A Few Questions For Those Who Are KJV-Only.

[Guest Guest]

The KJB is "THE" English bible because it is a faithful translation of the TR and the proper Hebrew texts. The reason we "attack" the other versions as you say' date=' is to show that they are not a proper translation of the TR. They are not even meant to be considering they are based on different texts. By showing the differences we are just showing that both text lines can't be right. One text line is corrupt.[/quote']
How is it a faithful translation of the TR, sir (I assume you mean Textus Receptus; or, "The Received Text")? Have you ever looked at the Hebrew and Greek yourself completely; at every passage and verse, translating them as you go, comparing it to the KJV? Isn't it possible, sir, that the KJV is in fact in error, and some of the other versions are not?
(Please note: I realize some of these questions may be a bit ridiculous, sir, and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. I just want you to think about them. Thank you.)
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

Because versions like the NKJV change and corrupt the meanings of many scripture passages. In order for a translation to be good it must be faithful to the TR. Since you somewhat favor the NKJV If you would like some examples of serious doctrinal changes in it I will give you a few. I will put the verses from the KJV in blue and the same verse from the NKJV in purple for comparison purposes.

1Kings 14:24 "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

NKJV 1Kings 14:24 "And there were also perverted persons in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

That certainly gives the sodomites some room doesn't it? They will argue that they are not "perverted persons" at all.

I do not see how that gives them any room whatsoever.

"Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate' date=' and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."[/color']
NKJV "Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Think about the doctrinal change that makes. Instead of teaching that the "way" is narrow, or restricted to Christ, the NKJV teaches that the way is "difficult", which goes against other scriptural teachings.
"1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
NKJV 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Which is it, are we "being saved" in a process as many Pentecostals teach or are we saved when we believe? One version or the other is wrong.

I see really no doctrinal issues here; I would say the way being "narrow" would designate it being "difficult".
When it says "being saved", I gather that it means those who are born again. As in those who come to repentance and accept Christ; not as in reference to a "process", per se.

"Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee' date=' that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"[/color']
NKJV Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
Something of a difference between a "sect" and heresy right? I think the context makes it clear they viewed it as heresy.

I see very little difference; after all, breaking from the norm in terms of beliefs (or, a sect) would most definitely be considered heretical

"Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences' date=' and was raised again for our justification."[/color']
NKJV "Romans 4:25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification."
Think about it, was Christ raised FOR our justification as the KJV says or was he raised BECAUSE of our justification as the NKJV says. Hopefully that is a rhetorical question.

I honestly see no problems or confusion here.

"Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;"
NKJV "Titus 3:10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,"
There is a big difference between a "divisive man" and a heretic. Jesus Christ himself was highly divisive. He said:
"Matthew 10:34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Aye, He was considered a divisive man, and apparently was also considered a heretic, judging that when He said He could forgive sins the Pharisees said He was committing blasphemy.
People such as Martin Luther were "divisive" people, and were also considered heretics.

Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
NKJV "Hebrews 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham."
Huge difference in meaning here too. The KJV teaches here that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, while the NKJV sweeps that aside and completely changes the verse. Both can't be right.
I will put this one verse last because considering the topic I think it is fitting.

To be honest, that makes perfect sense to me. They both mean exactly the same thing (the two verses); and I see no issues here.

"2Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many' date=' which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."[/color']
NKJV "2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."
I think it is pretty clear that the NKJV itself is corrupt, who knows maybe that is why they were more comfortable with "peddle"(there would be nothing wrong with ""peddling" btw, that is preaching the gospel). The KJV lines up with the TR, but the NKJV doesn't in many areas.

Preaching the Gospel is not "peddling". Peddling basically means going about trying to sell goods.
The Gospel is free; that is not peddling.
As to your last sentence, sir, I ask: how does it line up with it? Have you translated each passage from the Hebrew and Greek yourself compared it to the KJV (I know, I did ask these questions on my other post, but they also seemed to fit here).
I do not mean to be harsh, sir, but it seemed a lot of your comparisons of the KJV vs. the NKJV, and calling them "very different" and the NKJV "corrupt" seemed to be from willful ignorance. I saw no issues in the verse from the KJV in comparison to the verse from the NKJV (i.e.; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 4:25; Hebrews 2:16; etc.)
You, sir, I am sure, believe the Bible to be our Final Authority as Christians. I also do. Thus, could you please show me verses which support the KJV-only position?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[futurehope]

[Guest Guest]

I'm not afraid to admit that I don't have all the answers to every biblical question ever asked and that I am certainly not a scholar of the Geneva bible. In my very basic understanding' date=' the translators of the Geneva bible held Calvanistic views (such as predestination) and their word choices show it and contradict the fundamental principle of grace that Christ died for ALL who would accept Him. Again, I'm not an expert on the Geneva bible and, therefore, am probably not really qualified to answer your questions concerning it. [/quote']
Very well then, sir.

I agree, sir, God is not the author of confusion. But in the verses Brother Seth posted, I saw no contradictions nor any confusion whatsoever.
Also: Can you direct me to any verses which support the KJV-only position?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

I posted this before (the link to the article), but I received no comments, so I will post it in its entirety here for easier access:
"Jesus is NOT KJV-only
by Brian Tegart
KJV-only supporters accept only the KJV as scripture, and believe any differences in wording from the KJV is a corruption and thus not the word of God. Conversely, if someone accepts a reading as "scripture" that differs from the KJV, they are not KJV-only. Anyone who has spent more than three minutes examining the KJV-only issue knows this - but did you know it can be proven, using only the KJV, that Jesus Christ is not KJV-only? Other translations and a look at the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts could enhance this article, but I will avoid using them here to demonstrate that using the KJV and only the KJV proves Jesus was not KJV-only.
Luke 4:16-21
In Luke 4:16-21, we read the account of Jesus in the synagogue, where he reads a passage of scripture aloud:
Luke 4:16-21 (KJV) "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. [17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, [18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. [21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
The passage that Jesus read from is Isaiah 61:1-2a. Here is that passage, as the KJV tells us Jesus read it, and as it appears in the KJV, with significant differences bolded: Isa 61:1-2a as the KJV tells us Jesus read it Isa 61:1-2a as it appears in the KJV
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD
What makes this comparison especially interesting, is 1. the differences are not simply due to translating from Hebrew versus translating from Greek, nor 2. more importantly, the differences are not due to Jesus paraphrasing nor exercising his authority as God and changing or producing scripture (as some KJV-only supporters have tried to explain this difference as). The immediately surrounding text of Luke makes it clear this is not the case, not once, but four times:
Jesus stood up to "read" (Luke 4:16), not simply orate.
Jesus read from a "book" (Luke 4:17).
Luke provides the passage, telling us it was "written" (Luke 4:17).
Jesus tells his hearers that the "scripture" (Luke 4:21) he just read was fulfilled in their ears. Scripture is, by definition, written. "Scripture", as an English word, comes from the Latin scriptura, "what is written", which in turn comes from from scriptus, the past participle of scribere, "to write". If Jesus altered the words, if he paraphrased or introduced a new revelation of "the word of God", it would not be "scripture" as he himself called it until his words were written down later by Luke.
What Jesus stood to read, what Luke said was written, what Jesus said was scripture - is different than what the KJV has. Jesus is not KJV-only.

Luke 10:25-28 (KJV) "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? [26] He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? [27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. [28] And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." In this passage, Jesus asks a certain lawyer what is written in the Law, how he reads it. The lawyer then quotes from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Here are the passages compared: Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 as the KJV tells us the lawyer read it Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 as it appears in the KJV Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might; thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself After the lawyer answer with this, Jesus affirms his response. Jesus does not correct him for adding "and with all thy mind" to the text - in fact, when the Pharisees at another time ask Jesus what this passage in the Old Testament says, Jesus (like the lawyer) includes the words "and with all thy mind" (Matt 22:36-37, Mark 12:28-30), and the Pharisees accepted his answer. However, the phrase "and with all thy mind" does not appear in Deut 6:5 in the KJV, nor anywhere else in the KJV's Old Testament. Jesus accepts "and with all thy mind" in Deut 6:5, which is different from the KJV. Jesus is not KJV-only. Matt 26:31 Matt 26:31 (KJV) "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." In this passage, Jesus quotes a passage that he says is written. The passage comes from part of Zech 13:7. Here are the passages compared: The phrase from Zech 13:7 as the KJV tells us Jesus said it is written The phrase from Zech 13:7 as it appears in the KJV Matt 26:31: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered Mark 14:28: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. Again, what Jesus said is "written", what Jesus accepted and used as scripture, is different from the KJV. Jesus is not KJV-only. Mark 7:6-7 Mark 7:6-7 (KJV) "He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. [7] Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." In this passage, Jesus is responding to the Pharisees, who challenge him because the disciples didn't wash their hands before eating. Jesus responds by quoting a passage that he says is written in Isaiah. That passage is Isaiah 29:13, and here are the passages compared: Isaiah 29:13 as the KJV tells us Jesus said it is written Isaiah 29:13 as it appears in the KJV This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ...this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: This time, what Jesus said is "written" is quite different than what the KJV has, especially the last sentence. Jesus is not KJV-only. Luke 7:27 Luke 7:27 (KJV) "This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." In this passage, Jesus is explaining who John the Baptist is, and how he fulfills Old Testament prophecy. Jesus quotes what he says is written in Malachi 3:1a. Here are the passages compared: Malachi 3:1a as the KJV tells us Jesus said it is written Malachi 3:1a as it appears in the KJV Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: Again, what Jesus said is "written" is different than what the KJV has. Jesus is not KJV-only.

Luke 10:25-28

Summary
There are numerous places in scripture where Jesus Christ reads from or quotes Old Testament scripture. Many times, the scripture that Jesus uses and accepts is different than what the KJV has in those passages. The above examples is not an exhaustive list, and there are also other places where it can be shown that the Apostles and others used and accepted scripture that differs from the KJV. Am I saying that the KJV is not the word of God? No, I am saying that KJV-only supporters, unlike Jesus Christ, will not accept any text as "scripture" if it differs in words from the KJV. Since Jesus does accept and use scripture that differs from the KJV, Jesus is not KJV-only."
Source: http://www.KJV-only.com/jesusnotKJvonly.html
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

Here are some of the reasons why I am KJV only

Why We use The King James Version of the Bible Here at Northwest Baptist Church

Our Church has decided to stick with the old "KING JAMES VERSION" of the Bible. The alarming number of English Bibles is one of the most important religious phenomena of recent years. It is our view that the production of these new translations has served to undermine the spiritual foundations of our country and weaken the message of her churches. The new versions are not really better than the old one. We are going to keep the King James Bible for several compelling reasons.

Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Revised Standard Version) The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V. translation of this verse. To make matters worse this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the R.S.V., but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No fundamentalist Christian would accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the Revised Standard Version. The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo- orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death "in many New Testament Passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. The New International Version (probably the most popular version of resent days) calls into question these same doctrinal issues, as well as teaching the false doctrine of, baptismal regeneration. In Acts 8:26-40 you will find the account of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, the N.I.V. completely omits the 37 verse which says, "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." Leading the reader to believe that salvation is not a prerequisite to baptism. Other versions, such as Phillips translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox religionists. For this reason, we will not use them. TEXTUAL REASONS Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than one hundred new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the Translation of the old Bible was Seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text. When the reader comes to John 7:53-8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11." Something similar is done to the Great Commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, is that a large amount of the New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new text theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4). Every man needs every word of God! A man's needs will not be met unless he has received "every word" that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). With this promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved throughout the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation! So-called "textual criticism" is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions than one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guess work and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James Version. PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus said we need! The King James Version is a translation that seeks what scholars call "formal equivalence" to the original text. Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The "dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern idiom. Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want a "formal equivalence" translation. Most of the new versions do not offer this to us. The so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures. In other words, he was putting the Bible into his own words. When a pastor reads John 3:16 to his congregation Sunday morning, that is one thing. When he rephrases it in his own words in order to explain what the verse means, that is another thing. Preachers make it clear when they are reading God's Word and when they are paraphrasing it. It is acceptable to paraphrase the Scripture in explaining it, but it is unacceptable to confuse the paraphrase with the actual Word! The Living Bible is not a Bible; it is Dr. Taylor's paraphrase of the Bible. Please keep in mind the distinction. Sadly, the result of Dr. Taylor's paraphrasing was not always very helpful even though he claims to hold "a rigid evangelical position" in his theology. For example, in 1Samuel 20:30, he introduced vile profanity into the Holy Writ without warrant from the original text! The very popular New International Version is a "dynamic equivalency" translation. The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English what the writers of scripture meant rather than what they actually said. One great problem with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means. Experts will say that all translation involves some interpretation even when this is not the object of the translators. However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers of a new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the priesthood of the believer calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions. CULTURAL REASONS Proverbs 22:28 says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" In the spirit of the fifth commandment, we are to honor the traditions given to us by the previous generations of our people. Of course, if such tradition contradicts Scripture, we are to reject it in favor of what the Bible says. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3 We never elevate tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture. But we should give our forefathers "the benefit of the doubt." We should also be careful to preserve all we can that is truly Christian about our culture. The King James Version of the Bible has played an important and unique role in the development of American culture. It could be said that the foundation of our society was the Holy Scriptures. The theology of the Bible influenced the ideas behind our Constitution. The language of the King James Bible was scattered throughout our early literature. The revivals that formed and changed our culture resulted from the preaching of Bible texts. For many years, Americans knew a certain amount of Scripture by heart. Many or most could quote at least part of the Twenty-Third Psalm, and recognize the Beatitudes, Ten Commandments, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount when quoted. But now the influence of the Bible has waned significantly. One reason for the decline of Biblical influence has been the loss of a standard version of the Bible. For the first two hundred years as a nation, the King James Version was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called "modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued to be the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. With the demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without a standard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-Third Psalm anymore? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The question always arises: "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation's spiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few have understood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed to the decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern for our country's future, if for no other reason! Why should conservative Christians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards that made our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded against change by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"? PRACTICAL REASONS Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second, as well as the first and third person. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage. "Thou" - designates the subject of a verb "Thee" - designates the object of a verb "Ye" - designates the subject of a verb "You" - designates the object of a verb A personal pronoun beginning with "t" is a singular pronoun. (thou, thee, thy, thine) "Est" - indicates the second person singular. (the one spoken to) "Eth" - indicates the third person singular. (the one spoken about) "Shall" - refers to the first person in the future tense "Will" - refers to the second or third person in the future tense We also find the italics in the old Bible a great help. The translators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language. The new translations do not do this. We appreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know what was added and what was original, and are disappointed that modern translators have let us down in this area. The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. The King James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not have them. The reader determines where a quotation begins and where it ends by the context, and by other means of interpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us the luxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because they have inserted quotation marks according to the translator's interpretations of the various passages. John1:15-18 and John 3:27-36 present examples of places in the Bible where the length of the quotation is a matter of interpretation. Such features make the King James Version the most helpful translation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the "New King James," which is partially translated from the traditional texts, denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, and the absence of quotation marks. Many publishers claim that the new translations are easier to understand, misleading people into thinking that they will be able to better understand the Word of God but the derivative copyright law insist that: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." Therefore, all new Bible versions must change the simple one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon words of the King James Version into complex, multi-syllable Latinized words. Consequently, the King James Version reads at the 5th grade level and the New King James Version reads at the 7th grade level. Because of copyright law, there will never be an easier to read Bible than the King James Version. Here are a few examples, (there are hundreds) of where the NKJV's preference for more difficult words: ...Text...............Hard Word..........Easy Word .........................NKJV....................KJV Amos 5:21............savor....................smell 2 Cor 5:2.............habitation..............house Eccl 2:3................gratify..................give Isa 28:1,4.............verdant.................fat Isa 34:6...............overflowing.............fat Deut 28:50............elderly.................. old Rom 3:25.........sins that were pre-.........sins that are past ....................viously committed Rom 7:7...............covetousness...........lust

THEOLOGICAL REASONS

For all of these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative, Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as their standard text. The new versions present to many problems and simply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for so long. Lets stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it will move us from clarity to confusion, from authority to anarchy, from faith to doubt. We ought not to make such a move!

Sir, if you don't mind my asking, did you write that? I'm curious, as I have a question I'd like to ask you. Thank you. :smile
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[futurehope]

I have read the questions in this link and won't waste my time on them as they make foolish statements as the support of the KJVO stand point. The first question is referring to another language and it has been made clear that our stance is on the English speaking people. There are also questions that try to "create" contradictions within the KJV that aren't even there. The fact of the matter is, these are intentionally twisted questions written with intentional inaccuracies in order to set a trap of satan for believers in the inerrancy of God's holy word. This questionarre is not only foolish but tends toward the realms of ignorance and idiocy. No offense here Crush, I respect you as a brother in Christ, but you are walking a fine line in accordance to intelligent conversation and the rules of this forum.

God Bless,

Futurehope

[futurehope]

I do not see how that gives them any room whatsoever.

Sodomites (aka homosexuals, queers, gays, fags) do not consider themselves to be perverted. They consider rapists and child molesters to be perverted. This allows them to say that this scripture does not condemn there ways, but rather that God made them that way. Any wonder why the UMC has allowed homosexuals not only as members, but as teachers, deacons and pastors?

I see really no doctrinal issues here; I would say the way being "narrow" would designate it being "difficult".

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The term "difficult" is definitely a contradiction to Christs own words.
When it says "being saved", I gather that it means those who are born again. As in those who come to repentance and accept Christ; not as in reference to a "process", per se.

"are being" - a double of the verb "be" in two forms. The first ("are") indicates a "state" of the plural subject "us" . The second indicates an action with an -ing ending which indicates the activity to be currently taking place. If they were wanting to indicate the current state and that the process is already completed, they would have used the perfect past participle "have been". That would give the indication that "us" (the subject) have already been completed in salvation.

I see very little difference; after all, breaking from the norm in terms of beliefs (or, a sect) would most definitely be considered heretical

"Sect" can be used to simply indicate a denomination or group. Now we have to decide which group and the decision is left up to the reader. The term "heresy" leaves no room for alternative interpretation.


I honestly see no problems or confusion here.

Honestly, how obvious can it be?!! The first indicates our need for His resurection for us to be justified. The second (in plain English) says that He was raised due to the fact that we were justified. It's a reverse of the actual cause and effect. It's like putting the cart before the horse, in a way.


Aye, He was considered a divisive man, and apparently was also considered a heretic, judging that when He said He could forgive sins the Pharisees said He was committing blasphemy.
People such as Martin Luther were "divisive" people, and were also considered heretics.

You are trying to apply man's view point of Christ to Christ's view point of man. Do you not get your own contraiction here?? We are supposed to be "divisive" as christians who seperate ourselves from those who deny Christ. We aren't supposed to be heretics! They are not one in the same and they DO mislead and misinterpret. It's passages like this that liberals will use to say that we are wrong for not just accepting anything and everone, regardless of their denial of God's commands and label us as "haters" and "self-righteous" for following His teaching in regards to fellowship with the ungodly.


To be honest, that makes perfect sense to me. They both mean exactly the same thing (the two verses); and I see no issues here.

You see only what you want to see, Crush. The first states clearly that He did not take come in a heavenly body but "took on the seed of Abraham" or came in the flesh. The second says that He doesn't "give aid" or help the heavenlies, but that He does give aid to those in the flesh. The first is in past tense (indicating what He did) and the second is in present tense (indicating a current state of action). These two verses in no way say the same thing.

Preaching the Gospel is not "peddling". Peddling basically means going about trying to sell goods.
The Gospel is free; that is not peddling.
As to your last sentence, sir, I ask: how does it line up with it? Have you translated each passage from the Hebrew and Greek yourself compared it to the KJV (I know, I did ask these questions on my other post, but they also seemed to fit here).
I do not mean to be harsh, sir, but it seemed a lot of your comparisons of the KJV vs. the NKJV, and calling them "very different" and the NKJV "corrupt" seemed to be from willful ignorance. I saw no issues in the verse from the KJV in comparison to the verse from the NKJV (i.e.; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 4:25; Hebrews 2:16; etc.)
You, sir, I am sure, believe the Bible to be our Final Authority as Christians. I also do. Thus, could you please show me verses which support the KJV-only position?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Crush, you believe that we should take a stand for acceptance of everything that will call itself God's word, whether it contradicts itself or not. I also gather that you believe that we each can individually interpret God's word to mean something different and even contradictory to eachother and it's okay. God made it clear that His scriptures are of no private interpretation and that there cannot be confusion in His words. I, for one, will not support anything that contradicts these basic principles and will stick to trusting what God has preserved for the English speaking people.

God Bless,

Futurehope

[deafnva77]

I have read the questions in this link and won't waste my time on them as they make foolish statements as the support of the KJVO stand point. The first question is referring to another language and it has been made clear that our stance is on the English speaking people. There are also questions that try to "create" contradictions within the KJV that aren't even there. The fact of the matter is, these are intentionally twisted questions written with intentional inaccuracies in order to set a trap of satan for believers in the inerrancy of God's holy word. This questionarre is not only foolish but tends toward the realms of ignorance and idiocy. No offense here Crush, I respect you as a brother in Christ, but you are walking a fine line in accordance to intelligent conversation and the rules of this forum.

God Bless,

Futurehope

He may get an warning about it, especially when he wrote: "Please note: I realize some of these questions may be a bit ridiculous, sir, and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. I just want you to think about them. Thank you." It tell me something.

[kevinmiller]

Speaking of the Geneva, I gave one to my mom for Christmas two years ago. She absolutely loves it and studies only out of it now. It is very similar to the KJV but she thinks many of the differences are more clear than the KJV.

[deafnva77]

I just want to point out something. My aunt used to have a boyfriend who was sort like John Lennon's crowd. He didn't believe in God and thinks the bible was written by men. Use to point out different version of bibles too.Having different version of bibles confuse people like my aunt's ex-bf. When one is not satisfied with a version of MV, so what do they do? Make another (sometimes for money). It get really confusing and then people start thinking, all these bibles are written by men. They are not God's words at all.

[Marcus2Israel]

Ok, I have one basic reason I claim the KJV as the proper Bible to be used in English. It is the only one without contradictions! Now, whether the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles are like that I do not know. But all the MV's are full of contradictions. Yes, they can be used to win people to Christ, but so can a paraphrase of John 3:16. Why stop using the Bible that was used by Billy Sunday, Dwight Moody, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, etc..?

[John81]

The KJB is "THE" English bible because it is a faithful translation of the TR and the proper Hebrew texts. The reason we "attack" the other versions as you say, is to show that they are not a proper translation of the TR. They are not even meant to be considering they are based on different texts. By showing the differences we are just showing that both text lines can't be right. One text line is corrupt.

Seth, you seem to have misunderstood my meaning. I have no problem with someone pointing out the differences if that's the point of conversation. However, when one seeks the reason (or reasons) as to why the KJB is THE Bible and the answers given are attacks upon other translations/versions, that's not a proper response. One can't prove the validity of one thing by claiming another is bad and one can't claim one thing is better than another by claiming others don't match it.

I've read that the actual manuscripts, or at least many of them, which the translators used to bring about the KJB are no longer in existence. Do you (anyone) know if this is true or not?

[John81]

With regards to the Geneva Bible, I've checked into this some time back; I even started a thread here about that. From what I was able to discover it seems the Geneva is actually a pretty good Bible. I can't say anything for certain about it because I have not read one from cover to cover.

However, from my research, the Bible itself seems to be pretty good, the Calvinist aspects which some have brought up seem to have been in the notes of the earlier Geneva Bibles (I don't know if any, all, some or what of newer Geneva Bibles contain these notes or not). Many of the notes within the Bible were from a Calivinist perspective, which is why I *think* at least some later versions were printed without those notes.

Many in very early America (early Colonial period) carried Geneva Bibles.

[Guest Guest]

He may get an warning about it' date=' especially when he wrote: "Please note: I realize some of these questions may be a bit ridiculous, sir, and[u'] you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. I just want you to think about them. Thank you." It tell me something.

Excuse me, ma'am, but I believe I said that in regards to a few questions I asked Brother Seth. I do not recall saying that about the link I posted.
I could be wrong, though, but that is how I remember it.
God bless,
Crushmaster.