Featured How important is the KJB?

Naaaa...but thanks.

E,W,F...I think I'll manage...It's just sad to see what the Westcott/Hort, Critical Text koolaid does to so many people. That really does make me cry....seriously. There is no more direct SCRIPTURE to support THAT position than they say we have for ours. What the plain language of scripture does do(and yes..I am talking about the KJV primarily if not only!) is support the INTEGRITY of the Inspiration of ALL scripture AND the INTEGRITY of the Preservation of it down through the ages until (and beyond) our present time. Those of us that hold to the KJV as the only valid ENGLISH version just don't believe that (because of the overwhelming manuscript evidence) that includes this modern,contemporary avalanche of newer translations. For us, it's about their "source"...the texts that they are translated, paraphrased, contrived from. Just because the advertizing (or the liberal scholars) say they are "better" and "more accurate" doesn't make them so....so yeah...watching so many otherwise good people who I have no doubt love the same Lord I do be so easily deceived is a tough pill to swallow. That is something to cry about. Maybe I should go buy some Kleenex stock.:tear:

Bro.Greg

 

But the New King James is not translated from those texts. It is from the same texts as the KJV. If it truly is 'the source' why the reluctance to use the NKJV?

 

Inquiring minds want to know- what exactly are you referring to here?

Thousands, if not millions have been saved, discipled and added to the Kingdom of God through that "koolaid". If that makes you weep, I hope it is for joy.

 

Wouldn't the NKJV Bible basically be similiar to 1789 revision of the ole 1611? Just another revision of the 1611, putting it into modern form?

 

Where is the sound evidence for your accusations or assertions?

Whom specifically have I claimed were believers that are not "clearly born again"?

Are you saying that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, could not be saved?

Are you saying that the Church of England translators of the KJV who accepted a number of Roman Catholic doctrines and practices including baptismal regeneration were not saved?

Who established you as the determiner of who is or is not saved?

 

To Clarify....

OK Mex...fair question. I already know my answer won't really satisfy, clarify or change yours or anybody elses mind...but it is a fair question.

The "koolaid" I was referring to was the body of the work of Westcott and Hort and the overall "Critical Text" that has been the primary basis for the aforementioned "avalanche" of modern translations. From my perspective as a KJV Only believer I think it is bad work that has had the overall effect of diluting and polluting the word of God and detracting from it's accurate preservation. That is what we believe and it puts myself and people like me at opposite ends of the issue from those who accept the pro-MV position. As I said in one of my previous posts...this translations issue is hopelessly polarized and is only solved individually when people get on their knees and humbly seek the truth from the standpoint of the leadership of the Holy Spirit. That is...over the years....how I came to my own personal convictions so I'll stick with what I (now) know.

All that said...I'm NOT one of those extreme KJVer's that believes you can ONLY get saved by reading a KJV. (I didn't drink the Hyles koolaid!)I believe the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ can be believed upon and accepted by individual seekers regardless of which "version" one has sitting in their lap. The Gospel is not the KJV, NASB, ESV,NIV, or whatever version you want to add to the list. The Gospel (good news) is the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and being saved is (in response to the drawing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit) the individual placing his faith and trust in Christ's atoning work in his/her behalf. (Thank God for the Blood...amen?)I do believe whichever Bible one possesses may make the aforementioned salvation "transaction" more or less difficult to arrive at as there are some of the Modern (so-called) Bibles that dilute and make things more difficult to understand...not easier. I am thankful and joyous and subject to weeping with joy when ANYBODY gets saved......but I will still steer any new convert to use ONLY the King James Bible once they are saved (telling them that it is the perfect Word of God preserved for them in english) and I still reject the work of Westcott and Hort, the "Critical Text", "dynamic equivalence" and the resulting aforementioned avalanche of Modern Versions.

To close this out Mex..."millions have been saved, discipled, and added to the Kingdom of God" through the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those so moved by the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ......not the work of W&H or the readings of the "Critical Text",etc.,etc. In the endtimes we live in Satan is doing everything he can in the time remaining (he knows his days are numbered and he ain't happy) to detract, defeat, dilute and pollute the written Word of God and deceive as many as he can,keeping them from the truth. I believe that. I'm sticking with the time-tested Bible I have and faithfully trying to help others know how to use it effectively in the work the Lord has left us here to do.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

No, it was a greater revision that than, but still from the same mss.

 

I like to use it with my Nasb/EsV versions, as it has footnoted pretty much the varient readings in both the critical/majority texts!

 

Thanks for an answer. I would be careful about attributing to Satan the work of God.

 

I believe I am...

Mex...you are welcome. I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe. As to being careful....I am. As I said...this argument is polarized beyond solution. We just disagree as to what is....and isn't...the work of God. I have seen plenty of published suggestive "evidence" that W & H weren't even genuinely born again Christians according to the things they believed and taught....and no...I'm NOT going to get into a long drawn-out exchange on the particulars of all of that. I hope they were saved but I haven't seen enough to either know for sure....OR TRUST THEIR WORK.The same things I have read are a matter of simple study and web research so everybody can do what I did......google*******!
For the record...Satan can't "make" anybody do anything....he is simply a temptor (albeit a good one). On the other hand, God CAN...although He allows us the use of the two things that make us different from every other living creature on the planet...the things "of His Image" that He gave us...genuine intellect and a free will to make choices with (in short...a soul!). I choose to reject the work of W&H and the Critical Text based on the evidence I have seen,read and embraced about the matter. At the very least, I believe them to be works of the prideful intellect and the fleshly nature of man. That doesn't make them "works of Satan"....but it doesn't make them works of God either. We all make our choices based on the evidence we are presented. I made mine....you made yours...we just differ. At least on this issue. That's really all I can think of to say on the matter.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

Good question. It is obvious too me that the Geneva should get the nod if there is to be only one English version.

 

I'm curious as to why you think so. I have one on order (with updated spelling) and am looking forward to reading it.

 

IIRC and I'm no expert the Geneva was the first complete English version to include Chapter and verse numbers.)

Btw 95+% of my reading is NKJV.

 

Absolutely not! The Geneva Bible contained footnotes and marginal notes that were offensive to King James. King James made ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony!

For the most part, all English Bibles(before 1891), were almost exactly alike.
[/QUOTE]

Except for a few crazy translations (The Message) all English Bibles today are almost exactly alike.

 

Actually they are not exactly the same.

Joh*1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (KJV)

All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. (GB)


Ro*8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (KJV)

The same Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the children of God. (GB)


Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people. (GB)


Are these acceptable differences?

Don't get me wrong. I love the KJV. I use it everyday. This is a sincere question.

 

The 1611 KJV DID have "man-made" footnotes. Grab your copy and look at it.

 

Your assertions are not accurate. You were already given evidence concerning how different the old Wycliffe's Bible is from the KJV.

Several of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision had textual differences from the KJV. Tyndale's Bible, 1535 Coverdale's Bible, and 1537 Matthew's Bible did not have Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36 when compared to the KJV. The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible did not have Luke 17:36. Several of the pre-1611 English Bibles did not have other clauses and phrases found in the KJV such as at Mark 15:3c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26. The Great Bible had many differences from the KJV. The Great Bible had over 100 words in the book of Psalms including three whole verses in one psalm that are not found in the KJV. The Great Bible also had over 100 words in the book of Acts that are not found in the KJV. The Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision had many phrases or words that are not found in the KJV.

There were many translational differences among the pre-1611 English Bibles. There are the same-type translational differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as there are between the KJV and the NKJV.

 

evidence concerning suppression of the good Geneva Bible

Actually you may be misrepresenting what has actually been pointed out.
King James did object to the Geneva Bible, and the printing of the Geneva Bible in England is said to have been prevented in his time [around 1616]. It was during the reign of James' son Charles and under Archbishop William Laud when it was made a high commission crime to import, print, or sell the Geneva Bible.

King James and his state church used their great powers to undermine the Geneva Bible. McGrath maintained that the secret agenda of James I was “to destroy, discredit, or displace it” [the Geneva Bible] (In the Beginning, p. 129). John Jeffcoat III wrote that the KJV “was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants …and killed them” (www.Greatsite.com). Norton suggested: “The Church and the State were not so much for the KJB, or even for a uniform Bible, as they were against the Geneva Bible” (History, p. 93).

After 1616, the Geneva Bible could not be printed in England for a good number of years. KJV-only author David Cloud claimed: “In 1616 the king [James I] issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England” (Faith, p. 584). Donald L. Brake wrote: “It should be noted that in England the Geneva was not permitted to be printed after 1616” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 155). Brake asserted: “James banned the printing of the Geneva Bible in England after 1616” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 172). Adam Nicolson maintained that “”in 1616, the king put a halt to it, or at least attempted to: no more editions of the Geneva Bible were to be printed” (God’s Secretaries, p. 228). Larry Stone asserted: “In 1616 the printing of the Geneva Bible was forbidden in England” (Story of the Bible, pp. 76-77). Geddes MacGregor wrote that the last quarto edition of the Geneva Bible printed in England was in 1615 and the last folio in 1616 (Literary History, p. 145).

David Norton indicated that William Laud played a “role in securing the dominance of the KJB” (History, p. 104). John Lee noted: “The total suppression of the Geneva Bible was not attempted for several years; and when it was at last effected, it was ascribed in a great measure to the rising influence of Laud” (Memorial, p. 92). Bradstreet maintained that “the popularity of the Geneva Bible so disturbed King Charles and Archbishop Laud that they did everything they could think of to discredit and get rid of it” (KJV in History, p. 103). Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Edmunds and Bell affirmed that “Laud made it a high commission crime to import, print, or sell the Geneva [Bible]“ (Discussion, p. 116). Anderson pointed out that “one of the first books most strictly prohibited to be printed, imported, or sold by this Archbishop was the English Geneva Bible” (Annals, II, p. 390). Norton pointed out that Laud gave “the Geneva Bible’s commercial success as one of his reasons for its suppression” (History, p. 91). Anderson quoted Laud as saying that the “Bibles, both with and without notes, from Amsterdam” . . . “were better print, better bound, better paper, and for all the charges of bringing, sold better cheap” (Annals, II, p. 390). Laud’s decree to prohibit the importing of the Geneva Bible was around 1637. Bradstreet noted that Laud’s “propaganda campaign suggested that it was near treason to purchase a Bible printed in a foreign land when Bibles printed in England could be had” (KJV in History, p. 103).