William and Myself

[Deacon]

How can I Expose and rebuke and exhort and correct if I cant Identify certain Frauds and blatent attacks on all that has been said so far in order to keep it fair? just bleep them out? Thanx and God bless

Do in with a spirit of gentleness and grace as we have been instructed in Galatians.

"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.
Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ."

Of course, this works both ways.

Rob

 

[Phillip]

Rob, thanks for answering. Good advice for both sides.

William you may point out what you think are problems with manuscripts, but please reread the rules if you have a question. Just as you are not allowed to call an MV or Alexandrian manuscript corrupt, then the other side certainly may not call a King James something bad.

I'm not the rule maker, just the enforcer. Please understand and you may continue.

Thank you and all of you have a great Easter Lord's Day tomorrow!

 

[william s. correa]

He AROSE! HAlleluja HE AROSE!

 

[william s. correa]

P.S> GIVE me THE BLESSED OLD BOOK!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

sorry it took so long, I was visiting family this weekend. I trust you had a good Easter. Christ is risen!

Now, lets discuss your post. First off, I would like to point out that every one of these verses you attacked in MV, you failed to explain WHY they disagree with the KJV. This is a little thing called "intellectual honesty".

In layman's terms, intellectual honesty occurs when those who disagree with you hear you describe their position, they are able to say "yea, thats pretty much what I believe!" You have not done this. You are posting things that NONE OF US MV USERS HERE ADHERE TO.

Every single one of you arguments seem to be pirated. The moderators here even had to edit your posts so that they werent guilty of breeching copyright laws! This shows one thing: you are not educating yourself on this topic, but merely have been convinced by ONE SIDE of this debate, and are now shouting from the rooftops without one clue what is going on.

From now on, if you claim you care about truth (which so far you have not) then when you see something that you disagree with, ask "WHY"????

Why do they believe that? Why do I disagree???? As of now, you are pretending that MVs just wanted to replace the KJV. This is a lie, plain and simple. Research your opponent, be HONEST about what and why they believe, and then explain why you disagree. This is what I will do, and this is what Paul and the other apostles did. They reasoned with them, used FACTS and EVIDENCE, not conspiracy theories.

now, to your post:

Very well, In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV [1979 ed.,] etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped."

Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ!

Explain to me how "being in very nature God" is not a clear statement of Christ's deity. Is there a textual variant here? Why is the MV translation different?

They attack the virgin birth:

In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The Child’s FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "Child’s FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus’ father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God...A subtle attack at the virgin birth.

You seem to be overtly ignorant of Jewish law. Joseph was Jesus' LEGAL father. Even the KJV calls Joesph his "father" in Luke 2:48. We all have earthly fathers and a heavenly father. Jesus didnt have a biological father, but please explain how it is denying the virign birth to admit that Joseph was Jesus' legal father.

Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out. Friend, salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS."

1) WHY is this phrase deleted?
2) Is the doctrine of Blood Atonement missing from these versions since it is not in this verse?

Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are over 6,000 changes.

They attack John 3:16:

And something has to be done with John 3:16...so the NIV and company read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN." If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens to the wonderful promise to believers like 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...?" AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

You simply cannot be serious.....we are not SONS of God like Jesus is, we are SONS by adoption. Jesus is the one and only SON OF GOD, otherwise, Kenneth Copeland, if he was a good boy, could have been the Christ (which he claimed God told him in a vision). Since Jesus is God's only son, Copeland is in error.

They tell lies:

A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way - a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah. "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1. The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS..."

A better translation...Easier to understand...BY A LIE
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE..." John 17:17 says, "...thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "God, that CANNOT LIE."
How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in these new versions? Either the translators of the other versions can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi [which is likely] or somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT.

Who would do such a thing?

I'll give you a hint - he's called the "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44.

1) Why do the MV's say this?
2) Does the KJV do the same thing?

Oh, by the way, did you think David killed Goliath? Not according to the others. In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, "...Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

Once again, WHY do the MV's read this way? Are you aware of their argument? Would you care to refute it, or simply recycle every other dead horse in some desperate attempt to convince someone you have a clue? So far, every one of your arguments have already been disproved, and you dont even know it! Have you ever read the arguments AGAINST your position? It seems you are GLEEFULLY living in ignorance, and peddling your false doctrine to those of like mind. Maybe you will change in the remaining points. Lets see....

They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ the same:

In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star [kokab] is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. Is there any doubt who is the father of these new versions?

If your statement is true, then the KJV translators are the most ignorant men who ever walked this earth.

Instead of proving your incredible claim wrong, would you mind finding the textual note that was present in the KJV 1611 regarding this verse in Isaiah, and posting it here? If you actually read this version your claim to be defending, it should be really easy. Thanks!

They take out hell:

If Satan is the author of these new versions, one subject he will aim his attack is the place the Bible calls hell. And the new versions go to extents to remove it.

Many times they change "hell" to "grave" or "death," but the word "hell" is far and few in the new versions. Like Psalm 9:17: in the King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL..." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE..." We ALL "return to the GRAVE."

Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "sheol." [See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the NEW King James does this 29 times.] Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT.

And this is a better translation? And these new versions are "easier to read" and "understand?" Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word "Ouranos" for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called hell.

only one question: Are you aware of how many times the KJV does the exact same thing? Would you mind posting a couple of examples, and then explaining why it is OK for the KJV to do things which are considered WRONG in the MVs?

In Isaiah 14:15, the King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL ..." The new versions refuse to send Lucifer to hell! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE..." The NASV, NRSV, NEW King James [NKJV] places him in "Sheol."

hmm... I wonder which one the Devil prefers?

LOL! I cant wait for you to explain WHY the MVs read this way. Can you do some reseach and find out why, or do I have to educate you on the ENTIRE discussion here? Please post WHY the MVs read this way.

The Lord's or The Devil's Prayer?

An alarming display of Satan is found in Luke 11. The "The Lord's Prayer" is subtly [see 2 Cor. 11:3] transformed into "The Devil's Prayer."

The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads, "...Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Incredibly, the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. take out: "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN... Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth... but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Heaven is completely removed! The "father" of the new versions is NOT IN HEAVEN and DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL.

I wonder who it could be? [hint: see John 8:44]

WHY????? Why is it removed? For 2 seconds, put Riplinger down and check her sources!!! Explain why the MVs do this, and tell me why you disagree with their decision.

Are you getting the picture? Do you see how subtle [see Genesis 3:1,] seemingly harmless the changes are - AND YET HOW DEADLY THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD's WORD.

They attack the Lord Jesus Christ
They attack the plan of salvation
They glorify Lucifer
And they deny hell
Yes friend. Satan has launched an attack on your Bible.

Yes, satan did launch an attack. So far, it has been through your words. They are so filled with ignorance and error that Satan is throwing a party. I am not insulting YOU, rather you have believed a liar, you have been decieved. You have read either Riplinger or Ruckman, or been indoctrinated by someone who has, and you have not checked (like the Bereans) to see if what they are saying is true.

YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT

Only if you can defend it with scripture, fact, and plain reason. You cannot, however, since you seem to not have a clue what is going on here. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, for now on, GET ALL THE FACTS before you charge off into battle against false doctrine. Make sure you are fighting the right people. Right now, you arent.

Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.

once again, WHY do they read this way, and why do you disagree?

They take out whole verses:

In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
They take out whole verses:

In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The other versions read - woops, they took the whole verse out! One of the best verses in the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they ripped it out...why?

Very good question!!!! WHY isnt it there? Why do you think it should?

Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in the book of Acts - THEY ATTACK IT?

LOL! Do you even care if you are repeating lies? How do you explain the NASB:
Acts 15:11
"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
Acts 18:27
And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace,

Acts 4:33
And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

Acts 20:24
"But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.

Acts 20:32
"And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

NOW I ASK YOU, did you check to see if what you had posted was true? Yes or no.

In Acts 9:5,6: Paul is getting saved, and they take out 20 words. In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor is getting saved, the word "CHRIST" is delicately removed. Why do these new bibles so fiercely attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?

Once again, please tell me why, and why you disagree.

Who would do such a thing?
Would you "inject" it into your child, loved one, or congregation? And would you "inject" them with a Bible that is "defiled" because it has some "good?" It could be far more costly than their physical life - THEIR ETERNAL SOUL! Galatians 5:9 says, "A LITTLE leaven leaveneth THE WHOLE lump."

Are you aware of how many lies and false information you have already posted? Shall we now consider YOU to be DEFILED? Are you also this LEAVEN?

One of the lies used to promote these MV's is "they're easier to read and understand." But according to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23!

I have read about 12 independent studies which completely disagree with this ONE study. Are there any others which agree, or are we all to throw out our common sense, and believe that "fetched a compass" is an easier read than "turned around"?

Whats funny, Nelson publishing, which sells more KJV bibles than anyone I am aware of these days, completely disagrees, and so does EVERY OTHER TEST I have ever seen. The KJV is on about a 11.8 reading level, NASB on a 11.2, NKJV on a 10.3, NIV 7.9, and so on. The KJV is not easier to read, and claiming so will only get you laughed at, and would make even non-christians spit out anything you say. Lets be honest, please.

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?"
New American Standard Version

Interesting, I have also read about the spuriousness of this quote. Would you mind referencing it, please? Where did you hear it, and where did it orignate? Forgive me if I attempt to be a Berean, so bear with me.

Let the lying lips be put to silence. Psalm 31:18

Also silenced was Philip Schaff, collaborator on the New Greek Committee and director of the American Standard Version, which formed the foundation of the New American Standard and The Living Bible. Paralleling Taylor's pathology, Schaff's son finds the same "frog" in Philip Schaff's throat. Even as early as 1854, the warning was given, "his voice so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard." Finally by 1892...

the power of articulated speech gone.

[David S. Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897,) pp.171, 446]

How old was he by then? Did anything similiar happen to the KJV translators? Several of them DIED DURING THE TRANSLATION PROCESS!!! Should we now assume that they were doing Satans work, and were thereby punished? I think you would disagree.

Westcott and Hort Greek Text:

[RV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, CEV, New Century Version, Good News for Modern Man, Jehovah Witness bible, The Book, The Everyday Bible, All Catholic bibles et al.]

Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" [Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 198] and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer." [Ibid., p.272]

Same question as previous statement. Please answer again.

Galatians 6:1 in the NIV vs. the KJV by Lance Schmidt

The NIV has a very weak rendering as they use dynamic equivalency of thought [man's opinion of the meaning] rather than take the precise approach of translating from the original language to the new language of English using literal precision accuracy as did the KJV translators.

Please post 3 examples of when the KJV does the same thing, and why you feel it is OK for the KJV to do this, but wrong for the NIV to do it. Thanks!

The KJV renders the Greek text word for word [Textus Receptus] even retaining the right word order to communicate and preserve faithfully God's full-intended meaning.

The TR is a back translation from the KJV. It is not a greek text, but rather a greek translation of the KJV. The more you type, the more you show you are simply a robot, lied to by Riplinger or Ruckman.

As for the TR which the KJV translators had, they rejected it in several areas. Can you post 3 examples of this?

NIV

Brothers, If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

KJV

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:1

WHY? Is there a textual variant?

The problems are subtle but serious...

The only difference I see is one of 17th century english verse 21st century english. Would you mind explaining what is missing?

Why do we need any more proof? God open their eyes; you are searching and wandering around but when you are converted you will see you were wrong just like TCassidy and all of the MV's who are grasping at straws. Give it up! There is no MEAT of the Word on your plate.

Interesting, since TCassidy, whom I disagree with often, and most of the time can hardly stand, has actually educated himself and not taken the word of proven liars like Riplinger. You have done nothing but plagiarize this entire debate.

You have disproven yourself, because your argument , at its core, is ONE THING:

I assume that the KJV is perfect because I want to.

Everything else stems from that.

I will await your responses, because only THEN can we have a real discussion. Use YOUR BRAIN, try not to steal from KJVO authors.

Have a good day!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
sorry it took so long, I was visiting family this weekend. I trust you had a good Easter. Christ is risen!

Now, lets discuss your post. First off, I would like to point out that every one of these verses you attacked in MV, you failed to explain WHY they disagree with the KJV. This is a little thing called "intellectual honesty".

In layman's terms, intellectual honesty occurs when those who disagree with you hear you describe their position, they are able to say "yea, thats pretty much what I believe!" You have not done this. You are posting things that NONE OF US MV USERS HERE ADHERE TO.

Every single one of you arguments seem to be pirated. The moderators here even had to edit your posts so that they werent guilty of breeching copyright laws! This shows one thing: you are not educating yourself on this topic, but merely have been convinced by ONE SIDE of this debate, and are now shouting from the rooftops without one clue what is going on.

From now on, if you claim you care about truth (which so far you have not) then when you see something that you disagree with, ask "WHY"????

Why do they believe that? Why do I disagree???? As of now, you are pretending that MVs just wanted to replace the KJV. This is a lie, plain and simple. Research your opponent, be HONEST about what and why they believe, and then explain why you disagree. This is what I will do, and this is what Paul and the other apostles did. They reasoned with them, used FACTS and EVIDENCE, not conspiracy theories.

now, to your post:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Very well, In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV [1979 ed.,] etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped."

Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ!

Explain to me how "being in very nature God" is not a clear statement of Christ's deity. Is there a textual variant here? Why is the MV translation different?

They attack the virgin birth:

In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The Child’s FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "Child’s FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus’ father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God...A subtle attack at the virgin birth.

You seem to be overtly ignorant of Jewish law. Joseph was Jesus' LEGAL father. Even the KJV calls Joesph his "father" in Luke 2:48. We all have earthly fathers and a heavenly father. Jesus didnt have a biological father, but please explain how it is denying the virign birth to admit that Joseph was Jesus' legal father.

Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out. Friend, salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS."

1) WHY is this phrase deleted?
2) Is the doctrine of Blood Atonement missing from these versions since it is not in this verse?

Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are over 6,000 changes.

They attack John 3:16:

And something has to be done with John 3:16...so the NIV and company read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN." If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens to the wonderful promise to believers like 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...?" AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

You simply cannot be serious.....we are not SONS of God like Jesus is, we are SONS by adoption. Jesus is the one and only SON OF GOD, otherwise, Kenneth Copeland, if he was a good boy, could have been the Christ (which he claimed God told him in a vision). Since Jesus is God's only son, Copeland is in error.

They tell lies:

A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way - a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah. "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1. The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS..."

A better translation...Easier to understand...BY A LIE
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE..." John 17:17 says, "...thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "God, that CANNOT LIE."
How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in these new versions? Either the translators of the other versions can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi [which is likely] or somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT.

Who would do such a thing?

I'll give you a hint - he's called the "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44.

1) Why do the MV's say this?
2) Does the KJV do the same thing?

Oh, by the way, did you think David killed Goliath? Not according to the others. In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, "...Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

Once again, WHY do the MV's read this way? Are you aware of their argument? Would you care to refute it, or simply recycle every other dead horse in some desperate attempt to convince someone you have a clue? So far, every one of your arguments have already been disproved, and you dont even know it! Have you ever read the arguments AGAINST your position? It seems you are GLEEFULLY living in ignorance, and peddling your false doctrine to those of like mind. Maybe you will change in the remaining points. Lets see....

They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ the same:

In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star [kokab] is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. Is there any doubt who is the father of these new versions?

If your statement is true, then the KJV translators are the most ignorant men who ever walked this earth.

Instead of proving your incredible claim wrong, would you mind finding the textual note that was present in the KJV 1611 regarding this verse in Isaiah, and posting it here? If you actually read this version your claim to be defending, it should be really easy. Thanks!

They take out hell:

If Satan is the author of these new versions, one subject he will aim his attack is the place the Bible calls hell. And the new versions go to extents to remove it.

Many times they change "hell" to "grave" or "death," but the word "hell" is far and few in the new versions. Like Psalm 9:17: in the King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL..." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE..." We ALL "return to the GRAVE."

Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "sheol." [See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the NEW King James does this 29 times.] Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT.

And this is a better translation? And these new versions are "easier to read" and "understand?" Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word "Ouranos" for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called hell.

only one question: Are you aware of how many times the KJV does the exact same thing? Would you mind posting a couple of examples, and then explaining why it is OK for the KJV to do things which are considered WRONG in the MVs?

In Isaiah 14:15, the King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL ..." The new versions refuse to send Lucifer to hell! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE..." The NASV, NRSV, NEW King James [NKJV] places him in "Sheol."

hmm... I wonder which one the Devil prefers?

LOL! I cant wait for you to explain WHY the MVs read this way. Can you do some reseach and find out why, or do I have to educate you on the ENTIRE discussion here? Please post WHY the MVs read this way.

The Lord's or The Devil's Prayer?

An alarming display of Satan is found in Luke 11. The "The Lord's Prayer" is subtly [see 2 Cor. 11:3] transformed into "The Devil's Prayer."

The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads, "...Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Incredibly, the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. take out: "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN... Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth... but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Heaven is completely removed! The "father" of the new versions is NOT IN HEAVEN and DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL.

I wonder who it could be? [hint: see John 8:44]

WHY????? Why is it removed? For 2 seconds, put Riplinger down and check her sources!!! Explain why the MVs do this, and tell me why you disagree with their decision.

Are you getting the picture? Do you see how subtle [see Genesis 3:1,] seemingly harmless the changes are - AND YET HOW DEADLY THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD's WORD.

They attack the Lord Jesus Christ
They attack the plan of salvation
They glorify Lucifer
And they deny hell
Yes friend. Satan has launched an attack on your Bible.

Yes, satan did launch an attack. So far, it has been through your words. They are so filled with ignorance and error that Satan is throwing a party. I am not insulting YOU, rather you have believed a liar, you have been decieved. You have read either Riplinger or Ruckman, or been indoctrinated by someone who has, and you have not checked (like the Bereans) to see if what they are saying is true.

YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT

Only if you can defend it with scripture, fact, and plain reason. You cannot, however, since you seem to not have a clue what is going on here. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, for now on, GET ALL THE FACTS before you charge off into battle against false doctrine. Make sure you are fighting the right people. Right now, you arent.

Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.

once again, WHY do they read this way, and why do you disagree?

They take out whole verses:

In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
They take out whole verses:

In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The other versions read - woops, they took the whole verse out! One of the best verses in the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they ripped it out...why?

Very good question!!!! WHY isnt it there? Why do you think it should?

Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in the book of Acts - THEY ATTACK IT?

LOL! Do you even care if you are repeating lies? How do you explain the NASB:
Acts 15:11
"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
Acts 18:27
And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace,

Acts 4:33
And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

Acts 20:24
"But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.

Acts 20:32
"And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

NOW I ASK YOU, did you check to see if what you had posted was true? Yes or no.

In Acts 9:5,6: Paul is getting saved, and they take out 20 words. In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor is getting saved, the word "CHRIST" is delicately removed. Why do these new bibles so fiercely attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?

Once again, please tell me why, and why you disagree.

Who would do such a thing?
Would you "inject" it into your child, loved one, or congregation? And would you "inject" them with a Bible that is "defiled" because it has some "good?" It could be far more costly than their physical life - THEIR ETERNAL SOUL! Galatians 5:9 says, "A LITTLE leaven leaveneth THE WHOLE lump."

Are you aware of how many lies and false information you have already posted? Shall we now consider YOU to be DEFILED? Are you also this LEAVEN?

One of the lies used to promote these MV's is "they're easier to read and understand." But according to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23!

I have read about 12 independent studies which completely disagree with this ONE study. Are there any others which agree, or are we all to throw out our common sense, and believe that "fetched a compass" is an easier read than "turned around"?

Whats funny, Nelson publishing, which sells more KJV bibles than anyone I am aware of these days, completely disagrees, and so does EVERY OTHER TEST I have ever seen. The KJV is on about a 11.8 reading level, NASB on a 11.2, NKJV on a 10.3, NIV 7.9, and so on. The KJV is not easier to read, and claiming so will only get you laughed at, and would make even non-christians spit out anything you say. Lets be honest, please.

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?"
New American Standard Version

Interesting, I have also read about the spuriousness of this quote. Would you mind referencing it, please? Where did you hear it, and where did it orignate? Forgive me if I attempt to be a Berean, so bear with me.

Let the lying lips be put to silence. Psalm 31:18

Also silenced was Philip Schaff, collaborator on the New Greek Committee and director of the American Standard Version, which formed the foundation of the New American Standard and The Living Bible. Paralleling Taylor's pathology, Schaff's son finds the same "frog" in Philip Schaff's throat. Even as early as 1854, the warning was given, "his voice so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard." Finally by 1892...

the power of articulated speech gone.

[David S. Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897,) pp.171, 446]

How old was he by then? Did anything similiar happen to the KJV translators? Several of them DIED DURING THE TRANSLATION PROCESS!!! Should we now assume that they were doing Satans work, and were thereby punished? I think you would disagree.

Westcott and Hort Greek Text:

[RV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, CEV, New Century Version, Good News for Modern Man, Jehovah Witness bible, The Book, The Everyday Bible, All Catholic bibles et al.]

Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" [Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 198] and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer." [Ibid., p.272]

Same question as previous statement. Please answer again.

Galatians 6:1 in the NIV vs. the KJV by Lance Schmidt

The NIV has a very weak rendering as they use dynamic equivalency of thought [man's opinion of the meaning] rather than take the precise approach of translating from the original language to the new language of English using literal precision accuracy as did the KJV translators.

The KJV renders the Greek text word for word [Textus Receptus] even retaining the right word order to communicate and preserve faithfully God's full-intended meaning.

The TR is a back translation from the KJV. It is not a greek text, but rather a greek translation of the KJV. The more you type, the more you show you are simply a robot, lied to by Riplinger or Ruckman.

As for the TR which the KJV translators had, they rejected it in several areas. Can you post 3 examples of this?

NIV

Brothers, If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

KJV

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:1

WHY? Is there a textual variant?

The problems are subtle but serious...

The only difference I see is one of 17th century english verse 21st century english. Would you mind explaining what is missing?

Why do we need any more proof? God open their eyes; you are searching and wandering around but when you are converted you will see you were wrong just like TCassidy and all of the MV's who are grasping at straws. Give it up! There is no MEAT of the Word on your plate.

Interesting, since TCassidy, whom I disagree with often, and most of the time can hardly stand, has actually educated himself and not taken the word of proven liars like Riplinger. You have done nothing but plagiarize this entire debate.

You have disproven yourself, because your argument , at its core, is ONE THING:

I assume that the KJV is perfect because I want to.

Everything else stems from that.

I will await your responses, because only THEN can we have a real discussion. Use YOUR BRAIN, try not to steal from KJVO authors.

Have a good day! </font>[/QUOTE]We dont have a problem because we stick to tradition! The new version by far are different than the TR. I have asked myself why? and the point is if any of it is true then all your group of MV reader are nothing but a "Bible of the month club" Look at Our new Bible! folks if a shred of any of your claims are true then we need more Bibles. I personally beleive you will hear what you want to. Are you Honestly listening with your heart? or that Brain of yours that seems to have all the right man made answers and really dont have aclue of the spiritual need for dicernment from such blateant mis use of the English language. If I have plagerized I apologize I didnt think it would hurt any ones feelings, or break any laws. But if these so called Assumtions are false I still dislike all MV's,and will never read any thing other than a KJB.Yes why did they feel they could even think they could get away with even taking one coma out, If they would have done that back in 1611 they probably would have been burned at the stake or whatever. Not only because of a king but because of THE KING: Jesus.Am I supposed to apologize to you? even If I did make some mistakes the fact is that out 162 references the KJB is superior, and infallible; all others disagree with TR and are up to 90% with changes and ommission and they take away from th WORD of GOD! Thats like playing Russian Rullette! Now to your Questions and references. What is required of a man? lol Please post 3 examples of when the KJV does the same thing, and why you feel it is OK for the KJV to do this, but wrong for the NIV to do it. Thanks!
First of all this Question is plumb CRAZY! ARE you comparing the NIV to the KJB Please. you have insulted me quite enough.Please dont disrespect the Holy Word of God. This is not a play ground where the bully gets his/her way. It is either Gods Word or it isnt. The KJB has passsed every test for over 400 years. I'm only an HVAC tech and can discern and tell the diffrence, not that Im hung up on the Kings language its just that all other versions are just versions. The KJB is a Translation. and God's Holy Bible.All you have been able to do so far is blow alot of smoke and hot air! I think all your questions will be answered with tis statement. Say I'm the investigating officer of a terrible accident, and 98% 0f the people say that it was the red car that hit the yellow car and thelight was red,also the red car was swurving in and out of traffic; furthermore he smelled of alcohol,and so on and so forth and they were right there no more than a few feet from it.But the remaining 2% said it was the yellow car and it was raining and what seemed to be was that the light was green and so on and so forth but they were in "Alexadria" which just happens to be a few miles east. I look at the evidence and give my judgement. The red car, red light,KJB,Antiochian manuscripts,TR,and all. that would settle it in my heart case closed! now as far as the guy who recanted his NASB part He said " They kept voting, even tough he had objections they voted over him" souds like the majority was wrong! Well got to go God bless until the next time Goodby

 

[william s. correa]

read hebrews 5:11-14 inthe kjb

 

[william s. correa]

Very well, [word for word material posted from another website deleted] Why?

[The above argument was word-for-word from a KJVO website that claims that Satan could be the author of Modern Versions.

Other people who own websites also own the rights to their work. You have been warned repeatedly that clipping and pasting other people's work is NOT allowed on the BB. Either follow the rules or you will not be allowed to post.

Phillip (Moderator)]

[ April 18, 2006, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[DesiderioDomini]

william,

I thought you wanted an honest exchange of information and ideas? You have not answered a single one of my questions!!!

As for your COVERALL answer about the 98% deal, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE TIMES WHEN THE KJV GOES AGAINST 98%, OR IN SOME CASES, 100% OF THE MANUSCRIPTS ON THE PLANET?????

What happens then? Who decided when to go against the majority and when not to, and why am I forced to agree???

 

[DesiderioDomini]

First off, to this point you have shown that you are unwilling to participate in an honest discussion. You cannot quote my whole post, when addresses each point with fact, scripture, and plain reason, and then attempt to answer it in 4 sentences. Please consider my argument, as an honest man would do, and then if you disagree, explain WHY. THIS is what is meant by "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another"

We dont have a problem because we stick to tradition!

Which is more important, tradition, or truth?

The new version by far are different than the TR.

I ask again, which TR? Do you even know the difference, or is that why you have not answered any of my questions?

I have asked myself why? and the point is if any of it is true then all your group of MV reader are nothing but a "Bible of the month club"

So, you dont really care if MOST of it isnt true, as it seems you are unable to refute, but if ONE of them is true, then we must use the KJV??? WHAT? Perhaps a lesson in logic would do you some good: If you show ONE error in the MV, it means nothing!! WE ARENT THE ONES CLAIMING PERFECTION!!! YOU ARE!!! So in fact, it is I who only needs to show one error in the KJV. Do you understand?

Look at Our new Bible! folks if a shred of any of your claims are true then we need more Bibles. I personally believe you will hear what you want to. Are you Honestly listening with your heart?

I have openly and honestly addressed every one of your points. So far, I dont think you have answered a single question fully.

or that Brain of yours that seems to have all the right man made answers and really don’t have a clue of the spiritual need for discernment from such blatant misuse of the English language.

Is what is spiritual not also factual? Is the ressurection ONLY a matter of faith, or is it a historical event? You seem to want us to throw out everything we KNOW is true and cling to that which YOU THINK is true. As protestants we acknowledge the "Priesthood of the Believer", which means that each christian is accountable to GOD and HIS WORD.

This is what we KNOW:
1. God inspired his word through the original authors.
2. Those documents are no longer existing.
3. Now we are left with copies, which no 2 agree 100%.
4. GOD CHOSE TO ALLOW THIS.

Now, you wish to cling to one english translation and claim that GOD wrote it. I disagree. Now I ask for proof, and you refuse.

Why should anyone take what you have to say serious? What makes you different from the Mormons? They claim to have the truth, yet refuse to provide any evidence, rather ask you to pray over it, and the Spirit will lead you to the truth. Forgive me if I reject this notion of yours along with theirs.

If I have plagiarized I apologize I didn’t think it would hurt any ones feelings, or break any laws.

And I am sure you didnt mean to, but it has proven one thing: You do not seem to have any evidence nor thought of your own on this matter. You have been indoctrinated, and so far, you have not cared whether this doctrine is true. Do you care if KJVO is true or not? If it is not, will you lay it down?

EVEN if KJVO is not true, you can still use the KJV!!! It is still God's word, only then you will understand how HE chose to preserve his word, and not how Riplinger and Ruckman WISH he had.

But if these so called Assumptions are false I still dislike all MV's,and will never read any thing other than a KJB.

And that is perfectly fine!

Yes why did they feel they could even think they could get away with even taking one coma out, If they would have done that back in 1611 they probably would have been burned at the stake or whatever.

PLEASE, know what you are talking about BEFORE posting! The KJV introduced several changes from all other versions, and they did the very same thing you are doing! They screamed to high heaven "WHY DID YOU CHANGE GODS WORD"????

I ask again, HAVE YOU READ THE PREFACE TO THE KJV?

I cant educate you if you wont go back and answer my questions. You have no clue what you are talking about.....I dont even know where to begin. You are arguing things that even your authors wont argue, cuz they KNOW BETTER!

Not only because of a king but because of THE KING: Jesus.

Please quote what Jesus had to say about the KJV. I am very interested.

Am I supposed to apologize to you?

How about just answering the questions first, then we can see if you were in fact wrong. If not, then I will be the one apologizing.

even If I did make some mistakes

It appears to me that you are saying that it is OK to lie as long as you are defending the KJV. I ask you this: IF you have posted FALSE information, as a CHRISTIAN, what is your duty? Is it to set the record straight, or let the lie stand?

the fact is that out 162 references the KJB is superior, and infallible; all others disagree with TR and are up to 90% with changes and omission and they take away from the WORD of GOD!

1. Who decided that the KJV was the final authority on what is and is not the "Word of God"? Please show scripture, prophecy, or some other means that God showed us the KJV was to be followed and all others rejected?

That’s like playing Russian Roulette!

so far, your credibility is zero. I show your error, and you dont even check to see if you were in error! How can anyone trust that you care ONE BIT about truth?

Now to your Questions and references. What is required of a man? lol Please post 3 examples of when the KJV does the same thing, and why you feel it is OK for the KJV to do this, but wrong for the NIV to do it. Thanks!
First of all this Question is plumb CRAZY! ARE you comparing the NIV to the KJB Please. you have insulted me quite enough. Please don’t disrespect the Holy Word of God.

So basically, you dont know, and wont look it up?
If I have assumed incorrectly, please expose my error.

This is not a play ground where the bully gets his/her way. It is either Gods Word or it isn’t. The KJB has passed every test for over 400 years.

1. Which one is the bully, sir? I have addressed every one of your points, and you have used almost nothing but LIES! NOT ONLY THAT, but even as a born again christian, you refuse to do your own research to find out if they are LIES! You dont even seem to care if you are spreading false information. You refuse to provide evidence for these claims, and you refuse to even answer very simple questions.

2. What tests did the KJV pass? It has gone through 4 revisions since 1611. The current KJVs even disagree with one another in a few places. Are you aware of this?

The KJB is a Translation. and God's Holy Bible.

Please explain to me how the NASB, Geneva, and the Bishop's Bible are NOT God's Holy Word.

All you have been able to do so far is blow a lot of smoke and hot air!

I havent even made a claim yet. I am too busy trying to sort through all your false information! I havent had time to blow a lot of anything!

I think all your questions will be answered with this statement. Say I'm the investigating officer of a terrible accident, and 98% 0f the people say that it was the red car that hit the yellow car and the light was red, also the red car was swerving in and out of traffic; furthermore he smelled of alcohol, and so on and so forth and they were right there no more than a few feet from it. But the remaining 2% said it was the yellow car and it was raining and what seemed to be was that the light was green and so on and so forth but they were in "Alexandria" which just happens to be a few miles east. I look at the evidence and give my judgment.

1. Who made YOU the judge? Why is YOUR conviction, which you so far have offered NO facts, no scripture, and a load of false information, mean anything to me? Am I also bound to accept the Mormon's conviction, if he is unable to do anything different than what you have done?

The red car, red light, KJB, Antiochian manuscripts, TR, and all. that would settle it in my heart case closed!

Now, in the case of 1 John 5:7-8, the KJV goes against this 98%. Why do you not reject the KJV for doing this?

In Revelation 17:8, the KJV goes against 100% of the evidence(thats right, there is not a single manuscript or church father quotation or lexicon which agrees with the KJV). Why do you not reject the KJV in this verse?

There are more, but I must see how you respond to these 2, or if you even respond, before any others matter.

now as far as the guy who recanted his NASB part He said " They kept voting, even tough he had objections they voted over him" sounds like the majority was wrong!

HEY, kinda like the KJV is in the above 2 references, right?

Well got to go God bless until the next time Goodbye

have a blessed day! This time, try and answer my post point by point, that way, we can have some honest dialogue. It may take more time, but you may actually learn something!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

read hebrews 5:11-14 inthe kjb

Hebrews 5:11-14 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

11Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Its funny you bring this up, because it is speaking directly to you.

Would you call someone MATURE who had to resort to copying others work, making false claims, refusing to check their sources, willfully ignoring their errors, and refusing to engage in honest discussion, all in order to try and make a point?

Perhaps God led you to this passage for a reason, brother. I pray you truely consider it before moving forward in this discussion.

BTW, FYI.....I am one of the youngest members here. If your argument cant hold water against ME, you wont last 5 seconds with Cassidy, Roby, Scott, or any of the moderators. They have been researching bible history since I was in diapers.

 

[robycop3]

Makes a point about the Koppy-Katt KJVOs. Ray copies Wilkinson, Ruckman copies both Wilkinson and Ray, Fuller copies both Wilkinson & Ray, Ruckman again copies Wilkinson along with the other three, Riplinger copies all of the above. I am astounded by the honesty and brilliance of all those authors, who depend upon deceiving people like Mr. Correa to keep themselves livin' large.

Mr. Correa has chosen to copy that paragon of erudition Terry Watkins who published that most ignorant of KJVO arguments,"The MVs deny the deity of Christ by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43". If Watkins (& Mr. Correa) had bothered to read five verses farther in the KJV, theyda seen it does the VERY SAME THING! And by Roman as well as Jewish law, Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly father since he was married to His mother when Jesus was born.

"BRILLIANT!"

 

[EdSutton]

Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.

I certainly was not aware of this. Let's see.

2 Timothy 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth. (II Tim. 2:15 - AMP) Amplified Bible (AMP)- Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation
AMP at Lockman The Lockman Foundation Amplified at Zondervan Zondervan

2 Timothy 2:15 (21st Century King James Version)
15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Tim. 2: 15) - KJ21 - 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Copyright © 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc.
KJ21 at Deuel

Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Tim. 2:15) - The King James 2000 Version © Copyright © 2000 by Dr. Robert A. Couric

Copyright © 1962-1998
By Jay P. Green, Sr.
15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. (II Tim. 2:15 - MKJV)

Actually, I guess I am still not aware of this.

I normally do not post in a requested private dialogue in this forum, but could not let this falsehood go unchallenged. And FTR, as to the quote from the KJV that one used, even though the KJV is in the 'public domain' in the US, (although still not in the UK), Zondervan has the copyright to the site and the version of the Bible that they publish, which you pasted.

In His grace,
Ed

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
[QB]

Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.

Study- Greek Spoudazo; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:--do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, no copyright)

Also translated in the KJV as 'endeavour' (Eph. 4:3 and others), 'Be diligent' or 'diligence' (2 Timoteo 4:9, 21; Titus 3:12 and others), 'Labour' (Hebrews 4:11).

So you could rightly say, ' Labour', 'Endeavour', or 'Be diligent' to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Askjo]

William Correa quoted:

They attack the virgin birth:

In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The Child’s FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "Child’s FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus’ father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God...A subtle attack at the virgin birth.

DesiderioDomini quoted;

You seem to be overtly ignorant of Jewish law. Joseph was Jesus' LEGAL father. Even the KJV calls Joesph his "father" in Luke 2:48. We all have earthly fathers and a heavenly father. Jesus didnt have a biological father, but please explain how it is denying the virign birth to admit that Joseph was Jesus' legal father.

William gave his excellent comment on modern versions attacking the virgin birth. The KJV did NOT call Joseph Jesus' "father", nor Luke's writing, but Mary directly spoke to her Son, Jesus. Your quotation that I read is that you vaguely understand what this verse said. Modern versions CALLED Joseph his "father" in the Gospel of Luke. The KJV is clearest than modern versions.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:

read hebrews 5:11-14 inthe kjb

Hebrews 5:11-14 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

11Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Its funny you bring this up, because it is speaking directly to you.

Would you call someone MATURE who had to resort to copying others work, making false claims, refusing to check their sources, willfully ignoring their errors, and refusing to engage in honest discussion, all in order to try and make a point?

Perhaps God led you to this passage for a reason, brother. I pray you truely consider it before moving forward in this discussion.

BTW, FYI.....I am one of the youngest members here. If your argument cant hold water against ME, you wont last 5 seconds with Cassidy, Roby, Scott, or any of the moderators. They have been researching bible history since I was in diapers. [/Q)Can I go backwards? what? can a man fall from grace? Brother he falls right back into it! If you think I'm going to bow out to you or any one here you are crazy. What are you a Bible of the month club? All you and Dr's etc.... have done is Shreeek at the fact that a layman in the ministry stood up to you. All God was looking for was some one to throw the stone aginst goliath. If Im the investigating officer in a car accident and ask all the witnesses all of the evidence and 98% says "it was the red car that hit the yellow car it was clear, the light was red the driver smelled of alcohol, he was white,and so on and so forth... but the 2% that were down the street in "Alexandria" and heard something, said "no it was the yellow car , it was raining, the light was green, the driver was not drunk, and he was hispanic." well that would do it for me case closed; the red car gets the ticket! So you cant prove your point doesent matter about my past history or if you beleive or any of those people you mentioned beleive , what matters is that the "Scriptures" are above us all. ANd I trust the ones that are from the area WHERE JESUS WALKED ON WATER and where John baptized Jesus, and people saw and handeled the Lord! There is no doubt I think you are sincere about your convictions, but lets be Honest with one another you could be sincerly "Wrong". Have you heard of the story of the baseball player who hit a inside the park homerun, as he cleared the bases,the relay was made and as he slid into Home, he was clearly safe: to his surprise the ump calls him "Out" after ranting and raving the coaches, managers,plyers, asked Why? the ump said "He never touched first base". I'm afraid after all is said and done ther will be people on both sides of the argument who never touched first base. Say what you want about me using evidence which may warn people about missing words that never needed to be removed in the first place. Our mandate from our Savior is to win the lost at any cost, He said "GO" I'm sure the website that I used wuldn't mind if I used it again. like a tract. The truth will come out one way or the other. And if people take your word for what you say; it still dosent surpass what the scripture teaches. I mean please, you want me to compare the AV 1611 to the NIV or any Mv come on. you have insulted me enough.I didnt go to college but neither did the deciples. both my parents are college proffesors, with degrees. My brother translates for Charles Stanley in Spanish. I'm no prodogy. But yet I will defend the KJB with my life if needed. It is more precious than diamonds to me for it is the Word of God. not contains or is partly of it is, But IS. Well till the next time Goodby.P.S. Tahnx for reminding me that I'm nothing "Would you call someone MATURE who had to resort to copying others work, making false claims, refusing to check their sources, willfully ignoring their errors, and refusing to engage in honest discussion, all in order to try and make a point" without Christ!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.

I certainly was not aware of this. Let's see.

2 Timothy 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth. (II Tim. 2:15 - AMP) Amplified Bible (AMP)- Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation
AMP at Lockman The Lockman Foundation Amplified at Zondervan Zondervan

2 Timothy 2:15 (21st Century King James Version)
15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Tim. 2: 15) - KJ21 - 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Copyright © 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc.
KJ21 at Deuel

Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Tim. 2:15) - The King James 2000 Version © Copyright © 2000 by Dr. Robert A. Couric

Copyright © 1962-1998
By Jay P. Green, Sr.
15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. (II Tim. 2:15 - MKJV)

Actually, I guess I am still not aware of this.

I normally do not post in a requested private dialogue in this forum, but could not let this falsehood go unchallenged. And FTR, as to the quote from the KJV that one used, even though the KJV is in the 'public domain' in the US, (although still not in the UK), Zondervan has the copyright to the site and the version of the Bible that they publish, which you pasted.

In His grace,
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]Amen Brother Zondervan also has been Known to publish The satanic bible; we are to be separate from this world but yet you cant tell the new church apart from the world give me the first cetury churche's integrity any day!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Makes a point about the Koppy-Katt KJVOs. Ray copies Wilkinson, Ruckman copies both Wilkinson and Ray, Fuller copies both Wilkinson & Ray, Ruckman again copies Wilkinson along with the other three, Riplinger copies all of the above. I am astounded by the honesty and brilliance of all those authors, who depend upon deceiving people like Mr. Correa to keep themselves livin' large.

Mr. Correa has chosen to copy that paragon of erudition Terry Watkins who published that most ignorant of KJVO arguments,"The MVs deny the deity of Christ by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43". If Watkins (& Mr. Correa) had bothered to read five verses farther in the KJV, theyda seen it does the VERY SAME THING! And by Roman as well as Jewish law, Joseph was "BRILLIANT!"

What is a Robycop3 any way?Souds like another Bible of the month member! I guess Spouting anti KJB slogans so he can promote HIS version! sounds like your typing with your mouth full"Jesus' legal earthly father since he was married to His mother when Jesus was born."
[personal attack snipped] You have missed the boat by a coutry mile bud! Get it right or go back to sleep!

[ April 19, 2006, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[DesiderioDomini]

William,

So you are not going to address my concerns, but rather just a few drive by accusations?

You have made the same mistake as the Mormons. You have made claims, and then when you are questioned, you refuse to defend your claims.

Jesus did NOT do this. His life was the proof, he performed many miracles, and everything he said would happen, did. He was exactly what he said he was.

Now you come along, making big claims about God's word, and you have no proof, no evidence, and worse, wont even allow yourself to be questioned by honest people. When Nicodemus came to Jesus, earnestly seeking, Jesus explained himself to him in a way that he had to understand. Here you are, claiming to have truth, and refusing to explain it!! Neither Paul, Peter, John, nor any of the apostles used this tactic. They wrote down what they had seen and heard, named names, and provided evidence that anyone could check.

Why are you allergic to honest discussion?

 

[rsr]

Askjo said:

The KJV did NOT call Joseph Jesus' "father", nor Luke's writing, but Mary directly spoke to her Son, Jesus.

Ah, now I see. It was Mary who lied and blasphemed.