NASB or NKJV??

Which is your favorite version? I mostly read and study from the NASB, however, lately I have been liking the NKJV. Some of the words used in the NKJV have a stronger thought emphasize. Of course that is personal opinion. Here is an example:

NASB:
1 Peter 4:1 " Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,"

NKJV:
1 Peter 4:1 " Therefore, since Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,"

just some thought. I like the KJV but I have a hard time reading through.

What are your thoughts?

:-)

I agree with your comments, its ultimately up to ones own opinion. I do find also the NASB a better word for word. However I feel the opposite in some respect to the NKJV, for me it heightens a deeper thought or intense understanding of a verse.

thanks brother

I have a Holman Study NASB that I have used for 25 years. It seems to be generally doctrine free, and the Holman crowd put a ton of the original literal expressions, especially when they had to tweak the ancient word, to insert it into our English. This has really been helpful, and has directed my Bible reading more to original thought. I love my NASB.

Saying that, I often compare with my KJV, word and paragraph, to get a deeper derivative. I cut my teeth on the KJV, as so many have, and when I changed over to NASB, I lost almost all of my memory of scripture. I had memorized over 150 psalms, taken directly out of scripture from the KJV, and countless passages, that are much different as a sound, and also a lyric. There is a beauty and a cadence that KJV possesses that makes it conducive to the thought, I think. Consider Psalms 23 any other way, or Isaiah 53. What a beautiful sound and rhythm these Scholars had.

Some passages though are thick, and archaic, especially in the Pentateuch, which seem very mental, like eggheads translated, in a way the common man would not grasp. NASB generally gives me a feel that I can grasp more, in these passages. I like NKJV especially for the New Testament, as it flows with my history more, and taste for order.

The hardest thing about them all, is doing what it says to do. :-)

My favorite, as most of you are aware, is the King James Version.

Several months ago I ordered a CD from Southwest Radio Church http://www.swrc.com of an interview given by S. Frank Logsdon, given by him on February 17, 1974. (CD #A-183)

Following is some of the information on this CD. Of course, the NASB has totally downplayed Logsdon's involvment in the project. However, Logsdon's personal interview reveals a true man of God who wanted to set things straight before he met his Maker. He gave the interview when he was 74 years old, and died 13 years later at age 87:

A better translation? - Logsdon’s story
S. Frank Logsdon (1907-1987), a respected evangelical pastor and conference speaker, gives us his testimony about his well-meaning but mistaken attempt to relegate the Authorized Version of the Bible to oblivion by producing a new translation.

He tells his own story how it came about that from serving as a committee member for the production of the New American Standard Bible, he was constrained, by force of evidence and good conscience, to re-trace his steps back to the King James Version.

His involvement with the said project came about from an invitation by Franklin Dewey Lockman who, according to his opinion, “wasn’t schooled in language or anything; he was just a businessman; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right” (that is, the NASB).

Upon reflection and by hindsight, Logsdon reasons that “the devil is too wise to try to destroy the Bible. He knows he can’t. He can’t destroy the Word of God. But he can do a lot of things to try to supplant it, or to corrupt it in the minds and hearts of God’s people.”
A better translation?

He says how foolish it is for modern versions, among them the NASB, to pose as better translations than the AV (KJV). To give this impression, whenever there was an omission of words or phrases or even whole sentences in the NASB, the editors would put in a footnote: “Not in the oldest manuscripts.” But they do not tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. Or they say, “Not in the best manuscripts. What are the best manuscripts. They don’t tell you. By this subtle ploy, the average reader notices the note in the margin and he takes it for granted that the scholars know better than he. Who is he to protest? Who is he to raise his voice “against the scholars.” That would be the height of impertinence and foolhardiness.

But when the popular phrases, “the best manuscripts,” and “the oldest manuscripts” are thrown about here and there - to intimidate the inquirers - what is meant by them is quite surprising. By such phrases is usually meant the Codices A and B, that is, the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts. Where do we find these two “revered” manuscripts? Of all places, in the custodial care of Rome!!

Virtually all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, that claim to be superior to the AV, come through that stream. What’s more, nobody has seen the Vatican manuscript. It’s under lock and key in Rome. And the only copies we have are the copies Rome decided to give to the outside world.

What should our Protestant reaction be? Well, if we happen to be true Protestants, we wouldn’t trust them one bit. The guardian of these manuscripts is notorious for her apostasy and denial of New Testament Christianity. Why should we consult her manuscripts when the vast majority of ancient manuscripts are in agreement with each other, and so vastly different from the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.

And yet, wonder of wonders, the United Bible Society and other smaller Bible translation societies, opted for the eclectic text as corrupted by these two manuscripts in particular. (The Trinitarian Bible Society of London is one noble exception).

Paul’s Bible, my Bible
Quoting Logsdon again: “I tell you, I used to laugh with others when a person would try to slander the intelligence, perhaps, of some who say, ‘Well, if the Authorized Version was good enough for Paul it’s good enough for me.’ You get a lot of ha, ha’s. Say, that perhaps is true. If this is the Word of God, and Paul had the Word of God, then things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. We have the Book that Paul had!”.

The reasoning is such: Paul had the pure Word of God (in a different language from mine). I have the pure Word of God (in the Authorized, since I’m much deficient in Greek and Hebrew).

Therefore Paul and I own the same Word of God.
But by the same reasoning, the reader of the NASB cannot say this. The hundreds of omissions in his Bible are the result of corrupted texts introduced and disseminated by the Gnostics and heretical teachers of the early church (Origen, Marcion, Eusebius, and so on). These omissions were done after the death of the apostle Paul. So the NASB reader and the apostle Paul do not read the same Bible.

Archaisms, archaisms, archaisms...
The impression is given that the AV (KJV) is loaded down with Elizabethan English that is outdated and foreign to today’s readership. It is a Bible that belongs to the past. It’s incumbent upon us then to update the Bible and present our faith to a modern culture in a more effective way, making a definite impact that could not be made with the AV (KJV).

Logsdon continues: “It’s true there could be, and perhaps should be, some few corrections of words that are archaic. And a few places where it could read just a little more freely.” What he’s hinting at is that it would be sensible and right to update the spelling, and this has actually happened twice since the first publication of the Authorized in 1611.
But the revisions were not in the sense or in the editing of the AV (kjv). It was in such minor things as spelling: for instance, instead of ‘sope’ it was updated to ‘soap,’ and so on.
“When I say corrected,” Logsdon clarifies, “I mean just some of the archaic words such as ‘he who lets will let until he be taken out of the way.’ Now we don’t use the word that way, but you can find out what it means by taking just a moment to look it up.”

Logsdon, however, is far from suggesting a revamping of the AV (KJV) text. “Back in Jeremiah 4:22, we read, ‘My people are sottish.’ There wouldn’t be two people in the congregation that would know what that means. But I like it because when I looked it up, I found that it had more meaning than any other word you could put there. It means thick-headed. God says, ‘I can’t get through to you because you are thick-headed.’ And maybe He wants it to stay there. If a person looks it up he gets a better understanding of it than if another word were put in there to change it.”

Difficult words
Studies have shown that, contrary to popular opinion, the AV (KJV) is easier to understand than the other modern translations (excepting, of course, the paraphrases which are no translations at all, taking such liberties with the text). The average length of AV (KJV) sentences is shorter than any other translation; the vocabulary is simpler.

Any earnest inquirer can check out these things for himself. He will be surprised how much mud-throwing has been done by those who want to sell there modern cheap wares.

“Actually,” says Logsdon, “I don’t think there is anything wrong with the AV (KJV), and it has been tested for 362 years. Are you ready to throw it overboard because the scholars have come along and said, ‘Well now, this is better; read better; you can understand it better’? I mean to tell you, with all their self-justification, people know less and less about God’s Word.”

A better translation? How could it be?

The criteria for a competent translation of the Scriptures, among other things, are at least two:

1. It should be done from the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts.
2. It should be done by devout men, fully qualified doctrinally and morally and intellectually speaking.

But this is not what we find on the committee for the first revision of the AV (KJV)!

Logsdon continues in his eye-opener lecture: “So when they saw that there wasn’t much to revise, here they had their committee arranged.[b] One was a Unitarian, a man by the name of Smith.[/b] That’s why you find on verses concerning the incarnation there’s something wrong. Such as 1 Timothy 3:16 ‘By common consent great is the mystery of godliness.’ Don’t you believe that the mystery of godliness depends upon what man thinks, or his opinion. The verse continues in the 1881 version, ‘he who was manifest in the flesh.’ You’ve been manifest in the flesh; I’ve been manifest; (that statement alone is meaningless). It’s God who was manifest in the flesh. Do you see the Unitarian flavour there? He got in some blows somewhere, and that must be one of them.”

Butchered by the critics’ penknife
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic according to brain-washed modern scholarship.

-----------------
The interview continues, but that is what I will post for now.

Sincerely,

Walter

reformer wrote:
Which is your favorite version? I mostly read and study from the NASB, however, lately I have been liking the NKJV. Some of the words used in the NKJV have a stronger thought emphasize. Of course that is personal opinion. Here is an example:

NASB:
1 Peter 4:1 " Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,"

NKJV:
1 Peter 4:1 " Therefore, since Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,"

just some thought. I like the KJV but I have a hard time reading through.

What are your thoughts?

:-)

Neither... KJV all the way!

Krispy

Butchered by the critics’ penknife
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic according to brain-washed modern scholarship. With a red pencil mark all these omissions which occur in your Bible and prepare yourself for a big surprise.

These are the changes, and deletions found in New Testament of the NASB Bible:

[b]Matthew[/b]
•\t1:25 firstborn is omitted.
•\t5:44 bless them that curse you is omitted.
•\t6:13: kingdom, power, glory is omitted.
•\t6:27 stature is changed.
•\t6:33 of God is omitted.
•\t8:29 Jesus is omitted (as Son of God).
•\t9:13 to repentance is omitted (in calling sinners).
•\t12:35 of the heart is omitted.
•\t12:47 verse is omitted (about Christ’s mother).
•\t13:51 Jesus said unto them, and Lord are omitted.
•\t15:8 draweth unto me with their mouth is omitted.
•\t16:3 O ye hypocrites is omitted.
•\t16:20 Jesus is omitted.
•\t17:21 verse is out (about prayer and fasting).
•\t18:11 verse is out (telling that Jesus came to save).
•\t19:9 last 11 words ([b]about adultery[/b]) are omitted.
•\t19:17 God is omitted. None good but (God).
•\t20:7 whatsoever is right receive is omitted.
•\t20:16 many be called but few chosen is omitted.
•\t20:22 baptised with Christ’s baptism is omitted.
•\t21:44 verse is omitted (about Christ the stone).
•\t23:14 verse is omitted (woe to Scribes and hypocrites).
•\t25:13 wherein the Son of Man cometh is omitted.
•\t27:35 fulfilled spoken by the prophet is omitted.
•\t27:54 the Son of God is changed to a son of God.
•\t28:2 from the door is omitted.
•\t28:9 they went to tell his disciples is omitted.

[b]Mark[/b]

•\t1:1 Son of God omitted in the NASV, a well as the Nestle, New World, Wescott and Hort, and others.
•\t1:14 of the kingdom is omitted (concerning Jesus’ gospel).
•\t1:31 immediately is omitted (about Christ’s miracle).
•\t2:17 to repentance is omitted.
•\t6:11 more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah is omitted.
•\t6:16 from the dead is omitted.
•\t6:33 him is changed to them.
•\t7:8 washing of pots and cups is omitted.
•\t7:16 verse is omitted (about having an ear to hear).
•\t9:24 Lord is omitted. (A believer called Jesus Lord).
•\t9:42 verse is omitted (about Hell).
•\t9:46 verse is omitted (about Hell).
•\t9:49 every sacrifice shall be salted is omitted.
•\t10:21 take up the cross is omitted.
•\t10:24 for them that trust in riches is omitted.
•\t11:10 in the name of the Lord is omitted.
•\t11:26 verse is omitted (about forgiveness).
•\t13:14 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is omitted.
•\t13:33 and pray is omitted, or in italics.
•\t14:68 and the cock crew is omitted.
•\t15:28 verse is omitted (about Scripture being fulfilled).
•\t15:39 the Son of God is changed to a son of God.
•\t16:9-20 whole 12 verses are omitted in some Bibles or put in parenthesis.

[b]Luke[/b]

•\t1:28 blessed are thou among women is omitted.
•\t2:33 Joseph is changed to father.
•\t2:43 Joseph and his mother is changed to parents.
•\t4:4 but by every word of God is omitted.
•\t4:8 get thee behind me Satan is omitted.
•\t4:41 the Christ is omitted (about the Son of God being Christ).
•\t6:48 founded upon a rock is changed to well-built.
•\t7:31 and the Lord said is omitted.
•\t9:54 even as Elijah did is omitted.
•\t9:55 ye know not what manner of spirit is omitted.
•\t9:56 son of man is come to save lives is omitted.
•\t11:2-4 much is omitted from the Lord’s prayer.
•\t11:29 the prophet is out (about Jonah).
•\t17:36 verse is omitted (one taken, another left).
•\t21:4 cast in unto the offerings of God is omitted.
•\t22:20 verse is out in NEB and RSV.
•\t22:31 and the Lord said is omitted.
•\t22:64 they struck him on the face is omitted.
•\t23:17 whole verse is omitted in many modern versions.
•\t23:38 letters of Greek, Latin, Hebrew is omitted.
•\t23:42 Lord is omitted (the thief addressing Jesus).
•\t23:45 sun was eclipsed in Moffatt and NEB.
•\t24:3 of the Lord Jesus is omitted.
•\t24:6 He is not here, but is risen is omitted.
•\t24:12 verse is omitted (Peter’s testimony).
•\t24:40 verse is omitted (Christ showing them hands and feet).
•\t24:49 of Jerusalem is omitted.
•\t24:51 carried up into heaven is omitted.

[b]John[/b]
•\t1:14 begotten is out in 1:18; 3:16; 3:18.
•\t1:27 preferred before me is omitted (about Jesus).
•\t3:13 which is in heaven is omitted.
•\t3:15 should not perish is omitted.
•\t4:42 the Christ is omitted.
•\t5:3 waiting for the moving of the water is omitted.
•\t5:4 whole verse omitted.
•\t6:47 on me is omitted (about believing on Christ).
•\t6:69 that Christ the Son is omitted.
•\t7:53 to 8:11 is omitted, in brackets or italics.
•\t8:16 Father is omitted, or changed to He.
•\t9:35 Son of God is changed to Son of man.
•\t11:41 where the dead was laid is omitted.
•\t16:16 because I go to the Father is omitted.
•\t17:12 in the world is omitted.
•\t20:29 Thomas is omitted.

[b]Acts[/b]
•\t2:30 according to the flesh raise up Christ is omitted.
•\t7:30 of the Lord is omitted (about an angel).
•\t7:37 Him shall ye hear is omitted (about Christ).
•\t8:37 whole verse omitted or in brackets or in italics.
•\t9:5,6 much is omitted (concerning God’s will).
•\t10:6 what thou oughtest to do is omitted.
•\t15:18 known unto God....is omitted.
•\t16:31 Christ is omitted.
•\t17:26 blood is omitted.
•\t20:25 of God is omitted (about the kingdom).
•\t20:32 brethren is omitted.
•\t23:9 let us not fight against God is omitted.
•\t24:6-8 much is omitted, in brackets or in italics.
•\t24:15 of the dead is omitted (about the resurrection).
•\t28:16 half of the verse is omitted or doubt is cast upon in by the use of italics or brackets.
•\t28:29 whole verse is out, in italics or bracketed.

[b]Romans[/b]
•\t1:16 of Christ is omitted or taken the usual precautions about it.
•\t1:29 fornication is omitted.
•\t5:2 by faith is out in RSV and other versions.
•\t8:1 last ten words omitted or in italics.
•\t9:28 in righteousness is omitted.
•\t10:15 of peace is out (concerning the gospel).
•\t10:17 of God is substituted to of Christ.
•\t11:6 last 18 words are omitted.
•\t13:9 shall not bear false witness is omitted.
•\t14:6 fifteen words are omitted.
•\t14:21 offended, made weak is omitted.
•\t15:29 of the gospel is omitted.
•\t16:24 whole verse is omitted or italicised or bracketed.

[b]1 Corinthians[/b]

•\t1:14 I thank God is out of many Bibles.
•\t5:7 for us is omitted (about Christ sacrificed).
•\t6:20 last 7 words are omitted.
•\t7:5 fasting is omitted.
•\t7:39 by the law is omitted (about the wife being bound).
•\t10:28 the earth is the Lord’s is omitted, and more.
•\t11:24 take, eat is omitted (about the Lord’s Supper).
•\t11:29 Lord’s is omitted, referring to the body.
•\t15:47 the Lord is omitted (about the Lord from heaven).
•\t16:22 Jesus Christ is omitted.
•\t16:23 Christ is omitted.

[b]2 Corinthians[/b]

•\t4:6 Jesus is omitted.
•\t4:10 the Lord is omitted.
•\t5:18 Jesus is omitted, or in italics.
•\t11:31 Christ is omitted, or in italics.

[b]Galatians[/b]

•\t1:15 God is omitted.
•\t3:1 that ye should not obey the truth is omitted.
•\t3:17 in Christ is omitted.
•\t4:7 in Christ is omitted.
•\t6:15 in Christ Jesus is omitted.
•\t6:17 Lord is omitted.

[b]Ephesians[/b]

•\t3:9 by Jesus Christ is omitted (about God creating).
•\t3:14 of our Lord Jesus Christ is omitted.
•\t5:30 of his flesh and of his bones is omitted.
•\t6:1 in the Lord is omitted. (About obeying parents).
•\t6:10 my brethren is omitted.

[b]Philippians[/b]
•\t3:16 let us mind the same thing is omitted.

[b]Colossians[/b]

•\t1:2 the Lord Jesus Christ is omitted.
•\t1:14 through his blood is omitted or in italics.
•\t1:28 Jesus is omitted.
•\t2:11 of the sins of is omitted.
•\t3:6 sons of disobedience is omitted.

[b]1 Thessalonians[/b]
•\t1:1 from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ is omitted.
•\t2:19 Christ is omitted.
•\t3:11 Christ is omitted, or in italics.
•\t3:13 Christ is omitted, or in italics.

[b]2 Thessalonians[/b]

•\t1:8 Christ is omitted, or in italics.
1 Timothy
•\t1:17 wise is out (about God being the only wise).
•\t2:7 in Christ is out, or in italics.
•\t3:16 God is changed to He (about they mystery of the incarnation).
•\t4:12 in Spirit is omitted.
•\t6:5 from such withdraw thyself is omitted.

[b]2 Timothy[/b]

•\t1:11 of the Gentiles is omitted.
•\t4:1 Lord is omitted.
•\t4:22 Jesus Christ is deleted.

[b]Titus[/b]
•\t1:4 the Lord is deleted.

[b]Philemon[/b]
•\tverse 6 Jesus is omitted.
•\tverse 12 [b]receive him[/b] is omitted.

[b]Hebrews[/b]

•\t1:3 by himself is omitted (about the purging of our sins).
•\t2:7 set him over the works of thy hands is omitted.
•\t3:1 Christ is omitted.
•\t7:21 after the order of Melchisedec is omitted.
•\t10:30 saith the Lord is omitted.
•\t10:34 in heaven is omitted.
•\t11:11 was delivered of a child is omitted.

[b]James[/b]
•\t5:16 faults is changed to sins.

[b]1 Peter[/b]
•\t1:22 through the spirit is omitted.
•\t4:1 for us is omitted (about Christ’s suffering).
•\t4:14 last 14 words are omitted.
•\t5:10 Jesus is omitted.
•\t5:11 glory and dominion is out of some

[b]2 Peter[/b]
•\t2:17 forever is out or in italics.
•\t3:9 us is changed to you.

[b]1 John[/b]
•\t1:7 Christ is omitted.
•\t2:7 from the beginning is omitted.
•\t4:3 Christ is come in the flesh is omitted.
•\t5:7,8 many words are out or changed.
•\t5:13 last 13 words are omitted.

[b]Jude[/b]
•\tverse 25 wise is omitted, referring to God.

[b]Revelation[/b]
•\t1:8 the beginning and the end is omitted.
•\t1:11 ten words are omitted (Alpha and Omega...).
•\t2:13 thy works is omitted.
•\t5:14 Him that liveth forever and ever is omitted.
•\t6:1 and see is omitted here, in verse 3, 5, and 7.
•\t8:13 angel is changed to eagle.
•\t11:17 and art to come is omitted.
•\t12:12 inhabiters of (the earth) is omitted.
•\t12:17 Christ is omitted.
•\t14:5 before the throne of God is omitted.
•\t16:17 of heaven is omitted.
•\t20:9 God out of omitted.
•\t21:24 of them which are saved is omitted.

All these omissions, and many more, are very pleasing to Romanism, which thrives upon the absence or twisting of Scripture. By this rate, the critical rats will nibble away all of the Word. What Satan succeeded in doing in the Garden, he is still doing up to this day.

But his pernicious work will not succeed forever. And meanwhile his allies and ministers posing as messengers of light, will be exposed for what they are: pretenders who take it upon themselves to sit in judgement over the Word of the living God!

Sincerely,

Walter

:-)

Dear KingJimmy:

The deletions found in all of the newer versions are from the same texts that created the corrupt Catholic Bible, the Minority text. That is where the error can be found, not in the Authorized Version, in the Majority Text, that created the Protestant Bible

Sincerely,

Walter

The TR itself was completed by one man -- a Catholic humanist named Desiderius Erasmus

You say this as if he was a dyed in the wool Catholic... which he was not. While it is true that he was raised a Catholic, and never left the RCC, he was highly critical of the Pope. He was highly critical of the excesses of the Catholic clergy. He was highly critical of over indulgences of many monks. And he was highly critical of many of the RCC's doctrines.

While he was not a Reformer like Martin Luther or the others, he certainly had the spirit of one within the church itself.

So lets not misrepresent Erasmus, knowingly or unknowingly, in order to proove our points. It's called "bearing false witness" when you dont give all the facts.

It is tiring to correct the brethren who insist that a modern, scholastic translation like the NIV is guilty of "deleting" or "changing" passages. It is a faithful, academic and critical rendering of the ancient texts considered by most scholars as being the most credible ensemble of texts. I fear that many of the KJV-only believers distort the truth by basing their "research" solely upon the prejudiced works of other KJV-only writers.

While what you say is true... the NIV is a rendering of a certain underlying text, I grow tired of folks who claim that all KJV people think that the NIV writers purposely left things out. Most of us on this site who are KJV people do know what we're talking about. We do understand the issues.

I grow tired of being painted into a corner by prejudice against the KJV people. Both sides paint with a broad brush... but it is the modern version side that paints KJV people as "ignorant" or "misinformed".

It just aint so, brother... and you know better.

You may disagree with me, and draw different conclusions about this issue that I... but you cant say I'm "ignorant" or "misinformed".

Krispy

Hey guys... was in a bit of a bad mood when I wrote what I wrote. I apologize. I'm dealing with a certain level of spiritual compromise in an organization of which I am one of the leaders, and it has me a bit irritated.

I know y'all understand where I am coming from, and I was tickled when you said I am a different kind of KJV advocate. Probably because my only cause is truth... I dont fight for a cause for the sake of fighting for the cause... know what I mean?

Anyway, to quote Al Gore, I was a bit "snippy" earlier when there was no reason for me to be.

I love y'all... hopefully you know that!

Krispy

I started this thread because I was curious on the what others thought about the NASB or NKJV. I have had some concerns about the NASB in there choice of words. I don't know why everyone uses the NASB, I only use it because I have heard it is considered one the best in word for word. But why? Who determines this? I posted an example I stumbled on when I was studying 1 Peter. I though the NKJV was better with the text, than the NASB. I actually got a better understanding from the NKJV.

I am actually thinking about getting a NKJV. I wasn't sure about the NASB anymore.

Lets not turn this into a debate! The KJV is great and will continue to be the favorite. For me I have a hard time reading through it. Lets no turn this thread into a KJV debate.

Can't we all just get along! :-P

Love
Mike

roadsign wrote:

Can't we all just get along!

Bless you, Mike, I appreciate your caution against division. After all, there are plenty of “bible scholars” out there who would love to see us argue over bible translation “errors”. It props up their own mission: to discredit the reliability of the Bible. When we realize that we have many enemies “out there” who have been writing convincing “reliable-latest- researched” proof that the Bible is a big fake, then we will realize that we can’t afford to divide ourselves over the Bible. People need to know that it is trustworthy.

Last year I did a research paper on Bible translations and was fascinated by what I discovered. There is plenty information out there on the subject. In fact, when you start digging, you see that this is no small battle. And yes, there is certainly a lot of mudslinging going on in the family of God. But as you proceed, you develop discernment between who are speaking with authority and who with their fixed opinion.

The NASB is a fine translation, but, as many have felt, the translation team tried too hard to translate word for word. Thus you see some woodenness in the language. Greek and English are very different. Translators do need to exercise some discretionary flexibility in order to convey the intended meaning.

You may wish to use Bible Gateway or E-Sword to compare translations. (E-Sword is keyed to Strong’s concordance.) A lot of very fine translations have come out since the NASB – ranging in style, purpose, and intended audience.

Just today I discovered Bill Mounce’s blog where he discusses various exegetical challenges. He is a Greek scholar and teacher (maybe KingJimmy took some of his courses) who includes helpful information on the website - mainly helps for Greek study. I’m in the midst of his course “Basics of Biblical Greek” – slugging through it on my own. Mounce’s method is far more than just a bunch of dry grammar. He gets you into Bible translation and also explains various translation challenges. (I think his dad is/was a Bible translator). By studying Greek my appreciation for the challenge of Bible translators grows by the day! We need to be supporting these people in prayer, not pitting ourselves against them with our less-than-well-informed opinions! They have an important job!

Here’s the site – which should take you to various adventurous places:
[url=http://www.teknia.com/]Teknia Greek [/url]

Have fun!

Diane

great comment Diane. I appreciate your gentle demeanor in your comment.

I justed started a theology class at church, we are finishing up basics on Hermeneutics. Its not a in depth course just to covering basics. So going through this I have looked closely into the verses I would study and look for observations and as I would begin to compare with other translations, some just, for me, had a stronger impact.

I am feared trying to delve into Greek, I have a hard time with grammar and english! :-) Greek would be a huge challenge, but I think I would be up for trying to learn.

Blessings to you
Mike

BeYeDoers wrote:

lately I have been liking the NKJV. Some of the words used in the NKJV have a stronger thought emphasize.

I would only caution that maybe we shouldn't pick versions based on what we think "sounds the best" based on what we would like to hear (i.e. emphasis on the "for us" in the qtd. verse). We should strive for what is the most accurate, pure version of what God has chosen to say to us. Of course, through diligent study, different people come to different conclusions on what this is ;-)

If I really wanted to hear something I liked I would read the New Living Translation! :-)

However, I think you have missed my point I was making and what others have stated on this thread concerning omitting and choice of word translations.

Mike

PS
I was just curious on the bible translation others used. I didn't want to get into a debate, I just had some concerns on certain passages. SI, for me is a great place for accountability, there are many on here who I personally value there opinion.

I won't comment on this thread again...sorry for the ruckus! :-(

Ccchhhrrriiisss posted this previously:

“………………... While I prefer neither of these (NASB or the NKJV) for my daily reading, I do consult both on occasion. My preference is the KJV as a great [b](but undoubtedly flawed)[/b] representative of the TR texts and the NIV as a great[b] (but also undoubtedly flawed)[/b] academic representative of the other texts."

[b]Walter replies [/b]to Ccchhhrrriiisss:

In fact, if you or I went to Seminary or a Bible College today, that is exactly what we would be taught---the Word of God that we have before us today is flawed, no matter what version we use. Whether we use the Majority text, or the Minority text--- it is equally flawed. The problem, they will tell us and teach us, is that the [b]original text is lost,[/b] and Bible Scholars & Textural Critics have, to the best of their ability, tried to Restore the "Original" Biblical Text.

Yet God’s Word promises us that His Word will stand forever:

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God
shall stand for ever
Isaiah 40:8

God has also promised us to both give and protect His Word:

"Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it." (Jeremiah 1:12)

Here God says He is watching over His Word to perform it – to make all that He has said come to pass:

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31)

God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His words were given. He says His Words SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. Therefore, this promise demands that we still have them on planet earth:

Jesus also says, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)

Why this verse if God has NOT preserved His Word?
"But the word of the Lord endureth forever." (I Pet.1:25)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rock or vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word – forever.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

".. for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)

Look at that! God says He has magnified His Word above His name! That is incredible for supposedly THE name was so sacred to the Jews that they did not even pronounce it.

Jesus said "... and the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35)

God has promised to keep His Word as revealed through these Scriptures! But there is more!

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever." (Psa.12:6, 7)

[b]This is a promise from God! He says He will preserve it. He did not just promise to give the originals pure and free from error – He promised to preserve the text forever![/b]

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

[b]Since God's Word will judge us, are we to believe that God will judge us by something which He meticulously gave us and then lost along the way? Would it be just and fair of God to judge us with these words if they are no longer trustworthy – to hold us accountable when our guide is not 100 percent reliable?[/b]

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said[b] not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament.[/b] We are being taught today that perhaps the Old Testament is not true, that it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it was true and unerring – even to the smallest detail – and He was not referring to the originals, but to copies of copies of copies.

"Do you not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)

Was Jesus speaking of the "originals"? No, for they did not have the originals. They had copies of copies of copies of the originals yet Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure then Jesus erred in His assessment of the Scriptures. Should these statements of Jesus concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all knowing, no longer all God.

"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:39-40)

[b]The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ – and then to guide our lives. If the Scriptures are not accurate, if they have been changed or altered, if they have been lost so that we no longer have the Word of God, how can we come to Christ for they are the Holy Spirit's implement to testify of the Lord Jesus.[/b]

[b][color=0000FF]Faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine.[/color][/b] Furthermore, the context of these many promises is not that God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church.[b][color=0000FF] The context is very clear in Second Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works". Therefore, for God to accomplish this stated purpose for His having given us His Word – it must remain accessible to the disciples of the Lord, Christ Jesus!.[/color][/b]

Throughout the minority text, that has been used as the basis for all of the newer versions of the bible in print since 1881, we find deletions and changes from the Majority text, over 5,000 changes that affect sound Bible Doctrine. These changes many times relate to the name of Jesus. Jesus is the name that Christ was born with, and it means “Savior”. The meaning of the word Christ is “Messiah”, and it is His Title of Rank. In much of the minority text, Christ has been eliminated from His name. God’s word tells us that Scripture cannot be broken:

John 10:35 …………………… and the scripture cannot be broken;

Those who want to replace the King James Version with new Modern Versions are constantly stating that [b]“no Bible Doctrines are affected by the changes”[/b]. One school recently published an article by one of it’s teachers in which he said that, [b]"BOTH TEXTS ARE THE WORD OF GOD."[/b] It is difficult to understand how two texts differing in over 5,000 places can both be the Word of God. The result of these changes made by the MINORITY text affect the Bible Doctrines which Christians have always believed. Following are changes in the book of Matthew that are glaring examples of how these changes have altered or eliminated the Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian faith. Is there a difference in the text’s (the Majority verses the Minority)? [b]You be the judge: [/b]

MATTHEW
1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.
22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.
23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.

In conclusion, for those that believe God are struck with a dilemma. Did God, who spoke everything into existence out of nothing, who is outside of time and space, who counts the hairs on all of our heads, who sent His only Son to die on a cross for the sin of mankind, on a specific day, the 14th day of Nissan, the day of the original Passover (fifteen hundred years before), [b] Could this same God preserve the Scriptures, or would he need fallen, fallible, corrupt man to help Him restore the Scriptures? My Bible tells me that He did preserve the Scriptures, Himself. My understanding of who He is also tells me the same thing. What does the Bible say about this issue ?[/b]

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31)

Sincerely,

Walter

PS- Please respond with Bible Scripture from the Minority texts that prove they do not affect sound Bible doctrine or try to diminish the deity of Jesus Christ.

Walter responds to Diane:

Isaiah 7:14
[b][color=CC0000]Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[/color][/b] (KJV-Majority text)

"A young woman is going to have a baby." (Jerusalem Version-Minority text, [b]Catholic Bible[/b])

"A young woman who is pregnant will have a son." (Good News- Minority text)

"Behold a young woman shall conceive ..." (RSV-Minority text)

There is nothing new about a young woman's having a baby, yet this is supposed to be a sign whereby God is promising deliverance in an almost impossible situation!

The Hebrew word "almah" (hmlu) occurs only seven times in the O.T. It should be rendered "virgin" here for although "almah" could mean "young woman", every time it is used in the Old Testament the context demands that it means "virgin". The other six times it is translated "virgin" in most of the various versions. [b] Why the sudden departure in the verse before us?.[/b] The miracle was going to be that a virgin was going to conceive!

Furthermore, the New Testament confirms the fact in Mat.1:23 that Mary was a virgin: "Behold, a virgin (Greek = "parthenos" = parqeno") shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

All languages contain both "weak" and "strong" words. By "weak" is meant a word that has many shades of meaning or even widely different meanings, i.e., the word "cool" is still in today's English. Such words can defy etymological studies. "Strong" words, on the other hand, are words which have a very limited narrow meaning – often only one possible sense.

We begin to see the manifold wisdom of God in choosing to reveal His Word to man in two tongues. Weak words in one which could lead to confusion could be covered by strong words in the other by cross references and quotations. Such is the case before us. The "weak" Hebrew word "almah" (though we have already shown that by its Biblical usage it is not so weak) is covered in the N.T. by the "strong" Greek word "parthenos" which can only be translated one way – "virgin".

Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase, not the dictionary definition or etymology. Etymology, though often helpful, is not an exact science. It should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.

[b]The translators of the modern versions are well aware of the incontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos" hence the translation of Isaiah 7:14 into any other word represents deliberate willful alteration of the Word of God.[/b]

In denying the virgin birth of Christ, they are saying:
1)\tJesus was a bastard as Mary was unmarried when she conceived;
2)\tMary was a fornicator;
3)\tGod has lied to us in Mat. 1:22-23;
4)\tChrist was not God, not deity (having a physical father, He was only human); and
5)\tChrist was a sinner as he would then be a descendant of Adam and inherit Adam's nature as in Rom. 5:12.

The three verses placed before us serve as an excellent barometer for each of us to use in determining whether a given "version" is trustworthy or not. We must all individually decide- is it the "Majority" text or the "Minority" text that can be trusted?

Sincerely,

Walter

roadsign wrote:
Walter, Bart D. Ehrman would love you!

In all seriousness, we can’t forget that the scribes and Pharisees had an accurate translation in their day. They had every word memorized: word for word, jot and tittle. And yet this can be said of them:

"Jesus" is left out.

Why did they miss the pivotal event in history when it was prophesied throughout the very words that they cherished and revered? Did it have to do with their translation …….. or…………

Might the same affliction not apply today?

I’m saying this, because if we are chasing after a false diagnosis (based on alleged omissions in certain versions) we will miss the obvious cure - which is VERY obvious throughout the Bible – regardless of translation!

Surely you cannot doubt that!

PS: I marvel at how idiot-proof God made the Bible. If you miss a point in one chapter, for whatever reason, you are bound to see it again in another, and another, and another……… unless, of course, you are blind!

Let’s not blame translations for sending people to hell! Nor the translators!

Diane

In response to Diane's remark:

"Regarding the infamous "virgin" debate in Isaiah"

I never really knew that it was considered "infamous" by anyone, until now, by you, Diane.

In the book "Prophecy Knowledge Handbook", John F. Walvoord had this to say about the
“Sign” of Immanuel’s birth (Immanuel means “God with us”):

Isaish 7:1-17
The attack on Judah by Ephriam will not be successful (vv. 1-9). This was fulfilled in the events which followed. Isaiah recorded that “the Lord spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask the Loud your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or the highest heights” (v. 10). God promised that a sign would be given to Israel, “therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son, and will call Him Immanuel [Eastons Bible Dictionary says Immanuel means ‘God with us”. In the Old Testament it occurs only in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8. Most Christian interpreters have regarded these words as directly and exclusively a prophecy of our Saviour, an interpretation borne out by the words of the evangelist Matthew (1:23)]. He will eat curds and honey when He knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the goy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the hous of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-He will bring the king of Assyria” (vv. 14-17). Isaiah predicted the invasion of the king of Assyria and the destruction of the land (vv. 18-25)

The prophecy concerning the virgin with child has been variously considered by conservative scholars. Some believe it referred to a contemporary situation where a youg woman, still a virgin, was about to be married and would bear a child, fulfilling the prophecy. Another point of view is that the prophecy is exclusively messianic and refers to the fact that Mary, while still a virgin, would be the mother of Christ (Matt 1:18, 25), which according to Matthew 1:21-23 was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah. Still others consider the prophecy as referring to both, that is, a contemporary reference to a child whose birth is mentioned in Isaiah 8 and whose ultimate prophetic fulfillment is the birth of Christ.

Isaiah 7:18-25. Isaiah predicted that the Assyrians would make desolate the land which was fulfilled in the Assyrian captivity of the the ten tribes (2 Kings 17:1-8).

[b]SUMMARY OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES IN ISAIAH

The prophecy concerning the virgin birth of Christ should be considered in the context of other messianic prophecies in the whole Book of Isaiah. Major future messianic prophecies include the reign of Christ in the kingdom (2:3-5), the virgin birth of Christ (7:14), the joyful reign of Christ (9:2, 7), the rule of Christ over the world (v. 4), Christ as a descendent of Jesse and David (11:1, 10), Christ to be filled with the Spirit (v. 2: 42:1) Christ to judge with righteousness (11:3-5; 42:1, 4), Christ to rule over the nations (11:10), Christ to be gentile to the weak (42:3), Christ to make possible the New Covenant (v. 6; 49:8), Christ to be a light to the Gentiles, and to be worshiped by them (42:6; 49:6-7, 52:15), Christ to be rejected by Israel (49:7; 53:1-3), Christ to restore Israel and judge the wicked (61:1-3)[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

roadsign wrote:
Regarding the infamous "virgin" debate in Isaiah, Walter posed this question:

Why the sudden departure in the verse before us?

In order to fit the context: For the child referred to in Isaiah 7 to be Jesus, would not have been the “sign” to Ahaz that God intended. When reading the context of Isaiah 7:14 you find that the consequences of God’s action is going to come very soon, before this child “can tell right from wrong”.

Prophesies could have double meanings. Of course this situation would not have applied when the propehesy was carried over into the NT. (no "conspiracy here intended by the translators!!)

PS Walter, I am wondering if you have any thoughts relating to my last post to you.
Diane

Come on folks! please whatever Bible works best for your own personal understanding...

Well... I wish it were that easy. But for some of us, there are some very serious issues surrounding this topic. "Whatever floats your boat" is an all too common cry in the church today on a plethura of different issues. But that seems to be one phrase we never find in the Bible.

Instead, in scripture, we see "whatever floats GOD's boat".

Krispy

On a better note, Krispy if I have no clue what the KJV is saying "and I mean I have no clue" even how to pronounce some of the words much less understand them, were not all scholars or teachers but when I read the NASB I totally understand it, so riddle me this what does a man do? Just don't read the Bible period?

Hey Bill... how goes it, bro?

Can you tell me what parts of the KJV you're referring to when you say you "have no clue" what it means? You're an American... er, Texan... brought up in the public school system, correct? Please pin point for me what parts you're referring to, then maybe I can help you.

Other than some of the Old Testament names, what words cant you pronounce?

Are there words in the KJV that are no longer in use in everyday English? Yes. Are there words in the KJV that are no longer in the dictionary (particularly Websters)? No.

In fact, there are Bible dictionary booklets you can get online that are written specifically to help people with those archaic words... few as they are.

I hear this argument all the time from people who think the KJV is too hard to understand... and what about all those old archaic words... etc etc. Yet, when I ask them which words, or what passages are too hard to grasp... they cant tell me.

And Bill, I'm sure you read your Bible so this is not aimed at you... but 9 times out of 10 those folks who make these claims against the KJV as an argument for modern versions... dont hardly ever (if ever!) read their modern versions! Much less the KJV.

Fact is, Bill, if you run across something you dont understand.... get a dictionary. Do a word study. Cant understand a particular passage? Get Matthew Henry's commentary out and study and read it over and over until you do understand it.

It's called [b]STUDYING[/b] the Word of God.

The Bible says [b]study[/b] to show thyself approved... not dumb down the scripture to show thyself approved.

The message of the gospel is so simple that a small child can understand it. That is very true. But the same can not necessarily be said for the deeper things of God. It takes no work at all to gain salvation, but it does take work and desire on our part to gain the deeper things of God.

Krispy

Reply to ccchhhrrriiisss:

All of the modern versions are deficient in Bible Doctrine. I have previously posted twice on this thread in regards to specific books of the Bible, all in the New Testament, that document problems in the newer versions. Since I did not specifically post on the NIV, I challenge you to take my prior thread, that went into each Book of the New Testament, and see how the NIV compares to the NASB, in every verse that I quoted for the NASB verses the KJV.

I know that you will not take me up on this challenge. You already know the answer.

Sincerly,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...

Just so you know, my "modern" NIV (taken from what some call the "minority" texts) has the following translation and footnotes for Isaiah 7:14...

[b]14[/b] Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [b] will call him Immanuel. [c]

Footnotes:

[size=xx-small]a.[/size] Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
[size=xx-small]b.[/size] Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls [i]and he[/i] or [i]and they[/i]
[size=xx-small]c.[/size] Isaiah 7:14 [i]Immanuel[/i] means [i]God with us[/i].

It seems like those "sinister" translators of the NIV are trying to make this prophecy apply to Jesus coming from (gasp) a virgin!

:-o

The First Messianic prophecy appears in the first Book of the Bible, at the beginning of time. Open your Bibles and lets begin with Genesis 3:15.

Who could draw a picture of a man not yet born? Surely God, and God alone. Nobody knew over 500 years ago that Shakespeare was going to be born; or over 250 years ago that Napoleon was to be born. Yet here in the Bible we have the most striking and unmistakable likeness of a Man portrayed, not by one, but by twenty or twenty-five artists, none of whom had even seen the Man they were painting.

The astounding miracle of these predictions of Christ proves that “the inspiration of that portrait came from the Heavenly Gallery, and not from the studio of an earthly artist. Nothing but Divine prescience could have foreseen it, and nothing but Divine power could accomplish it.” Peter confirms this when he wrote, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Peter 1:21).

“The Christ of the New Testament is the fruit of the Tree of Prophecy, and Christianity is the realization of a plan, the first outlines of which were sketched more than 1500 years before,” as David Baron expresses it in “Rays of Messiah’s Glory”.

It is the fulfillment of specific, detailed prophecies that provides the Bible it’s devine seal—a seal that can never be counterfeited, since it is affixed to the truth which it attests, namely, that God’s foreknowledge of the actions of free and intelligent agents is one of the most “incomprehensible attributes of Deity and is exclusively a Divine perfection.” We readily concede that the prophets themselves may not have understood the full import of the predictions they gave when they pictures beforehand the expected Messiah, yet the language they used could not refer to anyone else in history.[b] It was thus that Paul was able to persuade the Jews that Jesus was the predicted One “out of the prophets” (Acts 28:23).[/b]

This is from the Book "All the Messianic
Prophecies of the Bible" by Herbert Lockyer

Sincerely,

Walter

The Birth of Jesus:

1.\t[b]The “seed” of the woman[/b]

The only key to all messianic prophecy is found hanging at the front door of the Bible. This “key” was given by God to that “old serpent, the devil.” He was the first to learn of a Deliverer who would come to destroy his devilish works. To him was given the initial promise and prophecy of redemption from the sin he had brought into God’s fair universe.
“ And the Lord God said unto the serpent….. I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)

From this point on, the chain of promises and prophecies concerning “the seed of the woman” lengthen until it ends in the birth of Jesus, who was not only “the seed of the woman,” but “the seed of Abraham,” and “the seed of David.”

[b]Forecast[/b]: “The woman…and her seed” (Genesis 3:15)
[b]Fulfillment[/b]: “Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghose’ (Matt. 1:18)
\t “…to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16)
\t “Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19)

[b]Forecast[/b]: “And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land (Gen 12:7)
[b]Fulfillment[/b]: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (Gal 3:16)

[b]Forecast[/b]: “Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David… I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels” (II Samuel 7:8, 12)
[b]Fulfillment[/b]: “The gospel of God…concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of he seed of David according to the flwsh’ (Romans 1: 1,3)

With the first direct messianic prophecy in the Bible there commenced [b]“the highway of the Seed.”[/b] What God said about the seed of the woman constitutes “the bible in embryo, the sum of all history and prophecy in a germ” for here is intimiated, not only the Virgin Birth of Christ, but also His vicarious sufferings—“Thou shalt bruise His heel”; and His complete and eventual dominion over Satan and his works—“It (Christ) shall bruise thy head” (see Hebrew 2:9-15).

[b]The Virgin Birth[/b]
The phrase just considered, “her seed”, is not found elsewhere in the Bible. Well over one hundred times we read of “the seed” and “seeds”, but in all cases the seed of the man is meant. [b]But the “seed of the woman” is a unique concept and can only be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the virgin birth of our Lord. If He was not to be born of a virgin, then Adam would have been referred to: “his seed”, not “her seed”.[/b] When the Prince of Glory came, the prince of this world could find nothing in the One who sprang from “her seed.” The reason? “Mary…was discovered to be pregnant---by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).

Such a mystery this is to us. Bishop Handley Moule asserts that “in Scripture a mystery may be a fact which, when revealed, we cannot understand in detail, though we can know it, and act upon it….It is a thing to be known only when revealed.” With reference to the Virgin Birth, it is certainly true that “we cannot understand it in detail, though we can know it, and act upon it.”

[b]Forecast[/b]: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14)
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given (Isaiah 9:6)
[b]Fulfillment:[/b] “And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son…then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee” (Luke 1:31, 34, 35)
“When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:18)
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matt. 1:23)

To fulfill the amazing prophecies of the birth of Christ, God performed a biological miracle, for the manner of His begetting was something unknown in human history and experience. Reason may declare that among humans what happened to Mary is impossible; however, Mary also had to learn that, “with God nothing shall be impossible.” Responding by faith to the divine revelation, the virgin said, “Be it unto me, according to Thy word.”

From:
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible
Herbert Lockyer

Sincerely,

Walter

Isn’t it somewhat remarkable that whenever the birth of the Messiah is spoken of in prophecy, reference is made only to His mother, or to the womb, never to a human father, which, of course, Jesus did not have.
[b]“The Lord hath called me from the womb” (Isaiah 49:1)
“The Lord…. formed me from the womb to be his servant” Isaiah 49:5)
“The Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man”(Jer 31:22)
“Thou art he that took me out of the womb” (Psalms 22:9)
“Until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth” (Micah 5:3)[/b]

Although we speak about the supernatural or miraculous birth of Christ, we must understand that there was nothing unique or exceptional about the process of His birth, which came about in a completely natural way.[b] The miraculous element was not in the formation of our Lord’s body or in its appearance in the manger, but in the manner of its begetting or conception. His birth was supernatural in that He was virgin-born, that is, He was conceived apart from natural generation by the method of sexual intercourse. This is what Mary herself meant when she said, “I know not a man.” She bore the prophesied One as the result of a divine creative act, and was virgo intacto. Therafter, Mary lived in the usual relations of wedlock with her husband, Joseph, bearing children in a natural way. (See Marr. 13:55, 56)[/b]

[b][color=CC0000]All who are born after the ordinary course of nature have the root of sin within them. Had our Lord been born according to the laws of natural procreation, having a human father as well as a human mother, then He (Christ) would have had to cry, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalms 51:5),[/color][/b] but He was born “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). Because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, His substance was pure and immaculate, and without original sin. To save sinners, it was imperative for Him to be sinless, hence, the necessity of a VIRGIN birth. So He came, “Offspring of a virgin’s womb.” The miracle of His birth is seen in that in spite fo the sinful pedigree His genealogies prove, He yet entered the world a perfectly sinless Person. “That holy thing wich shall be born…shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35)

From:
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible
Herbert Lockyer

Sincerely,

Walter

Hello, Bill:

I have not always been a King James guy. Years ago, I was in love with my NIV. However, once I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit God's Word truly came alive to me. After a lot of searching, I ended up with the King James Bible that my Grandmother had given me when I was 10 years old.

One of the good points about the archaic language in the King James is that the [b]meaning of the words is frozen in time.[/b] Actually, between the years of 1611 and 1828 the English language was quite static. Travel then was not like it is today, and words kept their meaning. In 1828 Noah Webster published his Dictionary of the English Language. Most of the Words that are troubling you in the King James Bible can be found there. I personally purchased my own 1828 Dictionary. However, if you go online, you can use one for free at: http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm

I would like to look up one word for you, to show you what I mean- so you can see how this word has changed over time. especially the last 100 years:

[b]MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

MrBillPro wrote:
Thank you Mr. Krispy that was a good old Country boy reply, and this old Country boy could understand that reply, it translated like this, I need to seek help from some simpler sources to understand the meaning of the harder to understand words. I think I now can invite Larry the Cable guy over for our Bible Study. :-P thank you,thank you very much, you have been a big help today, may God Bless you and yours over these 4th Holidays, and also may God make sure Krispy don't eat to much.

What is the big deal about all of this-[b] Which Version?[/b] Shall we all just rely on the Holy Spirit that lives within us, and just throw out our Bibles? We are told that they all contain error, and are not the Absolute Word of God. The Word of God can only be found in the original autographs, but we no longer have them and the text we have now, today, has been corrupted. What are we to do?

The important question that each of us must ask ourselves—Is there a difference in the presentation of Bible Doctrine between the Majority text and the Minority text?.[b] On this thread I Previously posted Bible Doctrine (teaching) about “the Seed of the woman”.[/b] This is important doctrine because it is the first prophecy found in the Bible, given by God Himself about a coming redeemer, the “Seed of the woman” that would vanquish Satan and redeem fallen man to God. This same “seed” continues throughout the Old Testament,[b] and becomes the “seed” of Abraham and then the “seed” of David.[/b][b][color=0066CC]Of course, we all know that women do not have seed, men have seed.[/color][/b] With that in mind, let’s look at the First Prophecy I posted:

[b]15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[/b]

I used the[b] Majority text[/b], the King James to present this teaching. If I was to use the [b]Minority text,[/b] found in the majority of the newer versions of the Bible,[b] what would I find? Would I find this prophecy in tact? Would it make sense, so that I could follow this Prophecy of a coming Savior that continues throughout the Old Testament?[/b]

Again, each of us has to decide.

The following is from the Minority text, as found in the[b] NIV: 15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.[/b]

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

[b]The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic bible), [/b]also derived from the Minority text says the same thing: 15. I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel."

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

The New American Standard, also derived from the Minority text says: 15. and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If I quote the Living Bible, also the Minority text, what does it say?: 15. From now on you and the woman will be enemies, as will your offspring and hers. You will strike his heel, but he will crush your head.''

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

The Revised Standard, again that relies on the Minority text has this to say: 15. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The New American Bible, the Minority text says: 15. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

The New Revised Standard, the Minority text , says: “15. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

Youngs Bible, says:
15. and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee - the head, and thou dost bruise him - the heel.'

Darby’s Bible, [b]that uses the Majority text and the Minority text[/b] has this to say:
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.

New Living Testament, the [b] Minority Text[/b] has this to say:
15. From now on, you and the woman will be enemies, and your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

The Literal bible, with Vertical Strongs, has this to say:
15.
|0342| And hostility |7896| I will put |0996| between you
|0996| and |0802| the woman, |0996| and between
|2233| your seed |0996| and |2233| her seed.
|1931| He |7779| will bruise you {in} |7218| the head,
|0859| and you |7779| will bruise him |6119| {at} the
heel. |0413| to

The World English Bible:
“3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.”

[b][color=000000]The teaching of the coming Messiah, the seed of the woman is missing. Why? [/color][/b]

In conclusion, it is obvious that the first Prophecy of the coming Messiah is found in the Majority text, the Authorized Version, the King James. In the Minority text we find the problem. In some versions the Prophecy can be found in it’s entirety, and in most it is missing.

Since this is the first, and most important prophecy, that is recorded in the Majority text every time, shouldn't we rely on the Majority text, the KJV for study and internalization (bringing God's Word from our heads to our hearts) of God's Word?

Sincerely,

Walter

Hello, King Jimmy:

Perhaps another way to word it would be this way: The newer Bible versions, produced since 1881 have not all accurately translated the Hebrew Text in the Old Testament in regards to the first major prophecy, given by God, about the “Seed of the woman.” In fact,[b] only a very limited number of the Newer Versions,[/b] created by the Textural Critics and Bible Scholars who have created these newer versions, have been able to translate Genesis 3:15 correctly.

I do understand that the newer Bible versions, produced since 1881 have all relied on the Minority text when presenting the New Testament.

I find it interesting, that the same men who had trouble understanding that God was referring to the “seed of the woman”, because, of course women do not have seed, and because of their “eclectic” approach to Scripture, found it necessary to choose the variant text that went along with their human understanding about the seed being the “progeny” of Eve. It had nothing to do with Eve, and everything to do with the supernatural, all powerful, all knowing God of the Universe who is in the business of creating miracles. The miracle in this case is that a virgin would conceive, and not be impregnated in the natural way by a man, but in the supernatural way by the Holy Ghost. And the man born this way, [b]The Seed of the Woman[/b], would be the God Man, Christ Jesus, who would live a sinless life, be persecuted for my sins, placed on cross to die for my sins, and resurrect from the dead, in order that all who believe in Him are saved from their sin, brought upon us by Adam, and will live with Him forever in new, glorified resurrected bodies, just like His own.

That is reason enough for me to question everything else the “eclectics” have to say.

Sincerely,

Walter

KingJimmy wrote:
walter,

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, as it is not meant to be, but are you deliberately being ignorant? The "majority" and "minority" text has nothing to do with the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures, even in the newer translations, come mostly from the Masoretic texts. The issue of "majority" vs "minority" texts has only to do entirely with the Greek manuscripts, not the Hebrew.

This has already been mentioned several times on this thread. It seems you simply do not care what anybody has to say.

King Jimmy said this about Martin Luther:

“Should we damn Martin Luther's works just because he was far off on many things?

My response:

We all know that men don't have the same grasp of Scripture, and all men have predjudices. One of Luther’s predjudices was his hatred of the Jews, God’s chosen people. However, when he went about in his translation of both the New Testament and later the Old Testament,[b] he did not change the Scripture to go along with this hatred.[/b] He had the ultimate love and respect for God's Word, and never added to it, nor subtracted from it.

We are all commanded to do just that. In the last Book of His Bible, the Lord Jesus Commands us:

"18. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19. and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 20. He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

Luther's Mantra was Solo Scriptura:

Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a formal principle of Protestants today. It may be contrasted with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Oriental Orthodox teaching in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the church, drawing on the "Deposit of Faith" and based on what they consider to be Sacred Tradition, of which the Bible is a subset.

Only men like these (Martin Luther) should be allowed to even be involved with this type of work.

Sincerely,

Walter

KingJimmy wrote:

Perhaps another way to word it would be this way: The newer Bible versions, produced since 1881 have not all accurately translated the Hebrew Text

There is a world of difference between the output of one's translation of a text, and the text itself. Being that I don't know Hebrew, although aware of some controversies (e.g. Isaiah 7), I am not really in a place to judge the quality of the the translations of other men.

However, be that as it may, being aware of those controversies, I can definitely see how men might conclude some things that they have about why they translated a word one way or another. Indeed, some translators seem to possibly have made some errors. Did they do so on purpose? Perhaps? Being that most of these men are dead, such a thing is difficult to conclude without reading any written record as to why they translated something the way they did. The "better" scholarly commentaries are often a good source of information on controversies over translation issues, as they often wrangle with the original texts themselves, and provide their own translations.

Whatever the case, even if they made a poor translation, that doesn't mean their text was poor. Nor is there any "guilt by association" here. Just because one translation wasn't very good doesn't automatically make other translations from the same texts bad. In regard to textual criticism and translation, each decision regarding a variant and each translation of each verse must stand on its own merits for each decision. Overall, one might consider each version excellent/great/good/acceptable/bad/just plain wrong.

That is reason enough for me to question everything else the “eclectics” have to say.

Such is a dangerous and unfair view to have. "Eclectics" are found in the most horrible liberal camps, but they are also found in godly conservative evangelical camps. Furthermore, just because they may or may not understand all the teachings of Scripture doesn't mean we should toss their works away. Indeed, men could be outstanding translators and textual critics, but poor theologians. Should we damn Martin Luther's works just because he was far off on many things?

Changes to the King James Bible

ccchhhrrriiisss had this to say:

"It was revised quite a few times between 1611 (when it was first published) and the current edition finished in about 1850. This is in addition to the extensive revisions made during the translation process. Don’t forget: The original 1611 KJV even contained the books of the Apocrypha! Subsequent editions removed them at the bequest of the authorities of the Church of England"
--------------------

I continue to hear this statement, made over and over. Is it a true statement? Is it a fact? Or is it just a statement made, that twists the facts to a pre-determined end? What exactly are all of these changes that Ccchhhrrriiisss has mentioned, and continues to mention? Are they substantial changes that[b] affect Doctrine,[/b] or are they[b] cosmetic, and grammar changes, that had nothing to do with Doctrine?[/b]. I hold the second point of view,[b] based upon fact, not supposition and innuendo.[/b]

The following information was derived from the following reference material:

The King James Version of 1611, The Myth of Early Revisions, David F. Reagan, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Temple, Knoxville, TN. ). Dr. Reagan utilized data from F.H.A. Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 1884. Dr. Scrivener was a conservative and member of the 1881 Revision Committee.
Also McClure, The Translators Revived, op. cit., p. 194 -200
Herman C. Hoskier, "The Authorized Version of 1611", Bibliotheca Sacra 68; (October, 1911), pp. 693-704.

It is continuously asserted that the King James Bible has been revised four times in the past. [b]This is offered as proof that no valid objection should be forthcoming to continued revision and endless new translations.[/b] The reality is that there have been several editions of the text[b] but no revisions have been made.[/b]

The printing press was invented in 1450 by the German Johann Gutenburg. Although this was 161 years before the 1611 KJB edition, the printing apparatus had changed very little. The type was set by hand, one character at a time. The process was quite slow, difficult and tedious, hence frequent errors resulted in all publications.

The first edition of the King James also contained such printing errors,[b] but these were not the kind of textual alterations which freely occur in modern versions. [/b] These were obvious and simple printing oversights. The second printing published later in 1611 corrected about 100 such textual differences.

[b]Of course, such errors do not render a Bible or any other book worthless – they merely need to be removed in subsequent editions.[/b]

The first two alleged "major revisions" of the King James Bible took place within 27 years of its first edition. The 1629 edition was but a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Only nine years later, a second so-called major revision was distributed. [b] Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, two of the original translators, participated in both of these undertakings. However F.H.A. Scrivener describes this as merely being a reinstatement of words, phrases and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers – thereby amending these errors. Thus, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJB were completed by 1638. Hence, we find that instead of two major revisions, there were two stages of a single process – namely, the purging of early printing errors. Similarly, the last two "major revisions" were but two stages in standardizing the spelling.[b] Very few textual corrections were necessary for these two publications (1762 and 1769). [b]Thus, the term "four major revisions" is a misnomer, and as such, is grossly misleading.[/b]

[b][color=0033FF]Much is made by the detractors of the KJB claiming as many as 75,000 changes in the King James Bible since 1611. At first glance, this does seem to be a problem. However, before citing examples, the reader is enjoined to keep in mind that the real issue at hand is that of final authority.[/color][/b]

[b]Further, the reader needs to be appraised that the original King James Bible is very different in appearance than those published today. Were one to go to a museum to view an original, he would find that he could hardly read it. Indeed, many of the words that were legible would be strangely spelled. The changes fall into three categories (1) printing changes, (2) spelling changes and (3) textual changes.[/b]

The printing type used for the original edition was Gothic. The type style or font that the reader has before him and that with which he is familiar is Roman. Although the Roman type style originated fairly early, Gothic had been the predominate form for many years in most European countries. The printers of the original King James chose the Gothic because of its beauty and eloquence. Several of the letters are noticeably different in appearance.
The Gothic "s" looks like the Roman "s" when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word, but when it occurs as a lower case "s" at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks similar to our "f". Over 30,000 changes were of this kind, as in Mofes to Moses. The Gothic "v" looks like a Roman "u" and vice versa. Now we can see why our "w" is called a "double-u" rather than "double-v". The "v" was changed to "u" 45,281 times (i.e., Dauid to David, wiues to wives, vnto to unto). The Gothic "j" looks like our "i", hence Iudah becomes Judah, iudged to judged etc. Remember, these are not spelling changes – they are simply type style changes. These changes reflect a large percentage of the "thousands" of alterations in the KJB, but obviously such modifications do not corrupt or in any way harm the actual text.

[b]As to the changes in orthography (spelling),[/b] most histories date the beginning of Modern English around 1500. Hence, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present day English had already been firmly established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was largely phonetic as standards had not yet been established. Even among the well educated, an author would spell the same word several different ways, often in the same book and even on the same page. It was not until the eighteenth century that spelling began to be uniform. Therefore, in the last half of that century, the spelling of the 1611 KJB was standardized.

Over 30,000 additional changes involved dropping the final "e" off of the old English spellings such as – sunne to sun, fowle to fowl, goe to go, shee to she, nowe to now etc. Double vowels and double consonants were more common such as mee to me and ranne to ran. [b]Other changes included ftarres to stars, ynough to enough, moneth to month, yeeres to years grinne to grin; flying to fleeing; neezed to sneezed etc.[/b]

[b][color=000000]These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called "thousands" of alterations since 1611. Obviously none of them can be truly said to in any way alter the text. Thus they cannot honestly be compared with the thousands of actual textual changes which blatantly appear in the modern versions. The significance of this simply cannot be overstated.[/color][/b]

As to the actual textual differences between the 1611 edition and our present editions, there are some variations – but they are not of the magnitude of a revision. Rather, they are merely the correction of early obvious printing errors. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. This may be readily ascertained by (a) the character of the changes; (b) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible; and (c) the time the changes were made.
In the first printing, words were occasionally inverted. A plural may have been in singular form or vice versa, and at times a word was mis-written for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was inadvertently omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not portray the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations.

Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener compiled a list of the variations between the 1611 edition and later printings. A random sampling giving the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages is depicted in the following chart.

1611 Reading\t Present Reading\tCorrected
1 this thing\t this thing also\t1638
2 shalt have remained ye shall have remained 1762
3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik\tof Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik\t1762
4 requite good\t requite me good\t1629
5 this book of the Covenant\tthe book of this Covenant\t1629
6chief rulers\tchief ruler\t1629
7And Parbar\tAt Parbar\t1638
8For this cause And for this cause\t1638
9 For the king had appointed\tfor so the king had appointed\t1629
10Seek good\tseek God\t1617
11The cormorant\tBut the cormorant\t1629
12returned\tturned\t1769
13a fiery furnace\ta burning fiery furnace\t1638
14The crowned\tThy crowned\t1629
15thy right doeth thy right hand doeth\t1613
16\tthe wayes side\tthe way side\t1743
17 which was a Jew\twhich was a Jewess\t1629
18 the city\tthe city of the Damascenes\t1629
19 now and ever\tboth now and ever\t1638
20 which was of our fathers\twhich was our fathers\t1616
----------------------
Only one --(#10) has serious doctrinal implications. Here, the 1611 reading of Psalm 69:32 has "seek good" where the correct reading should be "seek God". But the spelling similarity of the words "good" and "God" reveal the problem to be merely that of a weary type setter's having misread the proof. This error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in 1617, only six years after the first printing and well before the first so-called 1629 revision. [b] Dr. David Reagan reports (p. 11) that his examination of Scrivener's entire appendix resulted in this as being the only doctrinal variation.[/b]

[b][color=990000]Both the character and the frequency of the changes disclose them to be but printing oversights. Yet scholars, even fundamental conservatives, refer to the thousands of modifications made to the 1611 over the years as if they were on a par with the changes in recent versions. They are not. [/color][/b]

[b]Again, the overwhelming majority is either type style or spelling changes. The few that remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made due to the tedious nature involved in the early printing process[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

[b][color=CC0000]P.S. I truly apologize for not researching the truth about Luther. I heard that many years ago, and have heard it repeated many times, but never checked it out for sure. Now I know the truth, and I ask the Lord for forgiveness.[/color][/b]

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi rbanks…

Just a few responses to your post:

1.\t The King James Version isn’t copyrighted here in the United States. However, I believe that it is copyrighted in the United Kingdom.

2.\tThe King James Version of the Bible is not a word-for-word translation. Like anything that is translated from one language into another, the Bible translators needed to consider which words would be best representative of the languages from which they came. This can be a tricky thing…and we already know that the translators of the KJV were required to use the Bishop’s Bible as a basis (along with some of the traditional historical language that supported the hierarchy of the Church of England). They also had to align the translated words to the vernacular structure of the early 17th Century English language.

3.\tFinally, the King James Version is not perfect. It was revised quite a few times between 1611 (when it was first published) and the current edition finished in about 1850. This is in addition to the extensive revisions made during the translation process. Don’t forget: The original 1611 KJV even contained the books of the Apocrypha! Subsequent editions removed them at the bequest of the authorities of the Church of England.

----------------------------------
---------------------------

:-)

Neither. The new translations are these abominable scriptures that add and take away from the Word of GOD!

Revelation 22:18-19:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

_________________________________________________

We are trying to update the Word of God because we are so WEAK that we have to follow the WORLD. TO agree with the world is to agree with the devil-AN ENEMY OF THE MOST HIGH GOD!
This goes against the HOLY COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD GOD!

[10]Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. We are envious of Jesus Christ, apostles, and prophets that is why we use OUR interpretations ONLY or MOSTLY.

Proverbs 20:23 says “Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.” Proverbs 20:10 says, “Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.” Deuteronomy 25:13 says “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.” WE have made a BIG of OUR INTERPRETATION/TRANSLATION AND a small of the specific, verbatim Word of God. Interpretations and notes are HELPFUL. Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him”. We will do anything to have a friend-not for Christ and His purpose-for ourselves. We want friends so that we can be the standard and inform them of our OWN BIBLE. We say, “This is what the Lord is saying. This is what the Bible is saying.” Since the Word is God, we are saying that the way we say it is the Bible when we generalize things and change it around. We are not as specific as GOD and we are constantly changing; therefore, we FAIL with walking in the way of our own interpretation like Cain. It’s like going to God and saying, “I like the way I say it better”. Just like the translations do with stripping away the scriptures and Words. Our OWN BIBLE is filled with our experiences, ideas, opinions, life stories, et al. When our website does not have scriptures, and interpretations divided rightly or correctly, we are making our OWN Bible with our ideas to be known and popular. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4). When we are to be DYING DAILY, we think that we should live by our thoughts and words. HIS ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts. We should live by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD every day.

We are to search the scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). Then, we change the Word around into OUR words as if it is better. We say it in OUR words JUST LIKE THE TRANSLATIONS and change everything. Just changing a comma, adding, or taking away just ONE WORD or LETTER can change the entire meaning, which makes it false! People will not be able to understand! Some specific examples include: “Romans 8:1 says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. Some translations and interpretations take out, “but after the Spirit”. If we read this without, “but after the Spirit”, we will think that the Word should NEVER condemn us. This scripture implies that there is NO condemnation for those that WALK AFTER THE SPIRIT, the THINGS of the Spirit. Therefore, those that WALK AFTER THE FLESH SHALL BE CONDEMNED. The Word of God shows that the HOLY SPIRIT BEARS WITNESS OF JESUS CHRIST, or THE WORD.

Luke 23:43 says, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”. “In the King James Version the comma is placed before the word ‘today’ makes it seem that Jesus Christ told the sinner that he would be in Paradise that same day. This means that Jesus would have to come into his Kingdom, and that Jesus, as well as the sinner, would be in paradise on that same day that he was talking about. In addition, the Jehovah’s Witness false version of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, makes Luke 23:43 say this, “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” The scripture is used to support own the heresies. The HOLY SCRIPTURES IS HOLY AND THE SCRIPTURES IS GOD (WORD OF GOD) [JOHN 1].

DID GOD GIVE US HALF OF HIMSELF OR HALF A GOSPEL? THAT IS WHY WE SO PRIDEFULLY THINK THAT PEOPLE HAVE SPECIAL MESSAGES TO PREACH. PEOPLE MUST PREACH THE ENTIRE GOSPEL WITHOUT DIVERS WEIGHTS, FALSE BALANCES AND PUTTING WEIGHTS ON A CERTAIN SUBJECT. HOW CAN ANYONE BE SAVED WITH ONE PERSON ONLY FOCUSING ON TRYING TO REACH MATURE PEOPLE? PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH NEED TO HEAR THE GOSPEL TOO AND EVEN MORE BECAUSE WE CAN CONVINCE OURSELVES THAT WE ARE SAVED AND GO STRAIGHT TO HELL. When this individual rebuke the scripture, it is still wrong. The scripture truly says, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” This makes a huge difference. This gives the heretics the idea that Jesus Christ went to hell because Christ just said it, and did not mean that the sinner would be in heaven that very day. This gives people the idea that Christ said it yesterday, but over time, the sinner would enter into paradise We are so ENVIOUS that we want to create our own little Bible and cut away the specific, verbatim WORD OF GOD.

We ACT and SAY it is Christian but it is mostly about US and going forth with our plans. The focus is NOT upon prayer, Word, revival, hell, Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, et al. The focus is on what WE CAN DO and our goodness-NOT what HE CAN DO to make us holy and bring souls to Him. Therefore, relationships talk positively about what we want and expect of man NOT God. Let us WAKE UP!!!!! Romans 13:12 says, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light”. We must cast off the works of gross darkness, the sin-let GOD TAKE AWAY OUR SINS! We need to be clothed in the armor of the Lord as Ephesians 6 indicates!

10+ REASONS WHY PEOPLE OF PRIDE CUT AWAY SCRIPTURES LIKE BAAL

And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

Romans 13:14
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

We are to have the LORD Jesus Christ, the blood, as a covering on our heart, mind, body, and soul. Jesus Christ is EVERY Word out of the mouth of God. Therefore, the specific, verbatim Word of God should be in our conversations (i.e. songs, posts, sermons, talks, discussions). SINCE OUR GOD IS HOLY, OUR CONVERSATIONS MUST BE HOLY.

First Commandment
(1)\t“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” (Mark 12:30).
a.\tThe strength that GOD gives you when we recognize the Holiness of God and the wickedness, deceitfulness of our heart/sin. When we see the Holiness of God, we see the HOLINESS of His Word, the Bible, NOR walking in the way we interpret things as Cain. We are not supposed to say things to gain the approval and acceptance of men (Acts 10:29). We make sure that people will only listen to OUR interpretation and are not able to think, or question OUR salvation or the salvation of others. The Word of God is our standard, not the pope, Catholics, church growth by the thousands, outward shows, looks, denominations, or Protestants. Matthew 4:4 says, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It IS by the fruits of the lips and actions that we DO know people¸ BUT this does not show that they are spiritual. For instance, it is by the WHOLENESS of the counsel of the LORD GOD-if there are things added or taken away from the Word of God-it is not holy. Christ DID not die so that we can gain earthly things, social acceptance, and relationships. We are to think of ourselves as a child. Job 1:21 says, "And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." When WE came into this world, we had NO KNOWLEDGE, NO CLOTHES, and NO POSSESSIONS-NOTHING. EVERYTHING we do is learned; therefore, this does not mean that people are SMARTER than the other or knows more. EVERYTHING we have learned is from the word of GOD and it’s in His name if we are studying it; therefore, it must be quoted. False prophets and false doctrines ARGUE against the Word of God and DENY Jesus Christ! Since it is of the flesh, carnal, and friends with the world/satan, these doctrines OPPOSE the Spirit. We literally are WARRING against God. The Bible does not say that we are to love God to GET, NOR DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT WE ARE TO SEEK FOR THESE THINGS. God is our FIRST love. He must overcome the bondages and the ‘fleshly’ side of our lives.
b.\tSINCE there are not three types of loves, there is only God (love) and satan (hate), we can look at several different carnal types of love. OUR interpretations can be more man-centered. Eros-- is a man-centered, self -centered love. In our imagery, it is like an arrow with a hook in it, for it is an ultimate intent is to benefit itself, to draw something back to itself, to capture something for itself. Sometimes what we think is love is really our own selfish Eros agenda. Nomos-- is legalism. This hypocrisy is love with a hook in it, for it is selfish-- it is a form of manipulation which controls using the rules to my own advantage? This is saying and not doing. As Jeroboam, we make sure people follow our laws so that we would not be killed or gotten rid of. This is still a form of Eros (man-centered love).
c.\tGod’s love is perfect, NOT ours. That means EVERY word is perfect. Agape--is love that is focused on God because He is God. It has no hook in it, for it is given with no expectations of a reward.
___________________________
The Second Commandment
(2) “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39). We focus and argue about loving ourselves MORE than loving God. We think that we MUST do this first to do something for God-this is NOT CHRISTIAN! We love the way we interpret things in OUR thoughts and words.
___________________________
The Ten Commandments (EXODUS 20)
1.\t2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. When we are walking or writing in the way of our own interpretations and train others with such things, we are making ourselves as god. We are saying that the American or cultural way that we say it is right! We are fashioning the WORD OF GOD according to our culture. It becomes godless because the specific word of GOD is not in it, just a rewriting of the Word! We are saying, “Come read our bible (interpretation). We are trying to create a safe place so that no one will argue with us! We pick on people such as Wicca/psychic/occult, a god of Science/Education, Buddha, Muhammad, Allah, Joseph Smith of the Mormons, Joseph & Mary of the Catholic Church & Unity Church; SATAN/LUCIFER. Word-Faith Movement, Charismatic Movement, Restoration movements, Latter Rain, Third Wave, Toronto "Blessing", Vineyard, Brownsville "Outpouring", Word of Faith, New Apostolic Reformation, World Gathering on Indigenous People, Manifest Sons of God, Seeker Friendly, Church Growth, Emerging Church, YWAM, Toronto blessing, Pensacola Revival (Brownsville), Promise Keepers, The Campus Revivals, The March for Jesus, The search for historical roots (Celtic, Hebraic, etc) and we are doing the same thing! If no one else remembers us, we are to remember GOD. This shows a childlike dependence upon the Word. Our conversations should be holy and not just a way to show off the knowledge of another.
__________________________
2.\t4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Our words become empty because we NEED the Word of God. We do not feel as if we have to run and do something without even being really trained by the Word of God. The WORD OF GOD is what convicts us and brings us to brokenness and contriteness. What would happen if we change the Ten Commandments that convict us of sin? This is the same thing that these translations/interpretations do! If WE ARE BEING TRAINED WITH THE WORD OF GOD IN STUDY, WHY ARE WE NOT DOING IT IN OUR CONVERSATIONS (I.E. SERMONS, POSTS, TALKING) TO OTHERS? DO THEY NOT NEED THE SAME TRAINING? THE ONLY ONE THAT WE ARE TRAINED BY IS GOD. PEOPLE CANNOT BE SAVED WITHOUT THE WORD OF GOD. In fact, in Rome, people leave out the second commandment; connect the reason to the first commandment. Therefore, the 3rd commandment is called the 2nd; the 4th is called the 3rd commandment. Then, to have a 10th commandment, the 10th commandment is divided into two. We do the same thing today as we commit two evils. Jeremiah 2:13 says, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water”.
___________________________
3. 7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. The Word of God can only be understood in the wholeness and seeing even the broadness of our wickedness! We tend to only focus on one aspect instead of conversing about what He has spoken about throughout the entire Bible. Just like we think that women can only talk about a certain thing, we would understand if we are entering into heaven as a big body and God checks off those who God is NOT going to excuse women at judgment day: “Well, woman, you are a sodomite, adulterer and liar but because you are a WOMAN, you can enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Neither is He going to say, “Well, since you are not allowed to teach and preach the gospel to EVERY creature, you can enter into the kingdom of heaven even though you did not obey me or my words.” It would be right if husband AND wife goes into heaven together and God says, “Well, men since you have a complete separate responsibility, you can go into heaven. Since you are united, both of you can go into heaven because the man did his part by being the preacher and the women did her part for being silent”. We are not married in heaven so that is NOT correct! Matthew 22:30 says, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. Each person is judged individually! Shouldn’t it be the same in the pulpit as in going around evangelizing (preaching the gospel)?
___________________________
4.\t 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. We can be denying HIM and upholding our SELF interpretations/translations!
___________________________
5. 12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (We are NOT honoring God by using His Word specifically. If God wanted our interpretations/translations, it would be in there. All we are doing is WRITING NOTES and giving directions. That’s it! We have tried to claim our rights to say work! Isaiah 30:8 says, “Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:” We are just mail carriers; we are not to try to take the place of Christ by showing the importance of our own words. WE could not think up such things for ourselves for an entire lifetime. All the false prophets and messiahs have tried and have failed miserably. IT IS NOT OUR WORDS, nor did WE THINK IT UP. As John the Baptist was a forerunner to Christ, WE are to be preparing the way for Christ, NOT trying to be or take the place of Christ. As lawyers, we only defend the WORD and point people to Christ. We are more like mail carriers that just send the Word around whole without taking anything our or only giving people half-letters.

___________________________
6.\t 13Thou shalt not kill. (This just shows a hatred for yourself, God, and hate others. We are PLAYING GOD. It does not matter IF WE ARE DOING it based on the Word, the false prophets use things based on the Word like Kim Clement. Due to such imbalances, divers weights, and false balances, much of it is wrong. . Thinking that we are standing on the Word of God, we stand to worship before one god. We do not feel as if we have to run and do something without even being really trained by the Word of God. Psalm 106:29 says, “Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them” and Psalm 106:39 says, “Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions”. The golden calves were an invention just as Aaron creates a golden calf with the jewelry of the people. Since it seems as if Moses was not coming, as we do when we think that Jesus Christ has delayed His coming, we gather all the covenants, ideas, as one to make a calf. This is the melting pot of everyone’s invented thoughts, which is exactly what the school of the prophets is. The schools of the prophets are those that try to prophesy and those that use the Word of God. We use all the carnal, earthen things to create our images.
___________________________
7.\t14Thou shalt not commit adultery. We are LUSTING after receiving money (i.e. attention, compliments, credit), which is worldliness. The way we write the words are conformed to the world which is adultery and an enemy against GOD. The way we write it isn’t using EVERY WORD spoken by God. It is befriending the image of the world or a goal of peace and safety (pride) that leads to destruction. WE want to use such things to get the world to understand. We do not need to agree with the world to help people; we can rebuke the word. The only way we can truly rebuke is with the Word of God, not OUR interpretations. EVERYTHING links back to EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not OUR mouth. The Word of God is wonderful on its own although interpretations are important. James 4:4 says, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”.
___________________________
8.\t 15Thou shalt not steal. WE are stealing precious time from the Word of God from ourselves and others. The WORD OF GOD should be the source or the person to go to NOT SELF. We just want to be the “special” person that everyone goes to. We think that we deserve the attention and credit for writing up a bunch of notes.
___________________________
9. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. As we add and take away from the Word, we end up LYING. WE ARE HYPOCRITES because we are saying HIS WORD and CLAIMING HIS NAME BUT WE ARE SO ASHAMED TO EVEN USE AN ENTIRE SCRIPTURE. We must make sure that the posts are scripture based and are in context with the wholeness of Scripture. Either we choose Life (scripture, King James Version Bible) or death (words said based on the way our culture interprets it or words different from the bible). Therefore, it becomes sin. Matthew 4:4 says something quite clearly that WE LIVE by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. We can not just use words that we interpret in OUR OWN WAY. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". ALL SCRIPTURE (not OUR words or interpretations that eliminate a lot of things) is used for reproof and correction. This is walking in our way in our thoughts, words, and deeds. We are known by the fruits of our lips. To use our words is to say that OUR interpretation is INSPIRED by God and HIS is not. Some people MAY be busy with family but it is better to write it WITH scriptures than not too. If we can prove that we created the world and everything, we can surely use our own words and create our own bibles with OUR experiences. However, we have not created ANYTHING including souls, therefore, we stick to the Word or do not use it at all. 2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth". We are trying to prove GOD'S word, not a preacher or a leader's opinion. It falls into the same category as the "false" prophets or those that we righteously judge. Just as they add and take away from the Word, our interpretations DO THE SAME. When we use other words and experiences other than HIS, it shows our pride and our lack of dependence on God. Luke 9:1 says, "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases". How can we righteously judge others without the JUDGE? Why not use the true authority because we are not the true authority! We cannot call anyone to avoid and mark those who speak those things are contrary to the Word of God WITHOUT the WORD OF GOD! This makes us unarmed! Since Christ came not to bring peace, He came to bring a sword-the SWORD of the SPIRIT is the WORD of GOD and the TWO-edged sword. Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart". When we use thing sin our own words or based on the lukewarm culture of America, we are trying to be judge. If God wants it that way, He would have done it but He did not. The GODHEAD has authority over all devils, unclean spirits and can cure diseases. We can see that there is much "diseases" among those who call themselves "Christians" and "saved by grace". Why are we not using EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God so that GOD can cure the diseases? Otherwise, if we use a different weapon, we are just saying such things to prop ourselves up. When we use the HUMBLE Christ's Word, all heaven and earth would shake not our modernized words and phrases. Our modernized words and phrases add and take away from the Word of God. John 5:39 says, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me". Jesus Christ (the Word) is our support in the beginning, and end. Everything! Proverbs 16:4 says that "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil". He made our posts, words, clothes, EVERY part of the body, our lips (which makes kissing a sin), for HIMSELF. Our conversation MUST be holy! AMEN! I have been guilty of such things as well, so it's not only you. I still have to repent because it is truly my fault for doing it. God is ALWAYS right. Our words SHOULD be used for Him BUT as notes or byproducts. His ENTIRE word should be the beginning and end or it is pride.
___________________________
10. 17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. We are envious of Jesus Christ, apostles, and prophets that is why we use OUR interpretations ONLY or MOSTLY. Proverbs 20:23 says “Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.” Proverbs 20:10 says, “Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.” Deuteronomy 25:13 says “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.” WE have made a BIG of OUR INTERPRETATION/TRANSLATION AND a small of the specific, verbatim Word of God. Interpretations and notes are HELPFUL. Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him”. We will do anything to have a friend-not for Christ and His purpose-for ourselves. We want friends so that we can be the standard and inform them of our OWN BIBLE. We say, “This is what the Lord is saying. This is what the Bible is saying.” Since the Word is God, we are saying that the way we say it is the Bible when we generalize things and change it around. We are not as specific as GOD and we are constantly changing; therefore, we FAIL with walking in the way of our own interpretation like Cain. It’s like going to God and saying, “I like the way I say it better”. Just like the translations do with stripping away the scriptures and Words. Our OWN BIBLE is filled with our experiences, ideas, opinions, life stories, et al. When our website does not have scriptures, and interpretations divided rightly or correctly, we are making our OWN Bible with our ideas to be known and popular. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4). When we are to be DYING DAILY, we think that we should live by our thoughts and words. HIS ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts. We should live by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD every day. We are to search the scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). Then, we change the Word around into OUR words as if it is better. We say it in OUR words JUST LIKE THE TRANSLATIONS and change everything. Just changing a comma, adding, or taking away just ONE WORD or LETTER can change the entire meaning, which makes it false! People will not be able to understand! Some specific examples include: “Romans 8:1 says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. Some translations and interpretations take out, “but after the Spirit”. If we read this without, “but after the Spirit”, we will think that the Word should NEVER condemn us. This scripture implies that there is NO condemnation for those that WALK AFTER THE SPIRIT, the THINGS of the Spirit. Therefore, those that WALK AFTER THE FLESH SHALL BE CONDEMNED. The Word of God shows that the HOLY SPIRIT BEARS WITNESS OF JESUS CHRIST, or THE WORD. Luke 23:43 says, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”. “In the King James Version the comma is placed before the word ‘today’ makes it seem that Jesus Christ told the sinner that he would be in Paradise that same day. This means that Jesus would have to come into his Kingdom, and that Jesus, as well as the sinner, would be in paradise on that same day that he was talking about. In addition, the Jehovah’s Witness false version of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, makes Luke 23:43 say this, “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” The scripture is used to support own the heresies. The HOLY SCRIPTURES IS HOLY AND THE SCRIPTURES IS GOD (WORD OF GOD) [JOHN 1]. DID GOD GIVE US HALF OF HIMSELF OR HALF A GOSPEL? THAT IS WHY WE SO PRIDEFULLY THINK THAT PEOPLE HAVE SPECIAL MESSAGES TO PREACH. PEOPLE MUST PREACH THE ENTIRE GOSPEL WITHOUT DIVERS WEIGHTS, FALSE BALANCES AND PUTTING WEIGHTS ON A CERTAIN SUBJECT. HOW CAN ANYONE BE SAVED WITH ONE PERSON ONLY FOCUSING ON TRYING TO REACH MATURE PEOPLE? PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH NEED TO HEAR THE GOSPEL TOO AND EVEN MORE BECAUSE WE CAN CONVINCE OURSELVES THAT WE ARE SAVED AND GO STRAIGHT TO HELL. When this individual rebuke the scripture, it is still wrong. The scripture truly says, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” This makes a huge difference. This gives the heretics the idea that Jesus Christ went to hell because Christ just said it, and did not mean that the sinner would be in heaven that very day. This gives people the idea that Christ said it yesterday, but over time, the sinner would enter into paradise We are so ENVIOUS that we want to create our own little Bible and cut away the specific, verbatim WORD OF GOD. We ACT and SAY it is Christian but it is mostly about US and going forth with our plans. The focus is NOT upon prayer, Word, revival, hell, Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, et al. The focus is on what WE CAN DO and our goodness-NOT what HE CAN DO to make us holy and bring souls to Him. Therefore, relationships talk positively about what we want and expect of man NOT God. Let us WAKE UP!!!!! Romans 13:12 says, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light”. We must cast off the works of gross darkness, the sin-let GOD TAKE AWAY OUR SINS! We need to be clothed in the armor of the Lord as Ephesians 6 indicates!

Jesus Christ did not die on the cross that we cut HIM away, kill the gospel and put off the Lord Jesus Christ!

We need to STOP tearing away the WORD OF GOD and put on the Lord Jesus Christ!

Romans 13:14
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Well, here we are again. Those that support the Minority text (ccchhhrrriiisss & King Jimmy), and those of us who reject the Minority text.

The Minority text was used to create the Catholic Bible. yet those that support it, continue with their mantra--Both texts are the word of God! (they tell us). But yet, they believe that neither Bibles are [b]"God breathed[/b], and both are full of errors.

Is there commonality between their text and the Majority text, the text used to create the Protestant Bible that was responsible for the Reformation, which ended Catholicism’s stranglehold on much of the known world, and allowed the common man to actually read the Word of God, that had been kept from them by the Pope, his Priests and his armies?

How can both texts be the[b] Word of God, and of equal value? [/b]

[b][color=000000]There is a tremendous difference between them because of the “notes” that appear throughout the minority text of all the newer versions that have printed and copyrited since 1888.[/color][/b]

Mark 11:25-26
King James Bible
24. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
25. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
26. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mark 11:25-26
NIV
25. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
26. Missing (See note below)

[b]Note at bottom of page, IN MINISCULE PRINT “26. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.”[/b]

There is no reason given why this verse is deleted, and why it appears in it’s entirety at the bottom of the page, [b] in MINISCULE PRINT[/b].

The King James provides the requirement, plain and clear---We must forgive others if we expect our Father in heaven to forgive our own sins. What the NIV does, is delete this important verse out of the requirement, and then, without any reason, print it in very small print at the bottom of the page.[b] This deletion by the NIV of Mark 26 changes Bible Doctrine, because of the confusion it creates in anyone who reads it, especially if they have never read the King James Bible.[/b]

Mark 15:28
King James Bible
28.\tAnd the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors

Mark 15:28
NIV

28. Missing – Deleted

29.\tHowever, if you go to the bottom of the page, we find IN MINISCULE PRINT “28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which says, And he was numbered with the lawless ones.” (Isaiah 53:12)

Why has this been ripped out of the Scripture by the "textural critics" and "Bible Scholars" responsible for creating the NIV, with no reason given. This verse proclaims that [b]Jesus Christ death on the cross is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12. Instead, we read what is shown above, at the bottom of the page and VERY, VERY SMALL PRINT.

Are we reading the same Bible? Is one as good as the other, or is one superior to the other?[/b]

When I go to Matthew 6:9-13 in the King James Bible I read the following:
9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11. Give us this day our daily bread.
12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: [b]For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.[/b]

However, when I open the NIV, or any of the other newer Translations that have been created since 1881, I find the following:
9. "Therefore, this is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.
10. May your kingdom come. May your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11. Give us today our daily bread,
12. and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us.
13.[b] And never bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

To begin with, the Amen is missing from the NIV, so we can see that the prayer is not complete[/b]

If I look at the note, at the bottom of the page of the NIV, I find this in regards to the missing Scripture, that is found in the King James Bible:
:13 ”or from evil:[b] some late manuscript[/b]s one, / “for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, Amen.

So, what this is telling me in the NIV, is that someone added this later, in[b] “late manuscripts”, [/b]and THAT what I am reading in the King James, the Authorized version of the Protestant Bible is suspect, and probably not even the words of Christ Jesus.

If I look at the prior page of my bible, in Matthew 5:44
I find this in the[b] King James Bible, the Authorized Version of the Protestant Church:[/b]

“44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

[b]Switching to the NIV, I find only this:[/b]
43. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love your neighbor, and hate your enemy:
44. but I tell you, love your enemies ,and pray for those that persecute you;

In the [b]tiny notes, at the bottom of the page,[/b] of the NIV I find the following:
“44. Some late manuscripts “enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you.”

Again, the implication is that the “older manuscripts” are closer to the time of Christ, and these manuscripts of the NIV vary from the manuscripts used to create the Protestant Bible, which they are saying is a "later manuscript".

Here is another example of the vast difference between the two—the King James and the NIV:

King James- Matthew 8:1-4
1. When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
2. And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

NIV-Matthew 8:1-4
1. When he (not He) came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him.
2. A man with leprosy[b] (a-see note below)[/b] came and knelt before him (not Him), "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
3. Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing” he (not He) said”. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cured (see Note B) of his leprosy. 4. Then Jesus said to him, "See t that you don't tell anyone. But go and show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift Moses commanded as testimony to them.."

[b]Note A: The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the skin-NOT NECESSARILY LEPROSY.
(Note B Greek “made clean”.)[/b]

[b][color=CC0000]Again, as we read and study the NIV, the Minority text, we find continuous references that limit or marginalize Christ’s power and authority.

One thing that we must realize, as we study the New Testament, the first four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) take place during the Old Testament period. The New Testament does not start until Jesus Christ's death and resurrection from the dead. In regards to the footnote above "(The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the skin-NOT NECESSARILY LEPROSY)"---- The only “Skin Disease” mentioned in the Bible that demanded the persons inspection by a priest was the skin disease of Leprosy! We find a mistake in the NIV and all of those other “newer versions" in regards to understanding the requirement in Leviticus 14.[/color][/b]

[b]Only in the Skin Disease of Leprosy is the person that is cured REQUIRED to come before the Priest .[/b]

Leprosy (zara ‘at)- a contagious disease translated as “leprosy”, which could infect people, leather, fabrics, and plaster or mud-covered bricks. [b]Only in the disease of Leprosy, was the person cured required to BRING A SACRIFICE TO THE PRIEST, AND PRESENT HIMSELF FOR INSPECTION BY THE PRIEST. The requirements are found In Leviticus 14:1-7 :[/b]

[b]we read... 1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest. 3 And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, 4 then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. 5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. 7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field. 8 He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days.

This ritual is performed after the healing has taken place. God has healed the leper. The leper has done nothing except to trust in God. The priest seeks out the leper. The cleansing ritual points to death of Christ which is the bird killed. The resurrection of Christ is seen in the bird dipped in blood and let loose. We see a picture of the Lord here being delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. The blood sprinkled with hyssop on the healed leper is symbolic of faith in the atoning work of Christ. We see the fully man aspect of Christ in the earthen vessel in which the bird was slain. We see symbolism in the running water also. This would picture the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Life.[/b]

[b][color=0000FF]In the Old Testament it was understood that only God could heal leprosy. By the fact that the newer versions question whether this was even leprosy or perhaps merely a “skin disease” shows two things: 1) their lack of understanding of God’s commandments to the Jews in the Old Testament; 2) Questioning the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and his ability to cure leprosy---by saying that it was not necessarily LEPROSY! It had to be leprosy, based upon Christ’s command that the cured Leper show himself to the Priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.[/color][/b]

Can both of them be the Word of God?

Sincerely,

Walter

However, you do raise an interesting point that is seldom discussed sufficiently by the KJV-only crowd -- the source text.

Actually, thats the [i]only[/i] issue as far as I am concerned. But then, you already knew that. :-)

Krispy

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

Acts 9:7
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

[b]I find no difficulty in understanding the above. In Acts 9:7 we read the men with him stood speechless, and heard a voice, but saw no man.

In Acts 22:9 the Lord gives us further clarification on what happened. Yes, the men heard the voice,[u] and they were afraid.[/u] However, now the Lord is revealing to us that they heard the voice [u]but they did not understand the voice that was talking to Paul. Paul is the only one who understood Jesus Christ, who was being called to be an Apostle.[/u]

The first twelve Apostles were each audibly called by Jesus Christ Himself to be Apostles. After the resurrection, the Resurrected Christ audibly called Paul, to replace Judas Iscariot as an Apostle. The other men with Paul did not understand the sound of Christ’s voice because He was only calling Paul, He was only talking to Paul, and to no one else. All the others heard was noise, and were afraid.

Today, He calls each of us, individually, one by one, but He speaks to us through our hearts and HIS WORD[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...
---------------
--------------
---------------

"KJV-only advocates can attempt to reason away (with what I feel is a poor argument) things like the inclusion of the pagan word “Easter” in Acts chapter 12. However, they cannot explain away the differences between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9."

----------------------
-----------------------

Very good point, deltadom!

As I was looking at the news today, I found a story that documents your position, as well as my own. It is on Worldnet Daily. A man is suing two Bible Publishers for $70 Million dollars for emotional distress. Why, you ask? [b]Because of the reference to homosexualty as sin.[/b]

However, this reference is only made clear, and can only be found in the [b]King James Bible[/b].

The NIV, NASB, and all of the "newer versions" published since 1881 are all unclear about specific sexual sin, and have lumped them all under the heading of "[b]sexual sin[/b] (whatever that means, because the definition is not clear cut and not specific in these newer "Bibles").

[u]Hence, the man is only suing Nelson and Zondervan for their publication of the King James Bible, and none of the other versions.[/u]

Do you wonder why there is such confusion in the body of Christ today about sin in general and sexual sin specifically? The answer is found in the Newer Version Bibles that the body of today is reading and studying. Each version, since 1881, has become weaker and weaker and weaker and weaker, AND MORE USER FRIENDLY FOR SIN, AS WELL AS THE TRUE MEANING OF SEXUAL SIN.

To see what I mean,[b] pick up "The Message" Bible and try to find the following words: FORNICATION; ADULTERY; SODOMY (ALL HOMOSEXUALS ARE SODOMITES); & BEASTIALITY. They are not there. Where are they? They can all be found on the cutting room floor of the Textural Critics and Bible Scholars who created the newer versions.

Imagine what else is missing?![/b]

--------------------------------------
'Gay' man sues Bible publishers
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 09, 2008
10:52 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=6914

Bradley Fowler (RightPundits.com)

A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.

He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

[b][color=CC0000]Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its[u] KING JAMES BIBLE[/u], manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9
He told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to "compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability."

Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible.[/color][/b]

"These are opinions based on the publishers," Fowler said. "And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life."

'Astounding research'

Fowler's blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website features a post titled "Unleashing America from Injustice," in which he says he "was completely distraught after discovering the term-homosexual-was added to the bible, in 1976, and then removed, in 2001 and 2006, without any consideration to the many victims who committed suicide or were murdered because of their sexual preference of homosexuality."

Bradley Fowler's blog on Obama's campaign site

The Obama campaign notes the opinions expressed in its community blog section "in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign."

On a separate personal blogsite, Fowler features his related book, written under the name "Bradley-Almighty," which, he boasts, contains "astounding research from within the pages of the bible, that will change the face of religion across the globe."

Titled "365 Reason's to Study the Bible," he says his "debut book" takes the reader "on a journey through time, as he shifts swiftly, yet gracefully, through the pages of religious history, slowly exposing hidden secrets bible publishers have fought- feverishly to keep hidden from the general public for centuries. An avalanche of secrets that are keeping millions around the world enslaved today."

Fowler cites his interview with a newspaper called Michigan Front Page in which he said, "Lack of sincerity from bible readers has helped this conspiracy go on this long."

'Engrossed' with Scripture

On his personal blog's "About Me" page, Fowler says that while serving a sentence in the Michigan Department of Corrections, he "gained a sincere interest" in the Bible's teachings and, over a 10 year period, "became so engrossed within" the Scriptures, he couldn't do much more than eat and sleep.

In the rambling piece, he says "everything inside of me suddenly became consumed and overwhelmed by something greater than me ... that's when I found God."

[b]Then, in an apparent reference to the complaint in his lawsuit, he says, "Discovering how much the bible has been changed through man's desicions and incorrect interpretations was hard to accept."

His discovery, he says, "proves we all have been strung along, foolishly, lost in the essence of our minds."[/b]

Fowler concludes with a description of himself as a "small business owner, part-time college student, member of the Christian Writer's Guild, freelance writer for the Michigan Front Page, and author of two new books."

Fowler, notes a post by JoAnne Thomas on RightPundits.com, explained his complaint on his blog. He writes:

In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-
[u][i][b][color=CC0000]THE KING JAMES BIBLE[/color][/b][/i][/u]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-
[b][NOT the King James Bible][/b]
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites.

In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-
[b][NOT the King James Bile][/b]
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.
------------

Sincerely,

Walter

deltadom wrote:

While it is easy to point the finger at the translators of the NIV regarding such matters, I have a strong feeling that the translators of the KJV were forced to do the same thing way back in the early 17th Century (in fact, they admitted to having experienced difficulty in agreeing upon a particular word or phrase from time to time

What you have got to be careful with in translations is goal, what is there purpose, why do they miss out certain phrases? or words.
How does it change the Theology.
http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html[url=http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html]A Critic of the Message[/url][/quote

I do agree with Walter that the KJV deals with sin much more specifically. The newer versions are not as strong.

Krispy

Well, Chris, as usual, we will have to agree to disagree.

Ask yourself, honestly, why is this man bringing a lawsuit against Nelson and Zondervan for ONLY the printing of the King James Bible version of the bibles they publish? They print them all, yet they are only being sued for the King James Bible.

It is only because the definition of sexual sin is explicit, and spelled out in detail. The King James Bible convicts sinners of their sin. The other versions aren't doing the job.

We have people today that have created "homosexual churches", and they believe that they are saved and on their way to heaven. Do you find the King James Bible in these "churches"? Absolutely not! It is usually the NIV, or one of other even newer perversions.

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi walter…

However, this reference is only made clear, and can only be found in the King James Bible. The NIV, NASB, and all of the "newer versions" published since 1881 are all unclear about specific sin, and have lumped them under the heading of "sexual sin.

[
the remained has been deleted]

:-)

To Miccah:

It appears that you want to create a disagreement. I am not here to argue with anyone. The NIV is being used all over the world today, by most Missionaries. Is it effective? As long as the only Soul Winner, Jesus Christ is Lord. Christ is the Savior and uses everything to draw the lost to Himself .

That has nothing to do with my previous post. I gave examples of how the definition of sexual sin is not as strong in the newer versions and that is the reason we are in the position that we find ourselves in today, July 10,2008.

The NIV and all of the newer versions have minimized the focus and definition of sexual sin, and sin in general.

I will ask you the same question I asked ccchhhrrriiisss:

[b]Find and name a “homosexual church” that uses the King James Bible[/b]

In my first post today, July 10th, if you look at the years that Fowler is using for his defense of suing Nelson & Zondervan, it is that the Bible has been changing the definition of HOMOSEXUALITY over time. The first year that he uses is 1970.

[b]In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed- [/b]
THE KING JAMES BIBLE
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

[b]In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-[/b]
[NOT the King James Bible]
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites.

[b]In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-[/b]
[NOT the King James Bile]
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.

[b]In 2008, the KING JAMES BIBLE HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT I Corinthians 6:9:[/b]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1970 most people used the King James Bible. In the early 1970’s the NIV came on the scene. Today, most people read the NIV, or one of the other “newer” versions created after the NIV. By using these versions as a timeline, we can track the descent of Christianity from the correct understanding of sexual sin, to the time of today, where there is nothing but confusion of what sexual sin really means, and how devastating it is to God.[b] GOD HATES SIN![/b] Unless believers repent-that includes you and me-- (turn from, by 180 degrees) and pray to God for forgiveness for committing that sin (by thought or deed-either physically following thought with it, or even thinking about doing it), then we/they cannot be forgiven, and thus cannot be saved. We must repent of all sin, but how can we, if the Bible version we are reading and relying does not clarify sin in the eyes of God to us?

Soon, based upon the signs of the times, the King James Bible will be outlawed because of the work that it does in the hearts and minds of sinners. It actually convicts them of their sin., and will be taken down by the “Hate Speech Laws” that are on the horizon of many States in America, already enacted in much of Europe, and presently being discussed by the U.N.

Sincerely,

Walter

Miccah wrote:
waltern wrote:

We have people today that have created "homosexual churches", and they believe that they are saved and on their way to heaven. Do you find the King James Bible in these "churches"? Absolutely not! It is usually the NIV, or one of other even newer perversions.

Sincerely,

Walter

That is a stretch.

Brother, I believe you have a good heart towards the Lord, but I know many brothers and missionaries that use the NIV. These men have fully given their lives to the Lord in every aspect and way.

Now in comes Waltern and indirectly calls them "perverted" for using a Bible that you haven't authorized. These men have more faith in their big toe then most Christians have in entire lifetime. To generalize folks and place them into a box [u]based on no clear cut evidence other then opinion and handed down traditions of men[/u] is not of Christ.

Christ has been with us for 1610 years BEFORE the KJV, BTW.

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

The Plantiff, Fowler is suing the publisher for printing the King James Bible. The reason? The King James has convicted him of his sin. The King James throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament is crystal clear about adultery, murder, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, etc. etc. etc. and those words have conviced his heart that the[b] book must NOT be printed.[/b]

The other books, the NIV and the newer versions, are softer, and not as offensive.

Since Fowler has no understanding of Bible versions, and the differences between them, his conclusion about what has been going on is striking and informative. He is speaking from a Humanists point of view. In todays culture whatever sexual sin you want is O.K.[b] His homosexuality is offended by what the King James Bible has to say about it, but yet not offended by the other Bible versions he quoted (all of them are other versions, created after 1881).[/b]

[b][color=990000]That is the point. It is striking![/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...

I didn't think that you would admit that the NIV and NASB also include passages against homosexuality. But I will admit it for you: The NIV and the NASB both include passages that declare homosexuality to be a sin.

Ask yourself, honestly, why is this man bringing a lawsuit against Nelson and Zondervan for ONLY the printing of the King James Bible version of the bibles they publish? They print them all, yet they are only being sued for the King James Bible.

Well, you yourself mentioned the lawsuit. What was the purpose of this suit from the article? It seems that the plaintiff is accusing these publishers of changing the words of the KJV in order to more explicitly proclaim homosexuality to be a sin. Consider the words from the article:

Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its KING JAMES BIBLE, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9
He told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to "compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability."

Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Fowler, notes a post by JoAnne Thomas on RightPundits.com, explained his complaint on his blog. He writes:

In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-
THE KING JAMES BIBLE
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-
[NOT the King James Bible]
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites.

In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-
[NOT the King James Bile]
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.

In other words, the plaintiff is accusing the publishers of manipulating the words of the KJV in order to push an "agenda." However, I haven't found a KJV that changes the words like the one he includes. I think that perhaps he was looking at the words of a different version (like the NIV) that explicitly uses the word "homosexual" in that passage.

:-(

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

The King James says something different than all of the other "newer versions".

[b]THE KING JAMES BIBLE[/b]
9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,[i][b][color=000000] nor effeminate,[/color][/b][/i] nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I truly think the one word that is missing in all of the other translations, that is found in the King James, is the word [b][color=000000]effeminate,[/color][/b] that relates to the sin of homosexualtiy.

You mentioned earlier, Chris that you were interested in the [b]New King James Bible. It leaves effeminite out as well[/b]. Here is the NKJV:

9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10. nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

In my lifetime I have witnessed men turn to homosexuality. A common symptom of this sin is that men become effeminite after they turn. I also know of a guy that I went to High School with, who acted effeminite, but was not a practicing homosexual. I met him years later in a College Class, only to find him militantly gay and proud of his effeminity. I have also read about homosexual men that do not display efffeminity. It is so common in homosexuality- the lisp, the walk, etc. etc. etc. that possession from an effeminite demon spirit should be a consdered as the cause.

Christ cast out demons from many people. Why would we think that men and women who live today are free of demon possession?

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Walter...

The Plantiff, Fowler is suing the publisher for printing the King James Bible. The reason? The King James has convicted him of his sin. The King James throughout the Old Testament is crystal clear about adultery, murder, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, etc. etc. etc. and those words have conviced his heart that the book must NOT be printed.

Actually, you might want to reread your own post. It appears that the plaintiff is upset for the word "homosexual" appearing in that particular verse. He feels that this is offensive and points out his lifestyle. In reality, the word does NOT appear in the KJV's wording of I Corinthians 6:9-10 -- but the NIV's. Consider the difference between the two:

[b]New International Version[/b]
[b]9[/b] Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [b]10[/b] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

[b]King James Version[/b]
[b]9[/b] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[b]10[/b] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So, it appears that the plaintiff is mistaken and should take direct his lawsuit toward the NIV's publishers (rather than the KJV's). Of course, this plaintiff will eventually have his day in the Court of God. His argument will surely fail -- if he were even so bold to speak!

The other books, the NIV and the newer versions, are softer, and not as offensive.

This is entirely your own personal opinion. As a believer who reads both the NIV and the KJV, I wholeheartedly disagree with such an opinion.

:-)

To King Jimmy:

As I recall, you have brought up this straw-man argument before. I never had the time to answer it, but now is as good as ever. Here goes:

[b]What about the King James 1611 and the Apocrypha? [/b]
Over the years much has been said concerning the fact that the first edition of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha. It is true that the publisher of the 1611 edition did insert the Apocrypha between the Testaments,[b] but it was never included within the Old Testament text as was so done in the Hexapla, in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the minority text, used to create the Catholic Bible). The Apocrypha section from the Cambridge Group of the 1611 translators rendered the entire work into English but for historical purposes only – not as inspired Scripture. The Apocrypha was removed even from the space between the Testaments in the second edition; meanwhile, it in no way affected the accuracy of the texts of the Old or New Testaments.[/b]

D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible,
p. 85.
Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 230.

[b]THE APOCRYPHA[/b]
These books are mainly [b]the product of the last three centuries B.C., a time during which written prophecy had ceased. They were accepted as part of the sacred literature by the Alexandrian Jews and, with the exception of the Second Book of Esdras, are found interspersed among the Hebrew Scriptures in the ancient copies of the Septuagint or LXX.[/b] [b][color=0000FF]The godly Jews under Ezra rejected the Apocrypha as having been inspired by the LORD when they formed the Old Testament canon. Josephus (c.100 A.D.) confirms that these books were not considered as "divine" in his day. He informs us that the canon was closed c.425 B.C.[/color][/b]

[b] The Apocrypha gradually rose in esteem in the APOSTATE Roman (Western) Church until the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) affirmed the canonicity of the greater part. In making this decision the Catholic Church sided with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt in considering the Apocrypha sacred.[/b]

[b][color=000000]Remember that it was in Alexandria that Mary was revered as the second person of the Trinity by the so called "Christians". Although Jerome rejected it, the Apocrypha has now been incorporated into his Vulgate by the Roman Catholic Church.[/color][/b]

Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, pp. 10-52.

Josephus, Against Apion (Contra Apionem, ), I, 8).

Sincerely,

Walter

KingJimmy wrote:
What about the perversions of the original 1611 KJV, which included the apocryphal writings, and through them endorsed such practices as praying to the dead?

Instead of talking about how the modern translations weaken attacks on sin, how about we talk about the KJV endorsement of things God considers an abomination? Hmm...

Dear rbanks:

Do you realize that there are over 4000 changes in the NKJV Bible from the King James version? Before you make the final decision for the NKJV please find out what those differences are. Do they affect Bible Doctrine (Bible truth and teaching) or are they merely cosmetic? On this thread I posted one difference, that has major implications. The NKJV chose to go along with
Westcott & Hort, and all of the newer versions, and ripped [b]effeminite[/b] from 1 Cor 6:9

[b]King James Version (KJV):[/b]
9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [b][color=000000]effeminate,[/color][/b] nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[b]New King James (NKJV)[/b]
9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10. nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

It is quite clear, from the above comparison, that in this instance [b]the New King James has not maintained the integrity of the authorized version (Majority Text) of the Protestant Bible, but has succomed to the minority text, that is behind all of the newer versions. How many of the 4,000 differences between the KJV and NKJV are of this type of error?[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

rbanks wrote:
Thanks to all of you,

After all these posts and thousands of words, I have finally found the answer to my brother’s question. He wanted to know which is the better version between the NASB and the NKJV. Well brother, the answer is the NKJV.

The reason is because the NKJV came after the NASB. The NASB was the best up to date version in its day but the NKJV is even better because it actually is more in line with the KJV. Thanks to all of you I am going to read the NKJV more than ever along with my KJV. I will still probably read the NASB some just to see what words and scriptures they left out

Very well, MrBillPro:

God's Word, the Bible tells me that He has magnified His Word, the Bible, above His Own Name.

Psalms 138

1. I Will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
2. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:[b] for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.[/b]

To honor God, based upon my understanding of the texts used that created the Bibles that we read today (The Majority Text and the Minority Text) I would have to choose the King James Bible and reject the two newer versions you are asking about.

The New King James misses the mark, over and over and over. At first read, it sounds almost identical to the King James, but after serious study, it is not.

Sincerley,

Walter

MrBillPro wrote:
This thread would have been a whole lot better for me with a poll and a lot less confusing, so have we figured it out yet? :-)

The story continues.[b] No, they continue to tell us, there is no real difference in regards to Bible Doctrine, Bible teaching, and Bible truth between the two Bible versions. We have the majority text, that is responsible for the KJV, and we have the minority text, that is responsible for the Catholic Bible, as well as all of the Newer versions, published and copyrited since 1881, yet the teaching in each version is no different.[/b]

IS THAT TRUE?

I have a 10 year old Grandson who is now reading and studying his Bible everyday. What Bible does he read? The King James, of course. [b]You ask, how can he understand the archaic words, and even understand what he is reading?[/b]. He is reading it at ten, the same way I did when I was ten. I really do not want him to read any other version.

After studying this analysis, tell me that it will not hurt my 10 year old gradson. Please, tell me that it will not hurt my 35 year old daughter. Please, please, please tell me that it will not hurt me to read and study the minority text, that is found in all of the newer versions--the ASV; NIV, NASB, The Message, etc. etc. etc.:

Exodus 6:3
KJV= JEHOVAH
NASB , NIV, ETC.= the Lord

2 Cor. 5:8
KJV=Jesus Christ
NASB , NIV, ETC= Christ

Acts 8:18
KJV=The Holy Ghost
NASB , NIV, ETC= the Spirit

Rev. 1:11
KJV= I am Alpha and Omega
NASB , NIV, ETC=\t[b]DELETED[/b]

John 4:42
KJV=\tGod, Christ, the Son
NASB , NIV, ETC= One, man

Matthew 19:17
KJV=God
NASB , NIV, ETC= only One

Joshua 22:22
KJV= The LORD God
NASB , NIV, ETC= The Mighty One

1 Cor. 16:22
KJV=Lord Jesus Christ
NASB , NIV, ETC= the Lord

Daniel 3:25
KJV=The Son of God\t\t
NASB , NIV, ETC= a son of the gods

John 9:35
KJV=\tSon of God
NASB , NIV, ETC= Son of Man

Acts 14:15
KJV=\tGod
NASB , NIV, ETC= [b]a[/b] God

1 John 5:7
KJV=For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
NASB , NIV, ETC=[b]DELETED[/b]

Ephesians 5:9
KJV=\tfruit of the Spirit
NASB , NIV, ETC= fruit of the light

Rev. 21:24
KJV=\tand the nations [b]of them which are saved[/b] shall walk in the light\t
NASB , NIV, ETC= and the nation shall walk by its light

Rev. 15:3
KJV=King of saints
NASB , NIV, ETC= king of nations/ages

Matt. 28:20
KJV= end of the world
NASB , NIV, ETC= end of the age

Phil. 4:13
KJV= I can do all things through [b]Christ[/b] which strengtheneth me
NASB , NIV, ETC= I can do everything through him who gives me strength

1 Tim. 3:16
KJV=[b]God[/b] was manifest in the flesh
NASB , NIV, ETC= He who was revealed in the fleshg

Acts 4:24
KJV=thou art God
NASB , NIV, ETC= [b]DELETED[/b]

Matt. 8:29
KJV= [b]Jesus[/b]
NASB , NIV, ETC= [b]DELETED[/b]

Mark 2:15
KJV=Jesus
NASB , NIV, ETC= him (no capital H—over, and over, and over)

Matt. 6:33
KJV=the Kingdom of God
NASB , NIV, ETC= His kingdom

Rev 21:4
KJV=God
NASB , NIV, ETC= He

Gal. 1:15
KJV= God
NASB , NIV, ETC=He

Matt 22:32
KJV= God
NASB , NIV, ETC=He

1 Cor 14:2
KJV= The Spirit
NASB , NIV, ETC= his spirit

Acts 22:16
KJV= the Name of the Lord
NASB , NIV, ETC= His name

Rev. 14:1
KJV=\tThe Father’s name in their foreheads
NASB , NIV, ETC= [b]his name and[/b] his Fathers name in their foreheads

Phil 3:3
KJV=worship [b]God[/b]
NASB , NIV, ETC= worship (see Revelation, chapters: 9, 13, 14, 16
[b]God of the New versions/New age[/b]

Isaiah 14:12-15
[b]Devil of the Bible & Christianity[/b]
KJV=Lucifer

[b]God of the New versions/New age[/b]
NASB , NIV, ETC= morning star

Acts 17:22
[b]Devil of the Bible & Christianity[/b]
KJV=(image worshippers are) too superstitious

[b]God of the New versions/New age[/b]
NASB , NIV, ETC (image worshippers are) very religious

Mark 10:21
KJV=and come, [b]take up the cross,[/b] and follow me.
NASB, NIV, ETC.= Then come, follow me.

2 Peter 1:21
KJV=\t[b]holy[/b] men
NASB, NIV, ETC.=men

1 Peter 2:22
KJV=[b]pure[/b] heart
NASB, NIV, ETC.= adequate
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]Has the following created the “prosperity” crowd, the name it and claim it, the blab it and grab it bunch??[/b]

You be the judge:

2 Timothy 3:17
KJV= perfect
NASB, NIV, ETC.= [b]prosperity[/b]—is this what has fueled the “prosperity heresy”?

Jer. 29:11
KJV=righteousness
NASB, NIV, ETC.= [b]prosper[/b]---more of the “prosperity heresy”?

1 Timothy 6:6
KJV=\tgodliness [b]with contentment[/b] is great gain
NASB, NIV, ETC.= godliness [b]actually is a means[/b] of great gain---more prosperity heresy?

Heb 3:6
KJV=rejoicing
NASB, NIV, ETC.= [b]boast[/b]???

2 Cor 1:14
KJV=\tyour rejoicing
NASB, NIV, ETC.= be proud

2 Cor 1:12
KJV=rejoicing
NASB, NIV, ETC.= proud confidence

1 Timothy 1:4
KJV=\tgodly edifying
NASB, NIV, ETC.= furthering the administration

Psalms 8:5
KJV=\tFor tho hast made him a little lower than the angels
NASB, NIV, ETC.= You have made him a little lower[b] than God[/b]

Job 42:6
KJV=I abhor myself
NASB, NIV, ETC.= I retract

Phil 3:21
KJV= our vile body
NASB, NIV, ETC.= our humble state

Luke 4:4
KJV=That man shall not live by bread alone, [b]but by every word of God[/b]\t
NASB, NIV, ETC.= man shall not live on bread alone

xxxxxxxxxxx
[b]Salvation by works, or by faith in Jesus Christ?[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mark 10:24
KJV= Children, how hard is it, [b]for them at trust in riches[/b] to enter into the kingdom of God
NASB, NIV, ETC.=Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God

Luke 21:19
KJV=In your patience possess ye your souls
NASB, NIV, ETC.= by standing firm you will save yourself

John 3:36
KJV=believeth
NASB, NIV, ETC.= obey

Gal 5:22
KJV=faith
NASB, NIV, ETC.= faithfulness

Romans 11:6
KJV=\tBut if it be of works, thenis it no more grace
NASB, NIV, ETC.=[b]DELETED[/b]

Romans 1:16
KJV= the gospel of Christ\t\t\t
NASB, NIV, ETC.= the gospel

Acts 8:27
KJV=\tI believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
NASB, NIV, ETC.= [b]DELETED[/b]
Col 1:14
KJV=In whom we have redemption [b]through His blood[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= In whom we have redemption

Mark 9:42
KJV=believe [b]in me[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= who believes

John 6:47
KJV=He that believeth [b]on me[/b] hath everlasting life
NASB, NIV, ETC.= he who believes has everlasting life

Acts 22:16
KJV=\tcalling on the name [b]of the Lord[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= calling on his name

1 John 5:13
KJV= and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
NASB, NIV, ETC.=[b]DELETED[/b]

2 John 2:9b
KJV=doctrine of [b]Christ[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.=teaching

1 Timothy 2:7
KJV=truth in [b]Christ[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= truth

Gal 6:15
KJV=[b]For in Christ Jesus[/b] neither circumcision availeth any thing
NASB, NIV, ETC.= neither is circumcision anything

Eph 3:14
KJV=\tI bow my knees unto the Father [b]of our Lord Jesus Christ[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= I bow my knees before the Father

Gal 4:7
KJV=\tan heir of God [b]through Christ[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= an heir of God

Eph 3:9
KJV=God, who created all thing [b]by Jesus Christ[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= an heir of God

Col 1:2
KJV=our Father [b]and the Lord Jesus Christ[/b]
NASB, NIV, ETC.= the Father

1 John 4:3
KJV=\tAnd every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus [b]Christ is come in the flesh[/b] is not of God
NASB, NIV, ETC=every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God

In conclusion, I await your answer. Specifically, I would like to hear from ccchhhrrriiisss & King Jimmy on this issue.

Sincerly,

Walter

If the KJV is the only REAL translation because its the oldest or true translation? Then should we be reading the New Testament John Wycliffe wrote in the 1380's? Since that is probably the only and declared the first hand written manuscript in English?

John Colet, oxford professor, read the New testament in Greek and translated it into English so his students would UNDERSTAND. The people were so hungry to hear Gods Word they packed the church, reported over 20,000 people just to hear it in their own language they understand. Before this, around 1490 Thomas Linacre, read the New Testament in Greek and comparing it to Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his journal, "Either this is not the Gospel or we are not Christians" Meaning the original Greek. So one could only speculate if there was much debate whether they should have touch the Latin Vulgate translation? Of course I don't know only thought.

Should we be reading the Coverdale Bible...the first complete Bible printed in English.

The Geneva Bible was the first bible published, even though King Henry viii allowed the bible to be published for public use, but only to churches and was changed up in the church. It is know as the Great Bible. Of course his plans were not to honor God, but to esteem himself as the "head of the Church" threw the church of Rome out, because of disagreements. The Geneva was the bible to be claimed as the protestant bible, the first bible for personal use, the first study bile many claim. apparently it has been know that the Geneva bible was more popular than the KJV, and many say that the 1611 King James was influenced from the Geneva Bible; which also is claimed to be known as the first bible to have numbered verses.

So what should we read then? KJV or Geneva, Coverdale, Matthews-Tyndale bible?

If we all want to be picking about KJV that it is the only one to read, this is not true, if you want to be technical we should learn Greek and Hebrew and read from the original text. This whole controversy with KJV only so much sounds like those that were against the Protestants because they were reading and publishing the New and Old Testament in English...the Church was so outraged, they martyred those who challenged the "Church" writings of the Bible. Sounds to me the same spirit at work, don't challenge them about the NASB or NKJV. Its th4e KJV only and anything else is heresy.

Reformer

edit: OOPS!!!I forgot I wasn't supposed to comment on this again. I forgot sorry..

Unless, we then would want to debate which Greek manuscripts are more accurate. Oh my, where would it end?

Now that is funny!!!! :-P Good one.

It seems that no matter how many times the newer versions are compared with the King James Bible, those that support the newer versions cannot see any difference in teaching between them.

If you were going to write a letter to your children, a letter that would help them live in such a fashion that they might have eternal life, wouldn’t you make it clear and straight forward, and easy to understand and follow?

Is there a difference in Translations that [b]dramatically affect Bible Doctrine?[/b] Are you one of the one’s that think all Bible Translations are all good, regardless of their source?

The two sources are always the same: 1) The Majority Text, that created the Protestant Bible, and has been the text of the true Christian Church since the beginning, or the 2) Minority Text, that created the Catholic Church--with a Pope, and "celibate" "Priests" (that sin must be confessed to to be forgiven), indulgences, that are paid for, and idols that are bowed down to, and all of the other error that continues to come from Catholocism?. This same minority text (that created the Catholic Bible) was [b]resurrected in 1881 by the "revision committee" when they created their first “newer version”[/b]. All of the “newer versions” since that time have relied on the same minority text, reponsible for the Catholic Bible, and responsible for the Catholic Church--- with all of it's error and confusion and uncertainty.

[b]Perhaps you should think again:[/b]

I am using eight modern translations (all created by the Minority text) to compare with the King James Bible (created from the Majority Text, and as such is the Bible of the Protestant Church), as follows:

NIV New International Version
NASB New American Standard Bible
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
REB Revised English Bible
LB Living Bible
NWT New World Translation
NAB New American Bible
[b]NKJV New King James Bilbe[/b]

[b]THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT [u]DOCTRINES[/u] OF THE BIBLE THAT ARE BEING ATTACKED BY THE NEWER VERSIONS. IS THERE ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE BODY OF CHRIST TODAY, BECAUSE OF THIS DRASTIC CHANGE IN DOCTRINE?[/b]

Isaiah 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

[b]New versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity. A young woman or a maiden is not necessarily a virgin:

NRSV young woman
REB young woman
NWT maiden[/b]

Luke 2:33
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
[b]New versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling us that Joseph was Christ’s father:[/b]

NIV The child’s father
NASB His father
NRSV the child’s father
REB the child’s father
NWT it’s father
NAB the child’s father

1 Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
[b]The King James is very clear in telling us GOD was manifest in the flesh. The new versions remove God completely:[/b]

NIV He appeared in a body
NASB He who was revealed in the flesh
NRSV He was revealed in flesh
REB He was manifested in the flesh
LB who came to earth as a man
NWT He was made manifest in the flesh
NAB He was manifested in the flesh

Micah 5:2
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

[b]Christ had no beginning. As the Second Person of the Trinity, He is eternal, or from everlasting. This is denied in most modem translations:[/b]

NIV from ancient times
NASB from ancient days
REB in ancient times
NWT from the days of time indefinite
NAB from ancient times

Isaiah 14:12
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
[b]Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the “Morning Star”. The King James Bible never gives this title to anyone else. Many new versions have taken the liberty to [u]call Satan the “morning star”.[/u] Though some do not go so far as to call Satan the “morning star,” they remove the name “Lucifer.”[/b]

NIV morning star
NASB star of the morning
NRSV Day Star
REB Bright morning star
NWT you shining one
NAB morning star

Daniel 3:25
“He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
[b]This verse shows that Jesus Christ existed before He was born in Bethlehem. New versions will pervert it with [u]another god[/u].[/b]

NIV a son of gods
NASB a son of gods
NRSV a god
REB a god
LB a god
NWT a son of gods
NAB a son of God

Colossians 1:14
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
[b]Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ,[u] so we should not be surprised to find blood missing in modern translations:[/u][/b]

NIV redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NASB redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NRSV redemption, the forgiveness of sins
REB our release is secured and our sins are forgiven
NWT we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins
NAB redemption, the forgiveness of sins

Psalm 12:6-7
“6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

[b][color=FF0000][u]The above PROMISE from the King James Bible tells us that God will preserve His words forever. New versions destroy this promise by making us think the context is Gods PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:[/u][/color][/b]

NIV you will keep us safe
NASB Thou wilt preserve him
NRSV You, O Lord, will protect us
REB you are our protector
LB you will forever preserve your own
NAB You, O Lord, will keep us

Romans 14:10-12
“10. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before[u] the judgment seat of Christ.[/u] 11. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

[b]The above verses magnifies Jesus Christ. All of us, who are saved, will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and will give account to GOD. When we stand before Jesus Christ we will be standing before GOD- an excellent text on the Deity of Christ.[u] New Versions, that all rely on the minority text, replace Jesus Christ with “God”:[/u][/b]

NIV God’s judgment seat
NASB Judgment seat of God
NRSV Judgment seat of God
REB God’s tribunal
NWT Judgment seatof God
NAB Judgment seat of God

Acts 8:37
[u]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.[/u]
[b]This verse places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first believe on Christ. Modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible:[/b]

NIV Entire Verse Missing
NRSV Entire Verse Missing
REB Entire Verse Missing
NWT Entire Verse Missing
NAB [b] Omits entire verse, but renumbers the verses so you won’t miss it.[/b]

2 Corinthians 2:17
“For we are not as many,[b] which corrupt the word of God: [/b]but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”
[b]This verse is a thorn in the flesh of the modern translators who are busy corrupting the word of God. Rather than repent of their sins and get right with God, they cling to the minority that says:[/b]
NIV peddle
NASB peddling
NRSV peddlers
REB adulterating the word of God for profit
LB hucksters
NWT peddlers
NAB Trade on the word of God
[b]NKJV peddling[/b]

2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
[b]This is the command in the New Testament—to “study” and “rightly divide” God’s word, and the Devil does NOT appreciate it. Look what he has done, through men, to corrupt it:[/b]

NIV Do your best correctly handles
NASB be diligent handling accurately
NRSV do your best..rightly explaining
REB Try hard….keep strictly to the true gospel
LB Work hard…know what his Word says and means
NWT Do your utmost handling the word of truth aright
NAB Try hard…following a straight course in preaching the truth
[b]NKJV Be diligent…rightly dividing[/b]

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of[b] [u]science falsely so called:[/u][/b]
[b]Science that is FALSE is NOT knowledge[/b]
[b]NIV Knowledge
NASB knowledge
NRSV knowledge
REB knowledge
LB knowledge
NWT knowledge
NAB knowledge
NKJV knowledge[/b]

In conclusion, some will be able to “see” the truth in the above, and some will not.

Actually, those that support the new versions, the minority text, will probably not even take the time to read and study the above to compare. The reason? .

I can see a profound difference between the versions. Can you?

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Walter...

Once again, you have served well to point out the differences in translation of a select group of verses. [b][u] However, the major doctrinal elements are inarguably alive and well as found in the other versions.[/b][/u]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

:-)

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

[b]You have made a bold statement that must be supported by fact.[/b] Please provide proof, from each and every one of the 8 New versions I quoted (NIV, NASB, NRSV, REB, LB, NWT, NAB, NKJV) that everything posted previously by me is taught [b]throughout the newer versions.[/b] Please quote both New and Old Testament quotations that clearly teach the following, from each version listed above (NIV, NASB, NRSV, REB, LB, NWT, NAB, NKJV):

1. Christ's Virgin Birth, and that Mary was a virgin

2. That Joseph is not referred to as Jesus Christ's father and that Mary is referred to as His mother.

3. Clear documented teaching, in each one of the "newer" versions, that Jesus Christ is and was God manifest in the flesh.

4. Clear teaching, with Bible prooftext, from all 8 versions, with clear references to the fact that [b]Christ is God in the flesh and that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, and that He is eternal, and has no beginning and no end.[/b]

5. Explain why in Isaiah 14:12 in all of the "newer versions" replaces "Lucifer" (Satan) with one of the Name's of Jesus Christ, "Morning Star", as found in Revelation 22:16

6. Provide prooftext, using each one of the 8 new versions, that clearly teach throughout their "versions" that sinners are [b]redeemed through/by the Blood of Jesus Christ.[/b]

7. Provide prooftext, from all 8 newer versions, that teach the fact that[b] God promised us that His Words would be preserved forever.[/b]

8. Provide prooftext from all the newer versions of clear teaching (documented) in the newer versions that: all [b]believers[/b] will stand before Jesus Christ, at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and be judged by Him, and that Christ is God.

I await your written response, kind sir.

Sincerley,

Walter

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It seems that no matter how many times the newer versions are compared with the King James Bible, those that support the newer versions cannot see any difference in teaching between them. If you are going to write a letter to you children, a letter that would help them live in such a fashion that they might have eternal life, wouldn’t you make it clear and straight forward, and easy to understand and follow?

Is there a difference in Translations that [b]dramatically[[/b] affect Bible Doctrine? Are you one of the one’s that think all Bible Translations areall good, regardless of their source? The two sources are always the same: 1) The Majority Text, that created the Protestant Bible, and has been the text of the true Christian Church since the beginning, or the 2) Minority Text, that created the Catholic Church. This minority text was resurrected in 1881 by the revision committee when they created the first “newer version”. All of the “newer versions” since that time have relied on the same minority text.

[b]Perhaps you should think again:[/b]

I am using eight modern translations (all created by the Minority text) to compare with the King James Bible (created from the Majority Text, and as such is the Bible of the Protestant Church), as follows:
NIV\tNew International Version
NASB New American Standard Bible
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
REB Revised English Bible
LB Living Bible
NWT New World Translation
NAB New American Bible
NKJV [b]New King James Bilbe[/b]

[b]THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT [u]DOCTRINES[/u] OF THE BIBLE THAT ARE BEING ATTACKED BY THE NEWER VERSIONS. IS THERE ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE BODY OF CHRIST TODAY, BECAUSE OF THIS DRASTIC CHANGE IN DOCTRINE?[/b]

Isaiah 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

[b]New versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity. A young woman or a maiden is not necessarily a virgin:
NRSV young woman
REB young woman]
NWT maiden[/b]

Luke 2:33
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
[b]New versions attak the Virgin Birth by tellin us that Joseph was Christ’s father:[/b]
NIV The child’s father
NASB His father
NRSV the child’s father
REB the child’s father
NWT it’s father
NAB the child’s father

1 Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
[b]The King James is very clear in telling us GOD was manifest in the flesh. The new versions remove God completely:[/b]
NIV He appeared in a body
NASB He who was revealed in the flesh
NRSV He was revealed in flesh
REB He was manifested in the flesh
LB who came to earth as a man
NWT He was made manifest in the flesh
NAB He was manifested in the flesh

Micah 5:2
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

[b]Christ had no beginning. As the Second Person of the Trinity, He is eternal, or from everlasting. This is denied in most modem translations:[/b]
NIV from ancient times
NASB from ancient days
REB in ancient times
NWT from the days of time indefinite
NAB from ancient times

Isaiah 14:12
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
[b]Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the “Morning Star”. The King James Bible never gives this title to anyone else. Many new versions have taken the liberty to [u]call Satan the “morning star”.[/u] Though some do not go so far as to call Satan the “morning star,” they remove the name “Lucikfer.”[/b]

Daniel 3:25
“He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
[b]This verse shows that Jesus Christ existed before He was born in Bethlehem. New versions will pervert it with [u]another god[/u].[/b]

NIV a son of gods
NASB a son of gods
NRSV a god
REB a god
LB a god
NWT a son of gods
NAB a son of God

Colossians 1:14
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
[b]Satan hates theAtoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we should not be surprised to find blood missing in modern translations:[/b]
NIV redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NASB redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NRSV redemption, the forgiveness of sins
REB our release is secured and our sins are forgiven
NWT we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins
NAB redemption, the forgiveness of sins

Psalm 12:6-7
“6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
[b]The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God will preserve His words forever. New versions destroy this promise by making us think the context is Gods PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:[/b]
NIV you will keep us safe
NASB Thou wilt preserve him
NRSV You, O Lord, will protect us
REB you are our protector
LB you will forever preserve your own
NAB You, O Lor, will keep us

Romans 14:10-12
“10. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before[u] the judgment seat of Christ.[/u] 11. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
[b]The above verses magnifies Jesus Christ. All of us, who are saved, will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and will give account to GOD. When we stand before Jesus Christ we will be standing before GOD- an excellent text on the Deity of Christ.[u] New Versions, that all rely on the minority text, replace Jesus Christ with “God”:[/u][/b]
NIV God’s judgment seat
NASB Judgment seat of God
NRSV Judgment seat of God
REB God’s tribunal
NWT Judgment seatof God
NAB Judgment seat of God

Acts 8:37
[u]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.[/u]
[b]This verse places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first believe on Christ. Modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible:[/b]
NIV Entire Verse Missing
NRSV Entire Verse Missing
REB Entire Verse Missing
NWT Entire Verse Missing
NAB [b] Omits entire verse, but renumbers the verses so you won’t miss it.[/b]

2 Corinthians 2:17
“For we are not as many,[b] which corrupt the word of God: [/b]but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”
[b]This verse is a thorn in the flesh of the modern translators who are busy corrupting the word of God. Rather than repent of their sins and get right with God, they cling to the minority that says:
NIV peddle
NASB peddling
NRSV peddlers
REB adulterating the word of God for profit
LB hucksters
NWT peddlers
NAB Trade on the word of God
NKJV [b]peddling[/b]

2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
[b]This is the command in the New Testament—to “study” and “rightly divide” God’s word, and the Devil does NOT appreciate it. Look what he has done, through men, to corrupt it:
NIV Do your best correctly handles
NASB be diligent handling accurately
NRSV do your best..rightly explaining
REB Try hard….keep strictly to the true gospel
LB Work hard…know what his Word says and means
NWT Do your utmost handling the word of truth aright
NAB Try hard…following a straight course in preaching the truth
NKJV [b]Be diligent…rightly dividing[/b]

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of[b] [u]science falsely so called:[/u][/b]
[b]Science that is FALSE is NOT knowledge[/b]
NIV [b]knowledge[/b]
NASB [b]knowledge[/b]
NRSV [b]knowledge[/b]
REB [b]knowledge[/b]
LB [b]knowledge[/b]
NWT [b]knowledge[/b]
NAB [b]knowledge[/b]
NKJV [b]knowledge[/b]

In conclusion, some will be able to “see” the truth in the above, and some will not.

Actually, those that support the new versions, the minority text, will probably not even take the time to read and study the above to compare. The reason? .

I can see a profound difference between the versions. Can you?

Sincerely,

Walter

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

While I have been waiting for your response, in regards to the bold claim that you made,[b] I did a comparison between the Jerusalem Bible, that is used by the Catholic Church, and thus represents Catholic Doctrine,[/b] and have compared that with the [b]King James Bible, that represents Protestant Doctrine.[/b] I came up with the following comparison, which provides clarification of the difference in teaching (Doctrine) between the two versions.

Also, I then looked at all of the [b]following newer Bible versions, and compared them with the King James Bible: NIV, NASV, TEV, RSV, NWT, THE MESSAGE.My conclusion is that all of the newer versions, published since 1888 agree with Catholic Doctrine, as taught in the Catholic Bible, and DO NOT AGREE WITH PROTESTANT DOCTRINE, as taught in the Protestant Bible—THE KING JAMES BIBLE.[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Matt. 5:22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother[b] without a cause [/b]shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother `Fool' will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him `Traitor' will answer for it in hell fire.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt. 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
`You have heard how it was said, You shall not commit adultery.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE ]
Matt 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
44. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Matt 9:13
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is still with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

King James Bible---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was [b]Jesus the Christ.[/b] Note-Jesus was his name, that meant Savior. Christ is His Title, which means Messiah!

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone that he was the Christ.
xxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Matt 18:2
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
So he called a little child to him whom he set among them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James—[/b]-- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Matt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last:[b] for many be called, but few chosen[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Thus the last will be first, and the first, last."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
20:2[b]2 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?[/b] They say unto him, We are able.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?" They replied, "We can."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the[b] angels of God [/b]in heaven.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King Jamesv---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Matt 25:15
And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
To one he gave five talents, to another two, to a third one, each in proportion to his ability. Then he set out on his journey.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Matt 27:35
[[b]And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.[/b]
[[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
When they had finished crucifying him they shared out his clothing by casting lots,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]Mark:[/b]
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 1:2
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
It is written in the prophet Isaiah:Look, I am going to send my messenger in front of you to prepare your way before you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 1:14
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel[b] of the kingdom of God,[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
After John had been arrested, Jesus went into Galilee. There he proclaimed the gospel from God saying,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet[b] for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
And if any place does not welcome you and people refuse to listen to you, as you walk away shake off the dust under your feet as evidence to them."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 7:27
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]

And he said to her, "The children should be fed first, because it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to little dogs."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 9:46
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 11:10
Blessed be the kingdom of our father David,[b] that cometh in the name of the Lord:[/b] Hosanna in the highest.
[[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Blessed is the coming kingdom of David our father! Hosanna in the highest heavens!"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 11:26
[b] But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mark 13:14
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, [b]spoken of by Daniel the prophet,[/b] standing where it ought not,[b] (let him that readeth understand,)[/b] then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
`When you see the appalling abomination set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judaea must escape to the mountains;

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 15:28
And began to salute him, Hail,[b] King of the Jews![/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
And they began saluting him, "Hail, king of the Jews!"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Mark 16:9-20
9.[b] Now when Jesus was risen[/b] early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. [b]15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.[/b] 19. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
9. Having risen in the morning on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven devils. 10. She then went to those who had been his companions, and who were mourning and in tears, and told them. 11. But they did not believe her when they heard her say that he was alive and that she had seen him. 12. After this, he showed himself under another form to two of them as they were on their way into the country. 13. These went back and told the others, who did not believe them either. 14. Lastly, he showed himself to the Eleven themselves while they were at table. He reproached them for their incredulity and obstinacy, because they had refused to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15. And he said to them, "Go out to the whole world; proclaim the gospel to all creation. 16. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17. These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues; 18. they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover." 19. And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven; there at the right hand of God he took his place, 20. while they, going out, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b]Luke:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 2:33
(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be[b] called holy to the Lord;)[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
observing what is written in the Law of the Lord: Every first-born male must be consecrated to the Lord,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE[/b]
Luke 2:44
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
They assumed he was somewhere in the party, and it was only after a day's journey that they went to look for him among their relations and acquaintances.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone,[b] but by every word of God.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
But Jesus replied, "Scripture says:Human beings live not on bread alone."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him,[b] Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
But Jesus answered him, "Scripture says: You must do homage to the Lord your God, him alone you must serve."
xxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 9:56
[b]For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.[/b] And they went to another village.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
and they went on to another village
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]

Luke 11:2
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
He said to them, "When you pray, this is what to say:
Father, may your name be held holy,
your kingdom come;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 12:31
But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
No; set your hearts on his kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 17:36
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]

[b]DELETED[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Luke 23:17
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]John:[/b]
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the[b] Christ,[/b] the Saviour of the world.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
and they said to the woman, "Now we believe no longer because of what you told us; we have heard him ourselves and we know that he is indeed the Saviour of the world."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
John 5:4
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b][u]DELETED\t[/B][/U]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
John 8:1-11
1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4. They say unto him,[b] Master[/b], this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6.[b] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.[/b] But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them,[b] He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.[/b] 8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9. [b] And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone,[/b] and the woman standing in the midst. 10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman,[b] where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?[/b] 11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go,
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
1. and Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At daybreak he appeared in the Temple again; and as all the people came to him, he sat down and began to teach them.
3. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught committing adultery; and making her stand there in the middle 4. they said to Jesus, "Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, 5. and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?" 6. They asked him this as a test, looking for an accusation to use against him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. 7. As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, "Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her." 8. Then he bent down and continued writing on the ground. 9. When they heard this they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until the last one had gone and Jesus was left alone with the woman, who remained in the middle. 10. Jesus again straightened up and said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11. `No one, sir," she replied. "Neither do I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go away, and from this moment sin no more."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
John 8:29
Then said Jesus unto them,[b] When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
he who sent me is with me,and has not left me to myself,for I always do what pleases him.
xxxxxxxxxx

[b]Acts:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,[b] he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
But since he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn him an oath to make one of his descendants succeed him on the throne,

xxxxxxxxxxx

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 4:24
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said,[b] Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
When they heard it they lifted up their voice to God with one heart. "Master," they prayed, "it is you who made sky and earth and sea, and everything in them;
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_______________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 8:37
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.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 15:18
[b]Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]

known so long ago.
_______________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus[b] Christ[/b], and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.[/b]
[[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]

31. They told him, "Become a believer in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and your household too."
____________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 17:26
[b]And 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;[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
From one single principle he not only created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth, but he decreed the times and limits of their habitation. _______________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Acts 28:29
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
___________________________________________
[b]Romans:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Romans 1:16
[b]For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel; it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who has faith, Jews first, but Greeks as well,
___________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Romans 8:1
[b]There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus,
__________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
And since it is by grace, it cannot now be by good actions, or grace would not be grace at all!
___________________________________________________
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Romans 15:8
Now I say that[b] Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
I tell you that Christ's work was to serve the circumcised, fulfilling the truthfulness of God by carrying out the promises made to the fathers,
_________________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]

Romans 16:24
[b]The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
[b]DELETED[/b]
[b]I Corinthians:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
1 Cor: 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,[b] and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
When you have gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, with the presence of my spirit, and in the power of our Lord Jesus,
________________________________________________

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
6:20
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
You are not your own property, then; you have been bought at a price. So use your body for the glory of God.

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
1 Cor.9:1
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]

1 Cor 10:28
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake:[b] for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
28. But if someone says to you, "This food has been offered in sacrifice," do not eat it, out of consideration for the person that told you, for conscience's sake,

[b]Galatians:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Gal 6,15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
It is not being circumcised or uncircumcised that matters; but what matters is a new creation.

[b]Ephesians:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Ephesians 3:9
[b] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:[/b]
[[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
9. and of throwing light on the inner workings of the mystery kept hidden through all the ages in God, the Creator of everything.

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Ephesians 5:30
[b]For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.[/b]
Note, this refers to Christ’s resurrected body of flesh and bones

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
because we are parts of his Body.

Colossians.:

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Col 1:14
[b]In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
and in him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.

1 Thess.:

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Thes 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians[b] which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, to the Church in Thessalonica which is in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace.

[b]I Timothy.:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]

1 Tim 3:3
[b]Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
not a heavy drinker, nor hot-tempered, but gentle and peaceable, not avaricious,

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]

1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy[b] great is the mystery of godliness:[/b] God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
Without any doubt,[b] the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed:[/b]He was made visible in the flesh,justified in the Spirit,seen by angels,proclaimed to the gentiles,believed in throughout the world,taken up in glory.
Note:
As Christian believers, we are blood bought, purchased by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and have a personal relationship with God. We do not have a [b]religion[/b]. The world is full of “religions”, and all of them are false.

[b]1 John:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]

1 John 5:7
5. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6. If we say that we have[b] fellowship with him,[/b] and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, [b]we have fellowship one with another,[/b] and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
5. This is what we have heard from him and are declaring to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. 6. If we say that we share in God's life while we are living in darkness,we are lying, because we are not living the truth. 7. But if we live in light,as he is in light, we have a share in another's life,and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

[b]Revelation:[/b]

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Rev 1:6
And hath made[b] us kings and priests unto God and his Father;[/b] to him be glory[b] and dominion[/b] for ever and ever. Amen.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
and made us a Kingdom of Priests to serve his God and Father; to him, then, be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega,[b] the beginning and the ending, [/b]saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,[b] the Almighty.[/b]

[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
`I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Rev 1:11
Saying,[b] I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest,[/b] write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
`Write down in a book all that you see, and send it to the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
[b]King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE [/b]
Rev 21:24
And the nations of them[b] which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.[/b]
[b]New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE[/b]
The nations will come to its light and the kings of the earth will bring it their treasures.

In light of this and about 5,000 other places, how can the modern version be called Protestant Bibles? Remember, they are based on Roman Catholic mms.

The Bible says,
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" —Amos 3:3

Sincerely,

Walter

The question isnt really "which version", but rather "which source"?

Me, I believe the TR is the preserved Word of God... and that the Alexandrian has been perverted. There are a lot of reasons for my conclusions.

What needs to be compared is not the KJV to the NASB, but a literlal translation of the two different texts that underlay those versions. Thats where the differences begin.

Krispy

Is the Jerusalem Bible a "Catholic" Bible?

BeYeDoers posted that it was not the Catholic Bible:

[b]The Jerusalem Bible (JB) is a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible [/b]which first was introduced to the English-speaking public in 1966 and published by Darton, Longman & Todd. As a Roman Catholic Bible, it includes the deuterocanonical books along with the sixty-six others included in Protestant Bibles, as well as copious footnotes and introductions.

In 1943 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Roman Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek, rather than from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. As a result,[b] a number of Dominicans and other scholars at the École Biblique in Jerusalem translated the scriptures into French. The product of these efforts was published as La Bible de Jérusalemin 1961.[/b]

This French translation served as the basis for an English translation in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible. For the majority of the books, the English translation was an original translation of the Hebrew and Greek; in passages with more than one interpretation, the French is generally followed. For a small number of Old Testament books, the first draft of the English translation was made directly from the French, and then the General Editor produced a revised draft by comparing this word-for-word to the original Hebrew or Aramaic.[1] The footnotes and book introductions are almost literal translations from the French.

The translation itself uses a literal approach that has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien (his primary contribution was the translation of Jonah).[2]. The introductions, footnotes, and even the translation itself, reflect a modern scholarly approach, reflecting the conclusions of scholars who use historical-critical method. For example, the introduction and notes reject Moses's authorship of the Pentateuch.

[b]The Jerusalem Bible was the first widely accepted Roman Catholic English translation of the Bible since the Douay-Rheims Version of the 17th century. It carries the Church's imprimatur as being correct in all matters of faith and doctrine. This means it is an official Roman Catholic Bible. The Jerusalem Bible was considered such a high quality advanced English translation of the Bible that the Holy See used it in the European liturgy and the Mass. This reference for The Jerusalem Bible can be found in the introduction page of the Roman Catholic Missals as the source reference for the readings.[/b] [b][color=000000]It has also been widely praised for an overall very high level of scholarship,[size=x-small][u] and is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants.[/size][/u][/color][/b] The overall text seems to have somewhat of a "Mid-Atlantic" nature, neither overwhelmingly British nor particularly American, making it acceptable to both groups in most instances. Overall, it has come to be considered as one of the better English translations of the Bible made in the 20th century.

In 1973, the French translation received an update. A third French edition was produced in 1998.

In 1985, the English translation was completely updated. This new translation — known as the New Jerusalem Bible — was freshly translated from the original languages and not tied to any French translation (except indirectly, as it maintained many of the stylistic and interpretive choices of the French Jerusalem Bible).

xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The point I was making in using the Jerusalem Bible, or any of the other "Catholic Bibles" (ie the Douay Rheims Version or any other "Catholic Bible"), is that[b] there is absolutely no difference in the text of these with the newer Bible versions published by Protestants since 1888 (NIV, NASV, TEV, RSV, NWT, THE MESSAGE, etc. etc. etc.).[/b] In other words, what I have posted, comparing the King James, the Majority Text, with the Catholic Bible, the Minority text, shows the vast difference between them.[b] As such, both versions (the Majority Text & the Minority text) cannot be the Word of God. Only one can be God's Holy Writ.[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]God has promised us, in His own Word, that [color=990000]He will preserve His Word forever.[/color][/b]

Ps. 12:7
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God's word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3)

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:6-7

[b]For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." —Matt. 5:18[/b]

[b]"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." —Matt. 24:35[/b]

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,[b] by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." [/b] —I Peter 1:23

Man has been warned by God not to add to or take from His Word, the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19).

[b]Therefore, the KEEPING of God's word is GOD'S JOB, not fallible man's job.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

BeYeDoers wrote:
Walter, you can't stop can you?

The Catholic Church uses the New American Bible, not the Jerusalem Bible.

This thread has nothing to do with the Jerusalem Bible, but the NASB (and subsequently NIV).

How many times do we have to cover the fact that comparing Bible translations does NOTHING? They are translated from different sources, so they WILL be different!!! You are assuming that the KJV is correct, then show its differences from other translations to conclude that they are wrong. It is called circular reasoning, and is nauseating. Especially when it's the same stuff over and over from the KJV-only people.

Don't be surprised if Chris doesn't respond, because he probably won't dignify you with one. You apparently don't want a conversation, because your reasoning and dialogue isn't honest.

I love you brother, but I think it's time to put this one to rest.

Has anyone heard of Jay P Green? He did the KJ in a modern translation, he kept the same words but made it easier to read. Its called the King James II Bible.

No, it is not true.

Walter Nagel

crsschk wrote:

as Walter, the post-er formerly known as Stever,

True? Walter?

[b]A Chronology of the English Bible
Listing the events in the history of the English versions of Scripture, and of the place of Scripture in the church and in society. It also shows us the continuing battle between the "versions"- initially the Catholic Bible against the Protestant Bible, and continuing to this very day- the minority text verses the majority text, the Catholic "versions" verses the Protestant "version". What is the "version" that has provided "fruit"? [/b]

•\t440 AD. Roman legions withdraw from Britain.

•\t450. Anglo-Saxon invasions and settlement of Britain displace the native Celts in the south.

•\t597. Pope Gregory sends missionaries to Ethelbert of Kent, in the southeast of Britain.

•\t669. Theodore of Tarsus becomes archbishop of Canterbury, promotes episcopal hierarchy and Roman culture in the south of Britain.

•\t670. The herdsman Caedmon in northern Britain composes poems based on Biblical narratives in Old English.

•\t825. Vespasian Psalter gives interlinear Old English translation.

•\t856. Danes begin large scale invasion of eastern Britain. Destruction of monasteries there.

•\t878. King Alfred halts Danish invasion, divides Britain by treaty. Danes inhabit northeast half of Britain.

•\t900. Paris Psalter gives Old English version of the first fifty Psalms.

•\t924. Ethelstan becomes King and pursues conciliation and fushion with the Danes. Oda (a full-blooded Dane) appointed archbishop of Canterbury.

•\t950. Aldred (Bishop of Durham) writes Old English between the lines of the Lindisfarne Gospels.

•\t970. Faerman (Priest in Yorkshire) makes the first Old English version of the Gospel of Matthew in the Rushworth Gospels, based upon Aldred's gloss.

•\t1000. England overwhelmed by new invasion of Danes. King Ethelred flees to allies in Normandy. Aelfric (Abbot in Oxfordshire) translates abridged Pentateuch and several other portions of Scripture into Old English. Wessex Gospels give first Old English version of all four gospels.

•\t1042. King Edward, brought up in Normandy, attempts to Normanize the English Court, appoints a Norman archbishop. Godwin (Earl of Wessex) opposes him and causes the deposition of the archbishop.

•\t1066. Norman conquest of Britain, sponsored by Pope Alexander II, destroys Old English literature, makes Norman French the language of the nobility.

•\t1150. Old English yields to Middle English as the common language of Britain.

•\t1200. Orm composes poetical paraphrase of Gospels and Acts in Middle English.

•\t1300. Midland Psalter gives metrical version of the Psalms in Middle English.

•\t1309. Pope Clement V moves the headquarters of the Papacy from Rome to Avignon under domination of the French King.

•\t1320. Richard Rolle's Middle English Psalter.

•\t1330. Birth of John Wyclif.

•\t1340. Birth of Chaucer.

•\t1348. English replaces Latin as the medium of instruction in schools (except at Oxford and Cambridge).

•\t1360. Various gospel narratives translated into Middle English.

•\t1362. English replaces French as the language of law in England. English used for the first time in Parliament.

•\t1377. Pope Gregory XI moves the Papacy back to Rome.

•\t1378. French Cardinals create schism in the Roman Catholic Church by electing a rival Pope and returning to Avignon. Rival popes excommunicate one another.

•\t1380. Oxford professor John Wyclif publicly rejects Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, begins translating Latin Vulgate into English.

•\t1381. Peasants revolt in England. They seize London, but are soon overcome.

•\t1382. Wyclif expelled from his teaching post at Oxford for heresy. Completes translation of Bible with help of his students.

•\t1384. Death of Wyclif. His disciples continue to preach against the clergy, copy and sell manuscripts (mostly the Gospels).

•\t1388. Wyclif Bible revised by his student John Purvey.

•\t1400. Death of Chaucer.

•[b]\t1401. English parliament decrees the burning of heretics. Statute is aimed against the followers of Wyclif, called Lollards

•\t1408. Arundelian Constitutions enacted by Convocation of bishops at Oxford forbids unauthorized translation, distribution, or public reading of the Scripture.[/b]

•\t1411. Bonfire of Wyclif's writings at Oxford.

•[b]\t1415. John Hus, the radical Bohemian reformer and advocate of Wyclif's anti-clerical teachings, is burned at the stake. [/b]

•\t1417. Concil of Constance elects Martin V as Pope, and ends Roman Catholic schism.

•\t1450. Middle English yields to Early Modern English as the common language of Britain about now.

•[color=CC0000][b][size=small]1453. Moslems take Constantinople. Great exodus of Greek scholars from there to Western Europe, bringing with them Greek manuscripts of the Bible.

•\t1456. First printed book: Gutenberg Bible, containing the Latin text.

•\t1466. Birth of Erasmus. [/color][/b][/size]

•\t1476. First English book printed by William Caxton (The Recital of the Histories of Troy, translated from French).

•\t1478. Caxton prints Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

•\t1483. Birth of Martin Luther.

•\t1484. Birth of William Tyndale.

•\t1485. Henry Tudor becomes king Henry VII of England.

•\t1488. Birth of Miles Coverdale. • Hebrew Old Testament first printed by Jews at Soncino, Italy.

•\t1489. Birth of Thomas Cranmer.

•\t1491. Greek first taught at Oxford University.

•\t1496. John Colet gives lectures on Romans at Oxford.

•\t1499. Erasmus at Oxford.

•\t1500. Birth of John Rogers.

•\t1504. Birth of Matthew Parker.

•\t1505. Birth of Richard Taverner. • Birth of John Knox. • Luther enters the Augustinian Order.

•\t1506. New Cathedral of St. Peter begun in Rome (completed in 1590).

•\t1509. Henry VIII becomes king of England. • Birth of John Calvin. • Erasmus professor of Greek at Cambridge University.

•\t1510. William Tyndale at Cambridge.

•\t1514. Coverdale ordained.

•\t1515. Luther begins lectures on Romans at Wittenberg University. • Tyndale gets M.A. degree at Oxford.

•[b][color=CC0000]1516. Erasmus' first Greek New Testament (First printed Greek New Testament). [/color][/b]