Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted October 5, 2011 Members Share Posted October 5, 2011 Amen and Amen. Nothing Like the power of the words of Scripture. I have used. Ps. 12:6,7 many times to show that God has promised to preserve His word. Many "christians" have told me that is not what the passage says. They believe the correct interpretation is that God promised to preserve His people, not His words. The lengths some will go to twist the scriptures to their own destruction.If it said God would preserve His people, wouldn't it stand to reason that He would also preserve His Word? I mean, if He didn't/doesn't preserve His Word, surely the people will fall because of believing corrupt writings instead of God's writings. For sake of an argument, let's say these 'modernists' are right, and that the NIV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, RSV, etc are the correct Bibles. (an impossibility, since they all disagree with one another in more than one instance) If that were the case, then that would mean that God allowed a few entire generations of people to die and go to a devil's hell because they believed the KJV, which, according to some is not God's preserved Word. These generations followed a 'false witness,' if we are to believe that the modern versions are God's Word. I'll stick with my good old KJV. It's been proven time and again to be the perfect, preserved, proven Word of God. Pastor Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eric Stahl Posted December 2, 2011 Members Share Posted December 2, 2011 I am a Sunday school teacher. My love is Bible prophecy. About twenty years ago I bought a new King James Bible because our new pastor used one. One day i was studying Isaiah 24 and as I was reading it I discovered it was different than what I knew it should be. The change was so great that the reader could not understand the prophecy correctly. The more I checked it the more differences I found. In the King James all the prophets describe the sixth seal judgment in a way you can see they are seeing the same event. The King James is translated word for word even if the translator didn't understand the prophecy. The prophets still agree. In the new Bibles many try to translate the thought instead of the word. If the translator dose not understand the prophecy he can not translate the thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted December 3, 2011 Members Share Posted December 3, 2011 BaptistBaby, if you are still around (it's been over 2 years since you asked the opening question), I'll throw my 2 cents in...I may have to use 2 posts to do so... What Eric said is true. There are two main philosophies of translation...Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. In layman's terms, Formal Equivalence (as used by the King James translators) is to translate word-for-word from one language to another. However, Dynamic Equivalence (as used by new version translators) is to translate...what the translators believe the "thoughts" of the writers were. Granted, some of the new version translators use both forms in the translating process; however, they're not being true if they translate ANY part of scripture using Dynamic Equivalency. Next, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the King James' underlying text is the Textus Receptus, which was the accepted Greek text used to translate earlier English versions and other ancient versions. The Textus Receptus is also called the "Received text", because the church accepted and received it as THE authoritative Greek text. It is also called the "Majority text" because of the overwhelming majority of available copies. There was another Greek text available at the time in which the King James was being translated...called the "Codex Vaticanus"; however, the King James translators refused to use it. The Codex Vaticanus was "found" in the Vatican library in Rome in the year 1481...it had numerous revisions, write-overs, and cross-outs. To the point, that the original writings were either so faded or written over, making it impossible to read what was first written. Another Greek manuscript (the Codex Sinaiticus) was found in the year 1844. Again, this manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic Monastery called Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mt. Sinai. It was found in a trash basket mixed in with other papers...waiting to be burned. Part two of the Codex Sinaiticus was found in the year 1859. Like the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus was marked over, through, etc. to the point that they appeared more like scratch papers than a preserved copy of an important manuscript.To be continued... LindaR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Hmmm...I like all those answers above who stand up for the KJB. Its good to see so many who have made a decision and stick to it. Here's mine:The Word of God I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct. I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God including the latest Roman Church Bibles, Douay –Rheims and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21) ...the 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled. Besides the above...I cannot submit to memory the newer EVs. It's too much like casual conversation which, lends to discard or minimize a great percentage when someone is reading or speaking. We have to remember this is God speaking to us and answering questions we have; so, casual, discard, or minimalism are not options. The KJB makes me pause and think about the meaning also; in many cases I look up meaning. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 2Tim215 Posted December 3, 2011 Members Share Posted December 3, 2011 You guys are forgetting the one most important thing (besides the fact that it IS THE WORD OF GOD)IT IS THE ONLY BIBLE THAT HAS NO COPYRIGHT "The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV's without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations. " quote SO: It was NOT made to prove someones doctrine. It was NOT made to make some publisher, preacher or organization rich It IS the free Word of God - yes you pay for it but few benefit. (besides those that read it)Any one can print it without the need for permission. It was fine for 100's of years until capitalism came into the picture and people started copying the Roman church and making money in God's temple.It is almost impossible to find in any Christian bookstore, never mind any other bookstore. Talk about falling away - there's your proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted December 5, 2011 Members Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) ...this is a continuation of my previous post (post #33)...I'm having trouble posting, so I may have to do this in several posts... Here's an important question. IF those texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are "older and therefore, more reliable", why did God entrust their care to a false religious system...the Roman Catholic church? These Roman Catholic Greek manuscripts leave out thousands of words, MANY verses, and some chapters when compared to the Textus Receptus. Which brings us to two men...Westcott and Hort. They wrote a completely new Greek New Testament based on those corrupt manuscripts, and it is their Greek New Testament that ALL new versions are translated from. Though both men were "religious" (Westcott was an Anglican bishop; Hort was an ordained priest), both men were also heretics. Here's a small sample of what these men "believed"... All protestants should convert to Catholicism (which includes the worship of Mary)...Jesus never claimed to be God...hell isn't a real place...the creation account in Genesis isn't literal (Hort, an avid evolutionist, held Darwin's "Origin of the Species" in higher regard than the Bible)...Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as the ONLY atonement for man's sins is heresy...man is "divine"... ...to be continued... Edited December 5, 2011 by No Nicolaitans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted December 5, 2011 Members Share Posted December 5, 2011 ...continuation... Something else to consider... Can sincere Christians "believe" that they have the word of God; when actually, what they have is not the word of God? I'll let the apostle Paul answer this... II Thessalonians 2:1-2 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. We know that much of the New Testament is the "letters" that Paul wrote. Though the Bible (as we know it today) wasn't compiled then as it is now, the people understood and accepted Paul's letters as authoritative. Obviously, someone sent the Thessalonians a "false letter" which claimed Pauline authorship. This letter was promoting false doctrine, and the Christians at Thessalonica were deceived by it..."believing" that Paul had written it. The point being...just as the Christians at Thessalonica were deceived by a false letter, Christians today can believe they have the word of God; when actually, it's a false letter. Newer versions may contain parts of the actual word of God, but they're intermingled with falsities. They are translated from corrupt manuscripts and texts...they add to and take away from the word of God. ...to be continued... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted December 5, 2011 Members Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) ...continuation... God's word should be of utmost importance to Christians. It should be our guide and final authority. Even more important, God's word is of utmost importance...to God himself! Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. If God's word is more important to him than his name, I want to make sure that I have his word! Remember, one of the ten commandments is... Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. And yet, his word is magnified above his name! Oh, how we must tread carefully when handling the word of Almighty God! Since God told us to study his word, I want to make sure that I have his word! However, if large parts of his word are missing, added to, and changed, I will fall short! If I'm aware that there is a faithful copy of his word, yet I neglect it, I will have to answer to him one day...and I have enough to answer for without adding that! ...to be continued... Edited December 5, 2011 by No Nicolaitans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted December 5, 2011 Members Share Posted December 5, 2011 ...continuation... I love God's word...as should all Christians. Psalm 119:111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. _____________________________________________________________Now, if God doesn't change... Malachi 3:6a For I am the LORD, I change not;...and Jesus Christ is God... John 10:30I and my Father are one....and Jesus doesn't change... Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever....and Jesus is the Word... John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth....then I sincerely and honestly ask, then how can the Bible change? God promised to PRESERVE his word... Psalm 12:6-7 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. ...yet different versions change and say different things...from and unchanging God, then, either God has lied, or something is wrong with the translations. That, if you've read all of my posts BaptistBaby (in as small of a nutshell as I can put it) is why the King James is superior and the only Bible to be trusted. Newer versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and texts...given by men who didn't even believe the Bible. One last thought...All Versionists like to throw out this argument..."Show me from the Bible that the King James is the only word of God!" To which I reply, "Show me from the Bible that it isn't the only word of God!" :) LindaR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Young Posted April 1, 2015 Members Share Posted April 1, 2015 Hi everyone. Could someone please explain to me in layman's terms why the KJV Bible is superior to modern versions?Here are some practical reasons it is superior:​1. Every bible scholar agrees that it is the best translation ever made. They only disagree with its "modern readability" and its choice of manuscripts.2. The words of the King James Bible have not changed and will not change. I use an actual 1611 and other then formatting and spelling it is the same as today's editions of the King James bible.3. Other Bibles change substantially between printings. Dad's copy of the same version will be and can be much different then his child's.4. Copyright holders have sole authority to permit or forbid the printing of their bibles. A Good bible can be made bad a their whim. KJV copyright is held and protected by the Crown of England. Publishers and Churches are allowed to make unlimited copies and still call them KJVs as long as they do not change the wording.5. Copyright holders are also not required to produce accurate bibles. Just different ones. Many groups and cults take on themselves to write a bible supporting their pet doctrines then sell it to everyone. No one can hold them accountable. The Crown of England commanded and held its scholars to accuracy in translation for all its Christian subjects. Rebecca, Alan and ThePilgrim 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted April 1, 2015 Members Share Posted April 1, 2015 ...continuation...I love God's word...as should all Christians.Psalm 119:111Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.Psalm 119:140Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it._____________________________________________________________Psalm 12:6-76 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. ​Good verses!So since Psalm 12:6,7 says " thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.", it goes to say that before the KJB1611 there exists God's word also.Thank you for pointing that out. Most KJVers I grew up 'in the Lord' knowing, all believe contrary to that thought.I don't understand why the argument against pre-KJB Bibles, God's word says we would have His word "from this generation" (Davids generation, right?) "for ever" (beyond Davids generation.) No Nicolaitans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted April 1, 2015 Members Share Posted April 1, 2015 Since God told us to study his word, I want to make sure that I have his word! However, if large parts of his word are missing, added to, and changed, I will fall short! If I'm aware that there is a faithful copy of his word, yet I neglect it, I will have to answer to him one day...and I have enough to answer for without adding that!​Good comment!​Yes, and I have gone through that thought line also. It is very sobering to experience.But I am glad I have overcome the fear of men who don't agree with that sentence. No Nicolaitans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 Here are some practical reasons it is superior:​1. *Every bible scholar agrees that it is the best translation ever made. They only disagree with its "modern readability" and its choice of manuscripts.2. The words of the King James Bible have not changed and will not change. I use an actual 1611 ** and other then formatting and spelling it is the same as today's editions of the King James bible.3. Other Bibles change substantially between printings. Dad's copy of the same version will be and can be much different then his child's.4. Copyright holders have sole authority to permit or forbid the printing of their bibles. A Good bible can be made bad a their whim. KJV copyright is held and protected by the Crown of England. Publishers and Churches are allowed to make unlimited copies and still call them KJVs as long as they do not change the wording.***5. Copyright holders are also not required to produce accurate bibles. Just different ones. Many groups and cults take on themselves to write a bible supporting their pet doctrines then sell it to everyone. No one can hold them accountable. The Crown of England commanded and held its scholars to accuracy in translation for all its Christian subjects.​* In my experience, most 'bible scholars' are liberal and don't like the KJB.** I have a 1611 facsimile, what do you mean "formatting"? - the punctuation is different and some words are missing because of typo's. And when you change punctuation, that changes meaning.*** As far as I have read, that only pertains to areas of the world that are British owned, not America. There are plenty of 'American' publishers that have KJV editions where they change the words in the text. (ex. The Open Bible KJV, Zondervans Zodhiates KJV, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 Somehow, no matter what version we read, there's just something about the KJB. It has survived 400 years without nary a revision other than spelling and tyops. The text itself is pure.​Depending on the care of the publisher that is. There are differences between printings of different publishers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.