Better hope your surgeon is not a modern versionist.

[brandplucked]

You Better Hope Your Surgeon Is Not A Modern Versionist

After years of reading my King James Bible and comparing it to the ever changing Evangelical modern versions like the NASB, NIV and NKJV, I have repeatedly noticed how they all continue to make totally unnecessary translational changes that end up creating confusion and discord even in the simple area of identifying the parts of the human body.

The modern versions are so utterly confused at times, that it occurred to me that it would be tragically humorous if your next operation or yearly medical check-up were performed by a doctor or a surgeon who learned his human anatomy from one of the modern bible versions rather than from the true Bible - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

The following word studies are just a few of the numerous examples of the utter confusion found in today?s so called ?New and Improved? Bible versions.

Hands, Body, Arms, Back, Chest or Black Eye?

King James Bible - Zechariah 13:6 "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of "What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS" are the 1917 Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Wycliffe Bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's literal translation, Darby's translation, the Douay-Rheims, the Italian Diodati, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the KJV 21st Century version, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Reina Valera -"Y le preguntar

[John81]

Wow!

It's should be so obvious that all versions are not the same and that all versions can't be equally true or equally God's Word, yet that's the belief of so many professing Christians these days.

[brandplucked]

Hi brother. Yes, there is a lot of confusion out there in Bible Babylonia, and most Christians read their "bibles" less and less and don't believe any of them are the pure and inerrant words of God. We do live in interesting times.

May God keep us believing His precious words of truth.

Will K

[joyfulpraise93]

Fascinating post! Yet another reason to hold to the Blessed Old Book! All those modern versions are perversions.

[brandplucked]

Fascinating post! Yet another reason to hold to the Blessed Old Book! All those modern versions are perversions.

Amen, sister. They are indeed perverted, degraded and inferior to the real deal found only in the King James Bible - God's Book to the nations. Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time low and it will only get worse as Satan and fallen man pump out more comic book versions of the bible and people believe and read them less and less. All part of God's eternal purpose. He Himself is sending a famine of hearing His pure words. There will be a falling away from the faith before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and no one will be able to stop it.

We do live in interesting times.

Bless you dear saint.

Believing the Book,

Will K

[Guest Guest]

Amen, sister. They are indeed perverted, degraded and inferior to the real deal found only in the King James Bible - God's Book to the nations. Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time low and it will only get worse as Satan and fallen man pump out more comic book versions of the bible and people believe and read them less and less. All part of God's eternal purpose. He Himself is sending a famine of hearing His pure words. There will be a falling away from the faith before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and no one will be able to stop it.

We do live in interesting times.

Bless you dear saint.

Believing the Book,

Will K

YES! Man...in his finite mind couldn't accept God's Word...the KJVO, and decided he needed to change it over and over, again. Sad...but, true. What is NOT to get? I am simple-minded...too. :Green

In Christ ~

Molly

[brandplucked]

More about LOINS - Ezekiel 21:6 - 7 ?Sigh therefore, thou son of man, with breaking of thy LOINS; and with bitterness sigh before their eyes...every HEART shall melt, and all hands shall be feeble...?

The Hebrew word is clearly and undisputably ?loins? in 21:6 and a very different word is translated as ?heart? in 21:7. ?with breaking of thy LOINS? is the reading found in the Bishop?s bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Green?s ?literal? 2000, Rotherham?s Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Bible, the Jewish Publication Society version 1917, the Judaica Press Tanach, the KJV 21st century 1994, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 ?los lomos?, the 1991 Italian Diodati ?lombi?, Luther?s German bible 1545 "Linden", and the Portuguese Almeida ?lombos?.

However, beginning with the liberal RSV and continuing now with the NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and Wallace?s NET version, we read of the ?aching HEART? or the ?breaking HEART? instead of the ?loins?, but they DO translate the word for ?heart? as ?heart? in verse 21:7. Even Wallace?s NET version and the NASB then tell us in their footnotes that the literal Hebrew is ?breaking of loins?. Let?s hope your surgeon knows the difference between these two very different parts of the human body, even though some modern versionists do not.

Will Kinney

[robycop3]

Fascinating post! Yet another reason to hold to the Blessed Old Book! All those modern versions are perversions.

Wrong.

You have no Scriptural support for that idea.

[deputydog530]

robycop3, you just read (or maybe you didnt) some of the proof. If you dont agree with God when he said he preserved his word, thats your decision. But remember, this is a KJV board, and yes the proof is posted all over in the threads of the KJV.

Nice study brandplucked.

[brandplucked]

Psalm 69:1 - ?Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my SOUL.?

The Hebrew word used is the usual word for SOUL (And man became a living SOUL - Genesis 2:7 etc.) and Psalm 69:1 so translated in the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops? 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, the Jewish translations of JPS 1917 and the Judaica Press Tanach, Webster?s 1833, Darby, Young?s, Douay, the KJV 21st Century, Green?s 2000, the so called Septuagint as well as the Modern Greek translation (psuche), the Italian Diodati 1649, Rivudeta 1927, the Spanish Reina Valera 1902, 1960, 1995 (mi alma) and Luther?s 1545 German bible (die Seele).

The NASB keeps on changing its text from one edition to the next in scores of verses. The 1972 NASB says: ?the waters HAVE COME UP TO MY SOUL?, but the 1977 and 95 editions now read: ?the waters HAVE THREATENED MY LIFE?. Then in their footnote they say Literally ?soul?.

But wait. There?s more. Beginning with the liberal RSV , we now read ?the waters are come up to my NECK? in the NRSV, ESV, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard, and Wallace?s NET version.

Not to be outdone in the realm of novelty, the 2000 Message says: ?I?m in over my HEAD? while the New Berkeley Version of 1969 says: ?the waters come up to my LIPS.?

Let?s see - SOUL, NECK, LIPS, HEAD - yep, pretty much mean the same thing, right?

Will Kinney

[robycop3]

robycop3, you just read (or maybe you didnt) some of the proof. If you dont agree with God when he said he preserved his word, thats your decision. But remember, this is a KJV board, and yes the proof is posted all over in the threads of the KJV.

Nice study brandplucked.

Any Scriptural support for KJVO? NEWP!

[trc123]

My surgeon is Orthodox Jew and reads the Torah and other texts back to before the KJV; I guess I'm safe then.......

[sinclair_cj]

okay i will readily admit, that versions like "the message" are very deluded and stray from the most-literal translations, but while you were counting all that junk and how many lost people picked up an niv and learned that Jesus loves them and can and will save them. the idea here is that God is BIG and can speak his truth whether it says hands, chest, or eye. if it said nothing the very rocks would cry out. the truth of Gods word cant be lost in a few "less than literal" words. its not the "THEE's" and "THOU's" that make the bible effective in teaching, correcting, and rebuking, it's the Holy Spirit that touches the very heart of a mans soul.
one of my favorite artists is Josh Groban, but he primarily records in Italian so when i want to know what i sing-along with i have to look up translations. the literal translations make far less sense than the emotional (feeling) translations...
"Sento nell'aria profumo di te/ Piccoli sogni vissuti con me" ="I smell in the air the scent of you
Little dreams had lived with me" what this more clearly would mean, if stated in English originally is that "i'm reminded of you and the future I thought we could have had every time i smell the freshness of the air." it's the same feeling and idea just a little more clear to mr/ms GED (no theological degree) so why bicker about the minimal? just trust that the BIG God, who controls the big planets and the sub-atomic particles, can and will work out his will whether its KJV or a children's story version.

[brandplucked]

okay i will readily admit' date=' that versions like "the message" are very deluded and stray from the most-literal translations, but while you were counting all that **** and how many lost people picked up an niv and learned that Jesus loves them and can and will save them. the idea here is that God is BIG and can speak his truth whether it says hands, chest, or eye. if it said nothing the very rocks would cry out. the truth of Gods word cant be lost in a few "less than literal" words. its not the "THEE's" and "THOU's" that make the bible effective in teaching, correcting, and rebuking, it's the Holy Spirit that touches the very heart of a mans soul. ... so why bicker about the minimal? just trust that the BIG God, who controls the big planets and the sub-atomic particles, can and will work out his will whether its KJV or a children's story version. [/quote']

Hi sinclair. I understand your point, and I heartily agree that God can and does still use modern, weak and inferior bibles to reach people with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have never said, nor do I believe, that only King James Bible believers are saved.

I've always thought that the common analogy is pretty much right. You can eat out of a garbage can and still manage to survive, but it's not much of a way to live. All new versions are greatly inferior to the pure and 100% true words found in the pure, complete and inerrant Bible - the King James Holy Bible.

It is a simple FACT that those reading such versions as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, RSV, Holman, NET etc. do NOT believe in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language on this earth. They have abandoned the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and have no inerrant Bible to give to anyone. These modern (per)versions are read less and less even by those who use them. Biblical ignorance is at an all time high and the apostasy is in full swing. All this is predicted in the Bible. Men will depart from the faith and the falling away will happen before the return of the Lord Jesus. (2 Thes. 2) The modern alphabet soup versions are part of God's design to send a famine into the land of hearing the true words of God. (See Amos 8:11-12)

Sure, someone can get saved reading an NIV, NASB, NKJV or whatever. But their faith in the revealed truth of God will necessarily be weakened. You will always be asking yourself the same original question posed by the serpent in Genesis 3 - "Yea, hath God said....?"

Will Kinney

[robycop3]

Sorry, Will, but your ideas are pure conjecture, opinion, & guesswork, short on SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. What SCRIPTURE limits GOD as to how He can choose to present His word?

EVERY valid version is equally valid-and before ya ask, a valid version is one that accurately follows its sources. You cannot prove the NKJV is not valid. You cannot prove the NASV is not valid. You cannot prove the Geneva Bible is not valid. You cannot prove the Bishop's Bible is not valid.

And you falsely say we Freedom Readers have no final authority? Well, YOURS seemsta be SDA official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson & all the Koppie-Katz who followed.

Sorry, Charley; you have NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your ideas!