More already refuted tripe.
http://www.westcotthort.com/
Yet, we are to believe the KJVO revisionists over the eye witnesses.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A new King James Bible defense book
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
http://www.westcotthort.com/
skanwmatos
New Member
Well, just because Spurgeon and Burgon never made claims against their character and beliefs does not mean every thing they believed was correct.
Westcott was the more prolific writer and many of his early writings do indicate he may have, at one time, doubted the deity of Christ, believed, to some extend, in Darwinianism, which was all the rage at that time, and wrote some things regarding the resurrection that should cause us some concern.
But all of that has no bearing on their work as scholars. I believe there is enough error in their theories of modern scientific textual criticism to expose without having to resort to doctrinal differences in an attempt to discredit them.
Westcott was the more prolific writer and many of his early writings do indicate he may have, at one time, doubted the deity of Christ, believed, to some extend, in Darwinianism, which was all the rage at that time, and wrote some things regarding the resurrection that should cause us some concern.
But all of that has no bearing on their work as scholars. I believe there is enough error in their theories of modern scientific textual criticism to expose without having to resort to doctrinal differences in an attempt to discredit them.
Kind of reminds me of the saying that goes something like this; "It's ammazing what my followers say that I never said."
Westcott and Hort continue to be held up as though every modern scholar follows them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Westcott and Hort are mostly talked about among the KJVO's and JW's. You would kind of wonder why.
Westcott and Hort continue to be held up as though every modern scholar follows them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Westcott and Hort are mostly talked about among the KJVO's and JW's. You would kind of wonder why.
I find the following disturbing:
" This rise in the spread of falsehoods is due largely to the fact that extremely few people are taking the time to verify the information for themselves: the books the "quotes" come from are quite rare in the first place, and sometimes cumbersome to read through if obtained. The authors spreading the falsehoods are either guilty of not verifying their sources (at best), or deliberate misrepresentation and lying (at worst). I give the benefit of the doubt to most, simply because the books are so hard to come by to do real verification. However, there are three or four authors who: 1. pride themselves on their research abilities, 2. have written extensively on Westcott and Hort, 3. claim to own several books by Westcott and Hort, and 4. have their KJV-onlyist agenda to push - and it is these authors that, I can only conclude, provide the misquotes with the full knowledge that they are deliberately slandering and spreading falsehoods. Various replies by various people have been given to these authors, and they have had years to apologize and/or correct the false information they are spreading - yet no apologies or corrections have been made. This is completely unacceptable in Christian literature.
From http://www.westcotthort.com/
" This rise in the spread of falsehoods is due largely to the fact that extremely few people are taking the time to verify the information for themselves: the books the "quotes" come from are quite rare in the first place, and sometimes cumbersome to read through if obtained. The authors spreading the falsehoods are either guilty of not verifying their sources (at best), or deliberate misrepresentation and lying (at worst). I give the benefit of the doubt to most, simply because the books are so hard to come by to do real verification. However, there are three or four authors who: 1. pride themselves on their research abilities, 2. have written extensively on Westcott and Hort, 3. claim to own several books by Westcott and Hort, and 4. have their KJV-onlyist agenda to push - and it is these authors that, I can only conclude, provide the misquotes with the full knowledge that they are deliberately slandering and spreading falsehoods. Various replies by various people have been given to these authors, and they have had years to apologize and/or correct the false information they are spreading - yet no apologies or corrections have been made. This is completely unacceptable in Christian literature.
From http://www.westcotthort.com/
Maybe I am missing something, but could you show me where any of the versions have left out this doctrine from scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]qb, she keeps telling us that all of these "words" and "verses" are left out. I have challenged her time and again to give me some specific ones that have ANY change on doctrine whatsoever. She keeps coming back with a long story about how we just can't see the truth, like she sees it, but will simply NOT put down specific words and verses. If you can get some out of her, good luck. To me, its been like pulling teeth, and so far I've been unsuccessful.
Michelle reminds me of the preacher who doesn't have a clue so he shouts stomps and spits and dances like mad so the people wil assume he is passionate. But I am not sure what he would be passionate about except about dancing around the real issue.
A mist in the pulpit does create a fog in the pew.
Charles R. Swindoll
Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
If the man in the pew was trained to think for himself, very soon the man in the pulpit would have to give him something better to think about.
Oswald Chambers 1874-1917)
I am waiting for the eloquence and fog to disapear so we can hear the truth and have something better to think about.
A mist in the pulpit does create a fog in the pew.
Charles R. Swindoll
Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
If the man in the pew was trained to think for himself, very soon the man in the pulpit would have to give him something better to think about.
Oswald Chambers 1874-1917)
I am waiting for the eloquence and fog to disapear so we can hear the truth and have something better to think about.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Phillip writes: "qb, she keeps telling us that all of these "words" and "verses" are left out. I have challenged her time and again to give me some specific ones that have ANY change on doctrine whatsoever. She keeps coming back with a long story about how we just can't see the truth, like she sees it, but will simply NOT put down specific words and verses. If you can get some out of her, good luck. To me, its been like pulling teeth, and so far I've been unsuccessful."
Phillip, try these specific examples where doctrines are changed.
The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.
As Pilate asked his wife in the movie the Passion of the Christ: "Can you recognize truth when you hear it?"
Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have "ORIGENS from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origen or a beginning.
Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".
Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.
Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.
Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.
The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" Revelation 1:5, and "the firstborn from the dead Colossians 1:18.
In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV -International Standard Version- and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!
The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.
Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.
The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.
In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.
Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.
However when we get to the NewKJV, ESV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.
Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."
1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."
God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.
In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.
Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?
In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad, Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."
Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."
We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.
However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.
The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."
NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."
Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."
ESV English Standard Version "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."
Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."
ISV International Standard Version "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."
The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.
What is the fine linen, clean and white?
Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.
But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” or "the righteous deeds of God's people" If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?
Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."
John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.
"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, Isaiah 61:10, Zechariah 3:4."
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?
Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, ESV, NKJV teach - "but Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints" or "Judah is UNRULY with God, even AGAINST the Holy One who is faithful" as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?
Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.
There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí, Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.
Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."
John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."
David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."
John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."
However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".
Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".
Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."
The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."
New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH N
NE TO TAKE HIS PART."
Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."
1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." -again not true
New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."
Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."
Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."
The Septuagint - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."
Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?
This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.
These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.
If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.
Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?
Will Kinney
Phillip, try these specific examples where doctrines are changed.
The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.
As Pilate asked his wife in the movie the Passion of the Christ: "Can you recognize truth when you hear it?"
Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have "ORIGENS from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origen or a beginning.
Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".
Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.
Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.
Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.
The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" Revelation 1:5, and "the firstborn from the dead Colossians 1:18.
In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV -International Standard Version- and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!
The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.
Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.
The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.
In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.
Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.
However when we get to the NewKJV, ESV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.
Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."
1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."
God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.
In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.
Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?
In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad, Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."
Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."
We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.
However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.
The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."
NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."
Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."
ESV English Standard Version "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."
Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."
ISV International Standard Version "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."
The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.
What is the fine linen, clean and white?
Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.
But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” or "the righteous deeds of God's people" If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?
Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."
John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.
"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, Isaiah 61:10, Zechariah 3:4."
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?
Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, ESV, NKJV teach - "but Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints" or "Judah is UNRULY with God, even AGAINST the Holy One who is faithful" as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?
Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.
There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí, Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.
Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."
John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."
David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."
John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."
However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".
Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".
Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."
The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."
New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH N
NE TO TAKE HIS PART." Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."
1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." -again not true
New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."
Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."
Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."
The Septuagint - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."
Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?
This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.
These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.
If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.
Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?
Will Kinney
What's wrong with that? Can't you handle the truth?
God breathed his Words through Men of God whose writings have been preserved through divine providence (not reinspiration) in the plethora of manuscript evidence that all supports and upholds the truths that God intended to communicate to man. When you put a stake in the ground on this issue and declare a version "ONLY" you create a manmade idol, one that creates credibility problems. As in, which specific King James Version, or for that matter, which specific printing of it, since two of the KJV Bibles I own do not agree, whole verses were left out of one of them. It is a manmade attempt at producing a point in time representation of something that is only perfect in Heaven. fortunately, with the overwhelming evidence we have that the texts on which most of our common English versions are based, we can be confident, through the agreement of scripture with scripture, and the agreement of various widely separated text families. I have no problem saying the Bible I carry is the Word of God, and sharing it with others, whether its my KJV, NIV, or NASB.
(That scrambling sound you hear is Superdave sliding back into his foxhole and making sure the flak jacket is on right)
GB93433:Westcott and Hort continue to be held up as though every modern scholar follows them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Westcott and Hort are mostly talked about among the KJVO's and JW's. You would kind of wonder why.
W&H's work was the first serious departure from the "Received Text" since before the AV was made. Their names were before the scholars who followed more than any other name. Since their names come up so often, while the names of other scholars aren't that familiar to the general Christian public, they serve as whipping boys for those who advocate the KJVO myth. They're viewed as the bad boys who led most of the public from the confines of KJVO & the KJVO advocate feels justified in blaming them for everything from bogus Bible versions to the failure of the Edsel to catch on with the average car-buyer. But we mustn't forget that the KJVO grasps at every little straw to attempt to sustain his/her myth.
W&H's work was the first serious departure from the "Received Text" since before the AV was made. Their names were before the scholars who followed more than any other name. Since their names come up so often, while the names of other scholars aren't that familiar to the general Christian public, they serve as whipping boys for those who advocate the KJVO myth. They're viewed as the bad boys who led most of the public from the confines of KJVO & the KJVO advocate feels justified in blaming them for everything from bogus Bible versions to the failure of the Edsel to catch on with the average car-buyer. But we mustn't forget that the KJVO grasps at every little straw to attempt to sustain his/her myth.
We must remember that Will K picks & chooses, and also operates from his premise that only the KJV is correct. For several years now, he's rattled off the same stuff, while failing to get past the very basic questions of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth as well as failing to PROVE that only the KJV is always correct. He still does this in the face of having been PROVEN WRONG before. Typical KJVO.
I didn't say they were. Every one is capable of making mistakes and may hold wrong beliefs in some area. But that doesn't justify personal attacks and lies.
He may have? Then again, he might not have. Speculating over what he may or may not have believed at one time doesn't justify slandering them today - decades after their death when they can't defend themselves of clarify what they meant. There were many things in the Bible I douted at one time. I don't doubt them today and I wouldn't want to be slandered years later over them.
You are free to do that. Unfortunately, too many KJVO's won't do that - it's just easier to use personal attacks.
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
I hear constant appeals for "prove it" and we have "proved" you wrong. What seems strange to me, is how one is to go about "proving" faith? It all comes down to faith in the promises of God, and this can only be proven within those of the same faith. How can all of you, who hold not to the faith in the preservation of the words of God tell us that you have proven us wrong? And, how can you ask us to prove to you something that requires faith on your part? I also hear constant appeals for "by whose authority?". Why not really take the time, and sincerely desire to understand, and that is truly understand what is being said, without the bias of the label of KJVO. Please, just for once, set this bias of yours, aside, and stop looking at us as the enemy, but rather fellow christians and really listen to what is being said. You keep yourselves from understanding what is being said, not of our fault, but because of the assumptions that you place upon us, which I might add are very false. These false assumptions are causing you to misunderstand what we are saying. There are alot of stubborn, and stiff-necked people on these posts, who think that they have it all figured out and proven, and to make matters worse, treat those bretheren who love them enouph to share with them the truth, as their enemies. I would like to know, how believing God's pure words of truth are available today is teaching a false doctrine or myth? I would like to know how warning others that there are errors in the modern versions and to reject them is believing false doctrine? Please, show to me with scriptural support, how these are false doctines and myths. If anyone here is guilty of believing anything false regarding this issue, it is those who believe God has not kept his promise of preservation. They are those who deny that God would preserve his words, and every single one of them, for they have not scriptural support for this myth.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
I hear constant appeals for "prove it" and we have "proved" you wrong. What seems strange to me, is how one is to go about "proving" faith? It all comes down to faith in the promises of God, and this can only be proven within those of the same faith. How can all of you, who hold not to the faith in the preservation of the words of God tell us that you have proven us wrong? And, how can you ask us to prove to you something that requires faith on your part? I also hear constant appeals for "by whose authority?". Why not really take the time, and sincerely desire to understand, and that is truly understand what is being said, without the bias of the label of KJVO. Please, just for once, set this bias of yours, aside, and stop looking at us as the enemy, but rather fellow christians and really listen to what is being said. You keep yourselves from understanding what is being said, not of our fault, but because of the assumptions that you place upon us, which I might add are very false. These false assumptions are causing you to misunderstand what we are saying. There are alot of stubborn, and stiff-necked people on these posts, who think that they have it all figured out and proven, and to make matters worse, treat those bretheren who love them enouph to share with them the truth, as their enemies. I would like to know, how believing God's pure words of truth are available today is teaching a false doctrine or myth? I would like to know how warning others that there are errors in the modern versions and to reject them is believing false doctrine? Please, show to me with scriptural support, how these are false doctines and myths. If anyone here is guilty of believing anything false regarding this issue, it is those who believe God has not kept his promise of preservation. They are those who deny that God would preserve his words, and every single one of them, for they have not scriptural support for this myth.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
You keep saying that we, who don't hold to KJVOnlyism, don't believe in the preservation of God's words. As has been repeatedly shown, nobody here believes as you say. We believe God preserved His words in more than one form (i.e. the KJV 1769). His words are right there in the original language manuscripts of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic plus the Geneva, Tyndale, Great, Bishops, KJV, NASB, ERV, NIV, ESV ... ect, German, French, Spanish, Dutch, and any other language they are translated into. You can quit bearing false witness anytime.
skanwmatos
New Member
So, if someone here would say, "I believe by FAITH that the modern versions are the preserved word of God" you would believe that to be okay and you would not argue with that person because they hold that position "by faith?"
Why do you lie about what others believe? Everyone on this forum believes in the preservation of God's word.
We all have faith in the word of God, but you seem not to. Why is that?
Please, just for once, set this bias of yours, aside, and stop looking at us as the enemy, but rather fellow christians and really listen to what is being said.
You keep yourselves from understanding what is being said, not of our fault, but because of the assumptions that you place upon us, which I might add are very false.
These false assumptions are causing you to misunderstand what we are saying. There are alot of stubborn, and stiff-necked people on these posts, who think that they have it all figured out and proven, and to make matters worse, treat those bretheren who love them enouph to share with them the truth, as their enemies.
God's pure words of truth are available today. In Hebrew, in Greek, and in may English versions. It is you who deny that God is able to give us His pure word today, not us.
Please show us the false doctrine in modern versions. Not when compared to the KJV, but when compared to the inspired, infallible, preserved Hebrew and Greek.
Everybody, except you, believes God kept His promise. It is you who blasphemes God's word, and God, by saying that He is powerless to give us His word today.
We believe God did exactly that. It is you who denies it.
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
--------------------------------------------------
So, if someone here would say, "I believe by FAITH that the modern versions are the preserved word of God" you would believe that to be okay and you would not argue with that person because they hold that position "by faith?"
--------------------------------------------------
Faith in the scriptures. Faith in the word of God and his promises, and pertaining to this issue at hand, faith in God's promise of preservation. Faith in what God has said concerning his words. Sorry, but the mv's have no scriptural support for thier approval of those things that have added to, or taken away from God's words of truth.
So to be quite honest, if they are claiming they have faith, I would have to ask them to what they base this faith upon? Their own understanding?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
So, if someone here would say, "I believe by FAITH that the modern versions are the preserved word of God" you would believe that to be okay and you would not argue with that person because they hold that position "by faith?"
--------------------------------------------------
Faith in the scriptures. Faith in the word of God and his promises, and pertaining to this issue at hand, faith in God's promise of preservation. Faith in what God has said concerning his words. Sorry, but the mv's have no scriptural support for thier approval of those things that have added to, or taken away from God's words of truth.
So to be quite honest, if they are claiming they have faith, I would have to ask them to what they base this faith upon? Their own understanding?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
skanwmatos
New Member
Neither does the KJV. There is not one word anywhere in the KJV which says the KJV is the preserved word of God.
And what is your faith in the KJV based on? Your own understanding?
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Faith in modern versions would not violate any of these. However, claiming any one translation as the absolute measure would.
God promised He would preserve His word, and He has for thousands of years. He has preserved them through times of war, persecution, famine, and ignorance. He has preserved them through the work of countless men, faceless as far as being upheld for their faith. He has preserved them through translations made into many, many languages. And He has preserved them through many different translations into English, as well.
Nor does the KJV. Oh, but I guess your were refering to the KJV and not the actual languages that the KJV was translated from, correct? Yeah, I forgot that the KJV 'corrected' all those silly 'errors' in the thousands of manuscripts. How ignorant of me!
So to be quite honest, if you are claiming you have faith, I would have to ask you to what you base this faith upon? Your own understanding?
Michelle, we all exercise faith. You choose to believe that the KJV is perfect. Most of us here choose to believe that the KJV is a translation (a good one for the most part, a bit out-dated as to the language). We both exercise faith in the matter.
But what you fail to see is that we (collectively) do not condemn or forsake the KJV (even with all the nonsense being spouted by many as to the condition of our salvation because of this). Most, if not all, use the KJV as a major part of their study material. But we also choose not to be blind.
In Christ,
Trotter