KJV vs. modern Bible Versons

Rockfort, I know you don't agree with them, but do you always have to attack them with name calling. It just makes me wonder if that is the way Christ would handle the situation. I know I'm no moderator here, but we would all do well to think about what we are posting and ask ourselves if this is the christian thing to say.
Your comment would have been a real good one, had you not added that last comma and word.

God speed.

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

Livin'intheword...... Thank you.

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

I spelled you'r name wrong.....that is the edit you see on my post.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by livin'intheword:
Just a little FYI for those who are still stuck on the idea that the KJV isn't the only one that should be used. Here are a few cases where modern versons of the Bible have taken the word of God and chopped it up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear litw:

You have successfully stood up a strawman and burned him down. Most MV users would agree that the TEV/GNB is nto a suitable translation. However, as has been shown over and over again, the dependable MVs (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV) contain all of the essential doctrines of the faith in a multiplicity of verses. Many of the criticisms you have directed at MVs via the GNB can be redirected at the KJV in particualr verses.

 

livin in the word has not been living in the word. If he had been, then he would not be continuing to espouse such foolishness. These verses have all long been answered. I don't know of anyone here who claims that the GNB is a good translation. But to continue to spout these lies and misrepresentations is a sign that he needs to spend more time living in the word. A little understanding of language wouldn't hurt either.

 

livin'intheword said:

Just a little FYI for those who are still stuck on the idea that the KJV isn't the only one that should be used. Here are a few cases where modern versons of the Bible have taken the word of God and chopped it up.

Oh, dear, I've never seen any of these arguments before! I'm going to have to start thinking this through all over again!

 

&lt; Look guys, don't attack me, attack those who wrote those versons. &gt;

Request denied.

&lt; The Bible says that no man come to the father but through Chrit. &gt;

Who or what is "Chrit?"

&lt; Makes you think that one over huh? &gt;

[vulgarity removed]

&lt; If the same people, gays and lesbians wrote the NIV, also wrote the NKJV &gt;

And if a pervert and imposter like Jimmy 'authorized' his own egotistical translation, how does that compare?

&lt; ...I'd be thinking my reading choice over again. &gt;

Then do so.

&lt; My qestion, is it out place to just delete part of the word of God we don't feel belongs there? &gt;

Good question. Do you delete Mark 16:17-18?-- do you speak with other tongues, pick up snakes, cast out demons, heal the sick by laying hands upon them...? Or do you defy that the JimmyBible's inclusion of these verses is correct?

&lt; Once you dull your sword my Brothers, it makes the battle that much harder. &gt;

Evidently you should know. Your sword couldn't cut a maple leaf in November.

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

&lt; Rockfort, I know you don't agree with them, but do you always have to attack them with name calling. &gt;

No, not always..

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by livin'intheword:
Pastor Larry hasn't been reading all the way through posts either. If he had been, he woould have seen the Livin' is a she. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, missed your name ... sorry. When you have seen this stuff as many times as most of us here have, you browse through it briefly. As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun and these "illustrations" of "error," are vanity at best.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have not copied one lie or misrepresentaion. Not one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOu have copied many. Every verse you have cited is clearly explained in other places. Most of them stem from a lack of understanding of translation and textual variants. They have been answered in numerous places on this board and others. You have so far chosen not to do the homework on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>they have misrepresented our Lord and the need for his Blood as a means of Salvation. Nor that they allowed the input of Gay and lesbians in the traslation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Three direct examples of lies. 1) They have not misrepresented our Lord; 2) they have not misrepresented the need for his blood in salvation; and 3) there were no open gays or lesbians in on the translation. You are parroting lies that other people have told.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But now that you've gotten all worked up looking down your nose at me, maybe this time you'll readmy post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not worked up and I am not looking down my nose at you. I am correcting false statement that you have made.

The most important problem is simply this: you have shown that these versions are different; You have not shown that the KJV is the standard to judge all others by. I will ask you the same thing I have asked others yet no one has answered it yet. Perhaps you will answer it: Which verse identifies the KJV as the perfect Word of God?

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

livin'intheword said:

Look guys, don't attack me, attack those who wrote those versons.

Why? Unlike KJV-onlyism, those who wrote those versions have borne good fruit.

Seems to me that when you take the Blood of the Lamb out of salvation, You have nothing.

It's a good thing that "the modern Bible versions" (which for some reason the KJV zealots all want to lump into a huge homogenous mass) haven't done this, then, isn't it?

Oh Chris, did you know that the "scholars" who had participated in the transaltion of the NKJV, of them NINE participated in the NIV translation?

So what?

Makes you think that one over huh? If the same people, gays and lesbians wrote the NIV,

IF they did, it might be cause for concern. As it is, this is merely Yet Another KJV-Only Fairy Tale that has been answered here over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over . . .

 

What I don't understand is why someone would want a version of the Bible that requires that one first have an exceptional grasp of the language it is written in ie. English.. Or that requires that you be a scholar of translations to understand where the version you're reading comes from. IMHO God seemed happy with the KJV for nearly 400 years. I know that there have been others early on though we still have the KJV. In the time reference of centuries the NIV NASB RSV GND GNFMM et al. are new and overly influnced by the translators to make a better Bible. Thats like making a better God. And I know that it only takes a fifth grade education to understand the KJV. Less if its spoken to you. BTW when did we abondon the Holy Spirits Revelation of the word to the believer? I Questioned my wife on this. She was a methodist when we married and was saved not long after our marrige. Anyway I asked her about reading the Bible and such. Her answwer was that before she was save they were just words now they mean somthing. I digress. Back to point if you like all these perverted versions fine thats between you and Almighty God why are all of us who stick to the KJV considered idots? We are portrayed as ignorant small minded relics fo a by gone era. I'm here to tell you this again IMHO it wasn't broke until man tried to fix it. And yes I feel that the best way to reach other langusges would be to translate the KJV into language x. Also I don't expect to change anyone mind on this. It's one of those either you is or you ain't things.

Pleaaasee don't approach us KJV'ers like we are defective or something.

 

Brian said:

What I don't understand is why someone would want a version of the Bible that requires that one first have an exceptional grasp of the language it is written in ie. English.

I don't. I like the plain, straightforward English of my NASB.

None of this posy-sniffing, poetry-reading, sissy-boy KJV English for me, thanks.

IMHO God seemed happy with the KJV for nearly 400 years.

Wasn't he happy with what we had before then? If so, who gave James I the authority to mess with it?

These arguments from tradition cut both ways.

BTW when did we abondon the Holy Spirits Revelation of the word to the believer?

Never. What does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

Back to point if you like all these perverted versions fine thats between you and Almighty God

Good. Please tell the KJV zealots to stop arguing about it then, because if my NASB is between me and God, it's no business of theirs.

Pleaaasee don't approach us KJV'ers like we are defective or something.

How about approaching you like you're intellectually dishonest? The KJV-only nonsense is fueled by logical fallacies and errors of history, fact, and theology.

 

Uh where did that plain old stait forward English come from anyway?

 

BTW Ransome I looked up heretic in the Websters online and in the realm of Baptistry I don't fit the definition.

1.One who holds to a heresy, one who believes some doctrine contrary to the established faith or prevailing religion.

2. (roman catholic church) One who having made a profession of Christian belief, deliberately and pertinaciously refuses to believe one or more of the articles of faith "determined by the authority fo the universal church"

USAGE: A heretic is one whose errors are doctrinal, and usually of a malignant character, tending to subvert the true faith.

Just food for thought. On a similar thread you called me a heretic because I beleive that the KJV is a true Bible and for me THE true Bible.
done

 

Brian said:

Uh where did that plain old stait forward English come from anyway?

Like all language, it's a social convention.