KJB, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, the Douay, the Spanish bibles 1909 and 1960, the Diodati Italian Bible,Webster’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, and the Third Millenium Bible: “Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.”

    However the new versions have changed the doctrine of the timing of God, by how they have changed the meaning of the inspired text. The NKJV and the NASB say: “looking for and HASTENING the coming” while the NIV says: “as you look forward to the day of God and SPEED ITS COMING.” These versions clearly imply or state that man can do something to speed up the timetable of God. This is a false doctrine and a contradiction.

    Some other versions, like the Revised Version, the American Standard Version and the Contemporary English Version, have yet a different meaning than the others. They say: "EARNESTLY DESIRING the coming of the day of God", or "LOOKING FORWARD TO the day of God". While this rendering is different than the KJB, at least it doesn't teach the same heresy as do the NASB, NIV and NKJV.

    It may be asked, Then in what way are we “hasting unto” the coming of the day of God, as the KJB and other Bibles say? Good question. I will give the answer as I understand it. It is really quite simple. Verse 8 of this same chapter states “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousands years as one day.” If you or I should live to be a hundred years old, that would be equivalent to less than two and one half hours of God’s time.

    We are here but a very short time and are all hastening unto the coming of the day of God.

    Psalm 90:4-6, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood: they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.”

    Ps. 39:5, “Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth: and mine age is a nothing before thee.”

    Ps. 102:11 “My days are like a shadow that declineth: and I am withered like grass.”

    Job 4:20, speaks of man as, “They are destroyed from morning to evening”, Job 7: 6, “My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle”

    Job 8: 9 “For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow.” Job 9: 25, “Now my days are swifter than a post: they flee away,” Job 14: 1, 2 “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.”

    So all of us are indeed hasting unto the day of God, which has already been appointed by Him who alone has put the times and the seasons in His own power.

    Will Kinney
     
  7. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Archy posts:

    Will&gt;&gt;&gt;Your modern versions are DELIBERATE changes made in both the text and the wording of thousands of words and they differ from edition to edition INTENTIONALLY.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Archangel&gt;&gt;&gt;How are the examples below *not* "deliberate changes made in both the text and the wording?"

    Not deliberat, Archy. Simple printing errors which were soon corrected. Get a clue.

    Will K
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arch, you are straining at gnats again. "He was taken from prison" consider, He never literally was in prison, was He? Christ was placed under arrest but He was never in prison. He who should have been exalted to the throne was placed under arrest, mocked and spit on. This was His "humiliation". I have no problem spiritually connecting the two ideas.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We're not talking about "spiritually connecting two ideas" (which sounds a lot like "it's the message and not the words that really matters," incidentally). We're talking about the exact words of God. And what we have is a clear-cut case of two different versions of those words in the KJV -- which provides absolute and irrefutable Scriptural proof that any form of "One-Version-Onlyism" is unscriptural.

    Uh, Archy, God has every right to expand, clarify, and apply His words anyway He pleases. You and I do not have that right.

    If I tell my little boy "I don't want you to play with that kid because he is a bully", and then several days later I find out my son has been seen with that other kid, and I then ask him: "Didn't I tell you not to see that Bobby again beause he is mean?" - because I amplified or modified my exact words, have I lied? No. I can do this with my own words because I am the author. Same with God, but more so.

    Will K
     
  9. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trotter&gt;&gt;&gt;We do not have the original autographs, but the word of God is not in those. We no longer have the original writers among us, but the word of God is not in them. We no longer have the original work of the 1611 translators, but the word of God was not in it. We have multiple translations in multiple editions, but the word of God is not in them, either. Where, then, is the word of God? It is in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit the quickens the words to give them the supernatural power to work the will of God."

    Hi Trotter, spoken like a true neo-evangelical. No sure words of God but you are led by the "spirit". Go for it guy. And since you are tired of this subject, I suggest you simply stop reading the posts.

    It appears God has graciously given you a wife with more spiritual discernment than yourself. I hope some of it rubs off on you in the future.

    Will K
     
  10. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank posts: "However the KJVO just won't stop their attack and I for one wish to meet their well meaning but falsely pious challenge."

    Hank, it is the Whateverist, General Message, Probably Close Enuf crowd that first began the attacks on the King James Holy Bible in their attempt to overthrow the final and absolute written authority of the inerrant words of God, and replace it with a multitude of conflicting Catholic versions, none of which agree with each other in hundreds of verses.

    This is a Satanic attack on the very words of God, and you are either on one side of this issue or the other.

    They guys who are behind the Greek texts that underlie the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV etc. are all apostates like Bruce Metzger and a new ager Catholic like Cardinal Martini. The Catholic church will put their seal of approval on every modern version out there, but one - The Authorized King James Holy Bible. No liberal loves and defends the KJB. These things should tell you something, but apparently they fall on deaf ears.

    We live in strange times when someone who actually believes God has kept His promises to preserve His words, and that we have them in a Bible we can hold in our hands, read and believe, is considered a heretic and an ignorant, backwater hick; yet those who tell us that no Bible version or Greek or Hebrew text around today is the complete, infallible, inspired words of God are exalted to positions of leadership and approval.

    May God have mercy and open more eyes to the truth.

    Will K
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is it with you? Why do you persistently feel compelled to mischaracterize the beliefs of others and make sweeping generalizations? It seems that you sense how truly weak your position is and use such tactics in an effort to impugn the position of your opponents by subtle deception. You didn't respond to a single one of my answers. You seem to think people will be intimidated if your "ocean" of words appears 1000 miles wide... even if it is no more than ankle deep at any point.

    I do not believe in a "General Message Close Enuf Only". I believe in a specific message only.
    Will, you can only prove this by engaging the methods of cultists and unbelievers. Cults have been using the KJV for years to prove doctrines that are contrary to scripture... such as the necessity of baptism to seal salvation.

    You say this as if I had ducked this charge or denied it. NO I do not believe there is a single document that is either a) a provable exact facsimile of the originals nor b) a copy or translation consisting of inspired wording.

    Apparently there is something about this position that you don't understand or think is particularly damning.
    It isn't quite worn out as you nor any other KJVO have been able to effectively answer these objections to KJV superiority.

    You are right!!! I have a mindset of "unbelief" in KJVOnlyism.

    I have a mindset of "unbelief" in the notion that 22 = 42. Blame it on my technical/managerial background, I guess, but words have definite meanings and numbers have an even greatr degree of definite meaning.

    I have seen one... it is ridiculous.

    Your condemning someone else for make decisions based on a whim rather than evidence? Perhaps it is time for you to consider the beam in your own eye???
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually "the whole inspiration and inerrancy of the King James Bible" was not an issue prior to the mid-1900's. The belief that the KJV was inerrant or directly inspired has no record of existence prior to this time. You can rightly attribute part of the blame to the "German critics" since KJVOnlyism might have been a gross over-reaction to real liberalism.
    Actually, real "Christian leaders" did answer attacks against the Bible. A group of them wrote a library of essays called "The Fundamentals".

    God indeed knew this whole thing would happen... your acknowledgement of that fact simply does not prove the KJV inerrant nor your belief correct. You appear to be continuing to operate under the delusion that what you believe is equivalent to what God said... he that hath an ear... indeed.

    I study the KJV in parallel with other versions very often. Your statement above is either willfully deceptive or else ignorant... I do not believe you to be ignorant.
    No He hasn't. You interpret that verse incorrectly which by no means results in a failure by God.

    BTW, the KJV is not God's words... it is the words of the KJV translators and revisers.
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Will J. Kinney said:

    The phrase "God is no respecter of persons" means that His dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality.

    Put another way, with respect to a man's outward appearance, position, rank, wealth, or nationality, God does not show partiality.

    Put still another way, with respect to a man's outward appearance, position, rank, wealth, or nationality, God does not play favourites.

    Gee . . . it looks like the modern versions are right.

    Hey Don Quixote: You'll let us know when that windmill cries "uncle," won't you?
     
  15. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Will J. Quixote spurs Rocinante and charges another windmill:

    “Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.”

    This he compares to the renderings of the NASB or NIV, e.g. "hastening the coming of the day of God" and complains that they make it look like man can affect God's timing.

    What he fails to explain, however, is how one can "hasten unto" the day of God. As far as I know, time still passes at a constant rate of one second per second.

    How, then, will Will "hasten unto" the day of the Lord? Will he use the KJV-only time machine that has come in so handy in KJV "proofs" on this forum?

    I'll close by making note of the exposition of this phrase in Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, since they disagree with Don Quixote on the very same basis of the sovereignty of God, as do I:

     
  16. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know this? Do you have the "originals" that the KJV translators sent to the printer?
     
  17. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again you have totally missed the point. The point is that the Scriptures themselves in your own KJV clearly record two different versions of the *written* text of Isaiah. Not paraphrases, not loose quotations, not "targummed" commentaries, but *actual written words* in *actual written copies* of the Scriptures. If one written copy says "male lamb" and the other says "female sheep," how are those *not* different versions? I can't help but notice that you've completely ingored my question about those real and actual differences. So let me try again using your own example. If you tell your little boy to bring a "male lamb" from the flock and he brings a "female sheep" instead, would you commend him for his actions because a "male lamb" and a "female sheep" are the same thing?
     
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,949
    Likes Received:
    2,517
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dear Will,

    Thank you for responding.
    I have reduced your responses to what I consider the essential issues.

    This is quite an admission Will to cede that there are “errors” even the size of gnats or pebbles in the KJB. As a matter of fact Will, I believe we hold to virtually the same view of the KJV of the Bible with the added exception that IMO the KJV no longer carries the original intent of God in that the Scriptures and their translation should be given to the masses of humanity in their common (koine) tongue. 17th century Elizabethan English is not the common language of the 21st century English speaking world. While some folk might prefer the “regal” language of the classic “dignified” version of the tongues of this world, it was not God’s choice from the inception of His revelation.

    Now as to the Germans critics and your assertion that they questioned many doctrines and passages of the Bible, while indeed this is true, they had no monopoly upon questioning the accuracy of text itself.

    Please read the following excerpt:
    While I do agree that there has been a flood of unbelieving modern critics, the art of textual criticism goes back to the ancient scribes and translators of the OT. As the excerpt above shows there are over 1300 variants (in the form of imbedded text and margin supplement) in the Hebrew text inserted by the ancient Hebrew scribes in the Masora that the KJ translators used. They as many scholars of their day, often used the LXX and the Vulgate to determine the correct Kethib-Qere reading. In fact in the original 1611 KJV of the Bible, these “problem” variants were often times put in the margin of the page for the reader to decide upon.

    I disagree with the 20:1 proportioning.

    My effort is to show the falsity of the radical KJVO position to which (by their standard) you do not actually adhere, admitting to “gnat” and “pebble” errors in the text.

    I agree in that Aleph and B are defective in the craftsmanship of the scribes compared to the Greek speaking Christian scribes of Asia Minor. From my studies I choose to believe that the Alexandrian scribes were not necessarily believers but secular craftsmen of their time copying the sacred texts with the same standards as any other text. For this reason I give little weight to their variants.

    Will, I believe you need to be careful with your accusations and innuendo both concerning the transmitted Word of God and the brethren. In the words of even the radical KJVO, the MV’s at very least contain the Word of God.

    KJV Ecclesiastes 10:20 Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.

    NIV Ecclesiastes 10:20 Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, because a bird of the air may carry your words, and a bird on the wing may report what you say.


    HankD
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    As for your time worn complaint about Titus and 2 Peter, you follow the flawed logic of people like James White, and you are wrong in your assumptions. The KJB is actually far more accurate in Titus 2:13 than your new versions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------Scott&gt;&gt;&gt;It isn't quite worn out as you nor any other KJVO have been able to effectively answer these objections to KJV superiority.

    Hi Scott, try these answers to your objections to the KJB reading in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

    Titus 2:13 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ;” Here the critics say the KJB rendering does not fully bring out the deity of Jesus Christ. I don’t really understand what they are talking about, because when I read this passage, it clearly declares that Jesus Christ is the great God as well as our Saviour.

    The NKJV, NIV and NASB all join here in rendering this verse as “the appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” They apparently think this brings out his deity more clearly. However, it is necessary to point out two very important things in this verse. Number one is that the Greek reads exactly as it stands in the KJB, and not as it is in the NKJV, NIV and NASB.

    The Greek in all texts reads “the great God and OUR Saviour.” The second thing to point out is the difference in meaning. You see, when Christ appears again in glory, He is the God of everybody - every man, woman and child, believer or unbeliever - but He is OUR Saviour. He is the Saviour of only those who are true Christians, but He is the God and creator of all, and He will be the judge of those who have not believed on Him.

    So the KJB is actually more accurate here than the NIV, NKJV and NASB. Other versions that read as does the KJB are the ASV, Webster’s Bible, J.B. Phillips, Tyndale, Wycliffe’s 1380, Cranmer’s Bible 1539, Rheims 1582, Geneva Bible, Lamsa of 1933, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 , the Italian Diodati and the Third Millenium Bible.

    Another verse that critics cite against the KJB is 2 Peter 1:1. Here we read “To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

    Again they say the verse, as it stands in the KJB, does not clearly show the deity of Jesus Christ. The NKJV, NIV and NASB read: “through the righteousness of OUR God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

    First, it needs to be pointed out that there are Greek textual differences in this verse. One of the “oldest and best” (this is a blatant lie) manuscripts called Siniaticus reads “Lord” or kurios instead of God. But the NASB and NIV didn’t follow this, but rather the majority reading of God.

    Secondly, in the texts followed by the KJB, Beza’s of 1589 and 1598, as well as Elzevirs, there is an additional “our” found before Jesus Christ. Regardless of these textual differences, the verse in question can either serve as a proof text for Christ’s deity or not depending on how you choose to read it.

    The reading as it stands in the KJB “God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” can easily be seen as stating that He is both God and our Saviour. Compare other verses with similar wording. In Isaiah 44:6, 24 we are told “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, AND his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God...Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, AND he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things...” Even though there is the word “and” in between the two nouns, we know there is only one person who is being referred to - God.

    The same thing is found in I Thes. 3:11 “Now God himself AND our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.”; Galatians 1:4 “according to the will of God AND our Father.” The “and” is not implying another person, but is bringing out another aspect of the same one. He is both God and our Father.

    So too, in II Peter the “God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” can be seen as showing another aspect of the same divine Person, just as 2 Peter 1:11 “kingdom of our Lord AND Saviour Jesus Christ.”

    Even the reading of the NKJV, NIV and NASB could be looked upon as describing two distinct persons; it all depends on how one reads it.

    “Righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”, can be compared to statements like “our Mom and Dad won’t let us go to the party” or “our boss and manager will be at the meeting”.

    In Scripture we have “ye are our glory and joy” I Thes. 2:20, and Acts 15:25 “our beloved Barnabas and Paul”. You see, if you wish to see a declaration of Christ’s deity in this verse, it is there. Likewise, it can be explained away by those who do not wish to see it in either rendering.

    So, the KJB is in no way inferior to the other versions. Other Bible versions that read just like the KJB in 2 Peter 1:1 are the Italian Diodati, written before the KJB of 16ll, Webster’s 1833 Bible translation, the 21st Century KJB and the Third Millenium Bible.

    I hope this has been of some help to those who believe that we have all of God’s inspired, pure words as found in the King James Bible.

    Will Kinney
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Has anyone else noticed how Will has pulled the old bait-and-switcheroo, starting this thread by talking about textual criticism and now blathering about differences of translation that have NOTHING to do with textual criticism?
     
Loading...