Jump to content
Online Baptist

King James Version


Doc Flay

Recommended Posts

  • Members



My prayer for you and your husband young lady is that you'll both seek the Lord's counsel through prayer and reading his Word as you've sought ours and the Holy Spirit will point you toward the truth and you will not then continue to reject it but come to repentance.

Have you read Psalm 12:6???


We already asked for repentance... when we both accepted Christ as Savior. We read Gods Word together and are both continually challenged in His Word.
We do not reject His Word at all... never.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



If a person reads a corrupt Bible then is that persons faith corrupt as well?



Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mr 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


How can a person worship our Lord in truth, if they have not the truth, if they study from a book that contains not the truth, & refuse the truth when its present to them? It seems that Jesus proclaims that truth is essential in worshiping. And of course, He is speaking about His Fathers truth, not commandments of man.

Those MV's contradict the KJ, so one has to be wrong.

If you would like to have more information on the true KJ Bible, just click on Will Kinney . You can find all information on his site that you will need to make a informed decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators


Jehovah Witness' are a cult... in no way the same as Christians...
I do not know about any of their books that they use so I can't say what I want to say because I would not be able to back it up.


Okay... the point I was trying to make was that the JW's have a 'Bible' that they have 'translated themselves'... but they have translated in such a way as to prove their own doctrine. No matter the source they used, their translation methods and the bias of the translators have corrupted the text so that no true Christian would accept their Bible as authoritative. It might still contain some of the Word of God, but the changed ideas, added or deleted words so corrupts the true Word of God that it cannot be trusted. Who's to say what is God's Word and what is the word of man? You might try to pick the 'good parts' out of the corrupted book - but what if you miss something. You'll 'choke on the bones', so to speak. And what about a new Christian who lacks discernment? They could be led astray by the corrupted book.

In the same way, a Bible translation that has been corrupted by biased or unsaved translators, or a translation process such as that I described above (higher criticism, dynamic equivalency and political correctness [inclusive language]), in my opinion cannot be trusted. Again, who is to say which parts are the true Word of God and which parts have been altered?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Also, with regards to those doing the translating, we need to remember that while we are all sinners, there is a vast difference between a born again believer who doesn't walk in sin, and a professing Christian who does walk in sin.


And it needs to be mentioned, many of the translators are of those that believe in works based salvation & believe you have to be a member of a certain church in order to enter heaven, & thus are not even born again believers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



And it needs to be mentioned, many of the translators are of those that believe in works based salvation & believe you have to be a member of a certain church in order to enter heaven, & thus are not even born again believers.

Exactly, which gets to the main point, if a translation is put forth by those who are not born again in Christ, how reliable can it be?

The simple fact that the historically accepted line of manuscripts were suddenly cast aside for those that had been previously rejected due to their errors is very telling.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



Okay... the point I was trying to make was that the JW's have a 'Bible' that they have 'translated themselves'... but they have translated in such a way as to prove their own doctrine. No matter the source they used, their translation methods and the bias of the translators have corrupted the text so that no true Christian would accept their Bible as authoritative. It might still contain some of the Word of God, but the changed ideas, added or deleted words so corrupts the true Word of God that it cannot be trusted. Who's to say what is God's Word and what is the word of man? You might try to pick the 'good parts' out of the corrupted book - but what if you miss something. You'll 'choke on the bones', so to speak. And what about a new Christian who lacks discernment? They could be led astray by the corrupted book.

In the same way, a Bible translation that has been corrupted by biased or unsaved translators, or a translation process such as that I described above (higher criticism, dynamic equivalency and political correctness [inclusive language]), in my opinion cannot be trusted. Again, who is to say which parts are the true Word of God and which parts have been altered?


yes I agree, just like the Mormons also translate their bible to fit their cult.

But King James or NIV, they both agree that Jesus Christ is Lord, only His blood can save us.... they both agree on that. The wording is just different, one is old English one is modern English... I just still don't see why people say one Bible is right... others are wrong. (I should re word that... I do see why... I still can't wrap my head around it)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


But King James or NIV, they both agree that Jesus Christ is Lord, only His blood can save us.... they both agree on that. The wording is just different, one is old English one is modern English... I just still don't see why people say one Bible is right... others are wrong. (I should re word that... I do see why... I still can't wrap my head around it)

You need to study out the actual differences. Myself and Jerry have posted links to help you with this. It's not about the age of the language, there are actual differences between the KJB and NIV.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have read those links :) I appreciate them a lot.

If you read what was there then you should be aware that it's not about old English vs modern English, it's about what is missing and changed in the NIV which makes it not a good Bible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


If you read what was there then you should be aware that it's not about old English vs modern English, it's about what is missing and changed in the NIV which makes it not a good Bible.


Amen.
It is like those who want to believe that the KJV is too hard to read, but from things I've read, the reading level of the KJV is actually lower than the NIV and others.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Amen.
It is like those who want to believe that the KJV is too hard to read, but from things I've read, the reading level of the KJV is actually lower than the NIV and others.

It's not that the KJB is hard to read, it's that people today have been taught to be lazy and want things written at a level for children. One of the problems with that is, the more one simplifies something, the less meaning it can convey.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members


It's not that the KJB is hard to read, it's that people today have been taught to be lazy and want things written at a level for children. One of the problems with that is, the more one simplifies something, the less meaning it can convey.


King James says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

NIV says:
"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."

Both clearly say the way to salvation... Every verse I compare KJ and NIV with never ever contradict one another.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



King James says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

NIV says:
"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."

Both clearly say the way to salvation... Every verse I compare KJ and NIV with never ever contradict one another.

Obviously you didn't follow the links and read what was written there.

If you follow the links, there are examples set forth side-by-side which show what the KJB and NIV says and the clear differences.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members


Obviously you didn't follow the links and read what was written there.

If you follow the links, there are examples set forth side-by-side which show what the KJB and NIV says and the clear differences.


I did. But like anything on the internet you can't take it everything seriously (I do trust the links you sent are accurate, no doubt in my mind)
so I took my own Bibles.

I still do not see contradiction, maybe I am to simple minded to see?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you follow what was put forth in the articles in the links where the verses are posted side by side, anyone can then open their own KJB and NIV and see that what is in the articles is accurate.

There are instances where entire verses are missing from the NIV, portions of verses, where words are changed that give different meanings, etc. It's all clearly put forth and easily checked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Both clearly say the way to salvation... Every verse I compare KJ and NIV with never ever contradict one another.


1 Samuel 13:1

NIV - Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years
KJV- Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

Colossians 1:14

NIV - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
KJV - In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

1 Timothy 3:16

NIV - Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
KJV - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Acts 8:37

NIV - Missing
KJV - 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.

There are many more examples than just these. As you can see the NIV and the KJV don't say the same thing. If you go to this site you'll find some more examples. Many deal with the ESV but the NIV has many of the same problems that the ESV has.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators



King James says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

NIV says:
"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."

Both clearly say the way to salvation... Every verse I compare KJ and NIV with never ever contradict one another.
.

Actually, they don't mean the same thing. Jesus is the only begotten son of God, but not the only son (think firstborn among many brethren). The NIV diminishes both the fact that Jesus was begotten - God come in the flesh - and that we are by adoption sons of God. It's a very subtle difference.

You might be thinking, "well, I know what it means," but it is still different. And 'things that are different are not the same...'
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

May I share some thoughts with you? Please bear with me as there'll be several topics before I finish this reply.

Our church uses Lifeway Sunday School materials. The quarterly for our class uses scripture based on the Holman Christian Standard Bible. (HCSB). I frequently disagree with the lessons based on the HCSB, because use a KJV, instead, when studying the next lesson. (Some consider the HCSB one of the better modern versions, when compared to the NIV and other's.) Here's an example from a class a few weeks ago.

Colossians 2:8-15 (HCSB)

8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ. 9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature[a] dwells bodily[b] in Christ, 10 and you have been filled by Him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. 11 You were also circumcised in Him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of the Messiah.[c] 12 Having been buried with Him in baptism, you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive with Him and forgave us all our trespasses. 14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and disgraced them publicly; He triumphed over them by Him.[d]
Footnotes:

  1. Colossians 2:9 Or of the deity
  2. Colossians 2:9 Or nature lives in a human body
  3. Colossians 2:11 = His death
  4. Colossians 2:15 Or them through it; = through the cross


Compare......

Colossians 2:8-15 (KJV)


8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

I gave you both sets of verses for comparison. The title of this study was "Center of My Belief". Intro to the lesson included the following statement.
No longer can we assume that people in our churches comprehend and believe essential Christian doctrines. Researchers tell us that Bible knowledge in American churches is at an all-time low and there exists a profound lack of belief in essential Christian doctrines. Believers not grounded in sound doctrine are in danger of being duped by unbiblical and dangerous teachings about Christ.

The SS teacher floundered bady in trying to teach this lesson. In trying to explain the "fullness of God's nature." He had NOT read the KJV version of verse 9. Instead he relied on this.
Fullness
False teachers in Colossae used the Greek word translated fullness for a series of powers emanating from God. They believed a holy God could not create matter, which they considered evil. Thus, God worked through a descending order of beings, the last of which created the world. To relate to God a person had to move through this series of powers. The false teachers claimed to have secret knowledge to enable individuals to work through the powers to get to God. (For more information see the article on pp. 6-9).

Paul used the term fullness but gave it an entirely different meaning. Instead of being expressed through a string of supposed powers, God made Himself known uniquely in Christ, in whom full deity resided. God's diety was not scattered; it dwelt in Christ.


Had the SS teacher read the KJV, instead of fullness he would have read Godhead. Godhead = Trinity!

There's more in this lesson, but space and copyright limitations are coming into play. A straight forward lesson based on the KJV wouldn't have had pages of the equivalent floundering in the quote above. Remember, that's just my opinion, just was it was the opinion of the author of the lesson.

Moving on ........

"Old English" vs "Modern English". Using the claim that the language of the KJB needs to be updated, is an excuse often used to influence the thinking of the reader of the scriptures. Are the words slave and servant outdated? Are the words interchangeable without changing the context of the message? Often in MV servant is replaced with slave. Remember a slave doesn't have a choice. Usually a servant does have a choice. In many instances in the Bible, the difference between these words is important.

"Old English" vs "Modern English". When the word worshiped is changed to bowed, the context is changed. I will bow to the Queen of England. That does not mean that I worship her. When a MV replaces worship to bow, the person is now doing an act of courtesy. Are we to be courteous to the Lord or are we to worship the Lord?

"Old English" vs "Modern English". Thee & Thou -- The translators of the KJV resorted to an older form of the English language that was fading from general usage. This was done on purpose. It was the most accurate way to translate the manuscripts. Space here is much to limited to go into depth as to why this is the case. http://brandplucked.webs.com/theeandye.htm

One more... This time personal.

I was saved as a teenager. I don't like to admit this, but it is now part of my testimony. I drifted away from the church for far TOO many years. When the Lord got tired of this lukewarm Christian, He sent a messenger (a friend invited us to his church) and we heeded the call. When I rounded up my old dusty KJV, found these old eyes couldn't read the small print.

Another friend recommended a large print NIV, for all the reasons we hear today. Updated language, better manuscripts, better translators (scholars), etc & etc. Well, I bought a nice one. Leather bound, easy to read, both in print size, and writing style. To make a long story short, it left me cold. I tried using it for several months, so I believe I gave it a fair evaluation. By that time I also wanted a study Bible. Went to Lifeway, as they had a large selection of Bibles to choose from. I don't know how long I stayed in the store or how many versions I thumbed through. Read passages, at random, from them.

Went into the store with the MV "reasons" firmly in my thoughts. Just needed to find the one that was right for me. "Lord, please help me choose the next Bible that I buy." Left the store with a KJB Study Bible, based on the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873. I fully believe that the Holy Spirit led me to this decision. Picked it up several times, while at the store, then looked at others. Kept returning to it. I don't think I realized at the time, why I was being drawn back to it. That came later.

In closing, I've been using this KJV for well over a year, with no regrets. AND.... I've spent a considerable amount of time studing the KJV Only controversy. While I don't agree with the extreme positions that some take, the more I learn about modern versions and the motives for same, the stronger my conviction grows that I came home from Lifeway with the best Bible for me to study the word of God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We already asked for repentance... when we both accepted Christ as Savior. We read Gods Word together and are both continually challenged in His Word.

We do not reject His Word at all... never.


So you haven't sinned since you were saved? I don't think that's true based on my observations. At the very least you reject the doctrine of separation by continuing to defend and use a man-made bible which has corrupted the Word of God because it was written by unsaved people.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



So you haven't sinned since you were saved? I don't think that's true based on my observations. At the very least you reject the doctrine of separation by continuing to defend and use a man-made bible which has corrupted the Word of God because it was written by unsaved people.


Of course I still sin... don't we all?
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://dbts.edu/blog/?p=2117
Here's a short article that may shed some light on this topic.

I haven't read every post, but I thought I'd comment briefly. (I am not KJVO by any stretch of the imagination, for many reasons.) One of the reasons I don't like the NIV as much as the versions I use for study is that it is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek text. Maybe you've already heard this, teylacarter, but there is a difference between what is called formal equivalence (word-for-word translation) and dynamic equivalence (attempted translation of meaning, not necessarily word-for-word). Every version, including the King James Version, employs both of these translation techniques to some extent, because of the simple fact that ancient Hebrew and Greek do not translate word-for-word into English in a meaningful way...Words have to be added in, rearranged, etc., so that the English reader can understand the meaning of the text. However, some versions (the KJV, NASB, NKJV, the ESV, and others like them) employ formal equivalence whenever possible, despite the fact that perhaps some readability is sacrificed along the way (some ancient idioms are obscure, etc.). They are closer to word-for-word translations than versions which employ more dynamic equivalence. Versions which employ more dynamic equivalence, emphasizing readability over word-for-word translation, are farther away from "the actual words of God spoken in Hebrew and Greek" than versions which employ formal equivalence whenever possible. The NIV employs a lot more dynamic equivalence than the other modern versions I mentioned. I like those versions because (like the KJV), they are word-for-word translations, yet they are readable at the same time, because they are written in the common English vernacular of the day (just like the KJV was written in the common English vernacular of its day).

The other issue (not addressed in this post) is which NT Greek text is the best one to start with when translating the Bible. Many of the modern versions (including, I believe, the NIV) are translated primarily from the Eclectic Text, while the KJV and NKJV are translated from the Textus Receptus, or Received Text.

Just some food for thought.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


You need to study out the actual differences. Myself and Jerry have posted links to help you with this. It's not about the age of the language, there are actual differences between the KJB and NIV.


I think the point is, to try & convince us & this site there is nothing wrong with the corrupt NIV, while hoping to gain support, while at the same time trying to defend their own use of the corrupt NIV.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators



I think the point is, to try & convince us & this site there is nothing wrong with the corrupt NIV, while hoping to gain support, while at the same time trying to defend their own use of the corrupt NIV.


Jerry, that's unkind. It can take a while to 'get' something like this - it did me, anyways.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



I think the point is, to try & convince us & this site there is nothing wrong with the corrupt NIV, while hoping to gain support, while at the same time trying to defend their own use of the corrupt NIV.


I came on this site looking for the reasoning behind my mother-in-laws thinking (She is a strict KJV only) and I have been accused of being corrupt and not a strong Christian for daring to actually enjoy not just KJ but also NIV.

I am not sorry I do not think the same way you do. I came here to be surrounded by people who think like my mother in law to get a better understanding. Most of you have been wonderful and I have learned much. But I have also been hurt by the things some people have said.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I am not sorry I do not think the same way you do. I came here to be surrounded by people who think like my mother in law to get a better understanding. Most of you have been wonderful and I have learned much. But I have also been hurt by the things some people have said.


I have no reason to believe you came here with ill intentions. When I first started posting on this site I was not KJV Only but after much study I now hold to that position. The one link you were given by someone else earlier has many great articles that can be verified by looking at your NIV and KJV. People attack us on a regular basis so we can sometimes be over defensive. Not only do they attack us online but on the radio, TV, from the pulpit and in books. They normally don't address the arguments we put forward. They paint us with a broad brush and as anti intellectuals. I believe you would go a long way with some here if you would admit the NIV and the KJV don't say the same thing in several spots. It is obviously the case and would go to show that you are willing to agree with us on points that should be accepted from any point of view.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



I have no reason to believe you came here with ill intentions. When I first started posting on this site I was not KJV Only but after much study I now hold to that position. The one link you were given by someone else earlier has many great articles that can be verified by looking at your NIV and KJV. People attack us on a regular basis so we can sometimes be over defensive. Not only do they attack us online but on the radio, TV, from the pulpit and in books. They normally don't address the arguments we put forward. They paint us with a broad brush and as anti intellectuals. I believe you would go a long way with some here if you would admit the NIV and the KJV don't say the same thing in several spots. It is obviously the case and would go to show that you are willing to agree with us on points that should be accepted from any point of view.


But see... I do love the King James. I use it more than my NIV.... I do not accept the KJ as the only true Bible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
But see... I do love the King James. I use it more than my NIV.... I do not accept the KJ as the only true Bible.


I don't doubt that. It boils down to this. Since the KJV and NIV do differ they both can't be correct. Either the KJV has mistakes, the NIV has mistakes or both have mistakes. I do believe we have a perfect Bible in English and that being the KJV.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



I don't doubt that. It boils down to this. Since the KJV and NIV do differ they both can't be correct. Either the KJV has mistakes, the NIV has mistakes or both have mistakes. I do believe we have a perfect Bible in English and that being the KJV.


I personally think they both have mistakes, simply because words lose meaning in translations and also, they both were translated by sinful humans. Of course God is not limited by our sin and His power can easily be seen when I (and many others) read either translation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I personally think they both have mistakes, simply because words lose meaning in translations and also, they both were translated by sinful humans. Of course God is not limited by our sin and His power can easily be seen when I (and many others) read either translation.


I believe that is an honest answer and hopefully will show you where we are coming from with our view and where you are coming from with your view. Be patient with your mother in law and just understand where she is coming from and never quote a passage around her unless it is from the KJV. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



I believe that is an honest answer and hopefully will show you where we are coming from with our view and where you are coming from with your view. Be patient with your mother in law and just understand where she is coming from and never quote a passage around her unless it is from the KJV. :D


I do try to remember to quote only KJV around my mother in law, but some verses I have memorized in NIV. I try to be understanding but it is hard, because we have different view points.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do try to remember to quote only KJV around my mother in law, but some verses I have memorized in NIV. I try to be understanding but it is hard, because we have different view points.


My wife now just uses the KJV but she learned verses growing up using the NIV so she sometimes quotes the NIV even though she doesn't mean to do so. Our church is more conservative than my parents in law's church so we have our differences. We try to respect each others differences and have conversations once in a while about the touchy subjects but in a civil manner. I find it important to have a good relationship with the parents in law, even more so when children are involved. I pray that you can have a good relationship with your mother in law.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 38 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...