Corrupted Text

Bible Believers ChurchThe reason that people don't believe in Biblical inerrancy anymore is because men have received the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts rejected by the godly men of the Reformation and the true church in every century since Pentecost. The Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek text is based upon these 45 corrupt manuscripts. This equates to the NIV, NASB, etc being corrupted because of their corrupted base. Just check it out for yourself. Turn in one of these versions to 1 Tim. 3:16. There is no more statement of God being manifest in the flesh. They take out "God" and put "He who". No statement of the deity of Christ like in the KJV (Textus Receptus - from Pure Majority Text - over 5,200 Greek manuscripts). You can turn to Phil. 2:6 in the NIV, we read that Jesus didn't think He could be equal with God! But if you go to the Textus Receptus based KJV, you read that He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. There He knew he was equal! What is happening? Welcome to the great apostasy.I encourage you all to visit our site and read "Which Version is the Bible" by Dr. Floyd Jones. It will change your life and strengthen your faith in God's holy word.

ReceivedText wrote:Bible Believers ChurchThe reason that people don't believe in Biblical inerrancy anymore is because men have received the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts rejected by the godly men of the Reformation and the true church in every century since Pentecost. The Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek text is based upon these 45 corrupt manuscripts. This equates to the NIV, NASB, etc being corrupted because of their corrupted base. Just check it out for yourself. Turn in one of these versions to 1 Tim. 3:16. There is no more statement of God being manifest in the flesh. They take out "God" and put "He who". No statement of the deity of Christ like in the KJV (Textus Receptus - from Pure Majority Text - over 5,200 Greek manuscripts). You can turn to Phil. 2:6 in the NIV, we read that Jesus didn't think He could be equal with God! But if you go to the Textus Receptus based KJV, you read that He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. There He knew he was equal! What is happening? Welcome to the great apostasy.I encourage you all to visit our site and read "Which Version is the Bible" by Dr. Floyd Jones. It will change your life and strengthen your faith in God's holy word.The word of God is breathed from the very spirit of GOd and it needs to be interpreted by that same spirit and that spirit teach us. Anything outside of that just doesn't work. The problem is not in the translation of the text itself but in the mode of interpretation namely someone at some point used the carnal mind to intepret what is spirit. Even if the bible were to have been translated directly using the very original manuscripts, and yet the holy spirit was not sonsulted for the interpretation part, the scriptures mean nothing, they become a colllection of stories for teaching lessons.

Look at all the countries in the world where there are christians being persecuted for following Jesus and you will see millions of people who do not speak english and will never read the KJV. Are you saying that they are not saved because they did not read the KJV? Are you saying that the Spirit of God cannot fill someone and teach them all things that are true and not a lie without having access to the KJV?There are many translations being used throughout the world that say that you MUST die to yourself, carry your cross daily and follow Jesus to have eternal life.If you put these opinions upon others and dispise those that use another translation, then you are following another Jesus. I pray that you will repent and come into a true relationship with the Real Jesus.

tedlock wrote:If you put these opinions upon others and dispise those that use another translation, then you are following another Jesus. I pray that you will repent and come into a true relationship with the Real Jesus.Hi Ted,I think you may misunderstand many of us here. It's not a matter of "either you use the KJV or you're not saved", but the KJV is a superior translation. For myself, a relatively recent convert from the NIV (New Internation Version) to the NIV (Never Improved Version - not my joke, blame Ravenhill for that one:-)), came to it kicking and screaming. I am aware of some of the inconsistant tranlation points in in the KJV (how did they ever translate Jakobus as James. Hmmmm...could King James have had anything to do it;-)) and the whole, "The Bible was written in the common toungue" arguments, but for me, it's no a matter of KJV being more accurate, as much as Elizabethan English being a more precise language to our modern equivalent.If someone was to say, "That was wicked!" back then, it would be no doubt that they were expressing disgust, but now... and that's just an obivous situation. There are very few "hard words" that need to learned, where NIV has a multitude of multi-sylable words that need explaining. If not now, then definately in the next 5-10 years, when all the meanings change again, as a result of school yard slang speaking youths growing up and forcing there words on an unsuspecting older generation.The reality is, right now the English language has turned a corner, where words are defined in the midst of their usage, with sit-com television creating catch phranes that become the language used. For example, phrases like "Doh", "Gotta love the (insert person's name here)", "Gnarly dude", etc...(having trouble coming up with specific examples under pressure. May edit some in later) are slowly erroding our language to where we have began to "..call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (see Isaiah 5:20)."Come on", I hear you say, "surely it's not that bad." Well consider this. Why do all the news reports on criminals, who should be given lighter sentances due to their regreting their actions refer to them, as "repentant"? Apparently that all began with a latin translation of the Greek word "metanoia" with "penatensia" (sorry if my spelling is bad).My initial inspiration for switching, was the preaching of men like Keith Daniel, Paris Reidhead, Leonard Ravenhill, and the like here. I also figured Finney, Moody, Wesley, Whitfield, and the like used it, so if it's good enough for them, then it's good enough for me (even if the Apostle Paul didn't use it;-)).Personally, I don't so much turn to the KJV as a statment of its accuracy, but as a statement of my language's incosistancy. Sure other translations have something to say, but let me ask one last question. If you had a choice, would you drink filtered tap water or drop a cup into the Nile and take a gulp? You do know that they'll don't quench your thirst, but who knows what you're getting from the second option.

Having the Peshitta as a Reference has made it possible to correct numerous Translation Errors in all later Translations of the Bible.This is just not true. The case for Aramaic primacy is not supported by any serious evangelical scholars. It is a fad.

The reason that people don't believe in Biblical inerrancy anymore is because men have received the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts rejected by the godly men of the Reformation and the true church in every century since Pentecost. The Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek text is based upon these 45 corrupt manuscripts. This equates to the NIV, NASB, etc being corrupted because of their corrupted base.Anyone who could write this has no understanding at all of the process of transmission or the nature of 'textual criticism'. Any writer who can title his book "Which Version is the Bible?" is not worth reading. btw I am an avid user and supporter of the KJV but this kind of polemic does not help our cause.

I think it is just amazing that people would make some of the statements here without even looking at the book. I challenge you all to read at LEAST the first chapter.As to my knowledge of the transmission of the Biblical Text, I am quite knowledgeable. This is not a "thee" or "thou" issue here. This is a MANUSCRIPT issue.There are two streams of manuscripts. One from Alexandria. One from Antioch. They both disagree. They both can't be right.But I don't plan on taking the space here to type what is already in the book. I challenge you all to read it."He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." - Proverbs 18:13Blessings,TRHere's the link again: http://www.bbconfire.com

The problem is not in the translation of the text itself but in the mode of interpretation namely someone at some point used the carnal mind to intepret what is spirit.So can we all go and buy the New World Translation, since the translation of the text doesn't matter? Your logic is flawed.You are right that it is the Holy Spirit who reveals Scripture. You are wrong that it doesn't matter if we have God's perfect word.Much love in Christ,TR

What is the error difference between the Alexandrian and the Textus Reciptus as I do not know Greek I am unsure?

TRThere are some versions of the bible out there that are just way off the mark, I agree with you on that. Common sense would tell you to leave those alone. HOWEVER, even if we had the very original manuscripts and translated those directly, the translation was flawless, and we had not the Holy Spirit to interpret them and teach them to us IT WOULD DO NO GOOD. The Pharisees had perfect TRANSLATIONS, or MANUSCRIPTS of scripture and yet Christ had nothing good to say of them, there was something missing, the spirit of God. See look the only way we can have God's PERFECT word is to have GOD's PERFECT SPIRIT INTERPRET AND INSTRUCT US. We have libraries upon libraries of so-called knowledge of God some of which really was born of the instruction of the Holy Spirit and the rest of it is just garbage. If it were all inspired by the Holy Spirit I tell you the power that we would be wielding would have satan and his minions begging to be cast into the lake of fire. We need to be seeking out that which was born of the spirit and nothing more or less. What is about to happen is going require that those who are really about God's business to be walking in the spirit lest they get swept away by the impending judgment.You also wrote:I think it is just amazing that people would make some of the statements here without even looking at the book. I challenge you all to read at LEAST the first chapter.As to my knowledge of the transmission of the Biblical Text, I am quite knowledgeable. This is not a "thee" or "thou" issue here. This is a MANUSCRIPT issue.There are two streams of manuscripts. One from Alexandria. One from Antioch. They both disagree. They both can't be right.But I don't plan on taking the space here to type what is already in the book. I challenge you all to read it."He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." - Proverbs 18:13Blessings,TRUntil this day I had no idea that there were 2 streams of manuscripts from which the bible came which disagree. I thought there was just the one that people translated differently for whatever reason. I’m not sure how many people have even hear a rumor hinting of any of this but I can say that it was a first for me. It seems you have studied this area and know it well (mentioned it in the post that you know about transmission of text) but how many others are out there who have had the benefit of your study of your being taught these things by someone? Probably not very many, I could be wrong though. Since I don’t have that benefit has it jeopardized my own relationship with God? Since I don’t have a KJV (which I hear is a very accurate translation) or another accurate translation has my salvation and relationship with God been forfeited? No!. I submit to you all that God is God and He does as He pleases. If He can use Paul who persecuted Christians as his favorite pastime to His glory by turning Paul into a Christian superchamp, surely a poorly translated version of the bible in God’s hands can still be powerful. John of Patmos wrote the revelation by inspiration of the Holy spirit, He was no scholar of the scriptures , he was a fisherman (if I’m wrong please correct me) and yet the one book the spirit inspired him to write has bamboozled the most learned of men 2000+ yrs later. How could this be so? The spirit with which many men have long-used to interpret scripture is one that wants to glorify men, hence all the confusion. This is evidence of a deep need by the church of now to reach back and tap into the Holy Spirit that drove our forerunners. How long have these bad manuscripts been in circulation? People still have been saved and are still being saved right? That would seem to say that the power is not in the translation but in the source of all knowledge of the scripture, God Himself! When the Holy spirit leads me through scripture I just believe that He will minister to me according to God’s will and wisdom and leave it at that. I have a good news bible and an n.i.v. that are both different but I have been shown that the meaning and power of the word comes from the throne of God Himself and we have access to that through Christ and the ministry of the holy spirit. This is not an attack but a testimony of what God has shown me. God is the source of all power and knowledge concerning Him. If we look beyond the translation, there will we find the power we seek. If we let the Holy Spirit minister to us rather than rely on our minds (which cannot fathom what is spirit) then we will find that there is nothing to disagree about because ALL will be made clear by the Holy spirit. Let us seek the spirit in all things. God is spirit and He requires worship in spirit and truth and meeting Him in spirit. THIS IS THE KEY to pleasing God and the key to all things concerning Him, without it, pleasing God or truly knowing Him is not possible.

What is the error difference between the Alexandrian and the Textus Reciptus as I do not know Greek I am unsure?I don't know Greek or any other language which scripture was translated from. it is good to know that there are at least 2 of us :-P

Hello Gentlemen ~ forgive me for interrupting here and possibly putting a twist to this discussion, my main reason for coming to this site was to find another way to explain the Trinity to my dad ... and here is a pretty good spot to drop in ~ the mention of "New World Translation". :-D I tend to 'favor' the Baptist church because of the learning and delving into the Bible. While my dad has the same desire of attending a church that teaches from the Bible, he believes to have met this desire through the Jehovah Witness'.He and I have had numerous discussions, over the past two years, about the NWT version and the versions I use (NKJV mostly, KJV and NIV). He believes the versions I use are incorrect, while I believe the NWT is incorrect.I've been thankful my dad has been attending church with his grandkids and myself (a baptist church), but now he has become irritated that we believe (and actually use a Bible version wherein Jesus proclaims) He (Jesus) is equal to God the Father.Being rather ignorant of who translated what, where, when, why, and how, I don't want to miss this opportunity of another way to explain the Trinity and Jesus' Deity to my dad ... not to mention his refusing to attend church with us anymore. His attending has meant alot to not only myself, but to my teenage daughter as well, whose dad would and will not step foot into a church claiming agnostic or atheism, depending what is the subject. :roll: Thank you for letting me be a billy goat, who currently resides in TN and who is a stay-at-home mom. Darraugh

We have chatted over this subject in Which Version and in other places. Rather that go through the discussion again I thought folks might like to visit here.

He and I have had numerous discussions, over the past two years, about the NWT version and the versions I use (NKJV mostly, KJV and NIV). He believes the versions I use are incorrect, while I believe the NWT is incorrect.Hithe New World Translation in an in-house Jehovah's Witnesses translation designed to support their own doctrines. It will interprete (and misinterprete) as suits their theories but is not regarded seriously by any non-JW Bible students.One of their most blatant pieces of propaganda is their use of the word Jehovah in the New Testament. The word Jehovah never appears in any known Greek manuscript, even though a Greek version (transliteration) was available at the time. I have talked with doorstep JWs and their senior local officials at length on this topic. At first they say the word Jehovah is in the Greek manuscripts but when challenged to show some evidence they usually retreat to a position of saying that it must have been removed during the earliest centuries of the Church. Needless to say there is absolutely no evidence for this.

Hi Darraugh,was to find another way to explain the Trinity to my dad ... I've been thankful my dad has been attending church with his grandkids and myself (a baptist church), but now he has become irritated that we believe (and actually use a Bible version wherein Jesus proclaims) He (Jesus) is equal to God the Father.I don't want to miss this opportunity of another way to explain the Trinity and Jesus' Deity to my dad ... not to mention his refusing to attend church with us anymore. His attending has meant alot to not only myself, but to my teenage daughter as well, whose dad would and will not step foot into a church claiming agnostic or atheism, depending what is the subject.Maybe and hopefully that 'irritation' is the beginning of a stirring of the Holy Spirit, inclined to think so just from what you have stated here. Seems often times it is the disturbing things that can grab our attention more so than the 'convincing', otherwise why bother?We do have amongst our members at least one who would be well versed as a former JW. Do check back, he has a heart as big as the sun...(Sorry, didn't mean to put you on the spot there brother ;-) )

I quite agree with philologos. I think he gave you some good and very accurate information. Just wanted to add my agreement. :-D Along with their addition of Jehovah in the NT, they use the faulty text created by Westcott and Hort in 1881. In many ways, the NWT agrees with the NASB. While the NASB doesn't corrupt John 1:1, it does use the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18. Instead of reading of a "begotten Son," (KJV) we read of a "begotten God." (NAS, NWT) This was changed to agree with gnosticism and like philosophies of the second and third centuries. They looked at Jesus as a lesser god and not as God Almighty. Of course this is the JW view. Though JW's don't preach full gnosticism, the general heresy concerning the deity of Christ comes into play here. If you can take away a person's faith in their foundational text and replace it with the correct one, they have no option but to see the truth. What they do with it may be a different story. But that is where the precious Holy Ghost comes in to help.Blessings,RT

This was changed to agree with gnosticism and like philosophies of the second and third centuries.This may or may not be true. There is no historical evidence for the statement; it is historical conjecture.

Ironically, my dad had an opportunity to see how NWT erroneously translated "kurios" to "Jehovah", rather than to "Lord" (or is that 'LORD'? :-? ). I'm not sure which mis-translated verse, in NWT, wreaks more havoc ... Gen. 1:2 or John 1:1. However, these two verses are what my dad refers to in denying the Deity of Christ.I've been privileged to take Basic Theology from the former senior pastor at the church I attended in Illinois. The book we used was written by Charles Ryrie, which in my humble mumble opinion, is well written for us simple-minded folk. This book has come in handy many of times, in particular, when addressing translations of Hebrew and Greek, while trying to find additional insight for my dad's questioning.I quite agree with what was previously mentioned (can't remember by whom at the moment), the Holy Spirit helps us to understand God's Word, in addition to understanding the Triune God.~ Darraugh ~ :-D

This is all very interesting. i have only ever done a small bit of studying into the various texts.To those who recommend the KJV, what do you make of the NKJV? Do you think it is inferior, and why?Thanks.

To those who recommend the KJV, what do you make of the NKJV? Do you think it is inferior, and why? I think the answer depends on the purpose. To burden a new enquirer from the 21st century with the task of learning a stilted 17th century English is not wise. I would encourage such to start with the NKJV. It has the advantage too that if the seeker is in a KJV meeting he will be able to follow without too much difficulty. Personally, I could not manage without the 'thees and thous'; but this has nothing to do with the majesty of the KJV but the nuances of 'thee' and expressing unique identity rather than the group 'you'.

I use the NKJV in my church and when witnessing. But tend to stick with the KJV in personal devotions. I like "thee" and "ye" not only for the beauty, but because I can tell whether the text is referring to a singular or a plural.

Thanks Ron and Globachio.Is the singular/plural of the second person the main reason you would prefer the KJV over the NKJV? I agree it is very usefull. What I am wondering is, are there problems with the translation itself? (They all have some 'problems' I know, but I am thinking of problems that would render the NKJV less accurate than the KJV)Thanks again.

Is the singular/plural of the second person the main reason you would prefer the KJV over the NKJV?This makes the English better able to handle Koine Greek specifics. Remember, if it has a "T", it is singular. If it has a "Y" it is plural.I agree it is very usefull. What I am wondering is, are there problems with the translation itself?Yes, there are some very grave errors in the NKJV. It doesn't follow the Majority Text family exclusively. Here are some grave differences that I think you will appreciate having:NKJV Omits the word:Lord - 66 timesGod - 51 timesheaven - 50 timesrepent - 44 timesblood - 23 timeshell - 22 timesJehovah - entirelynew testament - entirelydamnation - entirelydevils - entirelyIt ignores the Greek Majority reading over 1,200 times.It replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with the corrupt Stuttgart edition (ben Asher) Old Testament.So you see that the NKJV is clearly NOT a KJV Bible.I want to recommend the KJV-ER if you must go without the "thee's and thou's"Ray Comfort's Evidence Bible and the Sword Bible are some examples of this text. The Sword Bible puts a super-script "p" after the word you to indicate when it is plural.Hope this helps.Blessings,RT

OK, thanks RT.I was, for the moment, primarily interested in translation issues. As opposed to how faitful it is to the majoruty greek texts. (Not saying that the texts it follows isn't important) Some of the words you gave me in the list aren't ommisions from the text they are just translated differently in the NKJV. For example, the Tetragramaton is translated consistently LORD rather than Jehovah in the vast majority of places in he NKJV. devils would be demons etc. But is there any case of bad translating as such? Thanks.

OK, here you go:NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ:Luke 13:8: NKJV - "Sir"; KJV "Lord"Matt. 18:26: NKJV - "before him saying, Master"; KJV - "and worshipped him, saying, Lord"Matt. 20:20 NKJV "kneeling down"; KJV "worshipping him"Gen. 22:8 NKJV "God will provide for himself the lamb"; KJV "God will provide himself a lamb"John 8:35 NKJV "a son"; KJV "the Son"Acts 3:13; 3:26 NKJV "His Servant Jesus"; KJV "his Son Jesus"Acts 4:27; 4:30 NKJV "holy Servant Jesus"; KJV "holy child Jesus"Col. 1:15 NKJV "the firstborn over all creation"; KJV "the firstborn of every creature"Mark 2:15 NKJV OMITTED; KJV "Jesus"2 Thes. 3:5 NKJV "patience of Christ"; KJV "patient waiting for Christ"NKJV demotes assurance of Salvation:1 Cor. 1:18 and 2 Cor. 2:15 NKJV "are being saved"; KJV "are saved"NKJV promotes works salvation:Matt. 7:14 NKJV "difficult is the way"; KJV "narrow is the way" (quite different concepts)Gal. 5:22 NKJV "faithfulness"; KJV "faith"1 John 5:13 NKJV "may continue to believe"; KJV "may believe"NKJV demotes personal guilt for sin (the devil made me do it):Phil. 3:21 NKJV "lowly body"; KJV "vile body"1 Jn. 5:19 NKJV "whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one"; KJV "whole world lieth in wickedness"Luke 11:4 NKJV "deliver us from the evil one"; KJV "deliver us from evil"Matt. 5:37 NKJV "the evil one"; KJV "of evil"NKJV pushes for religeous tolerance:Acts 24:14 NKJV "sect"; KJV "heresy"Acts 17:22 NKJV "very religious"; KJV "too superstitious"Acts 4:25 NKJV "nations" (148 times); KJV "heathen"Acts 8:9 NKJV "astonished"; KJV "bewitched"Acts 25:19 NKJV "religion"; KJV "superstition"2 Cor. 6:9 NKJV "casting down arguments"; KJV "casting down imaginations"Titus 3:10 NKJV "Reject a divisive man"; KJV "an heretick...reject" (If we go with the NKJV, the heretick stays and the one rejecting him goes; rejecting a heretick will ALWAY bring division)Deceptive concerning the mark of the beast:Rev. 13:16 et al: NKJV "a mark on their right hand" (like tattoo or patch); KJV "a mark in their right hand" (like the positive identity chip used all over from the military to bar tabs to pets)1 Sam. 13:21 "the charge...was a pim" (positive identification microchip); KJV "they had a file...for the coulters"So again, the NKJV clearly is NOT a KJV and these are just a few places where theology is changed because of a faulty underpinning text (though less than the NIV).Besides, would you trust a Bible that would proudly display a huge occultic symbol for 666 on the front cover?? (the Triquetera - see any New Age, Satanic, or Pagan symbol book)I don't want to have any part of the NKJV. How about you?Blessings,RT

Thankyou for your time.I am going to have to spend a bit of time myself looking in to these. I am interested in the accuracy or lack thereof of these translations as opposed to how well they fit our ideas of how things should be. But they look worth checking out. I shall certainly do so.

1 Sam. 13:21 "the charge...was a pim" (positive identification microchip); KJV "they had a file...for the coulters"Whoah steady on there. This escaped my attention on first reading. Do you serioulsy believe this? That the NKJV is trying to get us into the "one world order"?

Why are we comparing other versions with the KJVI am not interested in wheter or not the NKJV is faithful to the KJV. I am interested in how good of a translation it itself is.

I don't want to have any part of the NKJV. How about you?Hi RT,I read through your examples and based on what I know from my 'limited' Greek studies there are several examples were the NKJV actually offers more accurate rendering of what the text means. For example:2 Cor. 6:9 NKJV "casting down arguments"; KJV "casting down imaginations"If I recall correctly the word logisimos actually means "evil reasonings." This is very important to our understanding of how the enemy establishes a 'stronghold' in the minds. In Romans 2:15 we see the word translated as 'thoughts' in the KJV. Imaginations in our day seriously shrouds the modern understanding of that word. We see from this one example the same thing happening already to us as what happened to the world under the Vulgate. When a translation is so good that those who understand it refuse to turn loose of it- the succeding generations loose their ability to understand it. And the result is another dark ages. We need a bible in the language of the people that does not compromise the text and is readable to folk on the street. Many many people simply do not understand the KJV English and I must admit that I have to shift my whole vocabulary around to understand much of the text. An example of this is the word 'suffer'. Totally different meaning now. Many other examples that would exhaust this forum. Reading the KJV and interpreting it using modern understandings of the words can creat serious misunderstandings of the text. If I know Tyndale and the reformers they would already have tried to produce an accurate KJV revision in the language of the people. I am a relatively young man and have really had to educate myself to use the KJV and found often that I misunderstood texts based upon the normal use of words. Thank God many years ago I bought a Greek New Testament and bagan studying the actual Greek words underlying the KJV. Lots of false teachings are apt to come about due to misunderstanding of these archaic English words. God Bless,-Robert

I read through your examples and based on what I know from my 'limited' Greek studies there are several examples were the NKJV actually offers more accurate rendering of what the text means. I have been going through some of these myself, so far I would have to agree with Robert. In some cases I think that it was probably a case of choosing betwen two good alternatives KJV chose one and NKJV chose another. But I wouldn't get the idea that there is any kind of conspiracy afoot to corrupt the reader. The quote from 1john for example, about the world lying in the wicked one, is suported by several commentries, other very literal translations (eg Rotherhams) and by Bullinger in the Companion Bible. I can't say for certain which is the correct reading because I don't speak greek. But I wouldn't write off these learned opinions. If it is a faulty translation (which I doubt) I definitly don't think it was put in there to give believers the liberty to say "the devil made me do it". After all the stament itself would apear to be true (as in, it is backed up by the rest of scripture).I did a bit of looking into Jesus being called Servant in Acts rather than Son. Again, I can't say for certain but the word used here is elsewhere translated as Servant (including in the KJV) and of course Jesus was the "Servant of the Lord" as prophesied by Isaiah and quoted in Matthew.The other examples I shall look into further later on.

We need a bible in the language of the people that does not compromise the text and is readable to folk on the street. Many many people simply do not understand the KJV English and I must admit that I have to shift my whole vocabulary around to understand much of the text. Well said Robert,"Using" a NKJV and find it a bit absurd that some alleged conspiracy is underfoot, that's a bit much. However to point out the misgivings and examining of these things may be helpful. It is painfully obvious that we are not going to have a 'perfect' rendering nor is that to escape the idea that we ought to strive for one.Karl stated:You know, the King James Version is a Version it is not a translation.I find it ironic that God takes any translation, version, and sows His seed in the heart who is diligently seeking Him. And all they have is the NIV or ASV. I think we tend to forget it is the holy Spirit that leads and guides us into all truth, NOT the KJV or some other version. I personally read the KJV, but what do the Chinese read? I can assure you it is not the KJV, the KJV is for the english speaking peoples of the world.Indeed what becomes of a translation of the KVJ into a foreign language on top of that?Taco also:I am not interested in wheter or not the NKJV is faithful to the KJV. I am interested in how good of a translation it itself is.While "using" the NKJV find that the leanings are toward the KJV especially in usage here and primarily by the great help of e-sword. Especially when the verses are coming to mind and attempting to search them out, you can click through a search of various versions until you hit that one you are looking for. Often times will find it in the WEB or the ASV for instance and then click over to the KJV to cut and paste from. It is interesting that there is a draw toward the KVJ and not by some forced compulsion or rhetoric, just kind of drawn to it.The only 'point' if there is one is, is the word hidden in your heart? Not the version or the nuances, but the power thereof?

Whoa Taco...That's a bit freaky, being that we posted at the same time...

The only 'point' if there is one is, is the word hidden in your heart? Not the version or the nuances, but the power thereof?Great 'point'! Amen!ysiC-Chanin

I did a bit of looking into Jesus being called Servant in Acts rather than Son. Again, I can't say for certain but the word used here is elsewhere translated as Servant (including in the KJV) and of course Jesus was the "Servant of the Lord" as prophesied by Isaiah and quoted in Matthew.This is a good point from taco. I also agree with Bro. Mike that having other translations is quite helpful. Ultimately we have to allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into the Truth because the 'big picture' is not something that can come with analysis- it has to be spiritually discerned. Our 'study to show ourselves approved' to me is the putting to memory scripture and then meditating upon it and allowing the Holy Spirit to put it together. I enjoy hermeneutics- but that is no substitute for the Holy Ghost. I ran into this a lot debating and discussing with the Messianic's about the Holy Spirit's interpretations of Old Testament passages. You simply would not have arrived at the Holy Spirit's conclusions in many cases from leaning on our own understanding. This is how the Pharisee's jumped the rails. They did "always resist the Holy Ghost" and were "uncircumcised in heart and ears" and were interpreting scripture. What did they do? They devised their own little hermeneutic that took a pure text and corrupted it making much of it of none effect. the Holy Spirit will guide us into the truth and He has many means of doing it- including using other versions of scripture to draw our attention to. God Bless,-Robert

Sombody asked earlier, (roughly) "what can the unlearned do?" in relation to the difficluty of dicerning accurate translations.I am reminded of the words of Christ (qouted from memory so its the Taco version) "If a man wills to do the Father's will, he will know the teaching, whtere or not it is from God".This is the most important thing, as others here have mentined. A desire to do God's will. This is the meat -to do the will of Him that sent... With that heart God will supply all that we need for the moment, the right people to fellowship with -be it inside or outside of a structured "church". the right bible to read even if it is quite faulty in places and he also will supply the understanding that we need for whatever job he has given us. The main thing is that we don't become proud and think that the little we know is everything. Also that we stay open to correction. After all the same God that perhaps placed a Good news Bible in your hand five years ago, because its what you then needed may now be sending that brother accross your path who is showing you "the things of God" more accuratly.

This is the most important thing, as others here have mentined. A desire to do God's will. This is the meat -to do the will of Him that sent... With that heart God will supply all that we need for the moment, the right people to fellowship with -be it inside or outside of a structured "church". the right bible to read even if it is quite faulty in places and he also will supply the understanding that we need for whatever job he has given us. The main thing is that we don't become proud and think that the little we know is everything. Also that we stay open to correction. After all the same God that perhaps placed a Good news Bible in your hand five years ago, because its what you then needed may now be sending that brother accross your path who is showing you "the things of God" more accuratly. o-praise God- yet again! To do the will of the Father. If we surrender our will and rights to Him, He will see to it that we are adequately taught.Surrendered to Him, chanin

Thank God many years ago I bought a Greek New Testament and bagan studying the actual Greek words underlying the KJV.You mean you bought a Greek NT (which one?) and a Lexicon or a Strongs and used them like a dictionary (a no-no) and re-translated the Bible. But maybe you don't know that most Lexicons today are corrupt and refer to pagan literature and understanding. Something Wycliffe vehemently rejected. Unless you are fluent in Greek, you use a lexicon or concordance. Am I wrong??Which Hebrew text do you use? They aren't all created equal you know.You talk about the language of the people. Where is your Bible in the language of the people? Why do you need Hebrew and Greek? Huh? The whole issue of settling on the KJV is centered around the desire to have a Bible in OUR own language that is accurate and inspired. According to what you thank God for, you seem to be happy to think God's word can only be understood via Greek. Well, I reject this strongly. When we look to Pentecost we see that God's New Testament was given in every language of every nation under heaven. Not just Greek. Not just English.Again, the KJV-ER is what I recommend. The NKJV is flawed as you see. When I used the KJV below, it is synonymous with the Received Text reading. You should pick up a copy of Gail Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions" and read the chapter: "Lucifer's Lexicons."Lots of false teachings are apt to come about due to misunderstanding of these archaic English words. So go grab a KJV-ER instead of a corrupt NKJV. Here is a link to get one:http://swordbible.org/ProdDetailSample2.htmHere is a link to get Ray Comfort's Evidence Bible: Evidence BibleBlessings,RT

It is painfully obvious that we are not going to have a 'perfect' rendering nor is that to escape the idea that we ought to strive for one.So you believe that no matter how hard we strive, we won't ever have God's perfect words in our language? Man, then you should think about how truthful you are being to the people next time you hold your Bible up in the air and say, "This is the inerrant Word of God." If you confess it is not perfect, then you must also confess that it has the possiblity of error and therefore not inerrant.I doubt that few of the old preachers you have here on this site would agree with you.Let me make this VERY CLEAR. The main issue here is the entering in of corrupt Alexandrian manuscrpts. Not synonym selection. Servant and Son are not synonyms. They can't both be right. One is the true reading, one is the false reading. The question is, will you stand for a Bible with error? Is it really OK that we have a few mistranslated words in the book we all hang our eternal hope upon? This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue. I don't care whether you use the Geneva Bible, KJV, KJV-ER, Webster's KJV, Wesley's KJV NT. I just want to know that you reject the corrupt Alexandrian and Roman Catholic (Vulgate) readings. Is anybody with me there?RT

The main issue here is the entering in of corrupt Alexandrian manuscrpts. Not synonym selection. Servant and Son are not synonyms. So are you saying that the NKJV got Servant from a different text than the KJV used to get Son? They are both translating the same greek word. Which is 10 times translated as Servant in the KJV of tthe bible. Maybe its a bad translation (I doubt it) but if it is then the King James translaotrs got it wrong ten times!I was (and am) interested in the diffrence in translation between the KJV and the NKJV. You know, is there a certain bias etc. I don't buy the theory that its part of a global conspiracy to get us all to take the mark of the beast.My real interest was to know, do people consider it a good translation of the texts it uses (even if you think it doesn't always follow the correct texts). I thought that some who had studied the matter might have some light to shed.

I don't buy the theory that its part of a global conspiracy to get us all to take the mark of the beast.You are the one who is saying anything about a "global conspiracy" claims. I never said that. I only gave raw data with some suggestive possiblities. You would have to admit, it is interesting as I don't know what a pim is. "On the hand" and "in the hand" are two different things. What is wrong with pointing something out for discussion? They do have a symbol on the front of the Bible that Satanists view as one of their most powerful. Why not question it? Just trying to get the data out there.No one has done any accusing though. On another note. There does seem to be a conspiracy from the folks at the Jesus Seminar. They want to take the book of Revelation out of the Bible and replace it with the pseudo-pigripha book of the Shepherd of Hermas. In that book it says we should all give ourselves to the beast and take the mark. Interesting that this conspiracy is being promoted by "textual critics", albeit super liberal ones.I don't have time to grab my Textus Receptus right now. Busy, busy, busy. Just wanted to reply to that issue for now.Let's all keep preaching and winning souls.Blessings,RT

TRPeople are still being saved though despite the not-so-accurate text right? There are still people with fire for God who still do great things for His kingdom without the perfect text right? If I'm wrong let me know. when y'all have figured out which text we really really REALLY should be using, let me know so I can make the switch.

Thought you would enjoy this comparison:http://www.believeonjesus.com/articles/drdavidbrown/modernversions.aspBlessings,RT

Take a look at the Chicago Statement on inerrancy and particularly the section 'translation and transmission'. The relevant section concludesIndeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15)

So go grab a KJV-ER instead of a corrupt NKJV.I have tried to find out more about this but without success so far. Are there any long sections of text available? I saw one version which has the Hebrew Names of God in the NT. ??? There are no Hebrew Names for God in the NT. The versions I have found seem to have the words of God and Christ in red which is always a sign that the translators have not understood the truth of inspiration. Still I would be interested to hear more.

Ron,Here is a sample from the KJV-ER used by Comfort in the Evidence Bible:The Evidence Bible (John 1-4)John CHAPTER 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came to his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? are you Elijah? And he said, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they to him, Who are you? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What do you say of yourself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. 24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said to him, Why do you baptize then, if you be not that Christ, nor Elijah, neither that prophet? 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there stands one among you, whom you know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Spirit. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. 35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, What do you seek? They said to him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where do you dwell? 39 He said to them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jonah: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. 43 The day following Jesus went forth into Galilee, and found Philip, and said to him, Follow me. 44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 46 And Nathanael said to him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see. 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 48 Nathanael said to him, Where do you know me from? Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. 49 Nathanael answered and said to him, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? you shall see greater things than these. 51 And he said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. CHAPTER 2 AND the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus said to her, Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother said to the servants, Whatsoever he says to you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And said to him, Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but you have kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. 13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said to them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of your house has eaten me up. 18 Then answered the Jews and said to him, What sign do you show to us, seeing that you do these things? 19 Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will you rear it up in three days? 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this to them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. CHAPTER 3 T HEREwas a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a manbe born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again. 8 The wind blows where it lists, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell whence it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said to him, Are you a master of Israel, and know not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say to you, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and you receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made man ifest, that they are wrought in God. 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 24 For John was not yet cast into prison. 25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. 26 And they came to John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bare witness, behold, the same baptizes, and all men come to him. 27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29 He that has the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He that comes from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaks of the earth: he that comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what he has seen and heard, that he testifies; and no man receives his testimony. 33 He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that God is true. 34 For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure to him. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. 36 He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrathof God abides on him. CHAPTER 4 W HENtherefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3 He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. 4 And he must needs go through Samaria. 5 Then came he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. 7 There came a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus said to her, Give me to drink. 8 (For his disciples were gone away to the city to buy meat.) 9 Then said the woman of Samaria to him, How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that said to you, Give me to drink; you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water. 11 The woman said to him, Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then have you that living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said to her, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15 The woman said to him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come here to draw. 16 Jesus said to her, Go, call your husband, and come here. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband: 18 For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband: in that you said truly. 19 The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and you say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus said to her, Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman said to him, I know that Messiah comes, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus said to her, I that speak to you am he. 27 And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What do you seek? or, Why do you talk with her? 28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and said to the men, 29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? 30 Then they went out of the city, and came to him. 31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. 32 But he said to them, I have meat to eat that you know not of. 33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, has any man brought him anything to eat? 34 Jesus said to them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. 35 Do you not say, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest? behold, I say to you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 36 And he that reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to life eternal: that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. 37 And herein is that saying true, One sows, and another reaps. 38 I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and you are entered into their labours. 39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. 40 So when the Samaritans were come to him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his own word; 42 And said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of your saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.

Thanks RT. I can't really see the point of the KJVER at this stage. This is pretty much how I read my KJV which I sometimes refer to as my SM-KJV (slightly-modified KJV). WIth a little practice you can do this tranposition 'on the fly' in a public reading of the KJV.A quick glance at your extensive quote shows that the KJVER has followed the KJV even when the KJV mistranslates. Its transposition, on this reading, is patchy. eg 'mine hour' is stilted 17th century English and a plain 'my hour' would have done the job better.Your quote, of course, does not show the plural indications which should be an interesting and useful addition. I am personally always disappointed when Bibles have the 'so called' words of Jesus in red. As I understand the KJVER goes one worse and endeavours to put the words of God in red. I prefer my old KJV which puts the words of the Holy Spirit in black. I am glad to see that the KJVER has not gone for paragraph headings within the text; I have always felt this was an unjustifiable intrusion into the scripture.My initial judgement is that it is an interesting idea executed imperfectly which has very little 'value-add' to my KJV.

This is pretty much how I read my KJV which I sometimes refer to as my SM-KJV (slightly-modified KJV). WIth a little practice you can do this tranposition 'on the fly' in a public reading of the KJV.I think a lot of us do that. I personally preach and study from the KJV. However, I am trying to help those who struggle with reading the KJV as much as I can.Your quote, of course, does not show the plural indications which should be an interesting and useful addition.Unfortunately Ray Comfort doesn't include this option in his Bible. I couldn't find a Sword Bible text sample (w/ superscript p for "plural" after the word "you").Here's a link for the Sword Bible:http://www.swordbible.org/This is the best I have found. There are a few things that I would do differently as well.I had an idea. Let's see what you think of it. Noah Webster did a great update of the KJV in 1833. You can get this version on various Bible programs and CD-ROM's. Here's the idea. I would take his Bible, change a few of his choices for updating archaic words. For example, he used "deportment" in several places where we read "conversation". Not to crazy about that word. In other places he used "manner of life" for "conversation" which I do like. I would change "deportment" to "behavior." And so on.He changed a very few tenses and grammatical structures that I wouldn't do. But I think a person could do that and still call it "New Webster's KJV" or something like that. The value of this is that modern (at least American) English is very much a result of the work of Noah Webster (father of American education). He did a lot of streamlining of the English language.Well, you can tell me what you think. Just an idea.Blessings,RT

and why did the NKJV dismiss the word," devils" { a Much Stronger Word} and add the word " demons" ??... Surely you mean "why did James use the word demons insted of devils".I guess that is what he was inspired to write. But undoubtedly the devil trembles too.

Surely you mean "why did James use the word demons insted of devils".I guess that is what he was inspired to write. But undoubtedly the devil trembles too.taco, you obviously don't read the KJV. Our brother had it right in what he wrote. The KJV doesn't even USE the word demon or demons. BTW "James" didn't translate the KJV, he only commissioned it. The KJV was translated by a committe of eminent Christian scholars. Read for yourself:http://www.believeonjesus.com/articles/bibleversions/kjvsuperiority.aspRT

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1)That James.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1)That JamesTaco! :-P Ha, Ha, Hee, Hee :-P Just laughing at myself :-P Now THAT is funny. I write to point out your misunderstanding, only to go ahead and misunderstand myself. Very funny.Blessings,RT

I know that you don't chop a tree down with one blow, it's the little chop's that after time will bring the bigest tree down.

Taco,Earlier in this thread (or another, I forget) you had asked about the Greek translation of "son" and "servant" in the book of Acts referring to Jesus Christ in the KJV and NKJV. Still haven't gotten around to checking this out, but came across an article I thought you would enjoy on this. Here it is:http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/saviororservant.aspBlessings,RT

Now, say both KJV-NKJV James 2:19. -- I have it here, please tell me what you notice. how much differences are in the both? and why did the NKJV dismiss the word," devils" { a Much Stronger Word} and add the word " demons" ??... these are a few things to think about...There is only one devil (diabolos) but many demons (daemonion). The KJV frequently mistranslates 'daimonion' as 'devil'. Matt. 4:24; 7:22; 8:16,28,31,33; 9:32-34; 10:8; 11:18; 12:22,24,27-28; 15:22; 17:18; Mark 1:32,34,39; 3:15,22; 5:12,15-16,18; 6:13; 7:26,29-30; 9:38; 16:9,17; Luke 4:33,35,41; 7:33; 8:2,27,29-30,33,35-36,38; 9:1,42,49; 10:17; 11:14-15,18-20; 13:32; John 7:20; 8:48-49,52; 10:20-21; Acts 17:18; 1Cor. 10:20-21; 1Tim. 4:1; James 2:19; 3:15; Rev. 9:20; 16:14; 18:2James the epistle writer did not make the mistake, the KJV translators made the mistake as they followed Tyndale.

Q : ( from) what Generation will they be preserved ?A :Back in the days Of the 54 KJV Scollers, and further back in the days of James. why did the KJV translators change the 'forever' translations of Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Bible? Why did Tyndale change his own translations? The last question can be answered in his own words...If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended.Tyndale's preface to his 1536 translation of the NT.

Taco! Ha, Ha, Hee, Hee Just laughing at myself Glad to see you took this humourously. :-P I was initialy just trying to show that it was James who picked the word demon rather than devil, and yes I did mention that he was inspiried (so of course the choice is the Spirit's). The NKJV just followed the choice of James (as inspired by the Spirit). taco

there are several words which have been translated as 'son' in the KJV. A good place to check them is Vine's Expositary Dictionary. The word 'pais' is not properly 'son' at all but a 'lad' and hence is used as a 'servant'. It can be equally used of a woman which shows that it is never 'son'. The most distinctive Greek word for son is 'huios', see Vine above.The most frequent NT word for 'servant' is diakonos, or doulos for a bondslave. I would strongly recommend using Vine's to clear up the confusion caused by the translators of the KJV in relation to the word 'son'.

Steve's response: Where in the King James Bible does it say Jesus said! Or, even "Jesus said" without the exclamation mark? Also, where does it say in the NKJV that "Jesus said," or even Jesus said without the comma.There were no punctuation marks used in the original writings of the New Testament. All punctuation is interpretation not inspiration.

I just had to chime in on this one. I had a friend bring up this topic to me about two and half years ago, and after much mind-boggling, Satan-buffeting-me study and comparison, I have decided to go with the KJV. I don't fight people who use other versions, you can get saved from probably all of them, but the KJV is the best choice if you speak English. Here are some things that changed my mind. According to the NIV, who is the morning star? Isiaih 14 says it the one who fell from heaven (Lucifer), and Revelation 2 and 22 say it is Jesus. That was enough to eliminate the NIV for me. According to KJV, after God created the heaven and earth, it was "the first day" in Gen 1:5. That is known as the definate article. There can only be 1 first day. Look at the wording in the NAS and New Living: "one day." There were a lot of "one day's."Before the Tower of Babel was constructed, which way did the people head to start civilization? KJV: from the east (in other words westerly) / NAS: they journeyed east / New Living: migrated eastward. Somebody has to be wrong.NKJV: Who was the high priest in John 18:19? If verse 13 says it was Caiaphas, and Caiaphas was then speaking in verse 19, then why did Annas send Jesus bound to Caiaphas again in verse 24 if Jesus was already with Caiaphas? By the way, that mistake is in the Greek text, not a "mistranslation." That's the whole point, look at what text the version came from.Listen to Kent Hovind's Q and A download on this site for lots more great information on KJV. I'm not really up for taking sides on a debate, let's just look at the evidence and find the truth. For every so called "mistranslation" or mistake claimed to be in the KJV, I have found a good answer except for one, and that one will probably come with more study. I still keep my other versions for references. Just objectively do a verse by verse comparison, and go with the truth, regardless of where you are lead. Since Jesus is the Truth, He won't lead you astray.

Alexandrian text came out of Egypt (note God's people always came out of Egypt, ex: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc), Textus Receptus was compiled by Dutch scholar "Erasmus." Listen to Kent Hovind's Q and A on this site for lots more interesting info on the subject.

Yes, God can still use someone regardless of what version they use. My study of the matter and deciding on the KJV only strengthened my faith that God has preserved His Word. The differences in the manuscripts are only .5% or one-half percent. But, it just seems odd that many have to do with major doctrinal issues. Why wouldn't Satan try to slowly twist the Word. He did from the very first words out of his mouth in Scripture. "...hath God said?"

Just felt to share this. I speak each Wednesday at a Teen Challenge centre here in Ireland. Today I started with a new intake so as is my usual I explained that I use the KJV but would read to them the text from the NIV which they use, mainly because they are new believers and just off medication etc so its a bit easier for them.I was preaching from John 4 on the samaritan woman at the well and intimacy with Jesus being our goal. Jesus actually reveals Himself as the Christ to the woman which is I think the only time He does so in such a direct manner. The woman then runs to her neigbours andproclaims. "Come see a man who told me everything I ever did" and then the NIV says she said " Could this be the Christ?" Whereas the KJV says " Is not this the Christ"?The definite revelation of KJV is much more the experience she had. Tongue in cheek I said to the girls, so you can be unsure with the NIV or fully sure with the KJV. PAUL

[3] Floyd Nolen Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, 3rd ed., rev. & enlarged, (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, #2161, 1994). A spurious Greek Old Testament supposedly written for the library of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285-246 B.C. The story of its origin abounds in legend. It is often designated by LXX after the 70 translators reputed to have produced the translation.Although constantly quoted by the New Testament writers. The LXX was the KJV of the early church.

Although constantly quoted by the New Testament writers. The LXX was the KJV of the early church.Now if only you had some proof to back up this outlandish statement. BTW, the letter of Aristeas doesn't count as it is a spurious document. I hope you wouldn't try and use it. (I can back this up)

In editing the Septuagint, a question to be considered is whether or not there was one original Septuagint text which can be recovered by critical methods. Paul Kahle maintained that there was none, and that therefore the attempt to establish it was doomed to failure; in his view the Septuagint began as a number of competing private attempts to translate parts of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the establishment of one standard Greek text followed a lengthy process of such attempts. The latest discoveries and studies show that his thesis, for all the scholarship with which it was sustained, was vastly exaggerated, if not completely mistaken.This quotation is from F F Bruce and can be found in full here.This Floyd Nolan Jones rebuttal might also be of interest.BTW I dumped the title of 'pastor' over 30 years ago as being unscriptural, so please do not resurrect it. Thank you.

"BTW I dumped the title of 'pastor' over 30 years ago as being unscriptural, so please do not resurrect it. Thank you."Phiolo can you give me some detail on why?Paul

hi PaulusWe may have been through this on other threads but I can see no evidence that the words 'apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor/teacher were ever used as titles in the early church. I think their use can only lead to a positional authority which I think is contrary to the spirit of the early church. They recognised the fact of apostleship in the life of Paul, and Paul was not afraid to draw attention to the inherent authority of his calling but I don't think he ever called himself 'Apostle Paul' nor did anyone else call him so. I try to use words accurately as a personal mental discipline, although it can drive friends to the verge of distraction!

So in essence they decribe what you do rather than who you are? i.e "do the work of an evangelist". Is your objection then to people calling themsleves Pastor or whatever and in reality demanding position, rather just having a pastoral role.Paul

Received Text: Salute! The site you initially referred to contains a lot of valuable information that should be read. Especially in discovering what really went on behind the scenes with the Alexandrian Text. It has been dressed up in different clothes over the years, but is still the same 'vicious text.' unquote Dean John Burgon.Even Dr Waite advices reading Edward F Hill prior to reading what is contained on the DBS site. Good advice as many who do not even realize are man-handling Scripture. click here Hills, deals with the DSS and the Sept. etc etc...God Bless!In Jesus,.A. :-P

There is an excellent explanation of the origin and nature of the Septuagint in Edersheim's 'Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah'. Edersheim's knowledge of the history and traditions of the Jewish people was encyclopaedic and has never been equalled. You will find his references to the Septuagint here.

Now I have just this morning discovered something in my daily reading which has enormous implications. I was reading Luke 4 where is tells us that Jesus 'stood up to read' and was handed the Isaiah scroll. He unrolled it to 'the place where it was written...'“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,” (Luke 4:18,18, KJV)The passage in view, of course, is Isaiah 61 which is my KJV coming from the Masoretic text has...“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD..,” (Is. 61:1-2, KJV) I have paused half way through the quotation as does Luke in his record of this event.Here is my discovery. If, in Luke's record, Christ is 'reading what is written in Isaiah' then Christ is not reading from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text, as seen from the KJV above, does not have the words 'and recovering of sight to the blind' BUT THE SEPTUAGINT DOES. If Christ was 'reading what was written' He was reading from the Septuagint (or something remarkably like it).Now I am not setting up the Septuagint text as more 'reliable' or 'authentic' than the Masoretic text, I am simply saying that it was already in existence, contrary to what has been suggested in this thread, in the 1st Century. Not only was it in existence but it was available in the synagogue at Nazareth in Galilee of the Gentiles. It has long been a matter of discussion whether or not the Eritz Israel synagogues used the Septuagint for their scripture readings; this Luke quotation strongly suggests that they did. (it has been well established that the Diaspora synagogues used the Septuagint). In fact, as far as I can ascertain, the phrase 'and recovering of sight to the blind' does not appear in the Isaiah scroll in any Hebrew mss.The theory that the Septuagint readings were actually reverse engineered from the New Testament writings and that the 3rd century BC Septuagint is a figment of imagination is consequently demolished.Campbell Morgan believed that Christ spoke and taught in Greek, but I have never been able to find his reasons for saying this. The conversation with Pilate is one passage which might indicate this as we may be quite sure that Pilate did not speak Aramaic and not mention is made of any interpreter. The occasional use of Aramaic words in the gospels is seen, by some, as another indication that Christ's preaching was generally in Greek. There is no doubt that Christ, as a resident of 'Galilee of the Gentiles', would have been bilingual but this use of the Septuagint in a Nazareth synagogue may be another evidence that Christ taught in Greek and the most appropriate language for Galilee.

Here is my discovery. If, in Luke's record, Christ is 'reading what is written in Isaiah' then Christ is not reading from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text, as seen from the KJV above, does not have the words 'and recovering of sight to the blind' BUT THE SEPTUAGINT DOES. If Christ was 'reading what was written' He was reading from the Septuagint (or something remarkably like it).Maybe, Maybe not. This is all still just conjecture. It could either mean that the LXX was later made to fit the the NT or vice versa. This is not sufficient evidence for me.We don't know that Christ didn't add this phrase to His reading of the Masoretic text since opening blind eyes was a clear hallmark of His ministry. We just don't know.But to say that Jews would accept a Genitle translation of their Scriptures is an interesting claim since Jews in their present day diaspora use Hebrew. But I won't say you are wrong, since I don't have your information.But we do know that Hebrew was the language for the OT that must be used. In fact, it is more important to contend for a strictly Hebrew OT, than for an only Greek NT. We have NO Scriptures demanding the NT in Greek. Though we do have Scriptural support for a Hebrew OT.Whether a person believes in a first century LXX or not, the fact remains that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what it contained. And we have NO promise that God is involved in preserving it for us.We do know that the LXX that we can find today is linked with the Apocrypha. That doesn't speak very well of it in my opinion. The RCC goes crazy over the LXX and Apocrypha. I am very cautious.So this is why I think it is not wise to make a general statment like "The LXX was the KJV of the early church." The truth is, you just don't know that. You don't. If you want to say, "The LXX may have been the KJV OT of the early church." I can't say either way for sure. But I can say that I strongly doubt it.Now having said all of this, I will be the first to admit that I have written much here that could be picked apart and that I would probably re-word if you showed it to me like this. So I'm not on a rant here. Just wanted to point this out.Blessings,RT

Maybe, Maybe not. This is all still just conjecture. It could either mean that the LXX was later made to fit the the NT or vice versa. This is not sufficient evidence for me.But Christ read what was written. If it was written it must have existed and must have existed before the New Testament.We don't know that Christ didn't add this phrase to His reading of the Masoretic text since opening blind eyes was a clear hallmark of His ministry. We just don't know.Surely not when He says 'this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears'. They would have risen in protest that he was adding to the scripture.This is a quotation from the Edersheim link in one of my previous posts First and foremost, we have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament, venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the time of Jesus held the place of our 'Authorized Version,' and as such is so often, although freely, quoted, in the New Testament. Nor need we wonder that it should have been the people's Bible, not merely among the Hellenists, but in Galilee, and even in Judæa. It was not only, as already explained, that Hebrew was no longer the 'vulgar tongue' in Palestine, and that written Targumim were prohibited. But most, if not all - at least in towns - would understand the Greek version; it might be quoted in intercourse with Hellenist brethren or with the Gentiles; and, what was perhaps equally, if not more important, it was the most readily procurable. From the extreme labour and care bestowed on them, Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were enormously dear, as we infer from a curious Talmudical notice,16 where a common woolen wrap, which of course was very cheap, a copy of the Psalms, of Job, and torn pieces from Proverbs, are together valued at five maneh - say, about 19l. Although this notice dates from the third or fourth century, it is not likely that the cost of Hebrew Biblical MSS. was much lower at the time of Jesus. This would, of course, put their possession well nigh out of common reach. On the other hand, we are able to form an idea of the cheapness of Greek manuscripts from what we know of the price of books in Rome at the beginning of our era. Hundreds of slaves were there engaged copying what one dictated. The result was not only the publication of as large editions as in our days, but their production at only about double the cost of what are now known as 'cheap' or 'people's editions.' Probably it would be safe to compute, that as much matter as would cover sixteen pages of small print might, in such cases, be sold at the rate of about sixpence, and in that ratio.17 Accordingly, manuscripts in Greek or Latin, although often incorrect, must have been easily attainable, and this would have considerable influence on making the Greek version of the Old Testament the 'people's Bible.'18

Hopefully a few links everyone will enjoy. In Jesus .A.Alfred Edersheim Bible History Old Testament, plus to others ~ online. :-P Examining the Septuagint:-Dr Samuel Gipp describes the LXX:-hereDr Jack Moorman discusses the Greek Septuagint:-hereDr David Daniels writes about the Sept.:-hereDr Edward F Hills - Septuagint examined:-hereThis site sees all other bibles burning: here Large resourse, though.

But Christ read what was written. If it was written it must have existed and must have existed before the New Testament.I'm not a stuborn fellow. At least I try not to be. I will look into this further.What is great about this subject either way, the knowledge of this subject certainly puts to rest so many of the silly arguments of the Jewish Roots movement. Claims like Jesus=Zeus, etc. are revealed as outlandish the second a person studies the early church texts and culture.I have really had some problems with these folks and their misunderstanding of the Covenants. It can get to the point with some, that the cross itself doesn't mean to them what it means to me. You don't hear these folks preaching that Jesus came as the new lawgiver, who fulfilled the law of Moses and died to it, and that when we die with Christ, we also die to the old law. I wonder if many here would enjoy a brand new thread on this subject?Blessings,RT

aeryck,Found this interesting in one of your articlesTHE SEPTUAGINT AND MESSIANIC PROPHECYIn an earlier paper, I indicated that the LXX weakened Messianic prophecy. At this writing I cannot find what I thought to be the source of that information. In contrast to this, Terence Brown, a strong defender of the Masoretic Text has written, "Before the incarnation of the Saviour the Jews held the Septuagint in high esteem, but after his birth and earthly ministry they turned against that version because it was used so effectively by Christians to demonstrate that the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the Person and Work of the Redeemer.A little before the middle of the second century of the Christian era, Aquila, who had been a professing Christian, but was cast out of the Church for some misdemeanor (some say astrology), became a Jewish proselyte. Having then- Page 12 -learned the Hebrew language, he made a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek, in opposition to the Septuagint, translating many passages concerning the Messiah otherwise than they had been rendered by the LXX, so as to make it impossible to apply these passages to the Lord Jesus Christ. Not long afterwards, Symmachus, a Samaritan by birth, who became a Jew, then professed the Christian faith, then attached himself to the Ebionites (Judaizers who denied the deity of Christ), made another translation from the Hebrew into Greek. About the same time, Theodotion, who had once professed faith in Christ and afterwards became a Jew, produced yet another Greek version.Jerome of Bethlehem, who saw these Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, makes it quite plain that these men were Judaizing heretics, and that their versions were made out of hatred to Christianity.Before the birth of Messiah the Jews used to observe a feast in memory of the translation of the Septuagint. Philo the Jew, who lived in the time of Caliqula the Roman Emperor, while the Apostles were fruitfully engaged in the preaching of the Gospel, tells us in his "Life of Moses" that to that time they kept a yearly feast in memory of the Scriptures having been translated into Greek by the seventy-two interpreters. After Philo's days, the Jews turned that feast into a fast, lamenting that such a translation had been made. As the version became more popular with Christians, it fell from favor with the Jews, who preferred to use a version which the Christians could not so easily apply to the Messiah.As an example of their tampering with Messianic prophecy, in Isaiah 7:14 Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion departed from the rendering of the Septuagint PARATHIONS (Virgin) and substituted NEANIS, a term which may be applied to a young married woman.''Gooding in commenting upon the revisions of the Septuagint says, "Now, laborious as is the work of eliminating revisers readings, it is of practical importance. The expositor who appeals to some LXX word or phrase must be sure that it was not introduced by a reviser after New Testament times. Thus the original Septuagint may hive been faithful in translating verses of Messianic prophecy, but this becomes marred by later revision.''RT

Terence Brown, a strong defender of the Masoretic Text has written, "Before the incarnation of the Saviour the Jews held the Septuagint in high esteem, but after his birth and earthly ministry they turned against that version because it was used so effectively by Christians to demonstrate that the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the Person and Work of the Redeemer.This is my understanding too. That the LXX was far too useful a weapon for the Christians, and was ultimately decommissioned by the Jewish authorities, as you have quoted. The Jewish authorities decided, I guess, that the LXX had been hijacked and that it was not possible to regain control so they ditched it and did another one which was much less ambiguous.My mind has been turning over some of these things today. A lot has been said about the switch from agape to phileo in John 21 but my understanding is that it is not possible to make this disctinction in Aramaic. Either John knew this was exactly what Christ meant and by inspiration adopted these words or Christ spoke them in Greek. Not many would opt for Christ's ministry being in Greek rather than Aramaic but his reading of 'recovery of sight to the blind' in a synagogue document has really set me wondering.

My mind has been turning over some of these things today. A lot has been said about the switch from agape to phileo in John 21 but my understanding is that it is not possible to make this disctinction in Aramaic. Either John knew this was exactly what Christ meant and by inspiration adopted these words or Christ spoke them in Greek. Not many would opt for Christ's ministry being in Greek rather than Aramaic but his reading of 'recovery of sight to the blind' in a synagogue document has really set me wondering.A really great thought here. I think it is very revealing that the Holy Ghost whom Jesus sent to be with us forever blessed the use of all languages for the preaching of the NT and the Kingdom to the world. Why would Jesus Himself have a problem with Greek? Wouldn't communicating truth be the new issue since He was the summation of the Hebrew lineage and Scriptures?RT

RT & P:I thought you guys were going to keep on ignoring me. Have you checked the Edward F Hills link, I am reading him at the mo. and he has such a brilliant focus from the beginning. He is determined that one have the correct focus so as to not make the same mistakes others have made. He looks deep into philosophies of the time and ofcourse the naturalist approach, that has led to much of the deleting and tampering, and far worse things. [acceptance of texts that were rejected by the Dean.] - that whole story is no more than catastrophic. Revision Revised is available at Bible For Today... plus the Defined King James Bible by Dr Waite... I have Moorman's chart on my wall, it is pretty hair raising when listening to David Cloud, who sees all the problems as originating as a result of Rome's desire to preserve the Alexandrian Texts. I have another book, I cannot find anywhere on the net, written by two french women years back and they look at the Waldensians, and how they would come down from the Alps? and preach to the Catholics? they were persectuted. There is so much about how the texts were preserved. The Holy Spirit needs to always be respected, not just following the paper trail, but following His hand.I keep the one passage foremost in my mind...'it is expedient'... I am going to have to speed up my reading programme if I am ever to keep up with you guys, go for it...I will read and catch up...good idea to move it to a new thread.In Jesus,.A.:-P ps. There is a good brother from Alabama on the threads, just arrived yesterday. preach_ish

Amen, brother. I work with inner-city youth and the director uses an NIV, so I use an NIV with them so we can say turn to page so and so. If I was the director, I would use KJV, but it is not an issue worth starting a debate about at the beginning of a summer ministry. But I agree, the NIV just doesn't have the same punch. NIV readers are okay in my book if they believe in repentance and faith toward the Lord Jesus, I just invite people to study the evidence, regardless of where it leads. Most people are not willing to even compare verse for verse.