Bible Study Question - What Version?

As always the first priority, is one born again?
If one is truly born again then they will love the Lord and seek to do His will from the word. Regardless of the translation.

Now concerning translations. I am a King James "preffered" not KJV "only".

I have spent about two years using each of the major versions before finally settling on KJV.

Why?

First it dosent change where as other translations will change from publish to publish because of copyright laws.

Second this makes it easier for memorization of the word.

Third the KJV is actually easy to understand.
If you don't know what a word means, just look it up in a dictionary, so simple. Then you just expanded your vocabulary.

I had allowed myself to be convinced by others that you "can't understand the KJV with all the Thee's and Thou's" I believed that for years and it hindered me from finally "resting" in one of the best translations that doesn't change.

Now if you decide otherwise thats fine with me. As I said at first; primary is being truly born again.

God bless.

Hello, Jim

For the past 10 years I have come to love the King James Version of the Bible. I have found a book that goes into all of the reasons why it is the only version a Christian should use.

Among those Christians that consider themselves to believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, there are two basic approaches to the text of the Scripture as it exists today. The first, held by the majority of conservative Christians, is that we should[b] criticize the text of the Bible [/b]as we would any other book to determine its text to the best of our abilities. This view insists that since we can find the most important truths of Christianity in whichever Bible we use, we can be assured that we have the message God wants us to have.

[color=990000][b]The second view, which is the view of Dr. Holland, myself, and many others, is that the body of Christ must have a Bible which speaks with authority. The scripture promises the preservation of its words, not just its general message and fundamental truths, so that the very words God wants us to have must be somewhere.[/color][/b] The author believes these words for the English speaking people are to be found in the King James Version of the Bible.

The King James Bible has come under heavy fire in the 20th century, being disparaged by many modern scholars. Its translators have been put down, its text has been put down, and some have gone so far as to suggest that the reason christian conservatives are considered
"backward" is because some still use it and believe it!

The author of this book, in a sweet spirit, free of rhetoric, biting remarks, or insults of other versions of the Bible or people who use them (you wont find any version called "perversion," etc.), presents the rich history behind the King James Version and the traditional Greek and Hebrew texts it was translated from, along with the other traditional early versions which preceeded it.

Unlike other books on both sides of this debate, Crowned With Glory does not "preach to the choir." The Foreword was even written by a man who disagrees with his views!(He has since changed his opinion, and supports the King James today). In fact, one of the best descriptions of this book is found in the foreword: "Other recent and popular attempts at presenting a foundation for discussion have occasionally betrayed their own ignorance, but Dr. Holland pulls every scrap of evidence-for and against his view-out of the closet of the certainty of the modern paradigm and reopens an honest discussion of the issues themselves."

This is a wonderful book that I believe should be read by all, regardless of which view they hold. It is scholarly, geting into deep subject, yet manages to keep things at a level where anyone can understand, and I definitely give it five stars.

It is an "easy read"

Look at the book here:[url=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory- The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/url]

Crowned with Glory
The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version
Dr. Thomas Holland

Sincerely,

Walter

jmooney6 wrote:
Hi Fellow Brothers and Sisters,

There is one question that has been perplexing me for a while now. Since I started becoming serious about my walk with Christ back towards the beginning of September, I've invested my money in accumulating a few translations of the Bible. I used the NIV translation for Scriptural study, but as I progress, I'm getting confused as to which translation is the most reliable. See, the NIV tends to leave some verses out of the whole (even though they are in footnotes).

There are many KJV-only enthusiasts out there who say it is the most reliable translation, but sometimes when I read it, the Old English both makes me appreciate how beautiful a translation it is, but it can also be quite confusing without having studied much Old English. The NKJV translation is almost the same, except it is more modernized in its English.

I also have the AMP translation, which puts the meanings of various words right in the middle of the text. I also purchased yesterday The Message //Remix, which is like the ultimate paraphrase Bible. Its copyright notice and its rules of how to quote it can also be a bit off-putting.

There are many other translations out there as well, and with many people out there saying "this is the true version" or "that is the true version", etc, how can I know which version is the most reliable?

I've prayed about this, and it seems the answer is that through reading multiple translations, I will gain a bit more understanding.

Would it also be wise to invest in a couple of language classes to learn Hebrew and Greek?

Please let me know your thoughts and guidance. Thank you and God bless.

If you don't mind the seeming disjointedness of the English, Young's Literal Translation does a good job of the tense of the verbs, and, it distinguishes when a noun is preceded by 'the', such as 'the way', 'the faith' and 'the sin' - a few examples. The Old Testament is hard going though. You definitely need to read other versions alongside.

Young also preserves the concept of 'age-during', and 'to the end of the age', from the Hebrew and Greek, which [i]seem[/i] to conflict with 'eternal' or 'everlasting' (which are both translations of the [i]same[/i] Hebrew and Greek).

This kind of difference cannot but affect the theology you develop. Likewise, the underlying theology expressed in the newer translations (the translators of which were not all Christians), is affected by how those men were 'thinking' in their unconverted minds, at the time they were preparing the translation.

Both Tyndale (who translated the New Testament - most of it still in the KJV) and Young, express the [i]love[/i] of God, somehow, in the way their work 'speaks' to me. (I would find it difficult to justify such a statement with 'a chapter and verse', but in the Spirit, I hear it coming through more than in some of the newer versions.)

One of my complaints about modern versions, is their oversimplification of the message, making them at times linear, conditional and uninspiring compared with the word of life which reaches me from the KJV. Some say that glory of the Deity of Christ is undermined in many of the newer versions, but I, personally, I have not compared them. (They have been compared by others.)

You may be interested to know that the publishing company which produces the NIV, also produces the Satanic bible. This doesn't make the NIV wrong, but it lays it open to interference, I believe, and anyway, every edition differs slightly from the previous ones, because of supposed up-dating of the translation.

Do these details matter? To some, they contribute to the reasons for returning to the KJV again and again, to hear what [i]new[/i] thing God will say through the [b][i]old[/b][/i] words.

On the intstantaneity of the the word of God, one of the strengths of the KJV is that it frequently flips into the present tense, both in the Old and New Testament. This has the effect of the bringing the [b]I AM[/b] right into the 'now' of one's understanding, and adds to the sense of urgency by which the hearer feels the word pressing in to be applied to the soul.

The most important thing is to hear from God so incontrovertibly, that His word has changed you as you study it.

You will need help from above to 'hear' the Spirit of Truth, whichever versions you read and study, and God will always be drawing you to understand [i]more[/i] truth, and, you should have a sense of having been [i]fed[/i] by His word. If not, it should be a red flag to you, to keep searching ever more deeply, until your hunger and thirst are regularly quenched.

Just my 2c. :-)

Excellent responses, even if I may not agree with them all. Very thoughtful. We've come a long way as a community when it comes to discussing this matter.

I'm partially with KingJimmy. I do believe the NASB is the best translation... of the Greek that it uses. My problem is: I don't believe the Alexandrian Text is the most reliable.

I believe the KJV is the best translation of the Greek Text that it uses. It is called the Received Text, and I happen to believe (through prayer and A LOT of studying this issue) that the Received Text is the preserved Word of God.

As for the KJV itself... I believe it is the best translation. Is it perfect? Well, I think there are things in it that the translators might have been able to translate better than they did. BUT that does not make those areas of the KJV wrong or in error, as some do argue.

It is because of the underlying Greek manuscripts that have been used in ALL modern versions since 1881 that I do not use them. They do have verses missing, which explains why your NIV does too. There are two sides of that story... don't have to get into it now.

Copyrights really get under my skin. Whenever a new "version" comes out (almost yearly) the "Christian" publishing companies (Zondervan, Thomas Nelson, etc) rake in the cash.

The KJV has no copyright... it is technically "public domain". (Chrissss addresses this a little more in depth in the post before mine) You can print it, copy it, etc. at no cost and you don't need permission.

Write a book and quote the NIV... and you'll be sued in court... by a "Christian" publishing company... for thousands.

The KJV does have some words that one might need to look up... but thats called "studying". Not a bad thing.

I dont judge anyone who uses a version other than the KJV. Our salvation is not based on what version we used, regardless of what some fundamentalists may tell us.

But after having used the NIV for years, then studying this issues for a long long time... and I am solidly on the KJV side of this issue.

Krispy

OK... I stand corrected on that one. I've not seen that before.

Sorry if I put out misinformation.

Basically what this is saying is that if you write an article you can quote the NIV without permission... not clear on whether you need to note in your article that it's the NIV you're quoting from or not. If you pick up a Christian book and look at the inside flap where the copyrights are listed... if they use anything other than a KJV they have to list the versions.

You may NOT print Bibles using a copyrighted version without the permission of the publisher, and you are subject to paying them.

You can print KJV's until the cows come home. I know several churches around where I live that do just that... to hand out while they are doing disaster relief... to ship oversees to missionaries... to give out to service men and women...

It just cost them ink and paper. But they dont have to get premission or pay anyone to use the text of the KJV.

If it is God's Word... why do I need permission, or to pay to use it? Sure, I paid for my Bible. There are material costs involved. I'm ok with that. But a price tag and permission on God's Word? hmmm... that does not sit well with me.

Krispy

Krispy

i use the kjv.

Personally, I would recommend that you stick with one literal translation that you are able to understand well for your everyday reading bible, the one you memorize verses with, study with, read through, etc. It's your main bible. For this, I have found a personal liking to the New King James.

But as being suplementary, I like to have multiple translations available to check on certain texts that I want to study in depth. Other good literal tranlations work well for this. Some good ones are NASB, ESV, even the NIV (though a little less accurate) and of course the old KJV is a classic. It has also helped me tremendously to know Spanish and read the Bible in Spanish -sometimes the Spanish catches Greek specifics that the English misses, since the verbs are so accurate.

ESV---for early morning devotional readings, I'm lovingly savoring the parts of the second section of the first collection of Psalms, Psalms 16 to 20, then into Psalm 22. I keep a couple NIV zondervan study Bibles around, ones all taped up, but I love it, coz its got dated notes and revelations I got laid up on me, the newer one's getting writ on to.

I write in the margins a lot, my boasting is confined to boasting on the Lord, as He gives me the hunger to feast on his Word. I got an 1824, very servicable KJV, a new KJV, I got a Korean-English Bible for when I am amongst my Korean bro's and sis's. I think I got a NKJV and an NASB, but thats all just blah blah blah, its how you eat of the Word, that counts in my conviction, a simple faith is best, away with all this theo-scholarship, and fancy theo-words, it doesnt matter, Jesus the Word, the Logos matters, are you clinging to the Hem of His Robe, with a holy desperation? yes or no?

Everything else is just TALK, and JUST showtime religion.

Enjoy these Bibles now, hear me, there is coming a day when the powers that be, make Bible ownership illegal...watch, and you'll be surprised at which quarter it will come from. I'm not going to say, but just learn now how to stock up on Bibles.

To Jmooney6:

I thought that this might provide food for thought.

[b]A BRIEF COMPARISON OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:[/b]

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.?" —(1 Corinthians 5:6)

[b]Leaven In the Bible is false teaching
(Matt. 16:12)[/b]

I. Comparing the KJV (King James Bible) with any modern translation of the Bible will show the following:

(Colossians 1:14)[color=990000] "Through his blood" is omitted.

Acts 17:26 "Blood!' is omitted.

1 John 5:7 The part of the verse proving the Trinity is omitted.

I Tim. 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" is changed to "He who was made manifest in the flesh," thus weakening the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

9Luke 2:33) "Joseph" is changed to "Father" thus calling Joseph the father of Christ.

(John 5:4) The whole verse is omitted.

(Acts 8:37) The whole verse is omitted.

(Mark 9:44,46) These verses are omitted in all modern versions.

(Romans 16:24) The whole verse is omitted.

(Matthew 18:11) The whole verse is omitted.

(Matthew 12:47) The whole verse is omitted.

(Mark 11:26) The whole verse is omitted.

(Mark 15:28) The whole verse is omitted.

(Mark 16:9-20) This passage is either omitted in the modern versions or placed in brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.

(John 8:l-11) This passage is either omitted or placed In brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.

(Acts 15:34) The whole verse is omitted.

(Acts 24:17) The whole verse is omitted.

(Acts 28:29) The whole verse is omitted.

(Romans 8:11) Half of the verse is omitted.

(Romans 1:16) The phrase "of Christ" is omitted.

(Matthew 6:13) Half of the verse is omitted in the modern versions.

(I Peter 2:2) The phrase "unto salvation" or "in regard to your salvation" is added to the text in modern versions to teach salvation by works.

(Matthew 9:13) "To repentance" is omitted.

(Mark 2:17) "To repentance" is omitted.

God has told us, in His Word, The Holy Bible, that He magnifies his Word above his Name.
(Psalms 138:2)
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:[u] for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."[/u]

[u]As you look at the differences in this cursory analysis, can you honestly say that you are reading the same Bible as the King James Bible?[/u]

Or are you actually reading the Bible created by the gnostics, who cut and pasted Gods word to conform to their heresies and false teaching, which became the Catholic Bible, that all of the newer versions come from?[/color]

Sincerely,

Walter

Brother i would recommend whatever the Lord first leaves you to do, but i must read the kjv from my own studies. I don't want to bring on any doubt to you about the other versions but know that they put things in their versions that were not in the manuscripts before, so in reality they leave what the manuscripts that the kjv had in them in theirs when translating these other versions.

In response to Waltern noting that many words and some verses are missing from the modern versions. I looked them up in the New King James and they are all there just as in the old KJV. They are not omitted, and are not moved to the footnotes. There is a note next to it that notes that they are not in the "NU-Text" but they are retained in the bible itself. For this I like the NKJV. It's updated english, but the same exact bible.

But I also have some concern over the manuscripts popularized by Westcott and Hort (two men known to be blatant heretics who denied the Diety of Christ, the subsitutionary atonement, and lived in drunkeness and immorality). Alexandria Egypt was the Gnostic headquarters of the ancient world, certainly not a trustworthy source of Biblical manuscripts (especially seeing that they don't agree with the majority that were already in circulation around the world). The other oldest manuscript was discovered in the Vatican. Dare we trust the Vatican? I trust the Textus Receptus, but am open to correction.

Brothers and Sisters--did you know that the Greek New Testament text historically used down through the centuries by the believing church has been cast aside and replaced by a radically different Greek text?

Nearly everyone has the impression that the difference in wording between modern translations and the 1611 King James Bible, as well as the other older English versions, is mainly due to synonym choices and language changes. Such is not a situation.[b] The outrageous reason is that almost all translations since 1881 have been made from a drastically different Greek text than was used to prepare the older versions. The traditional Greek text (the text found in the King James Bible, and all of the way back to the beginning of the believing Church) has been replaced![/b]

Yet 90-95% of all the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts agree with each other and the traditional text as well as the old versions, but they do not agree with the extremely few upon which the new Greek text is based upon. ALL OF THE NEWER BIBLE VERSIONS, SINCE 1881 RELY ON THE MINORITY TEXT THAT WAS USED TO CREATE THE CATHOLIC BIBLE. IN 1881, WHEN THE “REVISION COMMITTEE” GOT TOGETHER IN ENGLAND TO “UPDATE” THE KING JAMES VERSION (GET RID OF THE THEES AND THOUS) THEY HAD ANOTHER AGENDA. WHAT WAS THEIR AGENDA? TO REPLACE THE MAJORITY TEXT, PASSED DOWN FROM THE BELIEVING CHURCH SINCE THE BEGINNING, WITH THE MINORITY TEXT THAT WAS USED TO CREATE THE CORRUPT CATHOLIC BIBLE.

What was the response of American Christians in 1881 when the work of Westcott and Hort and their “Revision” committee published their “revised version” of the New Testament?

Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the editor, New York Times, February 8, 1881[/url]

What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the "1881 revision" (it was not a "revision", it was a replacement!). They rejected it as being a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected until the early 1900's, but still had very little support. Today, people actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

The story line starts as follows: "Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808"

Thoughout this 1881 article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James (just like many have done on Sermonindex). They actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical on verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham's Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:

"These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago."

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

[url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html]Belsham's Unitarian new Testament (1808)[/url]

[b]The 1808 Belsham New Testament “included a valuable introduction on the progress and principles of textural criticism, anticipating many judgments later adopted in the Revised Version of 1881”; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).[/b]

[color=990000][b]What none of the Protestant critics of 1881 knew, when they published their discovery that the 1881 Revised Version by Westcott and Hort was a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament, was that Belsham, as well as Westcott & Hort had switched the Authorized version of the New Testament with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus used to create the Catholic Bible. Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened---the SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clenent of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebiusas & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnostocism! [/color][/b]

What is the fruit of Caholocism? What is the fruit of all the over 90 newer Bible Versions created since 1881. Today, the Protestant is crying out for Revival, but it is nowhere to be found. The Protestant Church is crying out for Brokenness, but cannot be found. It is crying out for a “real” prayer life and a real personal walk with Jesus Christ, but again, it cannot be found!

Do these facts have interest to you? They have great interest to me, yet there is no reason for me to continue with these "revelations" are of no interest to the Body of Christ in these last days.

When we open our Bibles today, we are opening up one of the two" types" of Bibles. Even though today we have many Bible versions seemingly to choose from, we still only have two "types" of Bibles. One of the Bibles has been passed down from the Christian Church, from the very beginning, and is the Protestant Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, the King James Bible.

The other Bible that could be in our hands today has been passed down from Gnostic's who revised God's Word to conform to their own beliefs- it is the Catholic Bible The Catholic Bible , that has relied on the minority text, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

[b]In 1881 the Westcott & Hort used the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce their new Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament is not the same as the one used for the King James Bible during the Reformation. All of the newer Bible Versions since 1881 have relied on the Greek New Testament created by Westcott & Hort, relying on the faulty Vaticanius and Sinaiticus text.

So, to clarify the issue, today, if you study the NIV, NASB, American Standard, or any of the other "newer" versions, you are actually studying Gnostic Doctrine, as found in the Catholic Bible and the Catholic Church.[/b]

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

Sincerely,

Walter

I work at the christian family store and their was a man coming in their and going up to every customer trying to prove the kjv over the other versions, he was showing small changes in the other versions that affect the text. I understand what he was saying but many customers got mad and their was a n agnostic who walked out the store because of this man. I think this is not the problem the Bible versions but that we our not preaching the complete truth and living the biblical walk, holiness and godliness has gone out the door. The gospel is only partially preached today and we our compromising to the world. I know some serious men of God who have a passion that i have not ever seen in other christians who don't always use the kjv but what men of God they our, i know Christ is living in them. but we should be happy that people our defending the word of God but we do not want to put it above Jesus Christ. I also would like to say that i am one of those who at times has compromised to the world and living holy etc. but i thank God for sites like this and preaching on here that has revealed to me the truth in scripture, well i thank the Lord.

Dear Bible4life:

Sermonindex is hardly a Christian Bookstore. The subject of this Thread is Bible Scriptures & Doctrine. What we are discussing on this thread is which version should we use for personal Bible Study?

I have presented the truth of the issue, directly from history- the American Christian response to the “Revised New Testament” by Westcott & Hort in 1881. It was rejected by the Christian Church as being a plagarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian Bible. Both the Belshian Bible, as well as the “Revised Version” of Westcott & Hort relied on the minority text—the same text used to create the Catholic Bible. The Christian Bible of the believing Church, handed down from the believing Church from the beginning, that relied on the “Majority text” was replaced by the minority text by Belshan, in 1808, when he created his own “Unitarian Bible” & the majority text was replaced with the Minority text. Again, in 1881 when Westcott & Hort created their 1881 Revised New Testament they secretely replaced the Majority Text with the Minority Text..

[b]What does the Bible say about Truth? Is it OK for us to know the truth, and not tell others because we are afraid that we might offend them? Truth has many benefits, including freeing believers from the power of sin. God's people have a responsibility to speak the truth, even when others don't want to hear the truth. You should always speak the truth in love. Suppressing the truth can incur the wrath of God.[/b]

[color=990000][b]Not everyone sees the urgency of which version to study. What follows are some promises provided to us from God, that are found in His Word. If you will notice, those that support the newer Bible versions will ALWAYS say that today we no longer have a Bible that God promises us that we would have, forever. In other words, they are denying the power of God, and the validity of His promises about protecting & preserving His Word Forever! Not the "thoughts" of God, but the very[u] Words of God[/u] FOREVER[/color][/b]

"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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

Sincerely,

Walter

bible4life wrote:
I work at the christian family store and their was a man coming in their and going up to every customer trying to prove the kjv over the other versions, he was showing small changes in the other versions that affect the text. I understand what he was saying but many customers got mad and their was a n agnostic who walked out the store because of this man. I think this is not the problem the Bible versions but that we our not preaching the complete truth and living the biblical walk, holiness and godliness has gone out the door. The gospel is only partially preached today and we our compromising to the DELETED
.

Ccchhhrrriiisss, what follows are some of your previous posts to me, with what you truly think about the Word of God:

[b]From ccchhhrrriiisss to Walter:[/b]
[color=336600]But Brother, this should be clear: This is NOT to be deemed an attack on the KJV or its translators. Truth is truth; fact is fact. We cannot blindly defend a version that was created by flawed men as "infallible" unless we first examine the version. Do we know the history of the version? Do we know the men who created it? It is never an "attack" to state the truth unless that "truth" is conveyed in a mean-spirited manner. This is not my intent. I believe that the KJV of the Word of God is a faithful rendition taken from the various sources chosen for its translation and through the methods used. That is why it is my translation of choice. However, I am keenly aware that the KJV is not a "perfect and preserved" translation down to the last "dot and tittle" as argued by man KJV-only advocates.[b][u] Even the version that we have still contains mistakes. [/u][/b]

Do you see the problem with the type of almost blind allegiance to the version that is apparent today? I know men and women who look for reasons to discredit other versions. When a flaw is discovered in their version, instead of admitting the obvious, they try to develop answers for the flaw. Yet the translators themselves (in their preface) admitted that their version was not perfect! While I don't think that it is "perfect," I do think that it was "faithful" (if that makes sense).

When all is said and done, I don't believe that there was a conspiracy in either the KJV or the NIV committees. There are some terrible versions and translations out there. But I think that the translators of the KJV did the best that they could given the sources that they accepted and the methods that they chose (even if there were some preconditioned handicaps placed upon them). However, I believe that the same is true with certain academic versions like the NIV. Those translators attempted to produce a faithful translation of Scripture from the sources that they deemed best using the varying methods that they deemed most adequate. Because of this, I view these versions for what they are: Translations of Scriptures from different sets of sources using different methods of translation.

As such, I think that the real discussion lay with the sources and translation methods. Ironically, this was the cause of much mistrust for the KJV in its first 100 years of existence -- and the NIV for the past 30 years. However, an examination and discussion of facts should never be construed as an “attack.”

“Of course, I still prefer my KJV of the Word of God. I understand and acknowledge the arguments made in favor of the supremacy of the KJV's source material. However, I also understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer”

Brother, that is a bold statement! Did you even read my post(s)? So, you think that I commenced an "ongoing assault” on the KJV -- a version that is my primary choice for the study of God's Word? What part makes you think that it is an attack? You are into "sources" -- so can you please guide me to what words of mine were used to "attack" this version? Otherwise, please change the wording of your post. [/color]

[color=990000][b]Chris, you have made the following attacks against me as well, and on God's abilities to preserve his actual Words, on this same subject[/color][/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[color=336600]As for sources: While you claimed otherwise, I am not biased for either set of sources. However, I do understand the arguments for both sets of sources. I understand the arguments presented by the pro-Textus Receptus advocates (not to be confused with the wild claims of the more staunch KJV-only advocates). However, I also understand the position of the majority of scholars today who prefer a wider view of all scholarly available ancient text sources. [u]Through my own research, I have not been able to arrive to a final conclusion as to the ultimate superiority of one source over the other. [/u]

Like I have said often in the past, I don’t believe that this is really a question of the supremacy of the KJV over the NIV (or vice versa).[b] I completely discount the theory that the KJV is the only “perfect and preserved” Word of God. [/b]It had many (mostly superficial) mistakes that were corrected over 140 years. However, there are still mistakes within it today. However, I feel that it is a faithful rendering from its sources. A much more healthy debate, in my opinion, is one that discusses the sources and translation methods for which a work is taken. In my experience, I have found that a great many people who argue in favor of the “majority” texts over the “minority” texts (or on occasion, vice versa) have little understanding of the issues outside of the books and sermons that preach the view for which they adhere. I have spoken with people who assume that the KJV was taken from a single source called the “majority text.” That is incorrect. Like the translators of the NIV, the translators of the KJV used an eclectic set of texts (one of which was Erasmus’ Textus Receptus for the New Testament) by which they examined and derived their translation.

Yet I am amazed that the bulk of discussions regarding the KJV and all of the supposedly “flawed” versions seldom mention the roots of the issue. The roots, in my estimation, are both the sources and methods used for translation. While these are usually discussed in these sort of threads, it is usually as support for another argument (such as “the KJV is superior” or “all modern versions are inferior”).[u] It would be healthy, I think, if we could have a real discussion that truly examines the roots of this issue – rather than continued debates over just how “perfect” the KJV might be. I have not arrived to a final conclusion on the matter[/u] of textual or methodic supremacy. Why? It is because I have researched both sides of this issue extensively that I cannot arrive to an ultimate conclusion. I understand both (and multiple) sides to this debate. However, I am far too fearful of pointing the finger of heresy at a single academic translation or set of sources – when, in fact, I might be wrong. Therefore, I choose to read these versions (the KJV and the NIV) knowing very well the manner, methods and sources by which they were created. I also read them with the understanding that they were produced by flawed men who admitted that their creation was not beyond flaw.

[b]Walter, I asked you a long time ago a question regarding whether or not you believed that the KJV was the “perfect and preserved” Word of God.[/b] You never answered the question. However, I urge you to move beyond a question of “end product” perfection or supremacy and consider the issues that made up that version. Consider carefully and honestly the opposing views of the scholars and translators without viewing it as some sort of diabolic conspiracy (as some have insisted). Contact the translators of the NIV. Contact experts in the field of textual criticism and translation methods. Try to understand their perspective BEFORE accepting the conclusion that you might have been handed from a sermon or book. I did this a long time ago – gathering such information from both sides of the aisle. I presented some of this information to these men and asked for their responses. I researched the history of the versions, the sources and the men who were involved. Nothing was off limits to my investigation.[/color][/u]

[color=990000][b] ccchhhrrriiisss, now, compare your position, your true opinion on this issue, based upon your words that appear above, as well as the following words (that are your words): [/color][/b][color=336600][u]"Even the version that we have still contains mistakes."[/color][/u]

[color=990000][b]Now, compare your opinion with The promises of God, found in the Bible, to all believers in regards to the fact that He will PRESERVE HIS WORD (HIMSELF) FOREVER:

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

God's word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3). In His infallible word, God promises to keep His words (note: W-0-R-D-S, not messages).

Not one word was to be in error.
"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

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

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

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

Man was not to add to or take from God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

Therefore, the keeping of God's word is God's job, not fallible man's.
"...Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:7

This was the view of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB).
Note how they concluded their preface to the A.V. 1611:
"...we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, that we may love it to the end."

If you start with Scripture, your finishing point is confidence in God's word.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." —I Thess. 2:13[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...

[color=660000]If you will notice, those that support the newer Bible versions will ALWAYS say that today we no longer have a Bible that God promises us that we would have, forever. In other words, they are denying the power of God, and the validity of His promises about protecting & preserving His Word Forever![/color]

This is not true. In fact, it is a LIE to claim that we are "denying the power of God." Many of us who either respect or embrace some of the "modern" versions (although I don't like that term, because they are no more "modern" than the KJV was in 1611) also believe that God has preserved His Word. Many of us embrace the KJV as a legitimate and scholarly attempt at translation but we simply do not believe that it is "perfect" down to the last "dot and tittle."

Please be careful with your accusations, Brother Walter. I know that you are very passionate about this, but it is a poor defense of the KJV to simply launch an attack on other versions. It isn't helpful when you also attack those who do not agree with you or others who share your views about this. I don't desire to engage in yet another long dialog about this. I simply feel a need to encourage this discussion to NOT meander into inaccurate or misleading accusations that stray from facts into personal slights.

This is not true. In fact, it is a LIE to claim that we are "denying the power of God." Many of us who either respect or embrace some of the "modern" versions (although I don't like that term, because they are no more "modern" than the KJV was in 1611) also believe that God has preserved His Word. Many of us embrace the KJV as a legitimate and scholarly attempt at translation but we simply do not believe that it is "perfect" down to the last "dot and tittle."

Please be careful with your accusations, Brother Walter. I know that you are very passionate about this, but it is a poor defense of the KJV to simply launch an attack on other versions. It isn't helpful when you also attack those who do not agree with you or others who share your views about this. I don't desire to engage in yet another long dialog about this. I simply feel a need to encourage this discussion to NOT meander into inaccurate or misleading accusations that stray from facts into personal slights.

ccchhhrrriiisss...

You know me well enough to know that when I speak on this it will not be a personal attack. I am thankful for brothers on here that understand me.

While some of what he said is over the top, he does have a point in what he is saying. Unfortunately it got drowned out by his words.

As you know there are two streams of text: the Received Text, and the Alexandrian.

They differ from one another... quite a bit. Thats a fact.

Logically you have to agree that either one of them is the preserved Word of God and the other one is not... or neither of them are because they can not both be.

Make sense? It's simple logic.

Therefore those who argue for "modern" versions have to say that either the Alexandrian stream of text is the preserved Word of God, and the RT is not... or they have to argue that they don't really know for sure.

So far I've not heard anyone since Wescott & Hort argue with surity that the Alexandrian Text is definately the preserved Word of God.

Do you see what I am saying? Everyone salutes the KJV... and the Received Text. Few dare to call it (meaning the Received Text) in error.

In the Alexandrian Text the two main manuscripts that make it up disagree with each other. So even if you believe the Alexandrian Text is the preserved Word of God... you got problems within itself.

I believe the Received Text stands alone.

The KJV really isnt the issue. It's not an inspired translation as some say. Thats foolishness. It is not in error as some argue either... it simply has places that could have been translated a little better. Thats not error.

The question is about underlying manuscripts.

So as I said... no one can successfully argue that the Alexandrian Text is THE preserved Word of God... because no one wants to be, or can be that certain of it. So on that point... Walter is correct.

He just is not eloquent of speech, as Moses would say.

Krispy

My job allows me hours and hours to make study and comparisons between the variant readings as I come across them. I just want to say that the vast majority of variations are so minute that we need not fret about the reliability of the record the Lord has preserved for us. Studying, comparing and weighing the variations has not weakened or confused my faith at all. Many of the variations are easily understandable and not necessarily contradictory at all.

I'm not buying it. I don't mean any disrespect by that at all, brother. But I can point to respected expert one right after the other who wuold disagree that the variations between the RT and the Alexandrian are miniscule.

Acts 8 with the Ethiopoan guy is a prime example. A whole verse is missing between the two streams of text... and I would consider it extremely important. Without it there is no explanation of why the man got baptised.

It does weaken it, it does make a difference. And it's interesting to point out that the vast majority of differences have to do with who Christ is, and what His blood stands for. Thats more than just a coincidence.

Over the years I have noticed an interesting trend in American evangelicalism. This is personal observation, and not scientific, tho it may be true....

If you look at churches today that many of us here at SI would call "worldly" or even apostate... the vast majority of them mock the KJV and completely embrace the modern versions.

Mind you, before you flame me... let me state that is not true of all churches. I've just been noticing this trend, and so I am saying only what I seem to be observing.

Krispy

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

Krispy did an excellent job of explaining my position. In a nutshell, we have two streams of text. One from the believing Church (The Majority Text) that is consistent with itself, and the Minority text, from Alexandria Egypt, that is in dispute with itself. One is the Spirit Breathed Word of God, that God has told us He holds in higher esteem than His own name. He has also told us in His Word that He would preserve it forever. Not his thoughts, but his Spirit breathed Word, as recorded in His Holy Bible. How did that happen? It was passed down by the believing Church..

We have two schools of thought today. Those of us that believe in the [b]Preserved Word of God[/b] & those of us that do not believe in the Preservation of God’s word--- but believe in the[b] restoration of God’s Word.[/b]

I believe in the Preservation of God’s Word. That is my position.

This is Krispy’s post to you, ccchhhrrriiisss, that goes into detail about my position:

[b]ccchhhrrriiisss...

You know me well enough to know that when I speak on this it will not be a personal attack. I am thankful for brothers on here that understand me.

While some of what he said is over the top, he does have a point in what he is saying. Unfortunately it got drowned out by his words.

As you know there are two streams of text: the Received Text, and the Alexandrian.

They differ from one another... quite a bit. Thats a fact.

Logically you have to agree that either one of them is the preserved Word of God and the other one is not... or neither of them are because they can not both be.

Make sense? It's simple logic.

Therefore those who argue for "modern" versions have to say that either the Alexandrian stream of text is the preserved Word of God, and the RT is not... or they have to argue that they don't really know for sure.

So far I've not heard anyone since Wescott & Hort argue with surity that the Alexandrian Text is definately the preserved Word of God.

Do you see what I am saying? Everyone salutes the KJV... and the Received Text. Few dare to call it (meaning the Received Text) in error.

In the Alexandrian Text the two main manuscripts that make it up disagree with each other. So even if you believe the Alexandrian Text is the preserved Word of God... you got problems within itself.

I believe the Received Text stands alone.

The KJV really isnt the issue. It's not an inspired translation as some say. Thats foolishness. It is not in error as some argue either... it simply has places that could have been translated a little better. Thats not error.

The question is about underlying manuscripts.

So as I said... no one can successfully argue that the Alexandrian Text is THE preserved Word of God... because no one wants to be, or can be that certain of it. So on that point... Walter is correct.

He just is not eloquent of speech, as Moses would say.

Krispy

[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

chris and lysa great points. I read james white's book called the king james only controversy and he spoke about some of the things you brought up. Also i would like to say that many in the kjv only group will say look at the word they took out or changed in the other version and say oh they omiited the blood or sin or something but you will find somewhere else where they will have the blood written, they pick and point the finger at i guess what i think our straw man arguments. It is ok to translate the kjv into an easier english, do you know how many words in the kjv we have never heard of, it needs an easier translation, you can say well don't be lazy and get a dictionary but i tell you what the kjv was translated to just like everything else, why don't we talk about the greek translations or the syriac or the peshitta why is it that we only defend the english versions or translations to me it seems only american bias. I know the peter ruckmans, kent hovinds etc. who defend this only version and hey i think it is great thing but when you start saying the ones who don't hold to it our heretics and apostates and unsaved that is taking it to far. I don't see the big problem if king Ahaziah was 42 and the kjv had 22 but their was translating error, it does not take from the word of God.

"I don't think that the Textus Receptus stands "alone." It was taken from different sources that were available to and translated by one man. However, I do believe that God preserved His Word. But I believe that He did so in an eternal, spiritual sense...and not in a particular English manuscript. Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:1). " Ccchhhrrriiisss

Amen

To Homefree89:

Homefree said: "I asked this question of Walter earlier, but he won't answer me"

Walter responds:
The reason is quite clear. All of the newer versions diminsh the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and diminish who Christ really is (the eternal Son of God), and the importance of what His blood stands for.

In Acts chapter 8 we find that the NIV & other newer versions deleted the Gospel message found in Acts 8:37. How does it do that? It deletes the entire verse.

Here is the verse, as found in the KJV that is deleted in the newer versions:

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. KJV
37. MISSING FROM THE NIV AND MOST NEWER VERSIONS

What is missing? The Gospel message of Jesus Christ- that we all must believe with all our hearts that Jesus Christ is the son of God before we can be saved.

Biblical Comparisions Depicting the Magnitude of the problem (I could spend days on this one):

Colossians 1:14
Regarding the son, Jesus, from verse 13, we read:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJV)
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NAS,NIV,RSV)

"Through his blood" is deleted – a major difference! If your "Bible" does not contain these three words, someone has tampered with it such that it is no longer the Word of God. If it is wrong here in your newer version, how can you be certain that many other such omissions do not exist?

First 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." (KJV)

This verse above, as recorded in the King James, clearly teaches that Jesus is God!

"And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory." (NAS,NIV,RSV,NEB)

There is a great difference between someone named "he" being manifest in the flesh and "God". By changing "God" to "He who", the fact that Jesus is God is removed. This is one of the most powerful and clear verses in all of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ Jesus – the alteration therefore is seen as a direct attack upon His deity.

Over 300 mss read "God was manifest", only 8 mss say something else; of those 8, five say "who" instead of "God" and three have private interpretations. This means that of the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that bear witness to the true reading of this verse, 97% agree with the King James as opposed to 2% that read "who".

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. (KJV)

"A young woman is going to have a baby." (Jerusalem Version)
"A young woman who is pregnant will have a son." (Good News)
"Behold a young woman shall conceive ..." (RSV)

---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. One wonders why the sudden departure in the verse before us. 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 "hot" 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.

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

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (KJV)

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout aloud O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes unto you; triumph and victorious is He; humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass. (RSV)

[color=990000][b] "And having salvation" is left out. This verse clearly declares the purpose for the Messiah's coming, yet the newer versions all eliminated it. [/color][/b]

Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV, NAS)
Comment: "A" son and her "firstborn" do not necessarily mean the same.

Furthermore, "firstborn" reveals that Mary had other children, correcting the Roman error that Mary was a perpetual virgin. (which demands that Joseph be a perpetual virgin also, unless he was an adulterer!? (Mk.6:2-4; Joh.7:2-6, cp. 2:12; Psa.69:8; Luk.21:16)

Matthew 4:10 (9:18; 20:20; Mk.5:6; Lk.24:52)
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (KJV)

In the above verse, Jesus clearly endorsed Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20, declaring that all worship and service should be directed toward God and Him alone – yet Jesus Himself received and accepted worship on many occasions. In marked contrast, Peter (Act.10:25,26) and an angel (Rev.22:8) refused to accept worship, insisting that only God should be worshipped. Thus by Jesus' act of accepting worship, He was proclaiming that He was and is God!

Moreover, that He was indeed Jehovah come in the flesh. Yet many of the newer versions render the Greek verb "proskuneo" (proskuneo) as "bowed down", "paid homage", "knelt", "made obesience" etc. (See below.)

MAT 9:18 (KJV) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

MAT 9:18 (NAS) While he was saying these things to them, behold, there came a synagogue official, and bowed down before him saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live." (knelt, NIV)

MAT 20:20 (KJV) Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

MAT 20:20 (NAS) "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him." (kneeling down, NIV)

MAR 5:6 (KJV) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, ...

MAR 5:6 (NAS) And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him. (fell on his knees, NIV)

LUK 24:52 (KJV) And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

LUK 24:52 (NAS) "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy." (worship omitted)

The preceding changes should alarm any Bible believer who is constantly being told that the NAS and the NIV are the best translations available, often by well meaning men of God. Yet in these verses, the NAS and NIV read almost exactly as the New World Translation published by the Jehovah's Witness cult (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).

Again, this represents a direct attack on the deity of Christ Jesus and it is not warranted in the Greek language. "Proskuneo" (proskuneo) appears 59 times in the N.T. In all of the other places, it has historically been rendered as "worship", "worshipped", or "worshipping" without challenge. It is by far the most prominent Greek word for worship in the Scriptures (the second largest occurring only 3 times). It is used to describe that which the people offer to: Satan (Rev.13:4), the Beast (Rev.13:15; 14:11; 16:2), demons (Rev.9:20), idols (Act.7:43), and God throughout the N.T. In these verses, the translators of the NAS, NIV etc., had no difficulty in Translating "proskuneo as "worship". Why do they suddenly find themselves compelled to offer a different wording when the same word is used in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Moreover, the Hebrew equivalent of "proskuneo" is "shachah" (Hebrew = Shiyn-Cheyth-He = hjv). Shachah occurs 174 times in the Old Testament, and it too is normally translated by some form of the word "worship" – being so rendered 99 times. Furthermore, shachah is the same word that is used with reference to the worship of God, idols, images, demons, etc. throughout the entire Old Testament.

Sincerely,

Walter

HomeFree89 wrote:

Acts 8 with the Ethiopoan guy is a prime example. A whole verse is missing between the two streams of text... and I would consider it extremely important. Without it there is no explanation of why the man got baptised.

I asked this question of Walter earlier, but he won't answer me. DELETED

you made some good points waltern, do you know the answer about the age of king ahaziah when he reigned.

To bible4life:

Please see the following, from Chronology of the Old Testament- A Return to the Basics by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones

Ahaziah’s age upon his accession

The age in which Jehoshaphat’s grandsom Ahaziah took the throne is another “apparent error” in Scripture.

26. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. 27. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab. (II Kings 8:26-27)

2. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
3. He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counseller to do wickedly. (ii Chronicles 22:2-3)

Ahaziah was 22, not 42 when he became sovereign of Judah. This is the undeniable case that may be seen in the simple fact that Jehoram, Ahaziah’s father and predecessor, was 40 years old at the time of his death. This may be seen in that Jehoram was 32 when he ascended to the crown as co-regent with Jehosphaphat and ruled 8 years (32 + 8= 40; II Kings 8:16-17). Obviously a son cannot be 42 (unless adopted? II Chron 22:9, but we think not) when his father is 40, thus 22 is the correct age for Ahaziah; but what of the number 42 as given in II Chronicles 22:2?

For the non Biblicist, the solution is quite simple. The 42 is merely another “scribal error” where 42 was mistakenly written for 22. Whereby it might seem reasonable that a “four” could have inadvertently been written for the “two”, such is simply not the case. A crucial problem with this rationale is that the Hebrew Text does not give numbers. Instead the words “forty and two years” and twenty and two years” are written out and the words for “twenty” and “forty” are considerably different. In Hebrew, “twenty” is spelled “ain-sin-resh-jod-men” and ‘forty” is written “aleph-resh-beth-ain-jod-mem”, a significant difference requiring far more than a mere slip of the pen or blink of the eye on the part of the scribe.

In the first place, the believing Biblicist would never have accepted such a solution because his/her frame of reference begins with a position of faith. Thus he reasons: “as both statements have been faithfully preserved by God to the “jot and tittle’, how can both be true- for they must so be.”

[b]The solution for this problem has been given by so many conservative scholars over the years that an attempt at referencing becomes unending. [/b]A careful comparison of the two passages reveals that the word “was” is in italics in the Authorized Version (KJV) meaning that it is not actually present in the Hebrew text. The words in italics have been added by the translators in an attempt to make the rendering smoother and clearer. They have so designed to distinguish God’s words from man’s. Thus the literal Hebrew idion reads “a son of 42 years” (very similar to I Samuel 13:1 where that “problem” passage translates “a son of one year in his reigning”) and in so doing, II Chronicles 22:2 does not demand that Ahaziah be 42 years old upon his ascension. The idion can only be properly understood in its context. That is, the same expression may be understood differently if the context is not the same.

The solution becomes forthright as a precedence has already been established. Observe that the “problem passage” is in the Book of Chronicles. As stated heretofore, Chronicles was written around five centuries after Kings. Furthermore, as we have seen in the case concerning Baasha, Chronicles recorded an incident and referenced it to the beginning of Asa’s dynasty rather than to his actual years of reign. Ahaziah’s mother is Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and grandmother to Omri; hence he is in the direct lineage of dynasties of Israel and judah and moreover is said to be of “the house of Ahab” (II Chr. 23:3-4).

Now the benefit of a visual display (that I cannot post) in aiding the seeker to solve the puzzle may be appreciated. As one refers to Chart 5 (again, I cannot post this chart) in an attempt to discover the intended context of the Chronicler and remembering that he has used regnal statements with reference to the beginning of Asa’s dynasty just prior to establishing this precedent, the solution immediately stands forth. Note that the verse in question calls attention to Omri and it may readily be seen that it is exactly the 42nd year (Judaic reckining) of the dynasty in Israel which he founded in BC 929 when he slew Zimri. Thus the sense of Ahaziah’s being “a son of 42 years” in his reigning is seen to refer to his being a son of the dynasty of Omri whcih was in it’s 42nd year. Putting the two Scriptures together reveals that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign during the 42nd year of the dynasty of Omri of which he is also an integral part.

The point that is being stressed by the Holy Spirit who inspired the Chronicler to so write is that Ahaziah is as much the “son of Omri” as he is “the son of David”. Since the Messiah was foretold as being “the son of David” (Matthew 22:42), and not the “son of Omri”, Ahaziah’s name is deliberately omitted in the offical genealogy of Christ Jesus in Matther 1:8. That is, Ahaziah, his son joash, and Joash’s son Amaziah have been judically removed by the Holy Spirit in Matthew due to their relationship to Ahab’s and Jezebels;s wicked daughter Athaliah.

Her idolaterous influence infecrted, as it were, the Judaic lineage and these three Kings of Judah were all charged with idolatry (1. Ahaziah, II Chr. 22:3-4, the “ways of the house of Ahab”; 2. Joash, II Chron. 24:17-18; 3. Amaziah II Chron 25:14-15 “gods of Edom”)
As the sins of the parents are visited to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5, cp Psalms 109:13-14), three generations are passed over in the register in “cleaning’ the Messianic lineage so that Messiah may be said to be the “son of David” and none other. Thus it may be seen that these two Scriptures (II Chr 22:2; Matthew 1:8), both long held to be erroneous, actually sustain and explain one another.

If it be doubted that the Holy Spirit’s ommission of these three names in Matthew 1:8 is deliberate, let the skeptic note that the names of the three High Priests (Amariah [Jehoshaphat’s]; Jehoiada [Athaliah’s etc.], and Zechariah [Joash’s] all of whom officiated during this time frame, are also not found in the official register. Moreover Jehoiada was one of the finest priests since Samuel (II Chron 24:16) and yet his name is ommitted from the genealogical roll ((IChron 6:1-15, cp Ezr. 7:1-5); also see II Kings 11:14-19; 12:2; II Chron 22-24). Jehoiada lived 130 years (II chron 24:15 so was alive in the days of Rehoboam, perhaps even back to the time of Solomon. He would have reached the age of assuming the full priesthood during the middle of the reign of Asa and was the high priset at the time of Athaliah’s overthor and the installment of little Joash to his rightful throne (II Chron 23:8c, 18-20; 24-26).

Why are thir names missing? Although a conclusive answer for all three is not known, perhaps it was due in part to rheir association with several monarchs. That nothwithstanding, sufficient reasons are to be found related to Jehoiada’s having been excluded. First, was he who made the plural marriages for young Joash, undoubtedly in an attempt to insure a male heir to David’s throne. Such marriages were not only wrong in God’s eyes, but by so doing Jehoiada displayed a lack of faith that God Himself would perform the promise to David that he would not lack a son who could occupy the throne (II Sam 7; Psalms 89:19-37)

Lastly, it is possible that, in deference to Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada may have performed the marriage of Jehoram to Athaliah-if indded such ceremonies were required to be discharged by the Hebrew priests at that period. Though Jehoram can in no way be conceived as having been a man of God, this marriage between the Baal worshiping family of Ahab to the dynasty supposedly commited to Jehovah was opposed, at least in principle, to the many Scriptural instances which teach against such an unequal yoke. Through this union Jehospaphat apparently hoped to secure peace and eventually reunite the divided kingdom, but his attempt in the wisdom of the flesh proved disasterous for his realm.

In any event, by his ommission, the Lord showed that He was no respecter of the person of men and that even the names of godly high priests would be removed in order to underscore Gos’ displeasure with some of their deeds. The fact that three high priests’ names are found to be omitted over the same general time frame as tht of the three missing monarch’s in Matthew 1:8 must be viewed by all honest students of Scripture as more than mere coincidence. Such must be seen as confirming the affirmed deliberate nature of the happenstance found in Matthew.

Finally, to any who may still harbor doubt over this matter, the converse is there still confronting him and requiring a responsible explanation. That is, wheras he may continue discounting the validity of the II Chronicles 22:2 passage, the undeniable awkward fact glares back at him from the chart (again, I cannot post it)—--it just happens to be 42 years from Ahaziah’s entronement back to the commencement of his maternal great grandfather’s dynasty. Is not this more than an unhappy circumstance to be brushed aside as meaningless and does it not enjoin the deepest relfection by all lettered men of integrity?

Sincerely,

Walter

bible4life wrote:
you made some good points waltern, do you know the answer about the age of king ahaziah when he reigned.

you know whats funny i have that book at home from my friend ryan but i never picked it up because i kinda just got off the issue but maybe i will look into it. My friend also has a book by peter ruckman on all the supposed bible contradictions or errors in the kjv but i never read it. I guess i just don't like those who call people heretics or apostates because their using another bible version. But it has to be all about Jesus.

To bible4life:

You are right my friend. Jesus Christ is "all in all".

It is all about Jesus and the "newer" versions are not in agreement with that fact.

Sincerely,

Walter

bible4life wrote:
you know whats funny i have that book at home from my friend ryan but i never picked it up because i kinda just got off the issue but maybe i will look into it. My friend also has a book by peter ruckman on all the supposed bible contradictions or errors in the kjv but i never read it. I guess i just don't like those who call people heretics or apostates because their using another bible version. But it has to be all about Jesus.

To ccchhhrriiisss:

It is your never ending contention AND BELIEF that there is no difference in the two streams of text. One stream from the believing Church, since the beginning, and one from Alexandria Egypt.

However, if we examine the Scripture we find an entirely different story. Lets let the Scripture speak for itself:

Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (KJV)

This is the end of the "model" prayer given by Jesus. Nearly all the modern translations either omit or footnote the underlined portion above. The Roman church as well as post-millennialist want this ending deleted because they teach that there will not be a thousand year kingdom with Jesus enthroned on the earth. The church, according to the post-millennial precepts, will evangelize the world and thus it will bring in the kingdom.

The Roman position is that as the Pope is ruling on the throne in the Vatican State in Christ's stead, this is the Kingdom here and now. Rome teaches that through the Church's efforts all will be converted, that Satan was bound when Jesus rose from the dead and all Scripture that clearly teaches otherwise is spiritualized away by labeling it as allegory. It also maintains that the Church has replaced Israel in all the prophetic verses – that God has forever abandoned the nation Israel, never to use it again.

Of course, Romans 9-11 and a multitude of other Scripture proclaim that God will again use national Israel to His Glory. Moreover, the Scripture declares that King Jesus is going to physically (Rev.19) return, bring in the kingdom and give it to the saints (Luk.12:32)!

God's ultimate plan is that all saved Jews and Gentiles for all time will be together as one flock, having one Shepherd, and in one fold (Jn.10:16).

This conclusion of the Lord's or "model" Prayer is found in almost all the Greek New Testament manuscripts yet it is universally rejected by modern critics. Perhaps it is time that the Church rejected the modern critics.

Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)

"Jesus said unto him, Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." (NAS; NIV is similar)

The rich young ruler had asked the Master what good thing might he do to have eternal life. Jesus' reply was one of the greatest statements in the New Testament on the depravity of man and the deity of Christ. The question was about eternal life! The issue was Jesus! The young man was not asking "what is good", but "what good thing shall I do"?

Jesus' answer paraphrased would be "Young man, you just called me good! Do you realize what you are saying, for the Scripture teaches that there is only one good and that is God. Now do you still want to call me good?" If he now acknowledges that Jesus is "good" it would be tantamount to a confession that Jesus was God come in the flesh. Jesus was confronting the rich young ruler concerning His person. In so saying, Jesus is making a positive claim to Deity!

Jesus' answer must have deeply stung the pride of Origen (A.D. 185-254) who is the source of this adulteration in the Holy Scripture. As a gnostic Alexandrian Greek scholar and philosopher who had already castrated himself and gone around barefoot for years in order to earn "heavenly merits", Origen could not accept such as an authentic reading. He changed it to appear that the rich young ruler had asked Jesus to answer the great question of Greek philosophy – what is the "Summum Bonum" (highest good)? The reading as it appears in the NAS, NIV etc. is thus exposed as a gnostic depravity!

Mark 1:2-3
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (KJV)

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (NAS; NIV is similar.)

Verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3, but Verse 2 is not found in the Book of Isaiah. It is from Mal.3:1 – "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ...". Thus the King James is correct in saying "prophets". Why is this distinction so important? Because Malachi gives the Hebrew rendition which is the precise original quote. If we know to look for the Mark text in more than one O.T. prophet, the reader may learn the great truth that lies couched in these verses.

When we read the last part of Malachi 3:1 and compare this to verse 6, we find that the "my" and "me" of verse one is Jehovah (LORD in all caps). When the New Testament quotes the Old, the word for Jehovah is not in all capital letters but in the Old Testament the word "LORD" is the English rendering of the Hebrew YHWH (Yod-He-Vav-He, hwhy)which we call "Jehovah".

Jehovah is speaking, hence Malachi is saying that the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah Himself, is coming – in the flesh! There is only one God and His principal name is "Jehovah". He manifested Himself in three persons, one in the flesh in order to die for man's sins. As Mark 1:1-3 applies to Jesus, we see that this becomes a declaration as to the person of Jesus – that He is Jehovah come to earth. This identification cannot be pieced together from Isaiah alone. Origen did not believe that Jesus was Jehovah come in the flesh so he altered the verse to fit his gnostic beliefs, obliterating the connection to Malachi. Modern translators are using Origen's private interpretation from which to translate.

The King James makes it clear that Jehovah was coming in the flesh whereas the NAS and NIV do not. This is a major doctrinal point for the person and deity of Christ Jesus are at issue.

Mark 9:43-44
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (KJV)

RSV and NIV both omit verse 44. By so doing, man is not warned; he does not have to be concerned about eternal fire.

To learn what Jesus says about hell, read Chapter 9 beginning with verse 42. Jesus taught more about hell and its realities in the Gospels than is found in the rest of the Bible put together. Jesus repeats verse 44 again in verse 46. A church or person not believing in hell fire prefers the deletion of verse 44, but the original perverter of the Mark Scripture overlooked that it was a quote from Isaiah 66:24 and omitted to alter the teaching there. Man may try to eliminate hell in the New Testament, but the truth of the terrible consequence of man's sin if left unatoned by not receiving Jesus as one's personal Savior is preserved for us in the Old Testament. It does not alter the truth or fact of hell if one says he does not believe in hell. One may declare that he does not believe in gravity, but if he walks off a twenty story building he will find that mind over matter does not work. Cults teach "mind over matter", as do some Christian circles regarding the subject of faith, but it is not a Scriptural concept – not when context is considered. The fact of hell as a literal place is Scriptural (Luk.16:19-31 etc.).

Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. (KJV)

Jesus looked at him and loved him. "one thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (NIV; NAS is similar.)

The words "take up the cross" have been left out. That doctrine admittedly makes Christianity sound more appealing, but Jesus says there is a cross that comes with the new birth. The cross is a place of death. It is where man's will "crosses" God's will in opposition, rather than agreeing and lining up with the will of the Lord. It is the place where "self" dies to its own will, desires, goals, ambitions etc., and bows its head in humble submission to its Lord and says "not my will Lord but thine".

Mark 16:9-20
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11And 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. 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. 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. (KJV)

Most versions have a footnote to the effect that "these verses are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts." In laymen's terms this means that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the two 4th century Greek manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which were derived from Origen's (185-254) edited New Testament (a 12th century minuscule also omits the verses).[b] Satan has always wanted to strip the church of its power, authority, and commission. These verses are the Great Commission spoken by Jesus as recorded by Mark. It is an apostolic commission delegating great power to the body of Christ that it may continue the ministry of the Lord Jesus.[/b[

[color=990000]Of the approximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present in all but the 3 cited above. The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses are not the Word of God.

The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.99%) – around 8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses. They were cited by Church "Fathers" who lived 150 years or more before B or Aleph were written i.e.: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Tatian (c.175), Irenaeus (c.180), and Hippolytus (c.200).

Further, the Vatican MSS has a blank space exactly the size required to include the 12 verses at the end of the 16th chapter. The scribe who prepared B obviously knew of the existence of the verses and their precise content. Indeed, as Tischendorf observed, Sinaiticus exhibits a different handwriting and ink on this page, and there is a change in spacing and size of the individual letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by the removal of the verses. These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.

Do we really believe that God would have the greatest story ever told end at verse 8: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." Would God allow the good news of the Gospel to end with his disciples cringing in fear? Would Mark conclude his Gospel without any reference to the appearance of the risen Christ to His disciples? I think not! The reader should feel a deep sense of righteous anger upon learning of the unscrupulous manner in which these verses have been presented by various publishers.[/color]

Luke 1:34
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (KJV)

Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be since I have no husband? (RSV)

Comment: These verses are not declaring the same thing. Do not women have children without having husbands? God was declaring that Mary was a virgin. This verse also corroborates that Isaiah 7:14 should read "virgin". Again, Jesus did not inherit Adam's sin nature – He (with regard to His humanity, not His eternal deity) inherited the sinless nature of His Father God as a result of the miraculous conception of Mary! The Scriptures teach that one receives his "nature" (we are not referring to character traits) from one's father, not the mother.

Luke 2:14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (KJV)

Glory to God in the highest (heaven), and on earth peace among men with whom he is well pleased. (AMP; NAS & NIV read similarly except say "peace among men of good will."

The Scriptures teach that there are no men of good will, that the heart is desperately wicked and that none are righteous – no, not one – that all are sinners. The humanist trite offered as Scripture in the NAS, NIV, and AMP above is not the message which God brought the night the Messiah was born. The message delivered by the angels to the shepherds near Bethlehem was that God was presenting a gift of His good will toward all men, not merely to men of good will.

The reading contained in the newer translations reflects the view of the ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Having a "good will" to them was the major factor in approaching life; some even considered it to be the "summum bonum" (supreme good).

This "stale crumb" of Greek Philosophy was introduced into the N.T. when Origen altered "eudokia" ("good will" - nominative case) to "eudokias" ("of good will" - genitive case) thus producing the result he desired (though he admitted in his critical apparatus that he was divided in his mind over the correct reading).
The truth of the matter is assured by the context (context often ignored or missed by many so-called Greek and Hebrew scholars in their determined penchant for altering the King James and its Greek foundation – the Textus Receptus), for verse 10 precedes with "and the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." The angels were bringing the good news to all people, not just to men of good will – for as there are no such creatures, such would not be "good tidings". Moreover, the "new" reading spoils the three-fold meter of the verse by doing away with the last of the three subjects (glory, peace, good will), and "men of good will" is grammatically left without any qualifying genitive.

Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. (KJV)

And His father and His mother were amazed at things which were being said about Him. (NAS; NIV)

Comment: God is meticulously affirming that Joseph was not the father of Jesus by the King James wording "Joseph and Jesus' mother". The NAS and NIV reduce Jesus to a mere human, born with a sin nature inherited from Adam. The alteration is another assault upon Jesus' deity.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (KJV)

Jesus answered and said, Man shall not live by bread alone. (NAS)

Omitting "but by every word of God" is a major doctrinal point of contention. The King James reading protects the believer from over dispensationalism which tends to negate the importance of the Old Testament. Jesus corrects that error as the O.T. was also given by the Word of God. The whole point of the verse has been left out! Yet the Church is constantly being taught and persuaded that the NAS and NIV are the best translations available.

Luke 9:54-56
The setting of the story here is that Jesus and his disciples are enroute to Jerusalem through Samaria and the Samaritans will not welcome them to their cities.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (KJV)

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, Do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? 55 But He turned and rebuked them. 56And they went to another village. (NAS; NIV is similar)

None of the underlined KJ verses appears in the NAS or the NIV. Some of the other versions relegate them to a footnote. Had the Roman Catholic Church read and believed verse 56 there would never have been the inquisition where between 50 to 60 million people were murdered! By omitting these portions of Scripture, one could justify killing those disagreeing with his doctrine!

Luke 22:64
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (KJV)

They blindfolded him and demanded, Prophesy! Who hit you? (NIV, NAS)

Comment: "They struck Him on the face" was omitted. Not only is it important to know the fact that the Lord Jesus suffered such indignity and cruelty, this is prophecy being fulfilled which points to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. Micah 5:1 records: "... they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek."

Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (KJV)

There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the Jews. (NIV; NAS is similar)

The words "of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew" were omitted!

Luke 23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (KJV)

The word "Lord" is omitted. (NIV, NAS)

Not one Greek manuscript omits this word! Calling Jesus "Lord" indicates that the thief was converted before his death which establishes several important points. First, that God will receive a wicked man even at the last moments of his life; that it is never too late to become reconciled to God while there is life. This serves to reveal the nature and heart of God – that it is toward man and that He desires that none should perish doomed. Secondly, it demonstrates that God will receive a man apart from any religious rituals such as water baptism or extreme unction. There is absolutely no Greek authority for this omission; it is a private interpretation of those responsible for the newer Greek New Testaments which alter the Greek text upon which the King James is based.

Luke 24:6
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, (KJV)
Remember how He told you while He was still in Galilee. (RSV)

Comment: The most important part of the verse (see the underlined portion) – the entire resurrection – is omitted!

Luke 24:42
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (KJ)

They gave him a piece of broiled fish. (NIV, NAS)

The words "and of an honeycomb" were omitted. The point that is being made is that when the reader uses the other versions, how is he to know what has been edited or deleted –whether it be concerning a major detail or not as in the above cited case? From now forward, the reader will always wonder, "has anything been omitted"?

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...

It is all about Jesus and the "newer" versions are not in agreement with that fact.

Walter, you really need to stop making ridiculous and dishonest comments like this. Your obsession is almost...cult-like.

Let’s continue with our examination of Scripture, and let the Scripture show us the startling difference between the two texts. What is that difference? One version, the Alexandrian Text (the minority text, that is used as the basis for all of the “new” translations since 1881) consistently does the following 3 things:

1) They all diminish the Gospel of Jesus Christ

2) They all diminish who Christ really is (the eternal Son of God)

3) They all diminish the importance of what the blood of Jesus Christ stands for.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
Nestle's Greek Text gives the following literal reading (NAS, AMP, NIV are similar): God, no man has seen never – the only begotten God, the One, being in the bosom of the Father, that One declared Him.
[color=990000]Comment: Instead of "only begotten Son" we find "only begotten god". That means that Jesus is a created god – a lessor god – a god with a little "g" and thus not eternal. This Scripture is dealing with the dual nature of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus versus His deity. Some Scripture reveals one and some the other. Not always realizing that He is l00% both, many people become confused. Sonship, in connection with Christ Jesus, always refers to His humanity – never to deity. As a man, He was begotten, had a beginning – became a son (cp. Luk.1:35; Act.13:33; Psa.2:7; Heb.1:5-6; Mat.1:18-25 etc.), but as God – He had no beginning![/color]

Micah 5:2, in speaking of the Messiah, declares "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."
That Jesus is merely a created being, a lesser god, is the original Arian heresy! Arius (died 336) was an early "Church Father" who put forth this heresy. Emperor Constantine I and Eusebius promoted the teaching.

The Holy Scripture teaches that there is ONE God who has revealed Himself in three different Persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God, who is a spirit, became a Son for the purpose of dying to redeem fallen man. When this occurred, God also remained in heaven becoming a Father as He had "begotten" (imparted life) a son.

The most important single issue regarding Jesus is – Who is He – not what He did! Even though what He accomplished in His finished work of redeeming fallen man through His blood atonement for man's sin and sins was of major and majestic significance, it is secondary when compared to His person. What we are saying is, that the Church has proclaimed that men should give their hearts and lives to Christ – that we should faithfully follow adore and worship Him – because He gave His life for our sins. Wrong! We should do all of these – first and foremost because of WHO HE IS, God Almighty – the Creator! Because He is God we should worship Him and Him only should we serve, not because He did something for us. He is worthy of worship for Himself! For His own personal worth He deserves man's total being and allegiance. Then, secondarily, out of gratitude for His voluntarily humbling Himself in taking on the nature of flesh and for sacrificing Himself on our behalf – we should give Him all our loyalty, all our love and obedience.

Whenever the Scripture speaks of Jesus as the Son, it is always referring to the 33 years which He spent on the earth as a genuine human, although He never ceased being God. Thus God begat a Son! In other words, before the incarnation, before the virgin Mary's egg was supernaturally fertilized without intercourse (Luk.1:35) when He became "the Son of God", "the only begotten Son of the Father" – before all of this and from eternity past – who was Jesus? He was God in His own right. He was always God. "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God" (Joh 1:1).
God is a Spirit (Joh.4:24 KJ). The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same eternal Spirit from eternity past. Jesus, the Messiah, is thus the Creator of heaven and earth – the God of the Old Testament whose principal name is Jehovah – come in the flesh.
ISA 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Christianity is monotheistic – we do not believe in three Gods. There is ONE God (Isa.43:10-11; 44:6, 8b; 45:5, 21-22; Mk.12:29-33; Rom.3:30; I Cor.8:6; Eph.4:5-6; I Tim.2:5; and Jas.2:19) who, for the sake of redeeming fallen man (and that plan via foreknowledge was from before the foundation of the world), has revealed Himself in three distinct persons.

We do not argue or debate the above concerning the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. We proclaim it – though much of Christendom be ignorant of these basic Bible tenets.

[color=990000]The Greek text that most of the Bible Colleges and Seminaries use today which has replaced the Greek text underlying the King James translation denies all of this by its reading – as does the NAS, NIV, AMP etc. which follow it. This is of preeminent importance. This is not error or mistranslation – it is heresy! It attacks the person of the Lord Jesus the Christ at the very foundation. [/color]

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (KJV)
Whosoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but who does not obey the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. (NAS)

[color=990000]Comment: The verse has been changed from God's clear declaration that eternal life is the result of faith in Jesus, of believing in Him – to salvation is obtained by obedience. Obedience (other than that of repenting and receiving Jesus) is a "work of righteousness". Being a child who pleases his father is desirable, but when a person is first saved he does not have complete understanding. It is the work of the Holy Spirit within him to bear witness as to right and wrong and it usually takes time to discern His voice and leading. Titus 3:5 says "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;". The NAS offers "another gospel" in the above verse.[/color]

John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (KJV)
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall not hunger; and he who believes on me shall never thirst. (NAS)

[color=990000]Comment: Why was "never" changed to "not"? It alters the whole force of Jesus' words. Upon eating a large meal, one could say he was not hungry but it would not mean that he would never be hungry again. He would probably be hungry again within five hours. The doctrine of Jesus is centered upon Himself – "He who comes to Me ..."[/color]

John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (KJV)
Truly, truly, I say to you he who believes has eternal life. (NAS, NIV)
[color=990000]Comment: He who believes what? They leave out in whom to believe and trust – upon whom to rely. Jesus said "He that believeth on ME ...". Is not this a grave matter?[/color]

Acts 8:36-37
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 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. (KJV)
RSV; New English Bible: Both omit all of verse 37. Verse 37 is omitted and relegated to a footnote in the NIV and NAS.

[color=990000]Comment: What church or churches have always taught salvation by water baptism? If verse 37 is part of the Word of God, it would establish that baptizing a baby would not save him. Children are covered by covenant until they are old enough to make a decision. Only Jesus can save the soul – not water baptism. For those believing in infant baptism for salvation, it would be necessary to remove verse 37. Galatians 3:26 declares: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Thus if you do not have faith in Christ Jesus you are not a child of God. So it is pointless to baptize a baby who does not have faith in Christ Jesus. This verse teaches that faith in Jesus' deity is a prerequisite to water baptism. It is cited by Irenaeus (c.180) and Cyprian (c.250) and is found in the Old Latin and the Vulgate translations.[/color]

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (KJV)
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV 1971 NCC)

[color=990000]Comment: Perceive the difference! The King James declares that God's church was purchased by God's blood – therefore Christ is God. It was Jesus Christ whose blood was shed. The RSV separates Christ from God when it changes "his own blood" to "the blood of his own Son".[/color]

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,[u] who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [/u](KJV)

[color=990000]Comment: All modern versions omit the underlined portion of the verse. This is because they have as their foundation the Greek uncials Aleph and Vaticanus whereas the King James was based upon a different Greek text which reflects the reading of over 95% of all the known Greek manuscripts. These two uncials are supported by a few others (C,D,F & G) as well as a few cursives and versions. However, the vast mass of Greek cursives testify to the inclusion of these words. Even the much vaunted uncial "A" contains "who walk not after the flesh".

The critics pretend that this portion was inserted from the end of verse 4 in the course of transcription and that this mis-copied mss had its novel reading copied more than all the others. Strangely, such men claim for themselves insight and wisdom far greater than the whole of England. Such critics tell us what God ought to say rather than what God has said. Most Calvinists favor its omission fearing the doctrinal implications toward Arminianism if the portion is included. However such concern is of no force when one realizes that the ending is not a qualifying remark but rather serves to define what is meant by being "in Christ Jesus". Verses 8, 9, 13, 7:25 and 9:8 clearly define the terms "after the flesh" and "after the Spirit". Verse 4b is a refrain for emphasis. Scripture is rife with similar redundancies for the same reason – accentuation of important themes.[/color]

Romans 14:10b, 12
... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ ... So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. (KJV)
... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God ... So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. (NAS)

[color=990000]Comment: The logic as preserved by the King James Bible is irrefutable! When we stand before the judgment seat of Christ – we are giving account to GOD. Therefore – Christ Jesus is God! Observe the subtle difference in the NAS! Just one small word is changed, yet there is no proof left that Jesus is God in these verses![/color]

Second Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)
Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind. (NEB)

The NAS footnote reads: "or, every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable ..."

[color=990000]Comment: These renderings imply that there are Scriptures not given by inspiration of God. There is a problem if some are whereas others are not! A Pope or pastor would accordingly be necessary to determine which verses were inspired (job security for the clergy)![/color]

Hebrews 1:3
Who [God's son, cp. v.1-2] being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: (KJV)
... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand ... (NIV; NAS similar).

[color=990000]Comment: "By himself" has been removed. By removing these words, perhaps Mary or some saint helped Jesus remove our sins! It is clear from the KJ that no one helped Jesus redeem. He is God come in the flesh and does not need any help. This is a major doctrinal point![/color]

Hebrews 2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are Sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren.

[color=990000]Comment: The RSV adds "origin". By saying that Christ had the same origin as man, they are teaching that Christ is not God! Christ did not have an origin, as the Scriptures clearly proclaim, i.e.:
PSA 90:2 ... even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (KJV)
MIC 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. (KJV)
"All of one" is clearly defined in the context of the last part of the verse, namely the context of "family" via the new birth. Hence "all of one Father" is the sense of the matter, not "origin"![/color]

Micah 5:2
But you, O Bethlehem Ephratah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days (RSV; NIV similar).

[color=990000]Comment: They continue this blasphemy in demeaning the deity of Christ whereas the King James honors it.[/color]
Hebrews 2:16

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (KJV)
For indeed He does not give aid to angels but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. (NKJ; NAS, NIV, AMP & RSV similar)

[color=990000]Comment: First, we remind the reader that here both of the above translations are being made from the exact Greek words as contained in the Textus Receptus (the original Greek reading of the New Testament). This is one of the many cases where the translation is facilitated by the context. The immediate context of verse 16 is unmistakably revealed in the verse that follows:
HEB 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Although the Greek is admittedly difficult if verse 16 alone is considered, the translators had their job clarified by the Holy Spirit. That which follows in verse 17 has nothing to do whatever with "giving aid" to angels.

Furthermore, verse 14 both confirms and precedes the "problem" verse with the correct context:
HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;Clearly the subject being presented is that of the human nature of the Messiah, and as the letter is addressed to the "Hebrews" it is of special relevance to those who proceeded from the loins of Abraham. Moreover, verse 16 amplifies verse 5:

HEB 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
The writer of the Book of Hebrews is being led by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate, beginning with the "remote" context concerning familiar Old Testament fundamentals, why the Messiah had to be a man and could not be an angel.

The 1611 King James translators recognized the importance of bringing this "remote context" (or distant context) to bear upon this verse, the literal Greek itself being cryptic and obscure. As all linguists well know, some interpretation is necessary when engaged in translating from one language to another, sentence structure, word order, etc. often being different. The object is to be faithful to the original wording and meaning such as to do as little interpretation as possible. Thus, guided by the Spirit of God, the King James translators correctly rendered verse 16 with regard to the remote context as well as with regard to the immediate context of the verses surrounding it. They signified that they had done this by placing "him the nature of" and "him" in italics. This clearly distinguishes between the words of man and of God. All other translations contain similar word insertions, but unlike the King James translation (many more than found in the KJ), they do not let the reader know this by so indicating.

Moreover, the verse as rendered in the KJ shows Jesus as the true fulfillment of mankind's only hope as revealed in the Old Testament prophecies – that He is the promised "seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15). This prophetic application of the verse is completely missed in the other translations.

Further, He is pictured by the KJ translators as especially being the fulfillment of the continuation of the Genesis 3:15 promise as given to Abraham.

And in thy (Abraham) seed (singular! Greek = spermati {spermati}, LXX - cp. Gal. 3:16) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen. 22:18, KJB)
But we are not left at the mercy of some mere man or modern Greek or Hebrew authority to divulge that the word "seed" in the above verse is not speaking of the Jewish nation but is in the singular and as such is a unmistakable reference to Messiah. The Holy Spirit reveals this truth to him in English elsewhere in Scripture.

Now to Abraham and his seed (spermati = spermati - singular in Greek) were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds (spermasin = spermasin - plural as does the root sperma, = sperma; see the LXX), as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed (spermati - singular), which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16, KJB)

All of the rich setting and overview that has preceeded is completely lost in the modern reading of Hebrews 2:16.

Equally alarming, the reading as found in the NKJV et al. introduces a conspicuous error into the Word of God – namely, that God does not give aid to angels.

This contradicts Daniel 10 wherein the prophet for whom the Book is named was told by an angel that he had been dispatched from the throne of Heaven to come to strengthen him. Nevertheless, the heavenly messenger had been withstood for a period of 21 days by the demon prince who oversaw the kingdom of Persia. It was not until God dispatched the archangel Michael to come to the aid of the angelic messenger that he was able to successfully battle through and reach Daniel.

Thus, the internal evidence of other Scripture lays bare this inaccurate rendering of the Word of God and shows all translations which so follow as being erroneous and inferior. The Monarch of Books, the true English rendering of the Holy Bible Scripture as preserved in the 1611 King James Bible, is thereby demonstrated to be conspicuously superior and preeminent.[/color]

Respectfully submitted,

Walter

To chriswilliam:

Jesus Christ can use anything to reveal the lost to Himself. Once, He even used a Donkey to open the eyes of Balaam, when He (Jesus Christ)appeared to Balaam through the voice of a donkey, in his pre-incarnate presence as the "Angel of the Lord". (Numbers 22:19-35)

God has given us great and precious promises, promises about His Word. What are some of those promises? Let us examine some verses where God has promised both to 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)

[color=990000]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)[/color]

[b]Thus, on the basis of God's many promises we declare and proclaim to you that we have in our hands the absolutely infallible inerrant Living Word of Almighty God – that 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]

[color=990000]This is a promise from God! Christian, do you believe it? 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!

"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)[[/color]

[color=990000]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?
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament. 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. [/color]

[b]"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.[/b]

[b]"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]

[color=990000]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.

[u]As set forth above, we have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine![/u]

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. 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!

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89[/color]

Sincerely,

Walter

chriswilliam wrote:
After reading several of these post for the last couple of days, and taking into consideration that i'm not as learned as a lot of the people i find here,isn't any translation nothing more than just that. a translation?
Be it kjv,nas,esv,niv,ect these have all be penned by nothing more than mere men by God's grace.
Shouldn't it all boil down to an unwavering belief in The Father, The Son, and The Holy spirit at the end of the day ?
Just wondering.

To Leo_Grace:

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about Erasmus and the transmission of the text used by the believing Church (later known as the Textus Receptus, the Received Text) passed down through the believing Church.

Neither Erasmus' theology nor his being a Roman Catholic has anything whatsoever to do with his Greek text. In producing it, he merely followed the manuscripts which had been preserved by the usage within the Greek Orthodox Church. He knew the Vulgate was corrupt and his humanist values led him to believe that he was getting to the source of God's truth by turning to the manuscripts of the Greek Church.

[color=990000][b]Erasmus knew almost all of the important variant readings known to scholars today – more than 470 years ago. This may be proven from a perusal of his notes. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.) was a Greek and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin. After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:

"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principle classes, one of which corresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; and affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted."[/color][/b]

In producing his first edition, Erasmus was under an incredible work load. Due to publication problems and deadline pressure, his first edition had many [u]typographical errors, misprints, and misspellings.[/u] This led to much undue criticism. His work was greatly disfigured only in the sense mentioned, but the Text was providentially protected. God has not preserved the Text miraculously for then there would have been no such glosses, and all the various uncials and cursives would read the same, word for word. In the case of providential guidance, we can see that there is a human as well as a divine side to the preservation of the Text. For the most part,[u] these errors were eliminated by Erasmus in his later editions. Such things as these are, however, not factors which need to be taken into account insofar as evaluating the "Textus Receptus" – a designation by which his work later came to be known.[/u]

[color=990000]The year after Erasmus published, Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR) for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. Shortly thereafter, God – using Luther and his translation, brought about the Reformation.

Luther and Erasmus knew each other. They did not always agree. One of the chief areas of disagreement between them was Luther's conviction that the Roman church was incapable of being reformed and he thought that Erasmus should join him in leaving. However Erasmus believed that he could better bring about reform by working from within the system. He was quite wrong.[/color]

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 198.

Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 413-415.

Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., 202.

[color=990000]TYNDALE TRANSLATES THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS INTO ENGLISH[/color]

[b]William Tyndale, a godly young English priest (A.D. 1494-1536), left Oxford to study Greek at Cambridge under the influence of Erasmus. Tyndale was so gifted and fluent in seven languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French) that one would think each was his native tongue. It was Tyndale's great desire to put the Bible into the language of the English speaking people. Relying c.99% on the 1522 3rd edition of Erasmus' Greek text, in 1526 A.D. Tyndale fulfilled that longing, producing the first complete printed N.T. in the English tongue.[/b]

As a result of his publication, the Roman Church despised, hated and persecuted Tyndale. In A.D. 1535 at Antwerp, Belgium, he was betrayed by Henry Phillips and made the prisoner of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. Found guilty of heresy for translating and publishing the Bible, in October 1536 Tyndale was tied to the stake whereupon he cried out in a fervent loud voice: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes". He was then strangled and his body publicly burned.

[b]Following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those who were supposed to be the ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out nearly all of the deeds of martyrdom and the cruelties which accompanied them. For the past 150 years the attack has become more "civilized" Now members of the clergy and ecclesiastic scholars merely carry out these cruelties and atrocities against their translations, while safely sitting in air conditioned offices – often supported by tithe money.[/b]

[color=990000]LATER EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS[/color]
Later, Stephens (Stephanus) updated Erasmus' work with several editions, the best being his third in 1550. It is this form of the Textus Receptus that is generally preferred by English scholars.

[color=990000]The difference between Stephens' undertaking and the last edition of Erasmus is almost imperceptible such that for practical purposes, Erasmus' and Stephens' texts are the same.[/color]

In 1598, Beza published his fifth edition, again using Erasmus' Greek text as his foundation. Beza's fifth is the actual edition upon which the King James was principally based. It reads almost the same as the last update of Erasmus. Finally in 1624, the Elzevir brothers of Holland produced an edition. It was at that time the text was given the designation of "Textus Receptus" which means the "Received Text" (i.e., received from God). They said they had not altered the manuscripts in any way and that they considered the text in their hands to have been received directly from God. The second Elzevir edition (1633) was generally adopted as the TR on the European Continent. All of these men believed they were working with the infallible Words of God as He had given them.

[color=990000]How much do the editions differ over the span from 1550 to 1624? Elzevir differed from Stephens, for example, in Mark only 19 times. Compare that with Codex Vaticanus B (a 4th century uncial MSS which is currently accepted as the most reliable, almost to the exclusion of all others, of the Greek manuscripts by most modern text critics). B differs with Sinaiticus Aleph (Hebrew designation = A) 652 times in the Gospel of Mark and with another uncial manuscript (D) in 1,944 places. In fact, there is only a total of 287 variants from Stephens' 1550 work to the Elzevir brothers' work of 1624.

[u]These few differences are almost negligible for they are all spelling. The issue becomes one of whether one spells "colour" or "color"? Thus, the text has been protected by God. Again, God's preservation of the New Testament text was not by a miracle but providentially. It is not God breathed and God inspired in the same exact sense that the "originals" were but it was, beyond all reasonable doubt, God guided and God preserved.[/u][/color]

[color=990000][b]There were hundreds of manuscripts which Erasmus could have examined and he did, but he only used a few. [u] That did not matter because the vast bulk of all the Greek manuscripts is practically the Textus Receptus. If the ones which Erasmus used were typical then he had what the vast majority said. As a matter of fact, the manuscripts which Erasmus used differed only in insignificant detail from the total bulk.[/u]

Basically it is Erasmus' work which is the foundation of the King James Bible. We are not saying that the "thous, thines and thees" are infallibly God breathed words. The scribes and printers who produced the copies were not "inspired" as was Moses, Isaiah, Paul, John etc., but they were God-guided. So by faith in God's promises to preserve His Word, we know that the Textus Receptus is the God-guided revision of the majority text.

What I am saying is that the Greek Text upon which the King James was founded, is the Word of God. Moreover, that God providentially watched over that Text, and that the King James is the only English translation in the world today which is faithful to that Greek Text.[/color][/b]

A.T. Robertson, An Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925), pp. 18-20; Robertson says all 9 of Beza's editions are practically reprints of Stephanus – which was almost that of Erasmus' [George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament With the Authorized Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977), p. ii.]

What are just some of the great & precious promises that we have from our Savior about His Precious Word?

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

"But the word of the Lord endureth forever."
(I Pet.1:25)

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." (Psalms 138:2)

"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)

Sincerely,

Walter

Leo_Grace wrote:

deltadom wrote:
It is interesting question an interesting person to listen to is Dr D A Waite from the Dean Burgon Society
[url=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/]Dean Burgeon Society [/url]

[url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&keyword=D.^A.^Waite%2C^Th.D.%2C^Ph.D.&keyworddesc=D.+A.+Waite%2C+Th.D.%2C+Ph.D.&currsection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=versions&x=0&y=0]DR D A WAITE[/url]

to listen to someone try and take it from the other perspective is a man called Harold Chase

[url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=mnvbc&keyword=Textual+Criticism&keyworddesc=Textual+Criticism]Harold Chase on Textual Critism[/url]

According to Dr D A Waite, there are over 6000 changes between the KJV and other versions. Mark my words that I am not KJV only, I am Textus Reciptus only which is the Greek behind the King James Version. I do think the KJV is the best translation on the areas of doctrine as the other versions take simple things such as John 3 :16 those that believe in me shall have everlasting life! All the other versions miss out those that believe in me! In jesus!

Listen to the two sides and see what you think! Listen to DR D A Waite and then to Harold Chase and anybody else on the opposite camp.
I am pro KJV because it uses the proper Greek manuscripts!

It is not my intention to put down any of the accepted Bible translations, but do you know that the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV new testament, was totally translated by just one man -- a Catholic Bible scholar named Erasmus; and that he did it with limited access to ancient manuscripts (only 6) available in his time? The belief that the Textus Receptus is an unassailable Greek text of the new testament is highly debatable.

[i]"Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; and onsequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type; as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success; and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.[6]

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants; but he only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[7] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.[8]" --- quoted from The History of the Textus Receptus (Wikipedia)[/i]

It is possible that the "missing verses" from modern translations compared to the KJV were never there in the first place, and that Eramus added these to correspond with other references.

One of the interesting things about Erasmus, is that he wanted to reform the Catholic Church from within, by raising the written word of God [i][b]above[/i][/b] the human authorities. I don't think he was a humanist at all. His downfall came when he was asked to defend Catholicism against Luther's discovery of 'the just shall live by faith'. He was not ready to leave the Church of his birth, (in common with many today, whatever church that was), or overtly to declare the written word as a higher authority than the man-made priesthood of that church, so, he revived an older heresy - fideism - which promotes a kind of blind faith - faith without needing to understand why. This [u]is[/u] contradictory to Paul's commendation of the Bereans, but while siding with the RCC's desire to dampen the awareness of its people to the truth in scripture, I don't think he himself ever left it.

Chris said

Brother, I think that you seem to be willing to give Erasmus -- who held to some grotesque Roman heresies throughout the duration of his life -- a "benefit of the doubt" that you are unwilling to apply to translators of versions that aren't the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

I'm speaking for myself here, having arrived at adulthood with profound naivete towards worldliness, and having learned that I understand now, the hard way - that is, by practical experience and spiritual revelation - because my natural mind certainly did not explain to me what I needed to know about powers other than God.

Therefore, it is difficult for me, personally, to believe you (in this case) really honestly think that the publication of the Satanic Bible does not promote Satan's agenda in the earth.

Now, you didn't say that, but, that's what you mean by justifying it's production at all; by giving it's producers 'the benefit of the doubt'.

There are many non-Christians who wouldn't consciously promote the occult, let alone sumbit to its agenda or promote it as actively and consciously as the publisher of the Satanic Bible does. This publisher also promotes pornography, as you probably know. But, you think that when he chooses a version of God's own written account of the glories of His Son Jesus Christ to publish, he will anxious to promote the Truth in all His fulness? [u]And[/u] you don't feel compromised by buying from him?

This is just my personal take on the whole matter of conscious integrity: I do not believe that a man who [i]overtly[/i] supports Satan's agenda, is [u]not[/u] also supporting it covertly.

If it was only covert, Christians could be forgiven for not knowing. But we do. That changes everything. And I really hope you don't break a leg trying to meet the man, to prove to yourself that he's a nice guy. So was the serpent.

And I really hope you don't break a leg trying to meet the man, to prove to yourself that he's a nice guy. So was the serpent.

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

Based upon your response, I can see that you did not even read my posts about Erasmus, or anything else. I know that you are an educated man, with a degree or two, yet you never respond to the facts that I post, but always respond with accusation and inuendo, with something similar to the following:

[color=99000]
I'm not sure, but I have a strong inclination that your "research" into Erasmus has been limited to KJV-only books, websites or articles. I urge you to pick up some translations of Erasmus' own words about his translation efforts and particular doctrinal views (especially in regard to high church traditions like adoration and the physicality of the Eucharist) and then consider whether or not you still think that this Catholic/humanist fellow was as "inspired" as many KJV-only feel (and Erasmus himself felt) that he was.[/color]

Now, if you actually look at my post, my quote about Erasmus came from Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), who was a Greek and Latin Scholar, who spent 28 years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin.

“Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.) was a Greek and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin. After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:

"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principle classes, one of which corresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; and affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted."
(Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 413-415.)”

[color=990000][b]Moreover, neither Erasmus' theology nor his being a Roman Catholic has anything whatsoever to do with his Greek text.[u] In producing it, HE MERELY FOLLOWED THE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HAD BEEN PRESERVED BY THE USAGE WITHIN THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH.[/u] He knew the Vulgate was corrupt and his humanist values led him to believe that he was getting to the source of God's truth by turning to the manuscripts of the Greek Church.

So, to make this clear to you ccchhhrrriiisss, Erasmus merely followed the Majority text, that is over 90% consistent with itself. Where was that text found? In the believing Church!

[u]My question to you Cccchhhrrriiisss is what Scripture (from the Holy Bible) supports your postion that God does not have the power to preserve His Word on this earth until Christ comes again? What do you rely on from God’s Word that gives you confidence that all that He has promised us about the preservation of His Word is not true, and thus God has lied to us? How can you possibly be on solid ground ?[/color][/b][/u]

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

"But the word of the Lord endureth forever."
(I Pet.1:25)

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." (Psalms 138:2)

"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]Ccchhhrrriiisss, I really question your honesty and integrity in this matter. Maybe you should recuse yourself from this debate, since you are responding as an ideologue, and rejecting the facts that can be found in history ( from Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) and many others who gave years of their lives to study the matter of the Received Text and how it was preserved in the Believing Church since the beginning (Apostolic Origin).[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Waltern...

Neither Erasmus' theology nor his being a Roman Catholic has anything whatsoever to do with his Greek text. In producing it, he merely followed the manuscripts which had been preserved by the usage within the Greek Orthodox Church. He knew the Vulgate was corrupt and his humanist values led him to believe that he was getting to the source of God's truth by turning to the manuscripts of the Greek Church.

Brother, I think that you seem to be willing to give Erasmus -- who held to some grotesque Roman heresies throughout the duration of his life -- a "benefit of the doubt" that you are unwilling to apply to translators of versions that aren't the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

More importantly, Waltern: You continue to propagate a belief that the KJV is perfect because of some promise of a "perfect and preserved" line of collected physical Scriptures. Yet Erasmus was forced to use a handful of different sources to create the Textus Receptus. There was no single "perfect and preserved" source for this Dutch Catholic humanist to translate from. He was forced to quickly go through the translation process by sifting through about six late sets of texts (and also the Latin Vulgate for the Book of Revelation). If your premise is correct (about a single line of "perfect and preserved" versions of the Word of God), then why did Erasmus have to use six or seven sets of different manuscripts in order to singlehandedly translate the New Testament?

I'm not sure, but I have a strong inclination that your "research" into Erasmus has been limited to KJV-only books, websites or articles. I urge you to pick up some translations of Erasmus' own words about his translation efforts and particular doctrinal views (especially in regard to high church traditions like adoration and the physicality of the Eucharist) and then consider whether or not you still think that this Catholic/humanist fellow was as "inspired" as many KJV-only feel (and Erasmus himself felt) that he was.

TO CCCHHHRRRIIISSS;

Your request for Hmmmmm to quote the source of his quotes about Westcott & Hort proves to me that you are the one that has only studied one side of the issue. This information has been available for over 100 years, and yet you supposedly know nothing about it. Here you are, defending these usurpers, i.e. Westcott and Hort, and you have no clue of the real truth of the matter. Where does this information come from? Westcott and Hort THEMSELVES, as well as the son of Westcott!

Westcott and Hort belonged to what Westcott's son referred to as "The Ghostly Guild." Westcott took a leading role in this society and its proceedings, the purpose of which was the investigation of ghosts and other supernatural appearances.

(A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 312-313.)

"Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Lauard, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective disillusions."
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 211.)

Westcott's son wrote of his father's communing with "saints" especially at a great cathedral at Petersburg where "there was much company.
(A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 312-313)

With regard to spiritual authority in general and especially the Bible's being the final authority, Mr. Hort said: "Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2 Vols. (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896, Vol. I, p. 400.)

This is from an October 21, 1858 correspondence to Rev. Rowland Williams.

On October 17, 1865 Hort wrote "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results"
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2 Vols. (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896), Vol. II p. 50. )

Hort praised his "prayer boxes" which he carried about with him. These contained statues (idols) to which he prayed.
(Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, op.cit., p. 39. On page 186 in his footnotes, Dr. Ruckman cites Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 50; yet the material is not on that page. He adds that he is referencing that which he heard from Dr. Edward F. Hills in March of 1969. Although this author considers the above statement attributed to Hort by Ruckman as accurate, I have thus far been unable to locate and thereby independently confirm the citation in any of Hort's work at my disposal)

Confessing in a 26 October, 1867 letter to Dr. Lightfoot that he was a staunch sacerdotalist, (A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2 Vols. (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896), Vol. I, p. 181. )

Hort wrote to Westcott regarding the Protestant's teaching of the "priesthood of the believer" as being a "crazy horror"
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 151)

He (Hort) believed neither in a literal Garden of Eden nor that Adam's fall differed in any degree from that of any of his descendants.
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 78)

In a March 4, 1890 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament Criticism, Westcott gave his "amen" to Hort's last sentiment by penning: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did.
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 69)

Although not wishing to be under the dominion of the Pope, in writing to Rev. John Ellerton on July 6, 1848, Hort said: "the pure Romanish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the evangelical view. ... We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us”
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 76-77.)

In a December 14, 1846 letter to his father, Hort wrote " ... Methodism ... is worse than popery ... being more insidious", and in an 1864 correspondence to Bishop Westcott he stated his conviction that "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary"
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 131)

Indeed, Hort wrote Westcott (December 4, 1861) of preferring Greek philosophy and "its precious truth" to the Christian revelation in which he said he found "... nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything".
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 449)

Frederick Maurice was the son of a Unitarian minister and a brilliant student of Oxford and Cambridge. Having become a clergyman in the Church of England, he was dismissed as principal of King's College, London, on charges of heresy. Maurice had a commanding influence on many of the leaders of his day, especially Dr. Hort who wrote of him November 8, 1871: "... Mr. Maurice has been a dear friend of mine for twenty-three years, and I have been deeply influenced by his books". Westcott also admitted he owed much to the writings of Maurice, and Hort's son wrote of his father: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge”
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 42.)

Thus we have two Anglican priests whose stated beliefs were strongly Roman. Both accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. Writing to Rev. John Ellerton, April 3, 1860, Hort declared: "But the book that has engaged me most is Darwin. ... it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable”
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 416, & p. 414)

Further, Westcott doubted the Biblical account of miracles. Writing in his diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned:
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it”

( A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 52.)

"Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Lauard, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective disillusions”
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 211)
Westcott's son wrote of his father's communing with "saints" especially at a great cathedral at Petersburg where "there was much company." On that same page he wrote that his father said, in speaking of the chapel at Auckland Castle, it was "full" and that he was "not alone" in the darkness.
(A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 211—THIS IS REFERRING TO SPIRITISM!)

Cccchhhrrriiisss, I could continue with this all day long.

You sir, are the one that needs to repent. Your head is buried in the sand, and on top of that, you have stuffed your ears with cotton. That is why you cannot see, and you cannot hear.

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi hmmhmm...

Thank you for the post (and clarification). However, I still think that we need to know the certainty of such things before we go about repeating them. Brother Waltern, God bless him, is certainly on a mission. However, I am concerned that he is one of those guys who might think that he is doing God a favor by repeating these accusations about the NIV and its translators or sources WITHOUT truly verifying the truth of those things that he has read. It isn't enough to "verify" them by simply reading similar books that repeat the same accusations. We must take every effort to verify the accusations long before we reach a conclusion. Due to the extreme level of these accusations, I think that we must endeavor to get it right before we go about repeating them.

Again, thank you for the clarification, brother. I do believe that God has preserved His Word. I simply reject the notion that a single English version (the KJV) is perfect down to the very last dot and tittle. Besides the questionable history of the translators of the KJV (or the TR), I have read enough errors in the KJV to let me know that this cannot be true. Yet this is the overwhelming premise for which the KJV-only advocates stake their "research." In other words, their "research" and rhetoric is limited to anything that will seemingly "verify" their premise (rather than an attempt simply to get it right).

A long time ago, Wescott and Hort were being discussed in a thread about baptism, and (as I recall), philologos stated that their Greek was a translation [u]from the English[/u] (KJV) - which is why it seems to 'support' the KJV [i]so[/i] well. Is this point part of what is being discussed here, or is tjat a little known fact?

To Miccah:

Maybe Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa,Ca. can clarify the issue for you.

On 11/23/2009 Pastor Chuck Smith responds to a question from a call-in listener in regards to Bible Versions.

His question was:

I have been getting into reading about the Emergent Church, Seeker friendly, and checking the dangers of that stuff. Of course, I want a good version of the Bible too. It was reported to me that “they” removed Matthew 17:21. This does appear to be a pretty important piece of information in there and in the red letter edition, where the letters of Jesus appear to be in red, it is actually the words of Jesus that have been removed, and I want to know the significance of that.

[color=990000]Pastor Chuck’s response is as follows:

There are two basic schools of text. One is the Majority text, the Received Text. Of all the 5,700 kinds of manuscripts, the majority are in agreement with each other. That is why they are called the majority text. There is another school of text, called the Alexandrian school of text, which is the Septuagint, the Catholic Text, which is the Latin Vulgate, and they are pretty much in agreement with each other. It would seem that the oldest complete text we have is the Sinaiticus, so they put credence in the oldest text that is found.[b] However, there are some difficulties with that position because some of the partial texts that have been discovered, that are much older than the Sinaiticus, that date back to Tertulian and some of the early Church fathers (200AD), and they are quoting the latter portion of Matthew 17, which is in agreement with the Majority Text, the Received Text.[/b]

Most of the versions today use the Sinaiticus—they are quoting the Sinaiticus, called the Westcott & Hort. People say this is the best.[/color]

[color=990000][b]"The King James Bible used the Received text, the Majority Text. It is interesting, we have what we call MODERNISM in the Church today where LIBERALS want to cut out a lot of the Scriptures and they usually use the Westcott & Hort text because they do eliminate a great deal of the text that deals the deity of Jesus Chirst and all. Personally, I go back to the King James Bible. Eventhough I have 12 translations, I always go back to the King James."[/color][/b]

Miccah, what we have in the Church today are those that want the Spirit breathed Word of God to study from, and those that don't.

It is up to each of us to make his/her own decision. It all goes back to God, and his promise to us that He would preserve His Word forever. If we believe God, then we have no choice but the King James. If we don't, then we must rely on the "textural critics", who rely on the newer versions created by gnostics, that was used to create the Catholic Bible, that was used by Westcott & Hort to create their "Revised New Testament" in 1881. It is this corrupt text from Westcott & Hort that all of the newer versions rely on.

Sincerely,

Walter

PS The two veses referred to by the caller are;

Matthew 17:20-21 (KJV)
20. And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
[color=990000]21. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.[/color]

Matthew 17:20-21 (RSV)
20. He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."
22. As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men,

Miccah wrote:
This whole debate is mind numbing. I love all who have posted here, but in my opinion, this entire thread is fruitless.

New King James Version. The Lord has shown me much of Himself while I have been reading and studying this "version".

Praise the Lord!

Hi Chris,

You've been very critical of Erasmus' academics, simply because he was Catholic. Do you, by this, conclude that all Catholics are academically incompetent? And if you don't, why pick on one of Catholicism's most well-accepted historical figures, whose work was authenticated at the time by Protestant scholars, and not found to be wanting, to the extent that Tyndale chose to use Erasmus' collection of manuscripts [i]because[/i] they were the best avaialable at the time?

Furthermore, if you are willing to use the NIV so faithfully, despite its defficiencies, why does it matter if there are defficiencies in the KJV? Anyway, such defficiencies have been discussed at length on SI, and no-one denies there has been a bit of tinkering, with added concepts such as bishopricks and offices.

But why is it, do you think, that all these years after the KJV was first put in print (1611 version) it is still selling at all, if it isn't that even young people discover it, and feel the difference between it and the modern versions available to them?

Miccah said:

New King James Version. The Lord has shown me much of Himself while I have been reading and studying this "version".

When you really look at it. The bible for the English speaking people is not the true bible. It was translated out of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. What we have is a water down version of the original. It's all we can get for an English bible and it will do unless we learn how to read classical Greek and Hebrew.

The Greek and Hebrew languages are not a word for word translated into English type of language. One word in the Greek will mean a sentence in the English which makes the translation very difficult and when it's translated, it's losing the quality of the message. That is why when we are studying we turn to the Greek to get a better understanding of the word being used. In the English there are no masculine or feminine words, except for the obvious, "he, she, his, hers" etc.. For some words it's not possible to get a true English word for.

So whilst we are fighting over which translation is the best, the Spirit of God is shouting within saying, "I will lead you into all truth, not what translation you read". Why? Because man's heart is still carnal even after regeneration. We can read all the versions from here to Jerusalem and still get a corrupt understanding from the Word of God because we have not the Spirit of God leading and guiding us into all Truth.

We have got to remember folks, that the New Testament Church didn't have the New Testament to read, they were living it. "known and read of all men". Most people couldn't afford to buy a copy of the Old Testament at the local Parchment Bible Society. They had something that was far more valuable then anything written down on paper, they had God living in them who was speaking to them and giving them their daily bread from His own mouth. For the some that have never read the bible, they had to really walk by faith in knowing that what this voice they were hearing was actually telling them the truth.