New Living Translation

Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This is the first time I have used forums on Sermon Index.net. I am a staunch defender of the Authorised Version of the Bible and am speaking to a friend at the moment who is reading the New Living Translation version of the bible which I believe is a reprint of the Living Bible which I have been advised was disasterous. I am wondering if anyone who reads this would be able to advise me of any failings that this version has?

God bless

Jeff

This one verse should be enough.

King James Version (KJV) New Living Translation (NLT)

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

20 I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Re:
This one verse should be enough.
Quote:

""""Yeah. The NLT version of Gal.2:20 is more readable.""""

King James Version (KJV) New Living Translation (NLT)

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

20 I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The question is; How do I now live this life? By me trusting or by the Faith of the Son of God.

very suttle, if the truth is important, this translation should read;

20 I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in (((faith of )))the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

New Living Translation (Mysteriously half way through the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice!) - http://www.av1611.org/voice2.html

-----------FALSE GOSPELS EXPOSED - There is only ONE Son of God, Jesus Christ. God spoke only ONCE - only ONE bible is the 'gospel the Apostles preached' - which ONE is it, that God has preserved - study and find out?----------------

Indepth video showing complete NIV distortions and gay literacy commentators involvement‏:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1961396636600887201&hl=en

Pastor Mike Hoggard - Which bible should I believe:
http://sureynot.com/v/289/which-bible-should-i-believe-by-pastor-mike-hoggard.html

Complete History of Bible Translations to Present:
http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf

A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible - Full Version:
http://lionandlambministry.com/index.php/liontube/video/314/A-Lamp-in-the-Dark%3A-The-Untold-History-of-the-Bible---Full-Version

Questions on the KJV (Easter?)
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

A clear and simple explanation of 'methods of translation' used by bible translators:
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/inerrancy.htm

I've found the NLT to be a great "dynamic-equivalence" translation, and especially useful when read alongside and consulted by the KJV. I read the NLT very frequently to get wonderful slants on the more obtuse KJV verses, and I often find that it nails the meaning of the verse in the most accurate and understandable way possible. It's a great translation to read from the pulpit when teaching. Zac Poonen uses it unreservedly, and to great anointed effect.

I enjoy reading the Psalms and Proverbs from the NLT, it is very helpful.

In Christ,

Ron

Given KJV is the most reliable translation - and will still be with us in about 10 years after the NLT bites the dust - I stick with it.

Buuuutttt.... I have a KJV / NLT side-by-side bible. If the KJV is a little difficult to understand, I read the NLT side.

At least it's a translation. It's the lowest I'd touch. I wouldn't touch the heresy that is "the Message".

I trust in Jesus Christ, my faith is in Him. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, not the KJV of the bible. To be honest, it makes me ill to see people say that the only bible one can trust to read is KJV(Not that anyone here has said it as far as I know). As if it is something to be worshiped. What about all my brothers and sisters in Christ who DO NOT read english?

I'll keep my faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life, allowing His Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth regardless of what bible translation I read. I often think about those that cannot have bibles lest they die or just cannot afford one. They are born again and would just love and cherish to have one or two chapters of any version of the bible they could get their hands on.

Very well said. It is sad to see the bickering over translations when places like China are still pleading for Bibles.

Sigh. Blaine, here you go again. You need to STOP. Stop acting like one issue is the only issue. Stop trying to make people feel guilty for discussing anything other than what you deem most important. You are not in honor preferring those on here who want to discuss something. If you don't like discussing these issues, just stay out of them. Please.

I never said a thing about you "judging" this thread. What I'm tired of is you always trying to make us feel guilty for discussing anything other than the persecuted church. Someone starts a thread, it is apparent someone has a disagreement, and then invariably you'll come on here and say something to the effect of, "Guys, don't you realize that saints around the world are spilling their blood for Christ, and you're arguing about this?" Yes, it sounds oh-so-spiritual, but it gets really old, really fast.

Jeff9: Welcome to the forum.

As a teacher I have a bit different perspective. The KJV, although I like it best, has a vocabulary which excludes many readers. We have a literate mass rather than a literate minority. When the KJV was written usually only the best minds were literate and so the reading level was, on average, higher. My wife used to buy the NIRV or other easy read versions to give to children or those who had a lower reading level. Translations like the NLT are therefore helpful. I still contend that the KJV is probably the best for serious study, but I am all for versions that bring the word to those who cannot understand the KJV. Some of these translations are also very good and quite scholarly.

Martyr, you may want to read this to understand what people are trying to tell you.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=36339&forum=34&2

Jeff9 wrote:
... which I have been advised was disasterous.

Brother, I beseech you to sit down with your "Authorized Version" and a New Living Translation, side by side and see for yourself, then YOU will know.

God bless you,
Sister Lisa

Martyr, you may want to read this to understand what people are trying to tell you.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=36339&forum=34&2

Exactly what I'm trying to say. Please give it some thought, Blaine.

Very well said. It is sad to see the bickering over translations when places like China are still pleading for Bibles. I read on a VOM magazine that the largest bookstore chain in China, like our Barnes and Nobles, is not allowed to carry Bibles. You can go into that store and buy a copy of the Koran or any other religious book. But not the Bible. Should tell us something.

Sigh. Blaine, here you go again. You need to STOP. Stop acting like one issue is the only issue. Stop trying to make people feel guilty for discussing anything other than what you deem most important. You are not in honor preferring those on here who want to discuss something. If you don't like discussing these issues, just stay out of them. Please.

Now can we get back to KJV and NEW Living Translation and how this version just might be the reason for all the woes in America?!!! :)

God bless us all,
Lisa

I'll stick with my KJV, NASB and NIV.

:-)

A good comperative investigtion Julius21,

i've read a few of these comparisons and always wondered about the differences in versions. Until one day when holding 2 different versions standing in a room reading the same verse almost the same time it hit me. One of them spoke about a Jesus in history past that has come, and the other about that Jesus that is alive now, is come and here present in person this very moment.

That convinced me once and for all, especially because it is a verse about testing the spirits. Some versions don't want you let you do that, they prefer you get a historical overview about a Jesus that lived once upon a time. Oh my goodness, inbuilt detection prevention ! But without a direct revelation you cannot convince anyone about that essential difference, on only intellectual level it's a complex issue, and almost nobody takes the time to really investigate all the claims. Some of them seem minor, however the summary of it all leaves one speechless.

I must say only one thing about this... yes, Blaine does talk about martyrs but that is who he is, I have come to learn this about Blaine and it doesn't offend me in the least. :)

You're missing the point here. No one on this forum is offended by someone talking about martyrs. It is when that individual attempts to take on a guilt trip, or "Jesus juke", as the article said, everyone who is making a big deal of anything other than the persecuted church, that he causes offence.

Blaine, we are not your enemies. We are simply giving a rebuke that is neither nasty or mean-spirited. "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16)
I'm not saying the intent of your heart is wickedness or something; I'm simply saying you are not preferring your brothers and sisters.
A reproof should not be the end of a friendship, Blaine. "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." (Prov. 27:17)This is all we are doing. A friendship is useless if you can never do anything but say what pleases the other; you are then not pulling one another up, you are pulling each other down. You can make every one who reproves you into your mortal enemy, or you can grow and learn from them. There is an old saying, "Don't count your critics, weigh them." I would ask that you please prayerfully consider what I'm saying.

We love ya, Blaine!

-Creation7

personally i hold the KJV translation in high regards, not mainly because it is the KJV but because from what source/string of manuscripts they are translated from.

The thing is there are two main sources for translations, because all english bibles are just this, translations, all have "problems" with thier translation, some more then others. Some are word for word translation, there the translators have tried stay as close to the original text as possible. Others have tried translate their version by grasping the "meaning" of the text and not stay word for word.

But the matter of fact we can not have a completely word for word translation in english since greek does not follow the exact pattern of the english language.

So all translations even the most strict word for word translations like KJV or Nasb are not exactly as the original, the translators made their best i am sure. But since greek have different order in which the put words in a sentence, all english translations are altered from the original text. If they where 100% true to the original text no one would understand a bible translated to english.

Personally i recommend people knowing what a close word for word translation says and then read if they want a more "free" translation.

Personally i read the message and found some light through it, i frequently read the NLT also and sometimes i get more light from that then from KJV. Although my most picked up version is KJV/NKJV.

Also good to know one can not/or should not do word for word study from a version like the message. But as far as just reading i think they have much to offer. I used to be very strict and offensive about bible versions, in some aspects i still have my doubts about the source of manuscripts NIV,NASB,ESV comes from, but that is another discussion. Yet i can benefit from them, and also i meet men and women that are light years ahead of me spiritually that prefers these bibleversions.

So really it is not what version we read or prefer, the question is if that version is making us more like Christ?

this should be our main concern for ourselves and others.

Since shortly after my conversion to Christ as a teen-ager I have been addicted to the habit of acquiring and being disappointed with new versions of the Scriptures, both revisions and new translations.

It is a habit I cannot shake off. In spite of a long record of frustrated hopes and cruel disappointments, to this day I have but to hear a new version of the Scriptures has come out and I am off to the book-seller to pick up a copy. As Ponce de Leon, otherwise a sensible enough fellow, knocked about the world looking for a nonexistent fountain of youth, so I continue to look for the new version that will make any other new versions unnecessary by bringing out the meanings of the Holy Scriptures as sharply as the developer brings out the details of the picture on a photographic plate.

But it never works out that way. After poring over the new book for a few days or weeks and finding that it is just one more version, I put it aside and return to my first love, the familiar King James Bible. I know its mistakes very well, its mistranslations and confused tenses; I should, for the Bible teachers are forever correcting it in public and the introductions to the new versions never tire of pointing out these flaws in the grand old English Bible.

It has been my experience that the new versions make at least one mistake for every one they correct, so by the time the trusting reader has reached the last chapter of the Book of Revelation he is back where he started and just goes out by that same door where in he went. And in the meanwhile he has lost the incalculable benefit of constant and intimate mental association with the clearest, richest and most beautiful English to be found anywhere among the libraries of the World, the Authorized Version.

I believe that my error has been that I have nursed the hope, perhaps subconsciously, that my dullness of spirit and coldness of heart are the result of not hearing the truth expressed clearly enough in the common language of the street; that if I could hear a promise or a commandment couched in different words it would be easier to believe and obey. But this is a gross fallacy. Words are only arbitrary symbols to convey meanings, and the meaning is all that matters.

God would impart an idea to mankind, so He employs a verbal symbol which the reader can understand. That is what language is for, and that is all it is for, unless, as I have suggested above, the language becomes a thing of beauty in inself and so exerts a cultural influence upon those who read it and hear it spoken. But that is secondary; the primary purpose of language is to express truth, and it is before the bar of truth that we must all stand at last.

Mark Twain, when asked what he did about the passages of Scripture he could not understand, is supposed to have replied that these did not bother him. "But the ones I can understand," he said, "often make me sweat." I believe that there is serious danger that we ignore the plain truth (which, incidentally, is about the same in all versions) while we search for novel meanings and more modern expressions of old truths which we know well enough but make no effort to obey.

The chief purpose of the Word of God is to reveal saving truth, to bring men to Christ, to make them holy, to draw them into loving communion with God and to teach them how to do good to all men, especially to them that are of the household of faith. Let a man study prayerfully any of the generally recognized versions, done by proficient and responsible scholars, and the Spirit will quicken the truth to his heart and lead him toward the ends God has in view for him. Almost everything depends upon his response to the Spirit's workings. While it is important that the translations be accurate and faithful, yet better versions do not make better men.

And this brings us to consider those translators who think to do God service by packing into the English text every possible shade of meaning the word will bear in the original. The synonyms are put in brackets and the reader, apparently, just takes his choice.

This would never do anywhere else. Imagine reading to a child. "Twinkle, twinkle (blink, wink, shine intermittently, sparkle), little (diminutive, small, wee, tiny) star (heavenly body, luminary, orb, sphere), How I wonder (question, puzzle over, dubitate) what you are (be, have identify with, belong under the description of), Up above (atop, opposite to down, contrary to direction of gravity) the world (the earth, the abode of human-kind) so high (elevated), Like a diamond (gem, precious stone, crystallized carbon) in the sky (the heavens, the firmament, the empyrean)"Yet this is the latest religious word game in evangelical circles and we are all urged to play at it. For myself, I cannot keep serious while reading such a version, so I just pass up these uncertain translators and turn to one who can make up his mind. I have a secret love for decisiveness.

It is quite natural for us humans to ignore the high moral intent of the Holy Scriptures and get lost in verbiage. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"says the old version, and multitudes over the centuries have knelt in pentitence and tearfully sought to know true poverty of spirit; lately the fad seems to be to try to find shades of meaning for the words and to express them in more colloquial language. I wonder if anyone benefits by having the same thing said several different ways for him.

A few hundred years ago it was considered very much the thing for ministers preaching in English to interlard their sermons with frequent Greek and Latin words and phrases, always left untranslated by the speaker. His hearers were no doubt duly impressed with his learning but they had not the faintest notion what he was talking about. He has now been displaced by the preacher who knows enough Greek to make him uncomfortable and can never resist the temptation to turn every sermon into a classroom lecture. I have sometimes thought (and I trust not uncharitably) that the knowledge of a little Greek is a great convenience to such a man, for the Greek being a remarkably accommodating language enables him to preach anything he wants to without being challenged.

All this is not to cry down true scholarship nor to discourage honest attempts to put the Bible into modem speech. It is rather to confess that I have not become a holier man nor a better preacher by my incurable addiction to new versions of the Scriptures. I find that if I am failing to live in accordance with the will of God, I get no relief by reading about that will in a new translation.

As soon as God shows a man the way, it is his duty and happy privilege to walk in it. If he refuses or neglects to walk in it he may seek some temporary consolation by looking about for some version that will say the same thing to him in a different way. While he is jockeying about for new shades of meaning his conscience may get a bit of rest, but I am sure that a faithful God will not let him escape. Sometime he'll have to face up to the meaning of things, no matter in what version they are expressed.

As I write I can see fifteen versions before me without turning my head and there are many more stashed about here and there. And they all say the same thing to me; namely, that I must trust Christ Jesus the Lord as my Saviour, love God with all my heart, soul and mind, and my neighbour as myself. They all say that I must be holy, humble, obedient, prayerful, pure, kindly, courageous and faithful. They all say that God is my Father and the Holy Spirit the inhabitant of my nature through the mystery of the new birth. And they all end with the cry for Christ's returning.

I really don't need any more new versions, but I'll probably buy the next one that comes out. Maybe someday I'll find something sufficiently different to justify the expense. But I haven't up to now. To echo Tozer's last phrase... neither have I and I sometimes tease the users of other versions by saying "I am using the KJV. This is just a temporary measure... until I can find something better". I'll start some of my reasons in my next post.

*A W Tozer uses both titles for the same version; The Authorized Version and The King James Version.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=9270&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0

True but Revelation 22.19 clearly says

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I know I am going to upset a lot of people here but would not want to be handcuffed to any of these translators on their deathbed of any other english speaking version then the King James and use these verse as my justification

Hello Twayneb and everyone else that has posted

In my experience the King James Bible is a bible that needs to be perservered with so the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth It cannot be revealed in one reading. Intellect is not even an issue as the Holy Spirit will reveal his truth to those who honestly seek and those who spend time with his word. A perfect example is D.L Moody who was illiterate but was used by God in a wonderous way. The revelation of the scriptures cannot come from the greatest natural mind so when we trust in the views of the natural man then we are in direct rebellion against God. A perfect example is Roman Catholism. As I said in my last message see Revelations 22.19. All these translations are the work of King of Counterfeits - Satan.
Trinitarian Bible Society have many pamphlets which would use scriptural evidence from KJV to support this theory. I for one hold the view that they have on the King James. It is not divinely inspired(as men were involved) but it is clearly the best translation that we have. When we try and seek answers from other translations we are only seeking mens views. We may feel after seeking such views that we have closure on such things but I believe we could be further away from the truth then before. The beauty of King James for me is when I study that word and do not seek any helps ie Commentarys & Study Bibles then I am putting my sole trust in the Holy Spirit and what I do learn by meditating upon the scripture will be useful in the future as Holy Spirit will reveal this to me at a relevant time in my life. He wont do this with mens view no matter how good they are. I exhort you all to try this and I believe you will get more from this then when you put your trust in these "so called helps".

Every blessing

Jeff

Jeff9 wrote:
True but Revelation 22.19 clearly says

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God bless,
Lisa

Hi Jeff,

you said : "It is not divinely inspired(as men were involved)"

you seem to assume God cannot inspire men to do His work?

The result of a work has to be men's? So the "originals" are a work of some men too? You need to re-examine the thougth, God doesn't stop working, he said He will preserve AND refine The words of the LORD. Refine means the purging of elements of impurity caused by men, the ones writing down what they received by inspiration.

By the way, the King James is the 7th of English Bibles coming out of the text stream of Textus Receptus. A concidence? I think not.

Psalms 12:6  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.

Howdy, a-servant!

I do think you need to have a final authority in book form, or you are reduced into making either yourself or your favorite scholar your final authority.

What I'm wondering is, why do people say it is the KJV? I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to believe that; I'm just wondering, why can't your final authority be, say, the Textus Receptus?

Howdy Creation7, what is purification anyway. And why is pure silver considered to be worth more than 925 Sterling silver. That would answer the question.

Unless we think God does purify His words 7 times before he speaks them. But it would have to do with what we have received.

So why are not the original manuscripts, neither Textus Receptus the one for us today, and why would these even hinder the gospel to be preached to all nations?

Consider that preservation must mean basic and easy availability to mankind in the main languages of their respective time, which are for example Hebrew, Greek and English.

It's easy to understand if you think about it if we start with God and His intention. Then study to see what happened over the centuries with the versions. That part is difficult, yet it can be done if you really want to know what happened, and yes there are different interest groups involved that do not share the one main interest of preservation. Also there are commercial interests, you need in order to maintain copyright and so publish a work for revenue that is considered unique, have a certain percentage of original content in a work that is in the public domain. The 'original' content has to be different than the public domain content, what is usually achieved by addition, subtraction or paraphrasing.

So you're basically saying that the Textus Receptus shouldn't be our final authority because it's not in our native tongue? (and also considering that we do have something in our native tongue)

No that's not one of the reasons, you could try to see this from the Author's point of view who has left instructions for His people for the time of the end. There will be a time of "temptation" where false doctrine will lead us into wrong decisions. Would God give His words regarding that to only a few specialists that can decode the message, making them indirectly the final authority of access and interpretation? That would be contrary to so many scriptural points....His words are meant to be read by whosoever will, not only a selected clergy, or specialists with abilities other than reading.

Okay, I think see what you're saying. So do you believe that the KJV is the only translation that is inspired, inerrant, etc., in the world today?

Interesting question, I am thinking they cannot be all on the same level, while they say different things in so many places. Let's ask a similar question:

Why is there more than 1 Bible in print . What's wrong with the idea of one God, yet multiple versions of "His words".

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I mean is, have the Chinese, Japanese, Nepalese, Arab, etc., speaking people been left with a Bible that is less than perfect, and if they want God's inerrant Word, they must learn English?

Ah ok, well i don't have the insights into that, however do know about a few places in Asia that have ministries with American roots.These use english language Bibles as the background of their teaching that is in the local Asian languages. Main form of human interaction is not anything that is written like in the West, not even tiny tracts, people don't read as much as we do. They talk a lot, the main form of communication. While in Europe I have seen and read local translations that are based on the Textus Receptus, nothing wrong with that. overall though, and having been to something like 25 or 30 countries myself, I could see that the language of the globe and our time is in fact english. You always find people that speak it, doesn't matter where you go.

Brother a-servant,

Jesus’ own words that apply to us today.... Matt 13.13-15: This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing THEY DO NOT SEE, and hearing THEY DO NOT HEAR, nor DO THEY UNDERSTAND.

Jeremiah 7.23 Obey my VOICE and I will be your God.
John 10.27 My sheep HEAR MY VOICE and I know them and they follow me.

It’s not just reading His word but HEARING HIS VOICE that is essential in following Jesus. I can only imagine the amount of people who religiously read God’s word but never hear His voice.

As in Romans 10.17, the results of hearing God’s voice is true faith... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. ESV

Mark 4.9, Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” And in verse 23, If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. The original Hebrew in 1 Kings 3.9 Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people... (The Hebrew says: a hearing heart).

Obviously, Jesus wasn’t referring to physical ears; there is such a thing as having a heart to hear God; a hearing heart. I believe he was talking about an inner condition of the heart.

When we understand this, brother, all discussion / arguments about which version \\we should be reading cease.

Just my two cents + a little more!!
God bless you!!
Lisa

hi, in a previous century , i went to bible col. in pensacola fl. where dr ruckman also had a school and his guys were kjv only and called everything else "the devils bible". i could care less what bible falls into the hand of a sinner as long as the sinner gets saved. i have known people(one a great pastor ) who got saved listening to Jesus Christ super star.you must be born from above and God can use any bible or anyone or any thing to move on a heart He is wooing.

Dear Lysa,

I agree with everything you said, except your conclusion. Just two simple reasons why: In a practical case I remember where a leading member of a church was identified to be of a different spirit althogether, a KJV was used as foundation of discernment. The judgment was proven to be correct over time, and could not have been made with most other versions, where he would have been able to continue operating under the radar, what brought damage to the church body.

Secondly, also a determination that has to be made at one time: Identification of the mark of the beast. Depending on what people have been thaught they have the wildest ideas how they would recognize it, and what it is. Of course hearing His voice would solve the problem. Would they indeed hear His voice there would not be such a confusion about it, and a wrong doctrine resulting from a wrong translation will indeed lead to potentially saying things like "this couldn't be possibly it, because my Bible says.....". Here it's a matter of life and death as the final consequence. So HEARING HIS VOICE is essential, discernment will show us that this is exactly the problem already now for many. To make the wrong practical decision about this matter at a later time is just the end result of the small beginning where a little leaven leavenet the whole lump over time. This is by no means a small issue.

hi, no person in the bible had a bible and heard the voice of God which produced faith that did everything recorded therein. there is no change today.one must hear the voice of God and receive it and believe it and obey it and that is what faith is. without faith it is impossible to please God
all things in this arena start with God and He does not need the kjv.jimp...ihave used the kjv for 50 years now myself as a prefered bible.

Brother a-servant,

I applaud you and your discernment issues settled by the KJV; you have proven my point. If the KJV can settle those issues, then all men everywhere of every language should be made to read it. If it has that kind of power, how in the world has the Chinese church grown from 50,000 to over 5 million without it? Really, I’m amazed they’ve grown at all.

a-servant wrote:
Would they indeed hear His voice there would not be such a confusion about it, and a wrong doctrine resulting from a wrong translation will indeed lead to potentially saying things like "this couldn't be possibly it, because my Bible says.....".

Secondly, are you honestly saying ONLY the KJV will and can uncover evidence about the mark of the beast? I guess you’re going to say you adhere to the pre-tribulation rapture of the church too?! ( :) Just aggravating you brother!!!)

I’m all for allowing people to learn to hear the voice of the Lord, yes we will make mistakes but we learn from them. (edit) Jesus said, "My sheep know My voice and none other will they follow." He didn't say they will follow a version, they will know His voice. /edit).

AND God’s people followed His voice for 5,400 years before the printing press arrived on the scene and birthed the KJ Bible; so are you now saying that the Holy Spirit just doesn’t get it anymore?

I will just continue to vote for God on this issue so I had best bow out!
God bless you brother in your studies,
Lisa

So a-servant, are you basically saying yes, people do have to learn English to have God's perfect Word? (since English is a language that is used all over the world)

No Lisa but I trust that it is the best translation and that the tense would not have changed so 1500 years ago it meant if you add or take away from God's word you will be damned and that still means that today if you add or take away from God's word.

This is what TBS is doing today in many languages making translations in line with the peoples expectation. At the moment somewhere such as France does not have a reliable version of the bible or places such as Romainia China, even the Hebrew New Testament is being retranslated. My point was only about english versions for those who speak that language

by martyr
Sister the answer to the growth of the Cbineese church lies in the power of the Holy Spirit. The same with the church in Iran. Check out the thread on.' What about the early church under' Revival history. This issue is discussed more thoroughly.

"The growth of (ANY) church lies in the power of the Holy Spirit." Amen and thank you for that brother!

My apologies. Back to the KJV.

God bless you and you proved my point! Thank you!
lisa

I won't put God in a box and pick only the KJV, but how many millions of people have been save through it? God can save anyone with any version of the Word of God, but to bring our minds to the mind of Christ we need as good a translation as we can find. I used the New American Standard version for 5 years until I could see small variations in the Diety of Christ and what God put His Son in me by the Faith of the Son of God for salvation and groth into the mind of Christ from the Father by the Holy Spirit. It is simple to see, when this changes what God intended for those that are born again of the Spirit of Christ in us, Rom 5,6 and Gal 2: 16-20. Just go to Gal 2:20 and see that they have changed the "faith of the Son" to "faith in the Son", one is all of Christ and the other is putting the responsibility of my salvation on me and my works. Suttle, but important, plus there are suttle changes to the Diety of Christ also.

In Christ: Phillip

That's correct, and it's a very valid point, many of those changes that amount to much. I think some here want to understand the big picture but don't even look closely at the evidence as a good detetive would do before he has any opinion at all, and regard what people say about it as a possible alternative to study. That's very narrow minded to think you can find the answer in a few questions on a message board without doing some basic ground work yourselves. Hey, it's the Word of God we're talking about here, this is not campus where you absorb preselected humanistic opinions.

It's not personal preference that matters, but actual incoherences in some of the versions that shouldn't exist. Some are not harmless at all, but line up with new age literature speaking about 'the One' that is coming, just like these do. At the same time they all translate "to follow Christ" as "imitate Christ" - what is not even similar as imitation is an artificial likeness, yet KJV's to follow Him means the Cross in personal life. And that is just the beginning, for real serious demand what do most versions say when someone you meet has a real problem that 'won't come out' no matter what?

Will this person be delivered based on your version or stay oppressed? Here the KJV:

Matthew 17:18  And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?  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. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Mark 9:27  But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose. And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

That's correct,

Are you talking to Christinyou?

Creation7,

"....plus there are suttle changes to the Diety of Christ also" -> "those changes that amount to much" That's correct, as the context flows over from one post to another, and then gets general again.

To your previous question "are you basically saying" -> I checked, but didn't "basically say such a thing" so cannot comment on that.

I checked, but didn't "basically say such a thing" so cannot comment on that.

But you said:

i don't have the insights into that, however do know about a few places in Asia that have ministries with American roots.These use english language Bibles as the background of their teaching that is in the local Asian languages.

I could see that the language of the globe and our time is in fact english. You always find people that speak it, doesn't matter where you go.

Therefore, I'm asking: Are you saying that since "the language of the globe and our time is in fact English", that people do have to learn English to have God's perfect Word?

Please understand, I am not asking these questions in an argumentative tone. I don't think people who hold to the KJV are wrong. I'm simply studying the issue and trying to find out about it.

For people that want to discuss other things than Bible versions, like God's government questions of dealing with humanity you could ask why God limited His practical dealing with humanity first to the Hebrew language only? And then extended it to the Greek speaking people. What's the exact reason for that, and possibly we can then make an assumption how this was again extended after that time.

This thread is about Bible versions we have in front of us, here is our first direct responsibility, and actual choices we have to make.

Well Jesus was a Jew!

I don't really get what you're trying to say, a-servant. Are you answering yes or no to my question?

To ANYONE...

It would be nice if those who responded actually put WHO they were responding to!!

Thank you for reading this!

God bless,
Lisa