KJV and the modern versions

[Askjo]

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

In these latter time apostate times before antichrist is revealed many will depart from the faith.
Since the faith of Christianity is built on God's Word, that must mean many will depart from God's Word.

We have had God's Word in the KJV bible for centuries. Now men are departing from it to altered bible versions.

Suppose appostacy is happening; don't you think altered bibles would be the most popular in apostate times?

It seems to me the altered versions will increase in popularity the closer we get to the end.

Absolutely true! Many scholars and professors left Consistently Christian method and join naturalistic method in many Bible colleges. They left their Bible Faith.

See blue above -- That is true because many sources said so. History agrees with that.

 

[tinytim]

True, many false teachers are telling us to put our faith in a Book...

But our true faith should be in the Author of the Book... God.

Worshipping a book is not true faith, and I see a lot of apostates making a book equal to God... like it is the 4th person in the Trinity...

One such person used to be on here, claimed the KJV was God.. based on John 1:1

Our faith should be in Christ.. not a version of the Bible.
The first church didn't have the NT... and thousands were added daily.

Why?
They didn't worship the scriptures... they worshipped the author of the scriptures.

 

[Askjo]

By 'altered Bibles' you mean translations which are not KJV ( in its various forms).MV's are different from the KJV and are more popular because of increased accuracy and readibility.It's not at all a sign of apostasy.That is just sinful on your part to even suggest such a stupid connection.

When you deny the apostasy, you deny the warning from the Bible.

Instead of calling them 'altered versions' how about calling them Modern Versions?Most of them are faithful and fine works of scholarship.Their increasing popularity has absolutely nothing to do with people rejecting the Gospel.

Faithful? Scholarship? You are interested in scholarship more than the Bible Faith. The scholarship does nothing with the word, “faithful.” An example is that Dr. Bruce Metzger was a scholar. Not only his scholarship, but he was an unbeliever. Dr. Metzger admitted the alteration in the Scriptures.

 

[Askjo]

ROTFL - Then so did the KJV translators. "Lucifer" was the translation from the Latin. It is not in the original Hebrew. The word "halal" is not a proper name. Might want to read my post a bit back explaining the truth of the translation.

See red – you are right. See blue - you are wrong.

Morning Star in Latin? No! The Hebrew word is helel. It means “shining one” or “Lucifer.” This word, Lucifer, is a good translation for helel. Helel came from halal. Helel means ‘to shine.” Halal means to shine. “To shine” does not mean “morning star.” Lucifer means “light bearer.”

“Morning star” is an interpretation and not a translation. This is wrong. Morning in Hebrew is boger. Star in Hebrew is kokav. Lucifer in the KJV came from Hebrew word, helel. It means “light bearer.” Lucifer in Latin means “light bearer” in Hebrew. Lucifer is a proper translation for the Hebrew word. Morning star is a false translation.

 

[annsni]

See red – you are right. See blue - you are wrong.

Morning Star in Latin? No! The Hebrew word is helel. It means “shining one” or “Lucifer.” This word, Lucifer, is a good translation for helel. Helel came from halal. Helel means ‘to shine.” Halal means to shine. “To shine” does not mean “morning star.” Lucifer means “light bearer.”

“Morning star” is an interpretation and not a translation. This is wrong. Morning in Hebrew is boger. Star in Hebrew is kokav. Lucifer in the KJV came from Hebrew word, helel. It means “light bearer.” Lucifer in Latin means “light bearer” in Hebrew. Lucifer is a proper translation for the Hebrew word. Morning star is a false translation.

Can you show me another case of "halal" being used as a name for Satan anywhere in Hebrew literature?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here are some word counts (a vain activity proving nothing):

0 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the Latin Vulgate 0438
284 - number if tunes 'Iesu' appears in the Latin Vulgate 0438
0 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the KJV1611 Edition
981 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the KJV1769 edition
---- - e-sword.com
942 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the KJV1769 edition
---- - crosswalk.com
1217 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the NIV
--- - crosswalk.com

Askjo's questions, rephrased for this case:

When God said, "Jesus", the Greek text said, "Jesus." The KJV e-sword.com said, "Jesus." WHO TOLD YOU to change Jesus to He? WHO TOLD KJV crosswalk.com edition TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?


Ed's question:
What happened to the 39 occurrences of 'Jesus'?
Was the 39 taken from e-sword to crosswalk?
Was the 39 added from crosswalk to e-sword.

Common truth frequently missed: the e-sword KJV1769 was not made from the crosswalk KJV1769 nor was the crosswalk KJV1769 made from the e-sword KJV1769 - both the e-sword version of the KJV1769 and the crosswalk version of the KJV1769 were made from one or more KJV1769 Versions or other Bible sources.

 

[Ed Edwards]

What I find really interesting is the fact that the cults that have come and go have not been based on modern versions but the KJV. How can someone say that those who leave the faith do so because of the modern versions when those who have been so against God and what His Word teaches have done so using the KJV? David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. have all stood on the KJV. Even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that I have spoken to have used the KJV. So the KJV does not guarantee that one will be faithful to God.

Amen! Sister Annsni -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:


All the major schisms of Protestantism in the 19th
Century (1801-1900) used the KJVs:

1. Christian Science
2. Mormanism
3. Jehovah's Witnesses
4. Adventism

 

[Pastor Larry]

Believe whatever you like.
I believe:

Belief is irrelevant. Facts and truth are what is relevant. You may believe what you want. It will not make you right.

Barry Burton is not a liar.

He is a proven liar and it has been demonstrated.

The KJV is God's preserved Word; it is infallible [when you understand it correctly]

I agree.

The KJV bible, being God's inspired Word, I use it as the measure to deterimine what is true and what is not true.

I agree. You can use the KJV, the NASB, the NIV or one of a number of other versions of God's inspired Word.

The Alexandrian texts, vaticannus and sinaiticus, (property of the vatican) are corrupted texts from one city, Alexandria, Egypt; a hotbed of gnostic heresy for centuries.

This is false. You believing it won't make it true, even if you believe it really hard.

I will believe whatever God leads me to believe; I pray to Him to control what I believe and know.

God will never lead you to believe against his Word, and the fact that you are doing that shows that your current belief is not from God.

I will believe whatever I like.

I think this is true, as compared to your previous statement about believing whatever God leads you to believe. You have chosen to make your own mind the test rather than the Word of God. You are submitting the Word to your mind, rather than your mind to the Word.

 

[Nicholas25]

Let's say that the "KJV Only" people are right and the King James Version is the only true word of God. That does not mean that those who do not use it are unsaved or do not love the Lord Jesus. I live in the tip of Northeast, TN. 9 out of 10 churches in my area use the KJV exclusively. I teach out of it because it's what my church uses, but I do not feel convicted about using other versions. We are saved by grace through faith, not grace through faith and the KJV. I do not mean that to be disrespectful or anything, but the Lord is concerned with the condition of our heart and our faith in him. Would it be better for a believer to be KJV Only, but not bear the same fruits in all other ways that somone who used the Holman Christian Standard Bible does? This is a topic that people are passionate about!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Let's say that the "KJV Only" people are right and the King James Version is the only true word of God.

Let's not say that so we don't get involved in false teaching.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Can you show me another case of "halal" being used as a name for Satan anywhere in Hebrew literature?

GE:
Good explanation. Therefore I think you may be able to help me on this one: I have noticed 'allah' in hebrew means 'up / high'. I don't know anything about Hebrew; so is it possible this is the word Islam gets its 'name' for 'God' from?

 

[antiaging]

Belief is irrelevant. Facts and truth are what is relevant. You may believe what you want. It will not make you right.

He is a proven liar and it has been demonstrated.

I agree.

I agree. You can use the KJV, the NASB, the NIV or one of a number of other versions of God's inspired Word.

This is false. You believing it won't make it true, even if you believe it really hard.

God will never lead you to believe against his Word, and the fact that you are doing that shows that your current belief is not from God.

I think this is true, as compared to your previous statement about believing whatever God leads you to believe. You have chosen to make your own mind the test rather than the Word of God. You are submitting the Word to your mind, rather than your mind to the Word.

My educational background is science. I have a degree in physics.
In science truth is experimentally determined before accepted.
I know something about truth.
If you have a book supposed to be by an author, it must be the words that he wrote.
You can't have [over] 200 bible versions (or whatever the number is) that say 200 different things and they all claim to be the words of the same authors.
If it is changed, then it is not their words.
This idea that any version is inspired, when they certainly say different things in the same places, is absurd.
It makes me wonder if the people saying that know what truth is.
Since the versions say different things, at the same scriptures, they cannot all be the inspired words of the original authors.
Some people need to think about what they are saying.

If God's Word is preserved, and it is, then which bible is it?
[They say different things; they cannot all be it.]

Scientifically speaking:
example: The bible that is God's true Word will have the gospel of Matthew. --those are Matthew's preserved words.
Another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 5% changes.
Another bible might have the gospel fo Matthew with 15% changes.
And another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 3% changes.

 

[tinytim]

My educational background is science. I have a degree in physics.
In science truth is experimentally determined before accepted.
I know something about truth.
If you have a book supposed to be by an author, it must be the words that he wrote.
You can't have [over] 200 bible versions (or whatever the number is) that say 200 different things and they all claim to be the words of the same authors.
If it is changed, then it is not their words.
This idea that any version is inspired, when they certainly say different things in the same places, is absurd.
It makes me wonder if the people saying that know what truth is.
Since the versions say different things, at the same scriptures, they cannot all be the inspired words of the original authors.
Some people need to think about what they are saying.

If God's Word is preserved, and it is, then which bible is it?
[They say different things; they cannot all be it.]

Scientifically speaking:
example: The bible that is God's true Word will have the gospel of Matthew. --those are Matthew's preserved words.
Another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 5% changes.
Another bible might have the gospel fo Matthew with 15% changes.
And another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 3% changes.

Please apply your logic to the myriads of different KJVs...

Which one is the real KJV.. will the real KJV stand up...

1611
1769
1873

There are 3 that differ from each other...
Using your logic, only one must be the real KJV...
Which one?

 

[tinytim]

Can you show me another case of "halal" being used as a name for Satan anywhere in Hebrew literature?

This is the crux of the issue..

Lucifer is a description.. not a name.

And since Christ is the true one that can be called morning star, Satan has tried to imitate him, by appearing to be an angel of light....

Thus we get the name Lucifer...

It would be like me saying that both God and Lucifer are spiritual beings... It is true, but "spiritual being" is not Satan's name...

The Bible says God is Love... That doesn't mean that God's name is "L-O-V-E"

It describes God.

In the same way "Lucifer" describes Satan... it is related to the fact that Satan is an angel of light.

 

[Rippon]

And since Christ is the true one that can be called morning star, Satan has tried to imitate him, by appearing to be an angel of light....

it is related to the fact that Satan is an angel of light.

Satan was an angel of light.But he also tries to appear as an angel of light.

 

[Pastor Larry]

My educational background is science. I have a degree in physics.

Good, so you should be able to see through the KJVO nonsense.

In science truth is experimentally determined before accepted.

So by what experiment did you determine that the KJV is the only Word of God?

I know something about truth.

Perhaps, but you are not demonstrating that here.

If you have a book supposed to be by an author, it must be the words that he wrote.
You can't have [over] 200 bible versions (or whatever the number is) that say 200 different things and they all claim to be the words of the same authors.
If it is changed, then it is not their words.

That is false when it comes to translation. I just got done working with a translator this past week. When they repeated what I said in another language, they were giving my words. On occasion, the translator repeated my words twice, giving the second time in a different way that was more clear. So which was my words? All three were.

This idea that any version is inspired, when they certainly say different things in the same places, is absurd.

It is only absurd to you because you don't understand the issues.

Some people need to think about what they are saying.

I agree. You are not thinking about what you are saying.

If God's Word is preserved, and it is, then which bible is it?
[They say different things; they cannot all be it.]

First, the KJV doesn't say the same thing. Even within the KJV there are differences so you must choose which KJV is the word of God, and furthermore, since the gospels do not all say the same thing about Christ, you must choose which gospel actually records the words of Christ and which are wrong ... or you must accept an alternative belief about inspiration. The latter is the better approach.

Any Bible which is faithfully translated is the Word of God.

Scientifically speaking:

I think we ought to speak theologically.

example: The bible that is God's true Word will have the gospel of Matthew. --those are Matthew's preserved words.
Another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 5% changes.
Another bible might have the gospel fo Matthew with 15% changes.
And another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 3% changes.

But given that we do not have Matthew's actual writing, God has preserved Matthew's gospel for us through copies and translations which accurately preserve Matthew's words for us. In your scenario, you have no way to determine which is "Matthew's preserved words" in your belief. You have simply guessed. And in so doing you have attacked the Word of God.

 

[rbell]

Let's say that the "KJV Only" people are right and the King James Version is the only true word of God. That does not mean that those who do not use it are unsaved or do not love the Lord Jesus. I live in the tip of Northeast, TN. 9 out of 10 churches in my area use the KJV exclusively. I teach out of it because it's what my church uses, but I do not feel convicted about using other versions. We are saved by grace through faith, not grace through faith and the KJV. I do not mean that to be disrespectful or anything, but the Lord is concerned with the condition of our heart and our faith in him. Would it be better for a believer to be KJV Only, but not bear the same fruits in all other ways that somone who used the Holman Christian Standard Bible does? This is a topic that people are passionate about!

The problem is, there are people here, like Antiaging, who do just what you describe in the first of your paragraph.

 

[tinytim]

Satan was an angel of light.But he also tries to appear as an angel of light.

I sit corrected... :laugh: :thumbs: That's what I meant.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TinyTim: Which one is the real KJV.. will the real KJV stand up...

1611
1769
1873

HP: This notion has been raised by several not just TinyTim. Let's try and apply some common sense and logic to all of our positions.

In all honesty, do the changes between these editions come close to the changes, omissions, and complete thought changes that occur in what some here like to denote as the ‘modern versions' following questionable discarderd texts as best, texts that have not been used before and for obvious good reasons? Do all three of these editions of the KJV follow the same basic text, or did one or more than one of them introduce differing texts to be used in their translation?

 

[annsni]

GE:
Good explanation. Therefore I think you may be able to help me on this one: I have noticed 'allah' in hebrew means 'up / high'. I don't know anything about Hebrew; so is it possible this is the word Islam gets its 'name' for 'God' from?

Actually, it's not "allah" but "alah" and it's not used to describe God at all. I don't know if Islam used this word to come up with their name for God but it seems kind of silly since it's not even an attribute of Jehovah.