Your Bible- which one?

Hi Stever, Why the r on the end of your name?Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What is born of water and spirit, I believe that when Jesus changed the ceremonial washing water in the 6 clay pots is the water Jesus is referring to. What happens when we are born again? We are infused with the spirit of Christ, we are given the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Father Himself in Christ and Christ in the Father, "The Father and I are One," they Both with the Holy Spirit come to make their Abode in us and with us, right? What did Jesus use to signify His remembrance? He used wine as the emblem of His Blood and bread as His Body. When Jesus changed the water of outside ceremonial cleansing, He was signifying what would happen when we were born again. What a first miracle to manifest, the old man of Romans 6 passes away and the miracle of new birth is shown by changing the old water of the cleansing of the law, for the outward only, to the new wine, the best, for the wedding feast of the Lamb, signified by the wedding in Cana, is our new birth, the old Law and blood of animals gone and the new birth in Christ the Lambs Blood is come. Old water into New Wine, The old man is dead and the new life in Christ is complete by the birth of Christ in each believer. Also think of new wine in old wine bottles, Christ cannot be put in old bodies, old spirits or old soul minds. That is why the body is quickened and the Spirit is now the Spirit of Christ and the Mind is Christs' and the Holy Spirit will be with and in us forever, our Teacher the Parakeet. If Christ is in us and He is our life who our faith is being authored by, then the faith "OF" Jesus Christ is our all in all. It says that our faith is now the Faith of Christ in us the Hope of Glory. That takes it out of our hands and puts it in the Faith of Christ. The life we now live we live by the Faith of the Son of God. Gal 2:20Now what this is all about. The King James Bible keeps this "Faith of Jesus Christ" and changing the word "of" to "in" by newer translations puts the Faith of Jesus Christ in our responsibility realm and if we just had the faith of a mustard seed not in a mustard seed, we could move mountains. Do we see what such a small change in two little words does to the Gospel of Christ in us the Hope of Glory. Westcott and Hort, did this "of" to "in", probably without even knowing what they were doing to the Salvation by and of Jesus Christ being Born Again in the Believer, but the liar from the beginning knew exactly what he was doing, surely it is you that is like God and it is your faith that will save you, not simply believing and receiving Christ Jesus as our new life and all that goes with working out our salvation with fear and trembling because of the Power that Has been Given us in Christ Jesus, that, Satan wants to keep hidden in our own old man that he can control like he did with the first Adam, with lies to the living soul, keeping us from the life giving Spirit of Christ in us the Hope of Glory. This is the greatest attack on God's salvation of the Lamb and the truth of the Tree of Life in Christ Jesus. The basis for all translation that take away from the Faith, and the Salvation "OF" Christ. In Christ: Phillip

okay back up a bit.Forgive my ignorance here - What are you trying to say? That anything after the King James Version translation should not be used?Michael

That is not what I am saying. I am saying just be aware of the subtleties of the lies of the Devil when it comes to the Word of God, and new translation are most vulnerable. If any translation takes away from the responsibility of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit for our salvation and puts any responsibility in our hands, it is a lie. All we must do is believe.Revelation 22:17-19 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. John 3:16-19 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever(believeth) in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that (believeth) on him is not condemned: but he that (believeth not) is condemned already, because he hath not (believed) in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.Our change comes by the living Word of God, which is Christ in us the Hope of Glory being the center of our life and The Holy Spirit revelation of who we are and by His Power what our new responsibility as son's of God has been given us. As sons' and daughters' we are a complete new race of God's People, of whom Jesus Christ is the Perfect Prototype, the first born of all new creatures in Christ, from whom all blessings flow.2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:Our new life and salvation as Christ creatures.In Christ: Phillip

I am failing at trying to learn hebrew and going to be learning greek. We have got to realise that there is a Lord over all and he cares us finding out. I just need to go deeper into him!!I normally give people the king james except people who find it difficulty reading which is most of us. I own a few bibles of my own I own the Jewish new testament and the whole Jewish Bible , I may disagree with stuff in there. I also own a KJV which I love failing to read. The bigger question would be watch damage is illituracy in the western countries going to have on bible reading as it is getting worse!!Half of the homeless guys cannot read and I so want to give them a bible. I have a friend who cannot read is there any teachers out there who know good books to teach adults to read!!!Or ways I have trouble getting my sister or even my brothers to read the bible because there is so much entertainment why read the bible when you can watch movies. I have problems reading the bible aswell. All I know is that I want to get as many KJV out as possible because they are cheap and I like the versionI want to know the hebrew so my bible knowledge lacks!! In the hebrew the grammar structure and the syntax are different. There are other differences.Can you pray that I can somehow learn Hebrew and teach my friends to read and write and pray that lituracy increases else the bible will be completly useless because there would be no comprehension of languages

Christinyou's That is not what I am saying. I am saying just be aware of the subtleties of the lies of the Devil when it comes to the Word of God, and new translation are most vulnerable. If any translation takes away from the responsibility of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit for our salvation and puts any responsibility in our hands, it is a lie. All we must do is believe.What would you say about the KJV's constant bias towards hierarchical leadership in the church and its return to the anglican orthodoxy in the use of words like 'charity, confession, church'?

philologos wrote:What would you say about the KJV's constant bias towards hierarchical leadership in the church and its return to the anglican orthodoxy in the use of words like 'charity, confession, church'?Ron,Is charity used to translate any word other than "agape"? I personally like the use of charity in 1 Cor 13. Charity implies a love that expects to receive nothing in return. Love, to me does not expect anything in return (notice the slight difference in phrase), but tends to be disappointed if it receives no return, while charity is disappointed when it is repayed by its benefactor. Charity is best expressed anonymously, while love wants its expression shouted from the roof tops.Then there is the expression "charity case", which has negative connotations too in, in modern times. But consider what it means - "Someone who is unable to help themselves". Could the term "poor in spirit" describe a "charity case"? Lord, help me to realise me need for your charity.

Stevers Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." NIV "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." "The kingdom of God" is changed to "his kingdom."What doctrinal difference do you see between the 'kingdom of God' and 'his kingdom' when the previous verse has made it quite plain that we are talking about 'the Father'? Do you distinguish between 'the Father's kingdom' and the 'kingdom of God'? As with most of your posts this has nothing to do with doctrinal differences but comes simply from the fact that some Greek text editors do not accept 'of God' as part of the original. I do accept it as part of the original Greek text but I can't for the life of me see any "doctrinal difference".Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NIV "'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. '"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" NIV leaves out "Jesus, thou", degrading the power of the verse concerning His deity. I am glad in some ways that you have produced this list. It shows clearly your obsession with tiny details and the extraordinary conclusions you draw from them. Your conclusions here are just nonsense.Matthew 9:18 KJV ". . there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him. ." NIV "While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, 'My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.'" NIV changes "worshipped" to "knelt before." Men kneel before their own kings and queens, but they do not worship them. The Greek word 'worship' here is proskuneO which derives from the pronoun 'pros' meaning towards and the verb 'kuneO' which means to kiss; hence proskuneO means to make obeisance as when a servant kisses the hand of his master or when a conquered warrior kisses the hand of the his conqueror. This sense of 'kissing' is seen in “Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psa. 2:11-12, KJVS) ProskuneO is used in “The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.” (Matt. 18:26, KJVS) where the context makes it quite plain that the servant did not 'worship' his master as though he were a god. Vine's expository dictionary says proskuneo "to make obeisance, do reverence to" (from pros, "towards," and kuneo, "to kiss"), is the most frequent word rendered "to worship." It is used of an act of homage or reverence. Consequently It is equally appropriate to translate the word 'worship' or 'did obeisance'. The NIV with its dynamic equivalence philosophy has sometimes opted for 'worship' and sometimes for 'knelt down'. What you are doing is importing your own understanding of 'worship' into the scriptures. This does not reveal a doctrinal difference but only your own misunderstanding of the word 'proskuneO'.I won't go further other than to comment on the last line Hope that this is helpful! No it is not helpful. It is an unhelpful mixture of ignorance and prejudice.

I agree with Phillogos, this is not helpful. This is my favorite "doctrinal difference": Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NIV "'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. '"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" NIV leaves out "Jesus, thou", degrading the power of the verse concerning His deity.This is just absurd. Stever, please pray about what you post because this is nonsense. You seem to have an agenda that is not helping or edifying the kingdom of God.

i also agree with Ron and Jaysaved on this. the Lord has me using the NIV, Good News and the KJV. while some things read differently among them i've not lost out on anything because the Spirit of God Himself is ministering what He hears from heaven. The preservation of the word of God in it's perfection is in that the Spirit of God does nto change and He is able to minister to us whatever may be lost in translation. without the SPirit of God even the perfect text is of no consequence. Lord teach us to lean on you and not our own foolish understanding.AMEN.

Stever wrote:Had he picked up the KJV, the difference would at the very least make him want to look deeper.This isn't true for the Mormons who also use the KJV bible.Ironman wrote:The preservation of the word of God in it's perfection is in that the Spirit of God does nto change and He is able to minister to us whatever may be lost in translation. without the SPirit of God even the perfect text is of no consequence. I don't believe there's a perfect translation although I love the KJV but I agree with Ironman that this is how God preserves His word (imperfect translations nothwithstanding) - through the Holy Spirit!

If I were to apply Stever's logic, I could make the following statements:I thought it would be quite educational to have first hand knowledge of the Doctrinal difference between the NIV, and the KJV (one of the "older" versions). Although this comparison is not exhaustive, I feel that we can keep it clean and simple and instructive by focusing on several books of the New Testament, that I will post one by one. Let's first start in ColossiansColossians 2:9 NIV "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". KJV "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily". The KJV completely leaves out the word "Christ" and replaces it with the word "Him". We are saved through Jesus Christ, not Jesus Him! Serious doctrinal error!Acts 4:25NIV "You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: " 'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?KJV "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?".The KJV completely takes out "by the Holy Spirit". By what did David speak? If we read the NIV, we know that it was the Holy Spirit who was used. The KJV attributes the words to David and does not credit the Holy Spirit in these verses. The KJV is denying the Holy Spirit being used to speak through David. Very, Very serious doctrinal error!!!!Jude 1:25NIV "to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. KJV "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen"The KJV OMMITS the words "through Jesus Christ our Lord". This is a huge doctrinal error. The NIV correctly states that it is through Jesus Christ our Lord. The KJV has taken these words completely out of their text and therefore constitutes a serious doctrinal error.Now, (back to reality) we all know that the KJV is not a part of a conspiracy to downgrade the deity of Christ or deny the existence of the Trinity. But, I wanted you all to see how easy it is to pick and choose and distort certain passages of the bible to try to prove a point. I think we all need to take a step back and stop bashing the new translations such as NIV, NASB, Holman, etc. and start seeing them as a translation of the word of God similar to the KJV.

Stever responds:Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the name above all names. It was not necessary to delete Jesus name from the verse. If they would of only deleted it once or twice, then of course there would be no problem. The problem is they have systematically deleted it throughout the New Testament.That is the problem. Maybe not for the mature believer, because he knows that Jesus Christ is the name, but to the non-believer or new believer that picks up the NIV or newer versions to read for the first time, it is a great problem.Stever,Here are the facts, you tell me if the NIV is truly the work of Satan because if the devil was behind the NIV translation, why did he miss:- 531 instances of the word "Christ" in the NIV- 1277 instances of the word "Jesus" in the NIV Note: The NIV actually mentions the name Jesus 335 more times than KJV- 132 times the words "Jesus Christ" are mentioned together in the NIV- 101 times the words "Lord Jesus" are mentioned together in the NIVAccording to biblegateway.com:"Christ" appears:In the NIV, 531 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Christ&qs_version=31In the KJV, 537 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Christ&qs_version=9";Jesus" appears:In the NIV, 1277 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Jesus&qs_version=31In the KJV 942 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Christ&qs_version=9";Jesus Christ" appears:In the NIV, 132 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22Jesus+Christ%22&qs_version=31In the KJV, 187 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22Jesus+Christ%22&qs_version=9";Lord Jesus" appears:In the NIV, 101 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22Lord+Jesus%22&qs_version=31In the KJV, 115 timeshttp://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22Lord+Jesus%22&qs_version=9This is not a "systematic deletion throughout the New Testament."

Hi Stever...I really didn't want to get involved in this again -- or any of the threads that you start or consistently participate in concerning the KJV-only position. However, I believe that something once again needs to be "cleared up:"Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the name above all names. It was not necessary to delete Jesus name from the verse. If they would of only deleted it once or twice, then of course there would be no problem. The problem is they have systematically deleted it throughout the New Testament.That is the problem. Maybe not for the mature believer, because he knows that Jesus Christ is the name, but to the non-believer or new believer that picks up the NIV or newer versions to read for the first time, it is a great problem.Many of your posts often accuse the translators of the NIV, NASB, etc... of "deleting" words from the KJV. This allegation has been stated again and again in these KJV-only threads. However, the NIV did not delete any of these words. The NIV is taken from completely different sets of source materials. As a result, the "Hebrew" and the "Greek" is different in the Received Text compared with the sources used for other versions. While verses may differ between the two versions -- this is because it differs in the two sets of source material. Thus to make such an allegation about "deleting" words is both incorrect and misleading. Yet this argument continues to circulate throughout these forums, often resulting in the use of "circular reasoning." As a long time user of the NIV (even though I prefer using both the NIV and the KJV), I have not had a problem with doctrine. I believe the fundamental truths of the faith -- and they are provided in both the KJV and the NIV (as a previous post listed in a seperate thread). In fact, I actually learned these fundamentals while the NIV was my primary Bible. After having researched this matter, I have found nothing that would make me believe in any type of "conspiracy" to pervert the Word of God (except with obvious, non-academic translations like the New World Translation or "gender-neutral" translations). I have written and received correspondance from translators, Bible and language scholars, several professors specializing in manuscripts -- and even the publisher of the NIV. All of these men and women seem very credible, and they have adequately dispelled many of the myths made by KJV-only books, rumors and websites. Besides, if there was a "conspiracy," it was very poorly orchestrated. The NIV has always pointed to the divinity of Christ, the trinity, the need of salvation by Christ's sacrifice, the importance of baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc... In fact, I gave my heart to the Lord after reading a passage in the NIV (Matthew 11:28-30). If someone really wanted to "prove" that the NIV was corrupt, they would need to provide credible and undeniable first-hand source material that shows that all of the sources used for the NIV (such as the "Alexandrian Texts") were corrupt. Instead, this argument seems consistently polluted with verse-by-verse comparisons, allegations made about two long-dead language scholars (Wescott and Hort -- who were not even involved with the translation of the NIV), or strange arguments that claim that the KJV is the "perfect" and "preserved Word of God" (even though the KJV was revised several times due to mistakes in translation).I hope that, if someone truly researches this matter and still holds to KJV-only, that they can provide credible first-hand source material to substantiate their claim that the Received Text is much more reliable than all other source texts and manuscripts. :-)

Stever's The King James is idiomatically correct. New versions give a very poor translation of the linear. I have seldom read a post-er who is so consistently inaccurate in the statements made. It is an indisputable fact that almost all modern versions are more accurate in their translation of 'tenses' than in the KJV. The early translators eg Tyndale et al learned their Greek through the medium of Latin and Latin just does not have a tense which corresponds to the Greek present tense in the sense of its continuity or of the Aorist in its punctiliar function.I will give an important example. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Rom. 6:6, KJVS) This is my beloved KJV which gives the impression of a present event; is_crucified. This makes it sound as though the crucifixion were still in progress and has been the source of much confusion. If we compare it with the ASV we have:“knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;” (Rom. 6:6, ASV)which puts the event very clearly in the past as a completed event. As far as I know, every time that the NT refers to "our old man's" co-crucifixion with Christ it used the Aorist tense. The NKJV has followed the better example of the ASV here and has “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.” (Rom. 6:6, NKJV) The co-crucifixion of 'our old man' was accomplished in the dying of Christ and does not go on being crucified; it is done and over. When Paul speaks of "I" rather than "our old man" in “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.” (Gal. 2:20, KJVS) the "I am crucified" is again a poor translation. The verb is in the Perfect tense, a tense which means "having been and remaining" crucified. Paul the man "had been and still was co-crucified with Christ" but "our old man was crucified" in the past and it is over and done with. The ASV and the NKJV correct it “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.” (Gal. 2:20, ASV)“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20, NKJV)It would not be difficult to quote many examples where the poor grasp of the Greek tenses led the earliest translators into some confusion. To support the KJV as a champion of more accurate translation of the tenses is another example of your ignorance and prejudice.

Chrrissss' I hope that, if someone truly researches this matter and still holds to KJV-only, that they can provide credible first-hand source material to substantiate their claim that the Received Text is much more reliable than all other source texts and manuscripts. Have you had an opportunity to read any of Robinson's work on this topic. I would heartily recommend The Case for Byzantine Priority. Even if you disagree with the conclusions you will see what a solid argument Robinson has. If you want to see the other side of the coin Michael Marlowe's What about the Majority Text? is a good place to begin. Marlowe is a very partisan debater and I have crossed swords with him on a number of occasions.The simple point that Robinson makes is that there is actually no evidence for the theory of transmission which lies behind the Textual Critical methodology of Westcott and Hort and others of the same mind. The whole theory is built upon a premise for which there is no direct proof.

Hi philologos...Thank you for the source. I will look it up at my University library (or through inter-library loan). If I find it, I will definitely give it a look. And hopefully, it will include a good bibliography of the book's sources. Thanks! :-)

Hi ChrisThe Byzantine Priority document is online. Just click the title in the previous post and then save it to you own computer. Read it at your leisure, it is faily high-level academic format.

Hi philologos...!Thanks! I didn't realize that you had included "working links" in that post. :P I'm very pleased that it includes its sources -- which I will search after I study the article!Thanks! :-)

I used to be staunchly KJV only, but in recent years have started using the ESV and the NASB. I have read all of the evidence against using a modern translation, but I really think that is the tradition of man. The best new resource that I have found is the NET Bible at Bible.org. It is a superior translation with excellent notes for the greek and hebrew interpretations and they even have a free module for E-Sword! I find that it helps my sermon and study prep to know as closely as possible what the authors were trying to say. Before anyone asks, let me assure you that I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant, and infalliable word of the living God in the autographs. So, there. Anyway, I know it's a lot of fun arguing about which translation is superior, but I have bigger fish to fry just getting out the gospel. God bless and I hope this was edifying.... for what it's worth.

Hi Stever...This concept really borders on ridiculous. Even if you will never be open to the possibility that there are other legitimate translations, you still don't have to label this as a pseudo-conspiracy.As has been stated many times before: the "Hebrew and Greek" (from the Received Text) used by the translators of the KJV (in 1611, as well as the changes and improvements made over the next 158 years) is not the same as those used in the other sources. Thus, to compare the translation of greek or hebrew words between the KJV and the NIV is both incorrect and misleading. In regards to the use of the ambiguous word 'immorality' by new versions, I would like to offer the statement of the owner of the NIV, international publishing magnate Rupert Murdock (New Age Bulletin, England, Vol V, No. 1, p.2, June 1993): "After all, we are in the entertainment business."This quote is also very misleading. Rupert Murdoch does not own the NIV. He runs a corporation that recently purchased the major publisher, Harper Collins. The publisher does not own the NIV. The publisher is simply licensed to print them (interestingly, they also print KJVs too). The copyright for the NIV is owned by the International Bible Society, and the Committee on Bible Translation at the IBS has control over the content (with the hope of dispelling any IBS corporate conspiracies). It appears that much of the KJV-only argument sometimes borders on simple urban-legends and modern myths. :-)

Stevers I always wondered where the "name it and claim it group" came from. Surely their doctrine did not come from the same Bible I read. After some study, I came to find that they don't use the same Bible, the KJV. No, their KJV has been replaced with the NIV or the other newer versions, thus placing themselves in deep doctrinal error.Another factual error. These merchants were peddling their wares long before the NIV arrived!

Hi Stever. I thank you for being bold and sharing this subject with us. Eventhough I have never read a KJV. I used to read everything but the KJV. You have some very valid points regarding the KJV. Pastor Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) talks a little about this issue in his sermon (Matthew 1-4). What do you think about NKJV?Thanks, Arun

Stevers' 1 Peter 4:11 KJV "ability which God giveth" NEW VERSIONS "strength which God supplies"?xxxxxxxxxx??The newer versions seem to reduce God's role here: ability includes, "physical, moral, intellectual capacity; skill or competence"; they limit his imput to "strength"Stever, I'm sorry to keep doing this but this is just another example of prejudiced nonsense. You really must begin to look at what you are posting before you inflict these inaccuracies on the world.You are talking about the Greek word 'ischus' which in the KJV of 1Peter 4:11 is translated as 'ability'. As far as I know there is no struggle with the original text here. All the Greek manuscripts have 'ischus' and all the editors agree that this is the original word, even Westcott and Hort! So your quarrel is not with the text but with the translators.The word 'ischus' is translated as 'strength' in“And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” (Luke 10:27, KJVS)Do you think the KJV translators were wrong to translate 'ischus' as 'strength' at this point?“For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” (Heb. 9:17, KJVS)Do you think the KJV translators were wrong to translate 'ischus' as 'strength' in this point?“Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” (Rev. 5:12, KJVS)Do you think the KJV translators were wrong to translate 'ischus' as 'strength' in this point?This last verse is particularly helpful because it has both 'power' and 'strength' in the same verse. The word for 'power' is 'dunamis' which means inherent ability. The word for 'strength' is 'ischus' which means...ischus connected with ischo and echo, "to have, to hold" (from the root ech, signifying "holding"), denotes "ability, force, strength;" "ability" in 1_Pet_4:11, AV (RV, "strength"). In Eph_1:19 and Eph_6:10, it is said of the strength of God bestowed upon believers, the phrase "the power of His might" indicating strength afforded by power. In 2_Thess_1:9, "the glory of His might" signifies the visible expression of the inherent personal power of the Lord Jesus. It is said of angels in 2_Pet_2:11 (cp., Rev_18:2, AV, "mightily"). It is ascribed to God in Rev_5:12; Rev_7:12. In Mark_12:30,33; Luke_10:27 it describes the full extent of the power wherewith we are to love God.Vine's Expository Dictionary The KJV is not wrong to translate it 'ability' but neither are the 'modern' translations wrong when they translate it as 'strength'. The word 'dunamis' is the natural word for 'ability'.dunamai "to be able, to have power," whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, e.g., Rom_15:14; or through a state of mind, or through favorable circumstances, e.g., 1_Thess_2:6; or by permission of law or custom, e.g., Acts_24:8,11; or simply "to be able, powerful," Matt_3:9; 2_Tim_3:15, etc.To use the modern translators' choice of 'strength' rather than 'ability' as a proof of the modern translators' conspiracy against truth is inaccurate and reveals your own obsessions rather than theirs. Your posts on this topic are persistently inaccurate, unjust and misinformed. There is no excuse for not researching this kind of thing when such excellent resources as Vine's Expository Dictionary is so readily available online. To persist with the propagation of these inaccuracies now becomes dishonest as well as inaccurate.

Satan does not need any special version to subvert or pervert the Gospel!is Satan could have tempted eve to sin, he doesn't need a special version of scripture to lead the church astray...all he needs is someone who goes into the word of God without seeking first the counsel of the Spirit of God. Stever, even if the KJV is the perfect translation (which it isn't) without the SPirit of God to reveal the scriptures to us, the perfect text is of no consequence. the preservation of the Lord's word is not in the text, it's in the unchanging SPirit of God which breathed the scripture. the Lord has me using the KJV, NIV and Good news versions and what i've learned from this is that it's the SPirit of God who ministers to me irrespective of which text i'm using so any doctrinal blanks or omissions are filled in.

steveri've looked at your posts and like i said the Lord's Spirit makes up whatever is lacking in whichever version i'm using KJV or any other. whatever shortcomings there are the Lord makes up for.as far as i'm concerned (for me that is) it's decided, the Lord isn't hindered by the text and i think that's atestament to His very sovereignty and power.if you prefer the KJV it's cool, i use it too. i didn't use it before because i felt the language extremely cumbersome :-? but by God's grace it's becoming much easier to understand, though i have a newer translation to help me understand what's being said better.that's my story and i'm sticking to it and not fooling with this thread any longer.may the Lord see His will done through this thread.AMEN

SteverDo you know what disingenuous means? and do you really want to accuse me of this?The whole point I am trying to make about your inaccurate posts is that you are focussing exclusively on the detail and not asking why the translators have made certain choices other than to condemn them for a conspiracy of deception. I believe you are wrong in accusing them of this conspiracy. It is difficult to deal with all the 'details' due to your habit of producing long lists which purport to support your view. Usually I just take the more obvious inaccuracies and presuppositions to show the folly of your position.Let me try to deal with your last post stage by stage.1. In the Newer Versions, Man's "divine powers preclude the need for God as they omit "God" entirely or show man "helping Him (God) along". This is the foolish kind of generalization which is just a wild prejudice. Which 'Newer Versions'; all of them? Where do find 'man's divine powers precluding the need for God'? In every verse? That kind of statement is way over the top and undermines your position from the start. 2. 1 Cor 16:2 KJV "as God hath propsered him" NEW VERSIONS "as he hath prospered" I am not going to look up all these verses but what is this verse supposed to prove? Is this supposed to be your evidence for the wild statement that 'man's divine powers preclude the need for God'? If this is the standard of our evidence your statement has no foundation.3. 2 Cor 5:21 KJV "we might be made the righteousness of God in him NEW VERSIONS "we might become the righteousness of God Again I ask the question; 'what is this supposed to be evidence for?' The verse is “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Cor. 5:21, KJVS) You are objecting because some modern translations have used the verb 'become' rather than 'made' in the second half of the verse. Have you taken the trouble to find out what Greek verbs are being translated here? Clearly not. The first 'made' in the KJV of this verse is 'poieO' which is a multi-purpose verb and is translated in the KJV by scores of different English words, including 'make' provide, perform, execute, appoint and many many others. The second time 'made' is used in the KJV it is the translation of a completely different word. 'ginomai' means to 'become'; it is used in the phrase the 'word was made flesh' or better... 'the word became flesh'. The more modern translations have tried to show the distinction in verbs and are strictly speaking more accurate in their use of 'become' rather than 'made' as a translation of 'ginomai'. Again, one of your chief evidences for the preposterous statement which starts your post is completely without any linguistic foundation. You are close to saying the KJV is better than the original Greek. This is a foolish position.4. Gen 12:3 KJV in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed NEW VERSIONS "the families of the earth shall bless themselves (RV)Is this supposed to be more evidence that the modern versions are promoting 'man's divine powers which preclude the need for God'? I am baffled as to how you can deduce such a statement from this example. My knowledge of Hebrew is not sufficient to defend what the RV has done here. The 'thee' in question here of course is not God but Abram, so it adds no evidence at all to your case. In any case the RV is not 'modern translations' but a single translation. Which other 'modern versions' do so?5. Gen 12:7 KJV "Unto thy seed will I give this land" NEW VERSIONS "to your descendents I will give this land"?NOTE- GALLATIANS 3:16 IDENTIFIES THE CORRECT VERSION SAYING "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is CHRIST. Is this supposed to be another example of "HE ABOVE STATEMENT, AS FOUND IN A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NEW VERSIONS AND THE KJV:"? How does the change from 'seed' to 'descendants' show that the modern versions promote the idea that 'man's powers preclude God's'? As it happens, I think 'descendants' is a very poor translation of the Hebrew word for 'seed' and one which interrupts a whole stream of prophecy relating to this word. However, it certainly does not indicate that 'man's powers preclude God's.' I cannot see any connection between one and the other.6. Gen 4:1 KJV "I have gotten a man from the LORD" NEW VERSIONS " with the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man Again, I ask the question 'how does this provide an example of your opening statement? In fact this passage has been translated in various ways. How is 'gotten a man for the LORD' different to 'with the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man'? You just seem to go on multiplying so-called examples which are completely irrelevant to your initial argument.7. John 9:4 KJV "Jesus answered...I MUST WORK" NEW VERSIONS "Jesus answered...WE MUST WORK As far as I can see only the NIV has taken this particular route. The NU-text reads 'we' but not even Westcott and Hort had 'we' here. The almost unanimous testimony is that this should be 'I', but how does this 'preclude God's working'? This so called evidence is also irrelevant to your original statement.8. 1 John 4:9 KJV "the love of God toward us" NEW VERSIONS "was manifested in us" Again, I ask the question what does this have to do with your original statement. These were all supposed to be "EXAMPLES OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT, AS FOUND IN A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NEW VERSIONS AND THE KJV:" They are no such thing. In fact, the preposition used here is 'en' which means 'in'. If 'towards' had been intended the Greek preposition would have been 'eis'. The KJV has mis-translated this verse and the 'modern version' are correcting its mistake. The 'love of God' in us is an even greater miracle than the 'love of God to us' and was part of the Lord's promise of John 17“And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:26, KJVS)[/blockquote>9. 1 Peter 4:11 KJV "ability which God giveth" NEW VERSIONS "strength which God supplies" I have shown the reasons for this in an earlier post. However, again I ask the question 'what does this have to do with proving your accusation that modern translations 'preclude God'? 10. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO ALL OF THE ABOVE (NOT PART OF THE ABOVE), PHILOLOGOS? Your original statement is inaccurate and the simple consequence of your misunderstanding and prejudice. Every element of your evidences is shown to be totally irrelevant to your initial claim. You have become obsessed with this issue and my own opinion is that your posts do no service to yourself or to anyone else.btw using upper case is usually regarded as bad etiquette on the web as it is regarded as the equivalent of shouting.

Why Did Christ Die?KJV –for us NEW VERSIONS --OMITRomans 5:8 NIVBut God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.The NIV says that Christ died for us. Why are you saying that this version omits it when it clearly doesn't?For Whom Did Christ Come?KJV—men NEW VERSIONS—men on whom his favor restsRomans 5:6 NIVYou see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.Christ died for all the ungodly. Why are you suggesting that the NIV (A "New Version") says something it clearly doesn't?How Are We Saved?KJV –by grace NEW VERSIONS- OMITActs 15:11 NIVNo! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."Ephesians 2:5 NIVmade us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.Ephesians 2:8-9 NIVFor it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.The NIV clearly (couldn't be any clearer) states that it is by grace we are saved. Why are you saying it is omitted? Are you sure you are reading the NIV?KJV—through His blood NEW VERSIONS- OMITEphesians 1:7 NIVIn him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's graceOnce again, the NIV contains what you say it doesn't...(for the sake of time I will skip ahead)DESTINATION OF THE UNSAVEDKJV- hell NEW VERSIONS—graveKJV- hell NEW VERSIONS—deathKJV- fire NEW VERSIONS--OMITRevelation 20:15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.Does this open your eyes? It opened mine.Quick question for you, do you believe that the NIV is part of these "Modern Versions" that you are reading? I have clearly refuted your post and I am curious to know if your eyes have been opened in the process.Pleae refrain from continuing this discussion if all you are going to do is post misleading information about bibles such as the NIV. If you wish to study and read the King James only...God Bless you! But please stop trashing good, honest bible translations such as the NIV.I also appeal to the moderators of this board to call Stevers posts into question and if he is indeed posting lies and misinformation that he would be asked to cease.Thank you.

by philologos on 2006/1/18 3:03:40""What would you say about the KJV's constant bias towards hierarchical leadership in the church and its return to the anglican orthodoxy in the use of words like 'charity, confession, church'?""I would say that those that have been given the gift to see the inconsistencies in the Word are responsible to bring the truth they have been trusted with by the Holy Spirit to the revelation of these inconsistencies to the Body of Christ.In Christ: Phillip

Loveslave's For you to continue arguing with someone who has more knowledge on the subject is foolishness. Not always. :-) “I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.”(Psa. 119:99, KJVS)...a man who meditates in the scripture can often have more 'understanding' though not necessarily more 'knowledge' than 'my teachers'.I honestly don't want to 'win' this argument. In my normal, offline, life I spend more time defending the KJV which is my version of carefully considered choice. Most of my peers and closest friends have now opted for a 'modern version'. 99% of my preaching is from the KJV. I only use other versions if the church/group I am preaching to has a stated preference. The reason I am protesting Stevers' arguments is that he is bringing what can be a reasonably argued position into disrepute by cavalier comments and strings of irrelevant quotations. Most people reading his posts will conclude that if this the argument for retaining the use of the KJV they are better off with their new versions.I do NOT believe that the modern versions constitute a conspiracy to dilute the word of God although I do think much of their reasoning for changes is at fault. In particular the 'textual origin' theories of Westcott and Hort and their more moderate successors are very dubious and rest on conjecture rather than solid evidence, so I am an adherent of the Byzantine Textform. But you can disagree with brethren without demonizing them.I know nothing about firearms so if this illustration is poor please accept my apologies. If someone gave me an old and tested rifle and said 'it tends to shoot to the left' I would be grateful for that information. I would not trash the weapon. The KJV has some weaknesses and some bias which we need to be aware of but it has some strengths which are missing from most of those 'modern versions'.I love and trust the KJV, I just don't want readers of Stevers' comments to conclude that the reasons he is giving are the reasonable evidence for choosing the KJV; they are neither reasonable nor are they evidence. Perhaps I should start a new thread on 'why I choose the KJV' over those many other versions?

Philologos wrote:Perhaps I should start a new thread on 'why I choose the KJV' over those many other versions?Please do so. :-D Having come from a country in which English is a second language I started out with NIV because it was a lot easier to understand. In fact, without biblical background the KJV is still difficult to understand (at least for Filipinos) that is why the KJV is not commonly used in the Philippines. I love the KJV but I want to know more why you choose this over the other translations.

Perhaps I should start a new thread on 'why I choose the KJV' over those many other versions?Go for it.EDIT: Sorry.. to be redundant... I didn't see Theophilus' post.

I honestly don't want to 'win' this argument.How that could be applied across so many things...Ron, the whole of this is so succinct, so well spoken, all I could think of was "This ought to be the end of all argument"