KJV and the modern versions

[Amy.G]

HP: Would it suffice to tell you that my wife reads the NKJV and tells me she likes it?

Well....that makes me feel better. :thumbs:

Your wife is one smart cookie!

 

[annsni]

I see something. Mary worship is a form of idol worship.
You may only worship God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If you worship anything else or anyone else it is a sin; idolatry.
One of those quotes said he thought that Jesus worship is equal to Mary Worship.
Idolatry/blasphemy

The quote was:

I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.

I see "very much in common in their causes and their results" - not that they are equal. I'd actually like to see the entire passage in context - not a few

Look what the Hort and Westcott text did to this man that was involved in the NASV version:

Dr. Frank Logsdon was co-founder of The New American Standard Version. As people begin confronting Dr. Logsdon on some the NASV's serious omissions and errors. He re-examined the evidence and this was his verdict:


"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . I wrote the format . . . I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; . . . its wrong, terribly wrong; its frighteningly wrong . . .The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"

Dr. Frank Logsdon
Co-founder, New American Standard Version
http://www.av1611.org/attack.html

Again, I'd like to see this quote on something other than a KJVO site that attacks modern versions. I'd also like to see the "..." sections to see the entire quote in context. It's easy to take out what doesn't agree with an agenda by putting in "...". So if you can help me with that, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Did the man involved in the NASV honestly say that? If he did, why do the moderators of this list suppress the truth? If not, disprove what antiaging quoted. I for one would like to know the truth, and it would have some merit as to the trustworthiness of the NASV, would it not? If not why not?

 

[rbell]

Did the man involved in the NASV honestly say that? If he did, why do the moderators of this list suppress the truth? If not, disprove what antiaging quoted. I for one would like to know the truth, and it would have some merit as to the trustworthiness of the NASV, would it not? If not why not?

If you'll notice, the snakes that "quoted" Dr. Logsdon didn't bother putting sources. That's what those idiots at av1611.org do. They have no principles, no shame, and no intelligence. You can tell when they're lying...their lips move.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: Again, I'd like to see this quote on something other than a KJVO site that attacks modern versions. I'd also like to see the "..." sections to see the entire quote in context. It's easy to take out what doesn't agree with an agenda by putting in "...". So if you can help me with that, I'd appreciate it.

HP: Then call upon the moderator(s) that deleted this quote to put it back up so the validity of it can be established, once for all. It is simply wrong to delete such an important quote by a man directly involved in the NASV. It makes a mockery out of true debate to start deleting if something undesirable to a particular side surfaces. Let the reader and fair debate decide if or if not it is worthy of consideration.

Arbitrary censorship has no place in fair debate.

PS: It appears that it has been re-posted. THANK YOU!

 

[rbell]

HP: Then call upon the moderator(s) that deleted this quote to put it back up so the validity of it can be established, once for all. It is simply wrong to delete such an important quote by a man directly involved in the NASV. It makes a mockery out of true debate to start deleting if something undesirable to a particular side surfaces. Let the reader and fair debate decide if or if not it is worthy of consideration.

Arbitrary censorship has no place in fair debate.

There is no quote. You will not find any documentation of it. It doesn't exist. And given the propensity to lie that snakes such as av1611.org engage in, there's no sense even repeating it.

The origins of the Logsdon quote seem to come back to Gail Riplinger...another paragon of virtue.

Since these people tend to tell "facts" to each other, then quote each other as "sources," I feel it safe to say the whole bunch is just gossip-mongering.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rbell: There is no quote. You will not find any documentation of it. It doesn't exist. And given the propensity to lie that snakes such as av1611.org engage in, there's no sense even repeating it.

The origins of the Logsdon quote seem to come back to Gail Riplinger...another paragon of virtue.

Since these people tend to tell "facts" to each other, then quote each other as "sources," I feel it safe to say the whole bunch is just gossip-mongering.

HP: So it is your expressed opinion, to the point of calling all that claim that letter was written by Dr. Frank Logsdon, that it is a complete lie, a forgery complied by snakes, the whole lot of them just gossip-mongering individuals?

Go ahead and speak your whole mind on the issue. I for one want to know exactly how you feel. No need to mince words, just give it to us straight.

Is that all you have or is there more?

 

[rbell]

HP: So it is your expressed opinion, to the point of calling all that claim that letter was written by Dr. Frank Logsdon, that it is a complete lie, a forgery complied by snakes, the whole lot of them just gossip-mongering individuals?

Go ahead and speak your whole mind on the issue. I for one want to know exactly how you feel. No need to mince words, just give it to us straight.

Is that all you have or is there more?

Then find a source. (Hint: you won't)

There isn't one.

And...if you use anything av1611.org puts out...you lack discernment.

Clear enough?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rbell: Then find a source. (Hint: you won't)

There isn't one.

And...if you use anything av1611.org puts out...you lack discernment.

Clear enough?

HP: Some things indeed do appear to be clear. So you do not know the truth but are willing to make such remarks, remarks that could very well slander another brother and or sister in the Lord? The burden of proof lies on you, not me, to prove your remarks true. You are the one making the allegations, not I. I have not stated whether or not I believe it or not.

Certainly God will judge all others for what they say, but why should one counter with remarks, slander, and allegations that they themselves cannot prove? How is that using wisdom or exercising Christian charity?

 

[rbell]

HP: Some things indeed do appear to be clear. So you do not know the truth but are willing to make such remarks, remarks that could very well slander another brother and or sister in the Lord? The burden of proof lies on you, not me, to prove your remarks true. You are the one making the allegations, not I. I have not stated whether or not I believe it or not.

Certainly God will judge all others for what they say, but why should one counter with remarks, slander, and allegations that they themselves cannot prove? How is that using wisdom or exercising Christian charity?

Yep, it's clear, OK...

I've looked for this quote before. It's not out there.

Besides, I've shown many times on here that av1611.org is full of half truths, slander and gossip, and outright lies. Read their latrine about music for more.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rbell: And...if you use anything av1611.org puts out...you lack discernment.

HP: First, I know nothing about that group and have not accessed that web site intentionally that I know of. There is no proof that that is where the quote came from that I have seen, and even if it did it does not automatically prove, upon that grounds, that the comment is false.

You show a shocking bias in your remarks. I suppose that if the web site said that God is a God of love and I believed it, it would prove that I lacked discernment acording to you. I have never heard such unsupported and unreasobale bias even from the KJVO camp, a member of which I am NOT.

 

[Darron Steele]

Heavenly Pilgrim: it is not `personal attacks' to describe a website full of half-truths, lies, and inaccuracies as just what it is.

Describing a thief as someone who steals things is not a personal attack -- it is describing accuracy.

To describe a liar as someone who cannot be relied on to tell the truth is not a personal attack -- it is describing accuracy.

To describe a poorly researched and unreliable website or book as a website or book that is unreliable is not a personal attack -- it is describing accuracy.

About a book or a website that is inaccurate from recklessness and is intentionally deceptive because its makers think the cause makes that okay -- describing it as full of inaccuracies, important omissions, and lies is not a personal attack. It is just an accurate statement.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: Heavenly Pilgrim: it is not `personal attacks' to describe a website full of half-truths, lies, and inaccuracies as just what it is.

Describing a thief as someone who steals things is not a personal attack -- it is describing accuracy.

To describe a liar as someone who cannot be relied on to tell the truth is not a personal attack -- it is describing accuracy.

To describe a poorly researched and unreliable website or book as a website or book that is unreliable is not a personal attack -- it is describing accuracy.

About a book or a website that is inaccurate from recklessness and is intentionally deceptive because its makers think the cause makes that okay -- describing it as full of inaccuracies, important omissions, and lies is not a personal attack. It is just an accurate statement.

HP: Darron, again I know nothing about that web site. I am simply saying prove it. You as well have made disparaging remarks showing your bias without proof. Point us to a definite lie that you can prove and then we can start using wisdom to discern the truth. Until then I see your remarks as biased without supportive evidence.

 

[Darron Steele]

I will start with the claim I just looked at which claims that the KJV is the easiest translation to read.

I am a former elementary school student read the KJV. I did not find it nearly as readable as the ICB I got a short time later.

It is an obvious inaccuracy to claim that the KJV is easier to understand than most modern translations into English.

As far as deceptiveness: it contains articles by Gail Riplinger. Gail Riplinger used virtually any means she could think of to advance her premise. For instance, one of her quotes of John Burgon used ellipses to make a sentence out of clauses HUNDREDS of pages apart and in a different order. That is outright deceptiveness to try to make someone appear to say something he did not.

In another act, she alleged that D. A. Carson thought only 10% of Byzantine text readings were late, when in fact D. A. Carson was reporting that Edward Hills thought only 10% of the Byzantine text readings were late. Now, this could simply be from outright carelessness in research, but given her use of deceptive tactics elsewhere, it is suspicious.

Any site which would use her as a resource has discernment problems.

Oh, and the so-called "Ballad of a Bible Corrector" is a piece of trash poetry very much beneath polite secular society, let alone becoming of Christians.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DS: I am a former elementary school student read the KJV.

HP: I am having trouble with the broken English used. Could you restate this so as to better understand what you said? Thanks.

 

[Darron Steele]

HP: I am having trouble with the broken English used. Could you restate this so as to better understand what you said? Thanks.

Typo correction: I am a former elementary school student who read the KJV.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DS: It is an obvious inaccuracy to claim that the KJV is easier to understand than most modern translations into English.

HP: Be fair now. Regardless of what you have found true for yourself is no absolute proof that such is the case for all others, now is it? I believe we could find a few passages or words in any translation that would be hard to understand and others that even misrepresent what God actually said. I have seen list of passages in which the KJV and the NIV are compared in which the KJV is much simpler in many instances. Simply being easier to read is again very subjective. One has as much right to say that they have found one easier to read than the other does to say something different. Certainly a remark by either one would not constitute a lie on the part of the other. Disagreement? Certainly, but that is no reason to impinge ones motives with the personal attack of calling the other a liar. Lying is a moral issue, opinions are something other than that.

DS: As far as deceptiveness: it contains articles by Gail Riplinger. Gail Riplinger used virtually any means she could think of to advance her premise. For instance, one of her quotes of John Burgon used ellipses to make a sentence out of clauses HUNDREDS of pages apart and in a different order. That is outright deceptiveness to try to make someone appear to say something he did not.

HP:I know knothing of Gail Riplinger one way or the other, but if you are going to mention and charge her with deceptiveness directly, you owe it to fairness to establish your remarks with facts so that the listener can see for themselves the validity of your claim. I am not saying she did not do it, I am saying show us the quotes if you are going to tell us she was being deceptive.

DC: In another act, she alleged that D. A. Carson thought only 10% of Byzantine text readings were late, when in fact D. A. Carson was reporting that Edward Hills thought only 10% of the Byzantine text readings were late. Now, this could simply be from outright carelessness in research, but given her use of deceptive tactics elsewhere, it is suspicious.

HP: Can you document anything for us? Even if the allegations are true, that in and of itself is no cause for suspicion, for you yourself say that it could be from careless research, and may I add a typo, someone else helping her that made an honest mistake or any number of other things. Possibly she has already edited it for all that matters. I simply do not know. Just remember, God is going to judge us as we judge others. I certainly desire mercy, not exacted justice.

DS: Any site which would use her as a resource has discernment problems.

HP: Here again goes the bias and slander machine. You have not established one intentional error, let alone any lies or deceptive practices. Your bias is showing at this point in this debate, not your knowledge of the individuals or sites in question. I am again NOT saying I support one site mentioned, or any thing that anyone mentioned thus far. I am simply pointing out the tactics we can all fall prey to if we are not careful.

DS: Oh, and the so-called "Ballad of a Bible Corrector" is a piece of trash poetry very much beneath polite secular society, let alone becoming of Christians.

HP: Sorry, I know nothing about this poetry, but with the knowledge of your tactics thus far in this debate to malign the other side without clear supportive evidence,and charges that would not stand up in any court of law, anything you say at this point is automatically suspect as far as I am concerned.

I am simply trying to be objective in this matter.

 

[Darron Steele]

About HeavenlyPilgrim's questions about av1611.org:

Oh, and the so-called "Ballad of a Bible Corrector" is a piece of trash poetry very much beneath polite secular society, let alone becoming of Christians.

...

HP: Sorry, I know nothing about this poetry, but with the knowledge of your tactics thus far in this debate to malign the other side without clear supportive evidence,and charges that would not stand up in any court of law, anything you say at this point is automatically suspect as far as I am concerned.

HP: I am going to be blunt.

YOU are the one who is insistent on not doing any research. Yet, YOU insist that you will continue to believe what YOU have decided to.

YOU insist that WE WHO HAVE DONE RESEARCH ourselves substantiate what we report. I do not have time for this; the research is from a lengthy project I have not worked on in several years. I am probably not the only person who does not have time for this nonsense.

You have indicated that you are biased. You have indicated that you do not accept that ancient manuscripts are more reliable. You have indicated that you will continue to trust the KJV as most reliable. You have shown no indication that even after we spend a whole bunch of time hunting old research and outlining it to you, that you will pay it any heed. You will continue to claim that material which agrees with your presuppositions does not deserve to be criticized. I see no indication that after we waste that time, you will accept such substantiation.

YOU ARE NOT EVEN WILLING TO GO LOOK AT THE SITE WHERE THAT BALLAD IS JUST ONE LINK AWAY. DO SOME RESEARCH YOURSELF.

Quit bothering us with your endless demands for `substantiations' -- while you do not show any signs of even going to a website you are objecting to reports about. DO SOMETHING YOURSELF. Then you might warrant being taken seriously in debates.

 

[dfj]

Why We Study

We study for many reasons. One is to Glorify God in His Word. Some study as a form of Worship.

The Word commands us to study for practical reasons: 2 Tim 2:15

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth".

There is another reason, and that is to search the depths of meaning. Below is an example of the range and depth of meaning in a verse:

Rom 8:28, A Case Study

Read each Translation and compare the wordings. How many different concepts can you find and do they agree generally with the rest of Scripture?

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. KJV

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. NIV

And we know that all things work together for the good to those who love God, who have been called according to his purpose. NIV Margin

And we know that in all things God works together with those who love Him to bring about what is good, who have been called according to his purpose. NIV Margin

We are assured and know that [God being a partner in their labor] all things work together and are [fitting into a plan] for good to and for those who love God and are called according to His design and purpose. AMP

We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. RSV

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. NAS

And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, (even) to them that are called according to (his) purpose. ASV

And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. Douay Rheims

And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose; Young's Literal Translation

In an attempt to understand the workings of the LORD, are any of these Translated verses not of God?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: I am going to be blunt.

HP: And blunt you were…… but as I thought, all accusation and no offer of any real substance.

It would seem the charitable thing for any and all of us as believers to do, if we are going to malign the character of others, provide the facts at the time you do so. The burden of proof lies on the one making the accusations, not the others to go prove those accusations false or otherwise. Sorry Darron, your tactics are less than honorable in any meaningful debate.

If I ever use such tactics, please bring it to the attention of the list and myself. Again, I am NOT speaking of saying that when I or another states their diagreement with someone that we have to document our disagreement, but rather when we offer personal attacks maligning their character, that is when evidence needs to be set forth in clearest terms.