• 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!

KJV and the modern versions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Darron Steele

New Member
Pastor Larry said:
...

So in conclusion:
...
2. Please take time to learn about the issues. Feel free to disagree with me, but at least know what you are talking about.
Great advice for all Christians in any matter of dispute.

Proverbs 18:13 says "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (KJV).

A lot of people affiliated with the church only `study an issue' solely to defend a pre-conceived assumption. Many times, they will not even study any first-hand source of the opposing view -- even if just to learn the real reasons why `the other side' thinks as they do. They do not want to take the time to get an informed understanding of `the other side' so that they can intelligently dispute -- they want to skip that step and just go straight to the argument.

"Please take the time to learn about the issues ... at least know what you are talking about" is good advice. In this matter of dispute, following this course of action would entirely end the dispute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darron Steele: following this course of action would entirely end the dispute.

HP: Oh sure Darron, and besides that, less than 5% of Americans will be seeing an increase in the taxes they pay if Barak Hussein Obama (friend and associate of William Ayers and Attorney and Big Financial Contributor of Acorn) is elected President. ;) :laugh:

(Is that OK now Darron?:wavey: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darron Steele

New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:


HP: Oh sure Darron, and besides that, less than 5% of Americans will be seeing an increase in the taxes they pay if Obama Hussein is elected President. ;) :laugh:

If I am not mistaken, that advice you mocked was initially given to you by an educated pastor and moderator.

Perhaps you should not laugh at it so arrogantly.

Second, you got the name wrong. I am not a supporter of Barack Hussein Obama, but he is a human being and should get the courtesy of not having his name mutilated in scorn -- especially with the unfair connotations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What saddens me about this whole issue is that there are those who have decided that God's hand stopped working in His Word in 1611 (well, maybe worked a little more on one particular version to "finish it"). That since 1611, there has not been one translation scholar who has had a heart for the truth and the accuracy of God's Word and all have gone to work against Him. That He has not worked in the lives of so many men in the last almost 400 years to be sure that there is valid work in the common language for men and women and that He feels that the Olde English or whatever it was is the perfect language for the 21st century.

Honestly, I think of the men who have worked tirelessly and under severe scruitny (spelling on that one?? I have no clue) to be sure that what they write is faithful to God's true Word. That in the study of manuscripts, their hearts are on fire for God and are guided by the Holy Spirit to find the truth and to choose what is the most likely original words to translate and what might have been changed/added/subtracted in the long, hard process of the copyists.

Honestly, I see the KJVO camp as highly limiting God and sticking Him in a box.
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
annsni said:
Honestly, I see the KJVO camp as highly limiting God and sticking Him in a box.

It's the same box the Latin onlies tried to force him in centuries ago..
It's in this same box that Satan tries to keep the truth buried...

But for some reason.. God always resurrects out of the box.. and keeps coming back with the light of Truth!
 

Askjo

New Member
ccrobinson said:
This is an interesting thread to me. Would you be so kind as to post a couple of quotations in James' book that are wrong?
James White accused Peter Ruckman in regard of the alteration in the Scripture. James said no evidence, but Dr. Bruce Metzger said yes, the evidence. You see, they contradicted each other during Bruce said James's book is ACCURATE. This means their lies.
 
Darron Steele: If I am not mistaken, that advice you mocked was initially given to you by an educated pastor and moderator.

Perhaps you should not laugh at it so arrogantly.

HP: Darron, you are beside yourself. Where did I mock anything but your single comment that I quoted from YOU, not PL as I remember, or least I thought it was your comment. It was slightly unclear who said it due to mismarked quotation marks. You jump to unwarranted conclusions. I suppose if it suits your purposes to do so, all is well, right?

Darron: Second, you got the name wrong. I am not a supporter of Barack Hussein Obama, but he is a human being and should get the courtesy of not having his name mutilated in scorn -- especially with the unfair connotations.

HP: So an honest mistake of misstating ones name becomes “mutilating in scorn.” My, you have so much Christian charity showing today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tiny Tim, there is no doubt that some KJO suppoters put God into a box as you describe, but not all detractors of the MV can be painted with that brush. With me my main objection is the use of corrupt texts, rejected by the Church for hundreds of years, obviously due to their knowledge that they were exactly as stated, i.e., corrupted, not trustworthy guides of that which had been handed down by the Saints.

Besides, these manuscripts were not buried or lost. They had been kept obviously for many years. They were simply not considered as trustworthy by the Church for copy purposes to the point of them reasonably deciding to simply burn them. Would to God that would have transpired.

 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
My God can have His Word shine through second rate Bibles translated by non-Christian third-rate Translators and written on 4th-class CD (compact disks).
 

antiaging

New Member
Pastor Larry said:
So you admit that the KJV isn't the perfect word of God and has errors in it. You call it a printer's error as if that makes an error more acceptable. Is your God not big enough to get the printers to work correctly? Imagine, he can inspire a word and preserve it for thousands of years, but can't get a skilled tradesmen to put the letters in the right order?

This is a distinction without a difference. It is a convenient way of ignoring the fact that the "Perfect Word of God" was so imperfect that it had to be changed.

They are not revisions. They are simply editions of the English Bible.

There was an error in that they left out some of it. It was the printers, not the translators. Like they left off their work at a place one day and in returning to work they started in the wrong place.
That is not an error with the text.
Alexander Scourby left out about 2 chapters in Chronicles in one of his tape editions. That was his error. Not an error in the text.

The tranlators of the original 1611 version were infiltrated by catholics trying to introduce vaticannus, but guards watching every move prevented them from doing that. Their next try succeeded for a little while. They succeeded in getting the other translators to include the apocrypha in between the Old and New Testament. (It was supposed to be put in there not as inspired scripture, but to acquaint the reader with customs of the times, etc.)
Two of the jesuit conspirators were converted and got saved and they told the puritan translators about their efforts to deceive them.
When this became known, the surviving Puritans, [that were not killed by jesuits] produced the entire 1611 edition, without the apocrypha and without footnotes, in 1655.
Many of the puritan translators and their family members died by accident, dagger, poison or strangulation.

1534 Anglican church established
1534 Jesuit order formed
1545 council of Trent (heretics are anathema--doomed)
1553 Roman catholic queen kills anglican leaders and establishes catholicism
1558 Elizabeth is queen reestablishing anglican church
1560 Reformation sweeps Scotland and they join protestant England
1588 Catholic King Phillip of Spain sends Spanish armada to try to destroy protestant England.
1604 King James authorizes a translation of the bible for England.
1605 The catholic plot to blow up brittish parliament is exposed.

1525 William Tyndale translated the textus receptus into English.
Rome burned him at the stake for his efforts.
Taken from The Attack by Chick

In the past men died to preserve the Word of God. These days thanks to people like Hort and Westcott, men don't believe we have it. Their faith in it is being systematically destroyed.

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Symptoms of the prevelant disease. The falling away from the real faith or apostacy that comes before the reign of the antichrist.

The jesuits are dedicated to destroying the textus receptus. It teaches salvation by faith in Christ. Rome teaches there is no salvation outside the catholic church.
--the Attack
Rome and their associates (whether pretending to be members of other religions or not) are against the KJV bible and are favoring the modern versions.


Note: Don't trust every website that is involved in this controversy.
Rome had a history of lying if it will further the cause of their church.


Take, for example, Eusebius who was an ecclesiastical church historian [catholic] and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg].
In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity" (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).
[I used to have a quote by Jerome that said essentially the same thing.]

The Catholic Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to take it as "truth." St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

God's inspired word, the bible says that liars will go to hell.

So, do you believe protestants that are afraid to lie because it leads to hell;
Or do you believe an orgnization that has advocated lying to further its causes.

Look up mental reservation on google; it's a jesuit doctrine.

Don't trust every website discussing the bible issue; there are real liars out there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
There was an error in that they left out some of it.
So how is that not an error? Can the KJV be the perfect Word of God as you claim with errors? I don't think so. It doesn't matter where the error comes from. All of the errors in manuscripts are "printer's errors" ... made by copyists, the precursor to printers. So that argument fails because it proves too much.

Taken from The Attack by Chick
Speaking of things you should not trust, Jack Chick is right there. I would trust David Cloud over Jack Chick.

These days thanks to people like Hort and Westcott, men don't believe we have it.
I believe we have it, and I will preach from it tomorrow morning.

Their faith in it is being systematically destroyed.
Most of the struggles of faith about the existence of the Word of God from believers comes from the KJVO folks. I hardly ever run into anyone else that has a struggle of faith with where the word of God is. Your faith has been systematically destroyed.

Don't trust every website discussing the bible issue; there are real liars out there.
Previously when I pointed this out, HP accused me of personal attacks. I wonder if he will do the same to you. Twill be interesting to see.
 

ccrobinson

Active Member
James White accused Peter Ruckman in regard of the alteration in the Scripture. James said no evidence, but Dr. Bruce Metzger said yes, the evidence. You see, they contradicted each other during Bruce said James's book is ACCURATE. This means their lies.

Where's the quote I asked for? Can you possibly rewrite the answer without the mangled English? I can't make heads nor tails of what you're trying to tell me.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ccrobinson said:
Where's the quote I asked for? Can you possibly rewrite the answer without the mangled English? I can't make heads nor tails of what you're trying to tell me.

I agree. I looked through the book at the references to Ruckman but I couldn't figure out what Askjo was even saying to figure out what he meant.
 
Originally Posted by antiaging

Don't trust every website discussing the bible issue; there are real liars out there.

CK4: Truer words were never said

HP: I agree. No personal attack is stated by Antiaging , CK4 or myself. It is nice to see that many know the difference between words such as were spoken here and a direct personal attack. It is also good to see that many conduct themselves as they should on a Christian forum in spite of those that should be showing a good example to others but are not. :thumbs:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
antiaging said:
The tranlators of the original 1611 version were infiltrated by catholics trying to introduce vaticannus, but guards watching every move prevented them from doing that. Their next try succeeded for a little while. They succeeded in getting the other translators to include the apocrypha in between the Old and New Testament. (It was supposed to be put in there not as inspired scripture, but to acquaint the reader with customs of the times, etc.)

Proof for your claims?You are out on a broken limb with your assertions.


antiaging said:
Two of the jesuit conspirators were converted and got saved and they told the puritan translators about their efforts to deceive them.
When this became known, the surviving Puritans, [that were not killed by jesuits] produced the entire 1611 edition, without the apocrypha and without footnotes, in 1655.

Your first sentence here is doubtful.Where's your documentation?I hope Chick isn't the only thing you have.

BTW,if an edition came out in 1655 it could not have been the 1611 edition.

antiaging said:
Many of the puritan translators and their family members died by accident, dagger, poison or strangulation.

How about old age?I really don't think you have any proof for your wild statements.




antiaging said:
1525 William Tyndale translated the textus receptus into English.
Rome burned him at the stake for his efforts.

The TR family of texts didn't come ito a recognizable form until 1624.So you are about a century off.Math isn't your forte I guess.


antiaging said:
In the past men died to preserve the Word of God. These days thanks to people like Hort and Westcott, men don't believe we have it. Their faith in it is being systematically destroyed.

You better be careful about defaming W&H.They were godly scholars which you would like to sully.Cease and desist.


antiaging said:
The jesuits are dedicated to destroying the textus receptus. It teaches salvation by faith in Christ.

And I suppose you think any textual family other than the TR's do not teach salvation through faith in Christ alone?Nonsense.

I sincerely doubt that the Jesuits are doing what you think.Besides,how can they destroy what so many have in their possesssion?


antiaging said:
Rome and their associates (whether pretending to be members of other religions or not) are against the KJV bible and are favoring the modern versions.

You are into mystery and intrique;that's for sure!Many favor the MV's over that of a version which basically originated almost 500 years ago.I see no problem (neither does God -- I speak reverently) with His Word being in modern language.You do want people to understand God's Word -- don't you?

antiaging said:
Note: Don't trust every website that is involved in this controversy.

I'll AMEN what Roger already has.


antiaging said:
Don't trust every website discussing the bible issue; there are real liars out there.

You got that right!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a very interesting excerpt worth the read evidently written by J.P. Green, the revising editor, of the LITV (Literal Translation of the Holy Bible) by J.P. Green

From http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/press.htm speaking concerning the LITV translation by J.P. Green
“In the preface, Jay P. Green, Sr., the revising editor, states:
All of these mistranslations may he traced back to the first centuries after the death of Christ, and they may be proven to be the work of heretics who desired to dilute the Scriptures. This is Particularly true of the Gnostic heretics who flourished in the first three centuries, especially in Egypt. Yet here we have men coming along in the twentieth century and reinserting these heresies into what they boldly call a "Holy Bible."

These "heresies," as Green calls them, stem from the reliance of modern day translators on a handful of manuscripts anchored on two Egyptian manuscripts of the fourth century in which verses are altered in order to establish the view that Jesus essentially was not God, but a created god.
One of these old Egyptian manuscripts (the Sinaiticus) actually has in John 1:18, "the only begotten God," making Jesus to be a begotten creature, and therefore not eternally existent in the "express image of God's essence" (Heb. 1:3).
Green further charges:
Many other "cardinal" doctrines of the Scriptures fall victim to this free-wheeling treatment of the words of God....The sinlessness of Christ is contradicted by the handling of Matt. 5:22, where He is made liable to the Judgment in the new versions. And of course He could not be sinless unless He had been born as the first-born Son of a virgin and fathered by the Holy Spirit of God.

The Ascension of Christ back to His place in Heaven is left out in three of the four places where it is affirmed in the Scriptures, or footnotes effectively put it in doubt. The very inerrancy of the Scriptures is constantly denied by the nature of the changes, or put under a cloud of doubts by the footnotes. Many other such like things can be shown to be the effect of the changes made in the new versions (Preface, p.xi).”

 
Last edited by a moderator:

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
These "heresies," as Green calls them, stem from the reliance of modern day translators on a handful of manuscripts anchored on two Egyptian manuscripts of the fourth century in which verses are altered in order to establish the view that Jesus essentially was not God, but a created god.

One of these old Egyptian manuscripts (the Sinaiticus) actually has in John 1:18, "the only begotten God," making Jesus to be a begotten creature, and therefore not eternally existent in the "express image of God's essence" (Heb. 1:3).

And why is this any different than "only begotten son" in John 3:16?

Green further charges:
Many other "cardinal" doctrines of the Scriptures fall victim to this free-wheeling treatment of the words of God....The sinlessness of Christ is contradicted by the handling of Matt. 5:22, where He is made liable to the Judgment in the new versions. And of course He could not be sinless unless He had been born as the first-born Son of a virgin and fathered by the Holy Spirit of God.

I don't see the issue with this. I don't see where Jesus is said to be sinful. Can you help with that?

KJV: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV: But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

a. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother without cause
b. Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt

The Ascension of Christ back to His place in Heaven is left out in three of the four places where it is affirmed in the Scriptures, or footnotes effectively put it in doubt.

Maybe there were those who "put it in" rather than those who "left it out". If it was not in the manuscripts in the 3 places, it is easy to understand how translators would "put it in" to make it consistent. However, that is not true translating methods. If the translators wished to make it doubtful that the ascension of Christ took place, why would they even leave one in? That's just stupid.

The very inerrancy of the Scriptures is constantly denied by the nature of the changes, or put under a cloud of doubts by the footnotes. Many other such like things can be shown to be the effect of the changes made in the new versions (Preface, p.xi).”

Interestingly enough, the KJV also had translators notes in their 1611 version - notes that were important enough to put in there and for them to write about it in the preface yet there were men who chose to take out those inspired words. What about the doubt that THEY caused?
 

dfj

New Member
When Will It End

I really don't suppose that this discussion will ever really end, but I still have hope for the Body of Christ.

You know, Michael Servetus was murdered by professing believers because of a difference in preceptual interpretations of Scripture. The fact that he was burned leads me to believe that the perpetrators did not have the Light either.

Having said this, (only to stress the danger it implies), we, as the Body of Christ really need to reason together.

Please let me ask for just one verse at a time. The one that is the most notable bone of contention.

Which verse are you most concerned about between the KJV and, say, the NIV, (or any other contentious translation)?

This would give us a start as to what really happened and where the fault really lies.

As followers of the risen Christ, we should be able to accomplish at least this!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top