just curious

[TomVols]

This so called "leaving out of verses" can just as easily be called the KJV "adding verses," so let's stick to the issues, okay? (Futile request on this forum)

 

[Kiffin]

KEVO stated,

The KJV says"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH". The niv says "HE APPEARED IN A BODY".The niv just destroyed the deity of Christ

How? I'll be the first to admit that the KJV is a more literal translation than the NIV and in this case the KJV is more clearer and literal. The NIV has many weaknesses and the KJV is a better verse by verse translation than the NIV overall but that doesn't mean the NIV is heretical. All translations must be judged by their overall content and not a few isolted verses. The NASB and the NKJV I would say is a better verse by verse translation than the KJV but that does't mean the KJV is heretical.

Actually in some areas the NIV has stronger statements on the Deity of Christ than the KJV. AN EXAMPLE,

Titus 2
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;(KJV)

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (NIV)

The NIV text is much clearer because the KJV text could lead one to think Paul is speaking of God and Jesus separately.

Because someone on the board of correctors was a lesbian.

Actually I believe it is the TNIV that has a lesbian and not the NIV. The TNIV is a pathetic translation. Of course many historians say, King James was a homosexual. He was at the very least a nut! but that doesn't mar the KJV.

rsr,yea go ahead and read it,all except the 17 verses the niv leaves out.

But that leads to a manuscript debate that has not been conclusively decided. The NIV defenders may say that the 17 verses were added! Of course 17 verses are a small portion of scripture and no doctrine is affected regardless of whether you are KJV or NIV lover when the Bible is read in context.

I have never known anyone after reading the NIV go and join the Jehovah Witnesses. Does anyone know of anyone joining a cult after reading the NIV,NASB, RSV, NRSV, CEV, Amplified etc...?

I have never known anyone after reading the KJV go and join the Episcopal Church. (Remember the early Baptist at first accused the KJV of promoting Anglicanism)

Best advice whether you have a KJV,NKJV, NIV, Amplified, NASB, CEV, ESV, RSV....Read it!

[ July 22, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[RomOne16]

Originally posted by KEVO:

I wonder sometimes if this is the baptist board or the catholic board,or the methodist board,or the church of God board.Wait until you start talking doctrine with them,that is when the wheels really run off.[/QB]

I just wanted to jump in here and show support for all of you who are taking a stand for the precious Word (KJB). You all just keep on keepin' on! You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, Amen? It's pretty sad that, according to some folks on this board, not one Christian in America holds the pure Word of God. I can't believe for a second that God would let that happen. God is not the author of confusion and if all these hundreds of "new and improved" (or dumbed down so the television generation can understand them) versions aren't the epitome of confusion ( noun Muddle/disorder) then I need a new dictionary.

Now, go ahead all you MV-onlyists! LOL Pounce away if you like. I won't be around because tomorrow is soulwinning. Have to do my part to fulfill the Great Commision. I'll understand if I don't see you there though 'cause that part might not be in your translation.

 

[ChristianCynic]

I just wanted to jump in here and show support for all of you who are taking a stand for the precious Word (KJB).

What do you do? the high jump or the broad jump?

I can't believe for a second that God would let that happen.

And just what is the time limit of your brain functions?

Go ahead all you MV-onlyists! LOL Pounce away if you like.

Ain't it nice to know when we "pounce" it is by your request!

I won't be around because tomorrow is soulwinning. Have to do my part to fulfill the Great Commision.

And how much is your comission? 25%? 20%...

I'll understand if I don't see you there though 'cause that part might not be in your translation.

If you ain't in Texas, bud, you won't see me 'around'

 

[RomOne16]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

I was referring to your calling the KJV the KJB. ON the title page, it is titled the "King James Version." You did not even call it by its given name.

I have in my possession two Bibles, one printed in 1935 and the other in 1951. One belonged to my Grandmother, the other to my Great-grandmother. They both are entitled "The Holy Bible". They are not entitled "King James Version", although that is the version they are. The older of the two does not contain the words "King James Version" anywhere, but I know that it is by the Epistle Dedicatory and the sweetness of it's words. The one printed in 1951 has the words "The devotional family Bible" and under that in tiny text in parentheses are the words "Authorized or King James Version". By no means is it the "title". It would seem by these examples that, years ago, if the cover said "Holy Bible" you knew you were holding a KJ B. Now however, you can't be sure what you're getting, thus the need for the "version" to be clearly stated so prominently as to be mistaken by some as the "title".

By the way, Bro. Coley might be too busy preaching the Gospel to be able to post to your liking, but I hope my technique meets with your approval.

 

[RomOne16]

[

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:

What do you do? the high jump or the broad jump?

And just what is the time limit of your brain functions?
Ain't it nice to know when we "pounce" it is by your request!

And how much is your comission? 25%? 20%...

If you ain't in Texas, bud, you won't see me 'around'[/QB]

I can see that you make it a habit of, and probably take great pleasure in, being mean-spirited. What is in your life that has made you so bitter and (by your own admission) cynical? Definition of cynic: n Person who mocks/who doubts that anything is good (websters). If the Holy Spirit dwells in you, why the bitterness and cynicism? Eph. 4:31 Let all bitterness,and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: [32] And be ye kind one to another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. 1Pet 2:21-23 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: [22] Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: [23] Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but comitted himself to him that judgeth righteously:...

If you are a brother in Christ, I will pray that your heart is healed. If you are not washed in the precious blood of Jesus, then I pray for your salvation. Please, if you don't know Christ as your personal savior, pray and ask Him into your heart. Accept His free gift. Please don't put it off. Rom 10:9 John 3:36

Mock me if you feel the need, but know that I am sincere. This whole debate is out of hand on both sides of the issue and I'm sure that Gods Spirit is grieved by it. I apologize for my part in it and I pray that we all keep the main thing, the main thing and that's telling the lost about Jesus. There are enough enemies out there in the world. We don't need to fight amongst ourselves. No matter which Bible you read, I'm pretty sure they all say we should love one another as Christ loved us. That is my goal from now on.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

> Go ahead all you MV-onlyists! LOL Pounce away if you like....
I won't be around because tomorrow is soulwinning. Have to do my part to fulfill the Great Commision....I'll understand if I don't see you there though 'cause that part might not be in your translation.

which part of this wasn't mocking?

is anyone impressed when the pot turns around n calls the kettle names?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
"And you have not provided one verse showing a baptism as recorded in Matt28:19 to the pentecostals/apostolics/onenesses down in the "tongues" section; and while ya down there, don't forget to ask'em to show you the verse that says tongues is for today, as they say it is

I have shown the verse, and tongues is a theological argument from the text of Scripture. You can provide neither from your final authority.

I guess I am real fortunate to never once have doubted that what I walk by faith with IS God's Word & will remain so until the Lord calls me home.

I know how you feel. Being a believer for 25 years and active in ministry for 15, I am glad to have never once doubted where God's is and what he wants me to do. It is a wonderful thing not to wonder about it, and it is a wonderful thing to preach it to others.

However, that is not the issue, Pat. The issue is that God never told us where or how he preserved his word. I have no doubt that he preserved it. I am one hundred percent certain that he preserved it in the multitude of manuscripts available. In the 1500s, when Erasmus made his first edition of the TR, he compared no more than 6 manuscripts (according to Kenyon) and decided from those six what the "Word of God would be." (Obviously I would phrase it differently for me.) But he didn't get it right. He made a second, a third, and a fourth, all in search of the Word of God. One of these editions became the basis for the KJV (we are not sure which one). The problem is, which of the TRs is the Word of God?

YOu have not provided a reasonable answer to the problem of "things that are different are not the same" vs. the version prior to the KJV that were different. You have not provided a reasonable, theological answer to the problem of which KJV today is the Word of God (There are different ones available in your bookstore). You have not given a reasonable, theological answer to the problem of NT quotations of the OT that are identical to the original language text. It seems that the early church took the position that I hold on this matter and you are the ones who have departed from it.

Again, I say, if you love the KJV, use it and love it, teach it, live by it. But do not establish doctrine that is not found in Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Justified:
As I have said before, you only read "parts". Yes, I admit that Dr. Grady has not penned the inspired word of God, and I may not approve of 100% of everthing that is in his book, as outside of the Bible, I don't agree with 100% everything that is in any other books either. But you seem to be implying to the readers here that there is nothing to glean from this book.

If there are errors in one part of it, then there are errors in the book. There is not much that can be gleaned from this book for those who are interested in the facts of this debate. It is an emotional presentation (not logical) that plays fast and loose with the facts. If I had a copy I could show you.

Again by your own words! You stayed in a church that you did not agree with, and now you admit that 3 other people knew. That means that words were exchanged and discussions were going on! HUMAN NATURE! Otherwise, how would the 4 of you know that you agreed with each other. And how many other people did you influence that you don't know about! A LITTLE LEVIN!

Here you are playing fast and loose with the facts. When I went to this church, I was ambivalent. It was not an issue and so him preaching or teaching or believing it didn't bother me. I was "convincable." The "four of us" did not agree with each other. My girlfriend was on my side though more because of me than that she understood the facts. The other two tried a few times to talk me out of it. But they, like you, could not answer basic questions.

That Pastor was faithful in trying to teach you and you rejected! REMEMBER! What goes around, comes around!

I am willing to be taught. Show me the Scripture (not Grady or anyone else). I want God's word that tells me which version to use. I can show you from Scripture that my view of inspiration, preservation, and translation is biblical. Can you?

And, I find that if you have honestly studied this subject for 10 years, then it is inconceivable for me to believe that you hold the position that you do!

Which of the 5000+ differing Greek manuscripts is the Word of God?

And where are your answers to the questions I asked you previously? Those questions are important to find out at what level you are able to carry on this conversation.

 

[Farmer's Wife]

Originally posted by BrianT:
But does not your statement imply that KJV-only supporters are being led by the Holy Spirit, while those who disagree with KJV-onlyism are dismissing the Holy Spirit? Instead we rely on the Holy Spirit PLUS evidence, not brushing of the facts.

But speaking of the Holy Spirit, here's a thought to consider: Is the "word of God" just ink on paper, or is the "word of God" the message one gets by reading the ink PLUS having the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I can read the NIV with the Holy Spirit's guidance, and have "the word of God". My Mormon friend can read exclusively the KJV, without the Holy Spirit's guidance, and not have "the word of God". Is this not true? I think it absolutely is.

Whew, Brian, it took me awhile to find where I left off here...so many posts since I was at the computer. To answer your question, no, my post in question does not imply any such thing. My post says what it says.

Nope, I disagree with your statements concerning God's Word. God's true and perfect Word is what is written. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what we read. So, whether or not, I even open my KJBible it is *still* the Word of God! If your Mormon friend is not saved then, no, he will not understand what he's reading even though he's holding God's Word in his hand...much like the Eunuch.

 

[Justified]

Brother Larry,

Isn't wonderful that we are saved by Grace? And that we live in a country that we can freely discuss these issues! "Thank You, Lord" for our salvation and these freedoms!

I can only respond to what and how you type your comments and responses. So, if I took them wrong or was offensive in my comments or responses back to you, then Brother, I am sorry.

We are brothers in the Lord, and if I saw a brother/sister and/or an enemy, walking down the sidewalk of a busy street, and they start walking off the sidewalk onto the street,and into traffic, even though they think it's safe, I would go to them and let them know that they are entering into a precarious situation. As I'm sure you would also. **********************************************

I posted the following earlier and brought it forward for those that haven't read it, because of the numerous posts here.

Yes, the other versions do contain the word of God, but they do also contain some major/minor doctrinal/dogma errors and/or contain information and/or lackof, that can lead someone into believing major/minor doctrinal/dogma errors.

Can someone read them and get saved? Yes!

Can someone read them and learn about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? YES!

Can someone read them and learn about living a separated life for the Lord? YES!

Can someone read them and learn about the history of God and His Attributes? YES!

Can someone read them and learn about God's Righteousness, Love, Santification, etc...? YES!

So now you say, What's the big deal? Would you want to build your home on a foundation that was cracked or sub-standard? In the beginning your home would stand just fine. But through the years these flaws start to take their toll on the foundation that is holding your home up. Thus, the home now starts to come down.

Same with our families!

Study to show thyself approved...

 

[RomOne16]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:

which part of this wasn't mocking?

is anyone impressed when the pot turns around n calls the kettle names?[/QB]

I can see where you may have honestly missed my apology in my reply post to Cynic, so please accept my apology for my part in this mean-spirited debate. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

I publicly apologize to any and all that were offended by my post. None of this is glorifying to Christ, and I am ashamed of my part in it, so again, please accept my sincere apology.

In His name.

 

[HankD]

Dear Romans 1:16,

Thank You for your gracious apology.
You didn't offend me but I'll accept.
I'm TRO but not KJVO.

HankD

 

[TomVols]

It's pretty sad that, according to some folks on this board, not one Christian in America holds the pure Word of God.

I've never seen this and I've been on here almost two years. Any proof where someone has said this?

[ July 23, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[RomOne16]

Originally posted by TomVols:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It's pretty sad that, according to some folks on this board, not one Christian in America holds the pure Word of God.

I've never seen this and I've been on here almost two years. Any proof where someone has said this?</font>[/QUOTE]Hi Tom. Please see my apology in my previous post. I'm done with the bickering. It's just not Christ-honoring. You read/study whatever version/s you prefer and I'll stick with my KJB, Amen?

 

[KEVO]

This has been a very interesting thread. It was good to hear from some new folks. I will be out of town from WED.-SAT. God bless all of you.
Bro. Kevin

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HankD:


So Granny, do you realize that when the KJBible was published many resisited it because they felt the Geneva Bible (which was the Word of God for its generation) was superior?
A similar struggle ensued then as now.
Many felt the Geneva (or others such as the Great Bible) was all that was necessary.

...that is until the Church of England by the authority of the English Crown made the binding, printing, or distribution of any other translation a High Commission crime punishable by long, harsh imprisonment. The Baptist, Independents, etc. resisted the KJV because they thought it to be doctrinally inferior.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KEVO:
The niv does not contain the word "sodomite".Wonder why? Because someone on the board of correctors was a lesbian.

The KJV also does not contain the word "homosexual" while the NIV does. Wonder why?...

I sure hope your son was saved before he got baptised.

Why? Most if not all of the KJV translators would have been baptized by sprinkling as infants. It is unlikely that any of them received believer's baptism. Yet, you say that these men were so favored by God that He used them to give us a perfect translation of the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Justified:
Yes, the other versions do contain the word of God, but they do also contain some major/minor doctrinal/dogma errors and/or contain information and/or lackof, that can lead someone into believing major/minor doctrinal/dogma errors.

This is where I would disagree with you. I cannot find these doctrinal problems in either the English translation or the Greek texts underlying them (and I have read both). There are textual variants but the doctrine is unchanged. The blood is frequently attacked but it is explicit in the MVs. Only one verse reads differently because of the textual basis. And in that one verse, the blood atonement is found just six verses later. Some conspiracy that is. And the deity of Christ is as clear is not more clear in modern versions than in the KJV. That is just a matter of increased fluidity of translation as opposed to the somewhat stilted translation in parts of the KJV. But all of these "doctrinal" issues have been well settled. They are non-issues.

My problem is not with people who prefer a different translation. My problem is with those who want to say that I am an unbeliever, a satanist, a heretic, unlearned, or uneducated because I hold the position that historic fundamentalism has always held--that any faithful translation of the original language texts is the word of God.

Obviously, I don't share your "foundational" illustration. I believe the foundation of the MVs is sufficient to build a home, a church, or a life on. In fact, I think it is better suited. Perhaps a better analogy would be this: If we want to build a foundation for a house in the year 2002, would we do it with a shovel or a backhoe? Both will work but one will do it a lot better and a lot easier. I prefer the backhoe. If others want to use a shovel, more power to them.

 

[HankD]

The original question of this thread had to do with someone asking a question concerning why it was a certain individual with a public job corrected the KJV for his audience.

We weren't told what the correction was which would have helped.
Let me offer this:

Just for the record (again):
Although I am strongly pro-KJV, it is because of the TR (Masorete/Beza-Stephanus) behind the AV which I believe is a superior restoration/representation of the original text than the Wescott and Hort 1881 version (why is not the issue here in this thread).

Perhaps this individual tried to bring an obscure statement up to date:

Exodus 28:25 And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two
ouches, and put them on the shoulderpieces of the ephod before it. KJV1769.

What in the world is an "ouch"?

Exodus 28: 25 And the other two ends of the two wreathed chains thou shalt fasten in the two clasps, and put them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod at the front of it. KJ21

Some time ago here on the BB someone asked what this passage meant:

2 Corinthians 6:11-12 (KJV)
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

2 Corinthians 6:11-12 (NIV)
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.

The Gospel went out in the language of the common people. True, the Book of Hebrews leans more towards a scholarly classical style of Greek, but for the most part the NT is common (koine) Greek.

The AV is 17-18th century Shakespearean English.
IMO, its time to get back to God's original intent.
The Gospel for the common man in the common man's language.
This is the intent of the MVs.
I would like to give credit where credit is due.

HankD

[ July 24, 2002, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]