Antioch Vs. Alexandria (More support for the Authorised KJV)

[James]

Antioch vs. Alexandria


We hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts (DaVinci Code), but we aren't hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. (Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)

The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2:8), and allegorical foolishness (not believing God's word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:



Egypt and Alexandria

1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife (Gen. 12:10-13).

2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).>

3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).

4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).

5. God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" (Exo. 20:4).

6. God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" (Deu. 4:20).

7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16), so why should we look there for a Bible?

8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).

9. God plans to punish Egypt (Jer. 46:25).

10. God calls His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15).

11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11:8).

12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).

13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).

14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .

Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8). Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).

QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?



Antioch

1. Upon it's first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5). Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?

2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.

3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts 11:20-21).

4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).

5. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).

7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).

8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).

9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30), because Antioch was the home base.

10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).

Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had it's on sea port and more than it's share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base". Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews (Jerusalem and Judaea) and the Gentiles (Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc) that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it's geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.

So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.



Find out more at,




James

[Holly]

Hello James,

Actually, the vast majority of Bible scholars today believe the manuscript family most of the modern versions are based on (the Alexandrian manuscripts) is more reliable than the manuscript family the King James Version is based on (the Byzantine manuscripts). The King James Version of the New Testament was based on about six very late manuscripts (12th century or later). The manuscript family the modern translations are based on, however, are much earlier, from the 4th and 5th centuries and are, thus, much closer in proximity to the originals.

There are at least three lines of evidence used to show that the Byzantine manuscripts are less reliable: (1) the church fathers before A.D. 325 never quoted from the Byzantine manuscripts, but they quoted a lot from the Alexandrian manuscripts; (2) the Byzantine manuscripts actually show a dependence upon the Alexandrian manuscripts, using wording from the Alexandrian manuscripts. However, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian manuscripts depended on the Byzantine manuscripts; and (3) the editors of the Byzantine manuscripts changed the wording of the earlier manuscripts, including adding words and clarifications.

So, the evidence points to the facts that the Alexandrian family of mauscripts is earlier and more accurate.

My source for the above information is an article by Dr. Daniel Wallace, a New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary
The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations

The Scripture verses you quoted about Egypt and Alexandria are unrelated to the argument over manuscript evidence.

Also, the passage in Colossians 2:8 isn't telling Christians to avoid studying philosophy. The context of the warning against "philosophy and empty deception" is a warning against the Colossian heresy, which was a false teaching that had entered the church, which included the observance of special days, visions and angel worship, and it was based on "human traditions and the elemental powers of the world, and not on Christ." This false teaching does not seem to come from Greek and Roman philosophy, but was a church heresy. In fact, the Greek word "philosophia" could also be translated "religion," "speculation" or "investigation." So, the warning was against a belief system not based on Christ, not a general ban on studying philosophy (although, of course, many philosophies are false and are not based on Christ). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul seemed to be well studied in philosophy, quoting a Stoic philosopher in Acts 17:28 and using a philosophical style of argumentation and philosophical terminology of the day, such as "inner man." So, Paul, himself, didn't seem to be opposed to philosophy in general, but only to false philosophies. So, the presence of this verse in modern translations is not problematic, but is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

(For information on the context of Colossians 2:8, see a source I consulted in the latest issue of the Christian Research Journal (vol. 29, #03), the article titled "Is Colossians 2:8 a Warning Against Philosophy?" by Dr. Moyer Hubbard of Talbot School of Theology.)


Holly

(I moved the thread, per Herb's request, to the "General Bible Study & Debate" forum.)

[love_is_greatest]

YES!!! WE HAVE AN OPEN THREAD ON BIBLE VERSIONS!!!


I also think that this is a better section for it than the apostasy one.

James, I agree one hundred percent. There are two major problems with the theory that the manuscripts that were discovered later (aleph and b) are accurate.

1. They directly contradict the King James in doctrinal matters, so they cannot both be right.

2. God would not allow His people to believe false doctrine because they didn't have a proper version of the bible for a thousand plus years(i'm not saying the KJV is that old, but the manuscripts used for it are older, they were just re-copied. aleph and b were not used untill a long long time after Christ ascended.)

Keep in mind that one of them came from the RCC who has always held false beliefs about the mother of Jesus, and a thousand other things. I can quote their doctrines word for word and you will see that they directly contradict the Bible, whether you read the KJV or not. There is so much blood on their hands, and they are currently shaping up to be the religious counterpart of "Christianity" to the AC's coming one world religion. I would not trust a manuscript kept by heretics, in any case.

[Holly]

Hello Love_is_Greatest,

A few key points need to be made in response to your claims. First, there are no doctrinal differences between the King James Version and the other newer versions. The differences are minor issues, like changes of wording, and affect no issues of doctrine. The reason the newer versions are preferred is because they are closer to the original manuscripts. Text has been added to the King James Version (such as the beautiful story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery), which isn't found in the older manuscripts, leading Bible scholars to the reasonable explanation that the story was added by an overzealous scribe. However, even without that story, God's grace is still clearly taught in Scripture. So, it cannot be claimed that God's people were left with false doctrine until the newer versions were released.

Second, the man who edited the Greek text that the New Testament of the King James Version is based on was a Roman Catholic priest, named Erasmus. So, your argument that the newer versions are suspect because they were based, in part, on a manuscript kept by the Roman Catholic Church could also be applied against the King James Version.

Third, the King James Version has been revised three times since it first came out in 1611. The third revision has 100,000 changes from the first edition. So, was the first version inspired or third version (the one we have today)?

I agree that the King James Version is beautiful in its wording, and it has been used by God for centuries. However, I think it's troubling for Christians to tell other Christians that they must read this version when it is 400 years old and it's antiquated language is very difficult for people today to grasp. When the original books of the New Testament were written, they were written in the language that everyday people spoke. When the King James Version was first released, it was also written in language everyday people spoke. The English language has changed a lot since then. Telling people the only way they can read the Word of God is to read it in a difficult language puts an unneccesary barrier between them and the Word of God (like the Islamic teaching that the only way to really understand the Quran is to read it in an ancient dialect of Arabic).

What about people from other cultures? It seems very ethnocentric and unfair to argue that they must read the Bible in English, even if that's not their native language.

Also, the Bible never tells us that there would only be one translation of the Bible that is valid. So, the King James-only position is not based on Scripture; it is based on manuscript evidence. And, when it comes to the manuscript evidence, it is in favor of the newer versions since the manuscripts they are based on are much older.

The story of how the King James Version was produced can be read at this source I consulted, along with other strong arguments against the King James-only position: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today

I highly recommend the above article for anyone interested in this debate.
Holly

[mommyjen]

Go Holly!

[water]

I have taken many of the bible challenges out there that supposedly show how new translations are corrupt, but the challenges always fail when you actually take them.

I believe they rely on the human nature of laziness...they count on the fact that most people will not actually compare translations.

With that said, I think the best way for one to make a case for the validity of one translation over another is to list the verses in question. If anyone wants to do this, I would suggest only one or two verses/points at a time, otherwise the discussion quickly gets too large. Once the first couple of verses are are settled to the satisfaction of, move on to more.

I would like to mention that as far as manuscripts go, we have more today at our disposal than they did in the KJ era. The dead sea scrolls are a perfect example and evidence of this. Modern archaeology is finding amazing things lately and has been doing so for about 100 years.

Remember what the Lord says of the end times, there will be an explosive increase of knowledge.

[Bob the Quiet]

A few months ago when I first found the English Standard Version I decided I should research it before buying a copy. From av1611.com I found a chart that they claimed would help you to determine wether a given version was 'good' or 'from satan'. What did I find? Basically it amounted to no more than comparing the wording of the newer translations to that of the KJV. They claimed that certain changes also changed the doctrine being presented...when in reality the KJV was simply using 400 year old antiquated grammar and the newer version was just saying the same as the KJV...only with modern grammar that modern English-speakers can actually understand without having to really consult a dictionary or anything.

If God had intended for the King James Version [edit] to be the only inspired Bible version [/edit] then He would have seen to it that the ancient Greek-speaking world spoke English...and not only that but He would have made sure they spoke the Elizabethan English of the KJV, and that people never speak any different language. As it happens, He instead had His original New Testament written in Greek and not in English, and so there is no way that any one given translation is more God's Word than another, barring the ones that are most obviously corrupted...ie the ones using swear words and which have a homosexual agenda attached to them.

[water]

What Bob said.

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

James,

Could you please post some of the "evil" verses from a modern translation such as NASB.

I truly believe you are convinced that modern (1611 is also modern compared to 54 a.d., but...) translations are evil and in so believing I ask you to please share some of those passages that you believe are dangerous to believers.

You have told us that they are dangerous, but I have seen no proof.

[love_is_greatest]

Heres an easy one from the NASB with the NKJV version first:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
Now godliness with contentment is great gain.

1 Timothy 6:3-6


The NASB says:

constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.


The Bible(and the NASB, too!) state that men of depraved mind and destitute of the truth suppose that godliness is a means of gain. but what does the NASB go on to say after that?

"But godliness actually is a means of great gain"

The NKJV has the correct rendering, which is thus:

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain"

If something is a means, it is not an end unto itself. Godliness itself is the gain. The men who, destitute of the truth, wrote the NASB, suppose that it is a means of gain, and not the gain itself. They wrote this so that they could justify peddling "godliness" for money, to their gain, instead of true godliness itself being the gain.

If you think that an honest bible will contradict itself, you need to examine your faith. If you think that the above is somehow not a contradiction, you need to learn to read.

[Salty Skipper]

I thought that the King James Version and the New King James Version were two different versions?

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

1Ti 6:5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness {actually} is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.
1Ti 6:7 For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either.
NASB


1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
1Ti 6:7 For we brought nothing into [this] world, [and it is] certain we can carry nothing out. NKJV

"If something is a means, it is not an end unto itself. Godliness itself is the gain. The men who, destitute of the truth, wrote the NASB, suppose that it is a means of gain, and not the gain itself. They wrote this so that they could justify peddling "godliness" for money, to their gain, instead of true godliness itself being the gain."

I would agree the better rendering is without " a means".

However, when reading the whole passage in context it implies nothing of the sort that you accuse in that they could justify peddling "godliness for money. To me it is clear that it is saying that men of depraved mind believe godliness to be a means of gain (materially--money), but godliness is a means of great gain (right standing with God) when accompanied by contentment. It isn't saying that godliness is one way among many to achieve this end, but rather godliness is a means to gain but not the kind of gain these men of depraved mind have in mind.

The men of depraved mind would not say that gain is godliness but rather that godliness is a means of gain...thus the NASB more accurately describes this and then states that actually godliness is a means of great gain (just restating what the men of depraved mind say to make the point that a greater gain can be achieved than what they desire) meaning a different kind of gain when accompanied with contentment.

1Ti 6:5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness {actually} is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.
1Ti 6:7 For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either.
1Ti 6:8 If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.
1Ti 6:9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
1Ti 6:11 But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance {and} gentleness.


If this is the best one can come up with to show NASB to be wicked...hmmm

One must look at this verse alone without the whole passage in context to derive that the translators are trying to support peddling "godliness". And all on the word "means" and only if means is interpreted to mean one of many ways.

Since one word is being used to vilify the NASB... how about the KJV using the pagan, anti-semitic word Easter instead of Passover?

Since the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha does this mean it is authorized as Scripture?

[Bob the Quiet]

But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.

And here you really show your bias. Why do I say this? Check this out:

But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.

Says the EXACT same thing as the NKJV, you can't ignore one whole half of the sentence just because it seems to make your point. This is a very dishonest thing to do.

[Holly]

Ironically, I wonder if the reference to "morbid interest in ... disputes about words" in this passage (1 Tim. 6:4) could actually apply to the King James-only position, which does seem to result in "strife" and "evil suspicions."

Or, as the New Living Translation puts it: "Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jeolousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions."

[water]

Or, as the New Living Translation puts it: "Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jeolousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions."

Amen and thank you. I was looking for that verse last night but could not find it.

[OBXBob]

Holly!!!!

Blessings,

Bob

[James]

Hello Holly,

is based on (the Byzantine manuscripts). The King James Version of the New Testament was based on about six very the vast majority of Bible scholars today believe the manuscript family most of the modern versions are based on (the Alexandrian manuscripts) is more reliable than the manuscript family the King James Versionlate manuscripts (12th century or later). The manuscript family the modern translations are based on, however, are much earlier, from the 4th and 5th centuries and are, thus, much closer in proximity to the originals.

Precisely Holly! I myself would'nt attempt in my own words to defend what is Gods, as my words would not suffice. I would be one and the same as the opinionated masses who base their truths on foundations laid down by men. Instead I will ask you some questions, derrived from Gods own words, in hopes that you will build from a foundation He Himself has laid down.


2 Thessalonians 2:3- Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It is a widely known fact that early Christians did not accept the alexandrian manuscripts as the word of God because they did not have access to them. It is also widely known that if they had access to these egyptian scrolls they would not have understood them, since they were written in a language only the elite of that time period understood. Yet we accept them now. Read Thessalonians 2:3, ask yourself, were they in the dark, or are we?

Why did Jesus hang around with simpletons, if parts of His written word were only available to the 'elite'? Does this sound like the work of the God of truth? or the Father of lies?

God says there will be a falling away, so is it a good idea to consider ourselves more enlightened then our Christian forefathers? or, on the contrary should we be watching for a great deception?

the vast majority of Bible scholars today believe the manuscript family most of the modern versions are based on (the Alexandrian manuscripts) is more reliable than the manuscript family the King James Version

Matthew 7:13-15 (King James Version)

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Would you rather be with the few? or the many?

As far as sources, what do 'majority of Bible scholars' know? History supports Matthew 7:13. Bible Scholars, and common beliefs widely accepted by the masses concerning God tend to be wrong, and in the past have lead to falsehoods that gave birth to things such as the crusades, and martyrdom where people were killed in the name of God. The fact is, men cannot dictate what should be accepted as Gods word, we need to "rightly divide the word" more or less letting it be subject to its own scrutiny, if there was one contradiction in the bible any man of intelligence would disregarde the entire book as falsehood, just as we do the Koran. The Alexandrian Manuscripts down-played the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc. The true Christians rejected it as phoney manuscripts and as works of the AntiChrist spirit. Should it be any surprise to us that the RCC funds all the new translations we can find out there today? It's like asking somone who is staring at the back of a car to describe it to you, he'll tell you it has red lights, meanwhile the guy staring at the front of the car will argue that it has white lights, and the guy staring at the side of the car tells you there are no lights, in many cases it is similar with people looking at the word of God. It is impossible to see a car from every angle all at once, unless somone were to take pictures of every angle and lay them out on the table for you. This is how it is when somone is filled with the Spirit, they don't just read the Bible to know Gods word, but to confirm what has already been made known in their heart. The problem is, either your for the new translations and against the authorized KJV, or vice versa, because they 'describe a different car'.

How many denominations do you know of who believe modern translations are perversions of Gods words vs. the ammount who don't even consider the idea of Bible versions worth mentioning? Who are the few? and who are the many?

Why did people who tryed translating the texts the KJV is based on get burned at the stake, as heretics? why would the Catholic Church not want the scrolls made available to the general public? Why would the same organisation support the egyptian scrolls used for the new versions today?

Find out who sponsors the new translations, it's usually written in the front or back of many of them. It may surprise you.


Most importantly, pray for the Spirit of Truth. Here's food for thought, in the past anyone who rejected the alexandrian manuscripts as holy-writ was ****** as a heretic and burned at the stake. As crazy as it may sound, this law is still in effect today the only difference is that Rome does'nt have the power to enforce it, yet.

Sorry for my slow response, take care!


James

[James]

Hey Holly, in regardes to your three key factors supporting of the Alexandrian manuscripts (ie. catholic bible)

(1) the church fathers before A.D. 325 never quoted from the Byzantine manuscripts, but they quoted a lot from the Alexandrian manuscripts; (2) the Byzantine manuscripts actually show a dependence upon the Alexandrian manuscripts, using wording from the Alexandrian manuscripts. However, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian manuscripts depended on the Byzantine manuscripts; and (3) the editors of the Byzantine manuscripts changed the wording of the earlier manuscripts, including adding words and clarifications.

1) Who are these church fathers before A.D. 325 your speaking of?

Jerome? Constantine? the Roman Emperor Constantine (The first Pope) ordered 50 Bibles created from the satanic Alexandrian Manuscripts. Later, the roman catholic "early church father," Jerome, used the same satanic manuscripts from Egypt to create the official Bible for the Roman Catholic system. It was called the "Latin Vulgate."

The Devil had successfully created his own Bible from his corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts... and out of this, he created his own counterfeit "church" which spends more money then a small country creating new translations of Gods Word.


2) Please offer me proof that the Byzantine (or KJV) shows a dependance on the Alexandrian manuscripts? Making that claim is like saying the Chicken came before the Egg. Is their proof that the Alexandrian is not dependant on the Byzantine?

3) Their were no editors of the Byzantine manuscripts. Granted the Alexandrian scrolls do pre-date the Byzanite they cannot be trusted. There is a lot of proof that the Byzantine is Gods word but in response to your evidence why is it the early Christians only accepted the byzantine as the recieved text, or inspired Word of God. Why did they carefully copy it word for word?, and even die hiding and preserving it? the abundance of copys that are exactly the same are proof of its authenticity. As opposed to the alexandrian, which is the complete opposite, it was endorsed by those who all throughout history have made martrys of those who stood for the recieved text (textus receptus).


If you accept the Alexandrian manuscripts, based on the same backround you should have no problem accepting the recently found Gospel of Mary, Judas, and Thomas, which is what gave birth to Mr. Browns Da Vinci Code. Those gnostic gospels were found in the same place, written in the same language.


You don't have to dig far to see where this is going. Eventually those who stand firm in the faith will be enemys of those who believe they are standing firm in the faith. The end result is one of the two partys being anti-Christ, and both believing that the other is anti-Christ. Ahhhh, deception.

My personal conviction is to go with the minority. It only seems right given all that has happend, and is happening in relation to all that the scriptures say.


James

[James]

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: Disputes About Words

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically, I wonder if the reference to "morbid interest in ... disputes about words" in this passage (1 Tim. 6:4) could actually apply to the King James-only position, which does seem to result in "strife" and "evil suspicions."

Or, as the New Living Translation puts it: "Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jeolousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions."

I'am having a hard time with this, here's why.

My first problem is that you are the second site admin, or administrator, to take scripture out of context in order to use it against me, or attempt to place Gods judgement on me, whichever it is I do not know.

I'm not upset or anything, I'm just having a hard time understanding how people can take one verse and ignore the context of the entire chapter it's being used in. Then "ironicly wonder" if it is talking about the people you happen to disagree with. Scary thought!


If you read 1 Tim 6 verse 1-6 you will see he is talking about "servants as are under the yoke count their own masters" and is exhorting them to count their masters "worthy of all honour". In otherwords serve them as they would serve God. He goes on to say anyone who teaches otherwise is "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings", he goes on to say "perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

It's scary to take scripture 1 verse at a time, then "ironicly wonder". It's even scarier when you take two words of a verse, add some dots...... and then close off with another word in the verse in order to better support what your saying.

The real irony is thats exactly what the Gospel of Judas does, it leaves a lot to the imagination, just fill in the blanks and enter stage left Da Vinci Code.

Let me tell you what Tim does tell us about discussing this stuff Holly.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And you can bank on it, that's in context.

James

[Holly]

Hello James!

I gave my source for the points I made in my above posts, the articles by Dr. Daniel Wallace, a New Testament scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary. However, I haven’t yet seen a source for any of the points you have made.

I don’t know if you’re aware that the King James Version borrowed about 100 times from the Latin Vulgate that you claim is based on “satanic manuscripts.” The King James Version also borrowed from the Catholic New Testament.

See my source, this article by Wallace, under the section titled “Influences”:
The Reign of the King James

I don’t see how you can compare the Alexandrian manuscripts to the Gnostic gospels, which were not written by prophets, apostles or associates of either, and which contain heretical teachings.

I don’t think that, because a position is in the minority, that it becomes the better position. If that were the case, then we should accept the Jehovah Witnesses’ “New World Translation” because less people accept that translation than others.

One more significant point against the King James-only position is that the preface to the original King James Bible of 1611 directly stated that it had errors and could be improved upon and that continued revision and correction is necessary when it comes to Bible translations. The preface said:

“To those who point out defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. To those who complain that [the translators] have introduced so many changes in relation to the older English version, they answer by expressing surprise that revision and correction should be imputed as faults. The whole history of Bible translation in any language, they say, is a history of repeated revision and correction.” [Source: Wallace’s article I cited above, in the section titled “Publication and Reception.”]

(The American Bible Society recently republished this preface.)

Indeed, many errors in the King James Version have been found through the years, and some of those errors still remain. My source on these errors is the above Wallace article, in the section titled “Editions.” Here is one example of an error that remains. This is a quote from Wallace’s article:

“Not only have there been these occasional but bizarre printing mistakes, but several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. For example, in both Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 the name “Jesus” appears when Joshua is actually meant! Hebrews 4.8 in the Authorized Version says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” The passage is saying that although Joshua brought his people into the promised land, he could not give them the eternal rest that they needed. But by having “Jesus” here, the KJV is thus saying that Jesus was inadequate, that he was not able to save his people from their sins. In Greek, both ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ are written the same way— jIhsou'". The issue is not one of textual variant, but of inattention to the details of the interpretation of the text.” [Source: Wallace’s article, I cited above.]

James, you have left many of the arguments against the King James-only position in my above posts unaddressed, including: What biblical support is there that there would only be one inspired version of the Bible?

Also, what about the over 100,000 changes that have been made to the original 1611 King James Version?

What about the fact that a Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus, edited the text that the King James Version of the New Testament is based on? (Since you believe that the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of Catholic involvement with them then it would seem that Erasmus’ influence on the King James Version would corrupt that version, too.)

Plus, I have added a couple of more significant arguments in this post I would like to see you address: (1) What about the preface to the original King James Version that states that it is fallible and could be improved upon? (2) What about the fact that the King James Version borrowed, about 100 times, from the Latin Vulgate, which you say is a “satanic” translation?

Holly

[James]

Hello,

don’t know if you’re aware that the King James Version borrowed about 100 times from the Latin Vulgate that you claim is based on “satanic manuscripts.” The King James Version also borrowed from the Catholic New Testament.

Yes, I'm aware of your claim, and if you noticed in my last post I responded to it. It's unfounded, the KJV did not borrow from the Latin Vulgate, but the other way around. Have a look at how the KJV 1611 was translated. The Vulgate is a text even the Jews won't accept, and you trust it? It was written by Egyptian scribes.

Unlike Westcott, Hort, and the R.V. Committee, King James went through great efforts to guard the 1611 translation from errors. Please note the following:

1. In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by the time the work formally began in 1607.

2. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge.

3. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.

4. Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each member of his group.

5. The whole group then went over the book together.

6. Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five groups.

7. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original group for consideration.

8. A special committee was formed by selecting one leader from each group. This committee worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611.

9. This means that the King James Bible had to pass at least FOURTEEN examinations before going to press.

10. Throughout this entire process, any learned individuals of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.

QUESTION: Does THIS sound like an honest work of God or a dishonest work of the Devil?

I don’t see how you can compare the Alexandrian manuscripts to the Gnostic gospels, which were not written by prophets, apostles or associates of either, and which contain heretical teachings.

Simple, both falsehoods claim to be the Word of God. Both of them come from the same place, Alexandria, Egypt. And both of them are tools used to pervert Christianity into somthing Satan can control. Both have many people convinced.

I don’t think that, because a position is in the minority, that it becomes the better position. If that were the case, then we should accept the Jehovah Witnesses’ “New World Translation” because less people accept that translation than others.

The minority who lives within the restraints of Gods Word has always been in the better position as far as eternity is concerned. As it says in scripture, narrow is the path and few find it. Jehova Witnesses do not live by the Word of God, and can hardly be compared to Bible believing Christians.

One more significant point against the King James-only position is that the preface to the original King James Bible of 1611 directly stated that it had errors and could be improved upon and that continued revision and correction is necessary when it comes to Bible translations. The preface said:

I'm not sure where you got this information, but if you own a KJV 1611, you know it is inaccurate. Here is an URL to the preface of the KJV 1611, and the message is much different then the one you gave.

http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html

(The American Bible Society recently republished this preface.)

Republished? They don't seem to offer the authorised KJV on their website, and they sell every other translation based on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

“Not only have there been these occasional but bizarre printing mistakes, but several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. For example, in both Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 the name “Jesus” appears when Joshua is actually meant! Hebrews 4.8 in the Authorized Version says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” The passage is saying that although Joshua brought his people into the promised land, he could not give them the eternal rest that they needed. But by having “Jesus” here, the KJV is thus saying that Jesus was inadequate, that he was not able to save his people from their sins. In Greek, both ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ are written the same way— jIhsou'". The issue is not one of textual variant, but of inattention to the details of the interpretation of the text.” [Source: Wallace’s article, I cited above.]

Errors? Those scriptures are talking about getting all your work done before resting. I see no error in having the name of Jesus as opposed to Joshua, and the implication that it is making Jesus seem inadequate? I don't know where this Wallace is comming from with that idea? please explain in more detail.

James, you have left many of the arguments against the King James-only position in my above posts unaddressed, including: What biblical support is there that there would only be one inspired version of the Bible?

Sorry I'll try and be more specific in the future by quoting your questions and responding to them one at a time.

Hows this for support? It is a historic fact that the people who supported and pushed the Alexandrian manuscripts on us were responsible for many deaths of Christians for example the Protestant reformists, who would not submit to the RCC, who died heretics and had only commited crimes such as hiding copys of the textus receptus, and refusing to submit to men claiming to represent God who could only justify their authority by using the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Biblical proof, how about the fact we are warned about a great deception, a great falling away, and apostasy, wolves in sheep clothing, false religion. Should we be nieve enough to believe Jesus lied to us about those things given the history surrounding these Alexandrian manuscripts? I don't think so.

Also, what about the over 100,000 changes that have been made to the original 1611 King James Version?

What changes? Do you relise that the Jews even acknowledge the Authorised KJV as a fair and accurate translation? ask them what they think about the modern versions that leave a lot to the imagination.

What about the fact that a Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus, edited the text that the King James Version of the New Testament is based on?

Refer to how the KJV was translated above.

[/quote]

[Holly]

James,

You still haven't provided any source for your claims. I will have to consider this discussion on hold until you can provide credible, documented support for the wild assertions you are making.

My source for the preface to the King James Version was given, and I linked to that source.

In the very link you posted with the preface to the original King James Version, the preface directly states that more than one translation is a good thing and necessary to help in understanding Scripture. It says:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. De doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded ... They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differ differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

Also, in the same link you provided to the preface, in the section titled "Translation Necessary," it states that Scripture must be translated into a language people understand (which is an argument supporting the need for modern translations). It states:

"But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me." [1 Cor 14]

Your source also praises Jerome and his translation, although you said he based his translation on "satanic manuscripts."

Your source also includes the quotation I referenced, where the editors of the King James version acknowledge that their translation, like all translations, has error:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere ... But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us:"

Although I don't have time to go point by point through the preface (the one you linked to), a careful reading of it makes clear that the editors of the King James Version believed that ongoing translation -- based on the best manuscript evidence -- is always needed. I don't understand how you can argue for a King James-only position when the very preface (in the link you provided) argues that opposite.

The thorough translation process you described is true of many translations, not just the King James Version.

Yes, there will be an apostasy, but you are making a major leap to assume that the modern translations are part of it. You are using the verses about apostasy out of context, the very thing you accused me of.

Holly

[James]

I'm short on time for this, I have an early shift tomorrow.


But I will come back to respond. The words the KJV changed were words that changed because their meaning was no longer the same as it was at the time of writing, however in the authorized KJV it clearly indicates which words were changed, they are marked clearly. So you can do your own research on them, in your quest for truth, modern translations leave readers in the dark because the Author seems to have become the Authority behind the word of God. Ultimately, God makes Himself known to people who dilligently seek Him. If you want to know how accurate my information is, ask God to show you the truth, rather then trusting some Bible Scholar you searched on Google.


If you pray, and search, you will understand why the authorized KJV is the only reliable source for Gods words.


James

[mizbayakh]

If you pray, and search, you will understand why the authorized KJV is the only reliable source for Gods words.

I think these discussions regarding versions need to stop talking in broad views and get down to the nitty-gritty. I was blind and then started going through the issues the KJV only people were hollering about. It is right there if you will search for yourself and look.

And Water...I don't mean the "tests" ...I mean changing the word faith to faithfulness or regarding Jesus as "a" Savior rather than "the" Savior or changing "righteousness" to some kooky thing about prosperity.

I have posted eery, terrible specific translations that reduce and insult Jesus, but it always goes into empty words and feelings in reply.

There is a deception and blindness regarding this issue.

Until we have a discussion that looks at specifics I have to stay out.

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

mizbayakh,

" think these discussions regarding versions need to stop talking in broad views and get down to the nitty-gritty."

I agree

" was blind and then started going through the issues the KJV only people were hollering about. It is right there if you will search for yourself and look. "

I really am open to change. I would love to see the dangerous differences.

However, my question is if we can find something wrong with the KJV such as "Easter" instead of "Passover" should we just throw out all english translations?

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

Thirteen Facts About KJV Onlyism
Without a doubt many fine Christians read the King James Version of the Bible. However, some people have gone to remarkable extremes in their efforts to exalt the KJV over all other versions of the Bible and have caused division and disunity in the Body of Christ. Some of these people believe one is unsaved or some kind of misinformed, inferior Christian if he doesn't use the KJV when preaching and writing. These things should not be. The following brief outline are facts that the KJV Onlyites will probably never tell you:

The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha, which contained various heresies in it. For example, in Tobit 12:8,9, 1611 KJV we read:
For almes doth deliuer from death, and shall purge away all sinne. Those that exercise almes, and righteousness, shall be filled with life.
The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which was formulated by Erasmus and edited by Stephanus and Beza. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest, who died a faithful Catholic.
Erasmus dedicated his 1516 edition of the Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X.
Erasmus depended mostly upon two twelfth-century manuscripts and had no Greek manuscript which contained the last six verses of the book of Revelation. He translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.
Erasmus wrote of Mary as "my salvation" and "my refuge." Furthermore, he wished for "salvation through Jesus, but not without his Mother."
The 1611 KJV translators believed that one should read a variety of translations and not just their own!
The 1611 KJV translators also recognized the importance of a translation that was understandable. For us today, the archaic words in the KJV are a major hindrance in understanding God's eternal message. A few examples are:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes.
Certain English words have changed their meanings since the 1611 KJV was translated and hinders one's comprehension of Scripture:
Did you know that in the King James Version of the Bible the word "advertise" means "tell," "allege" means "prove," and "conversation" means "behavior"? That "communicate" means "share," "take through" means "be anxious," and "prevent" means "precede"? That "meat" is a general term for "food," and "anon" and "by and by" translate Greek words which mean "immediately"?
The present editions of the KJV contain words for mythical non-existent animals. For example: unicorn(s) and satyr. See Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7,14.
Staunch Calvinist Theodore Beza was one of the editors of the Textus Receptus. The KJV translators had his changes, which included "If they shall fall away" in Heb. 6:6. Such a misrendering helps to preserve Calvinism's perseverance of the saints. Adam Clarke's commentary shows the errors of that as being: (a) the word "If" was unjustly inserted and (b) the tense is aorist, meaning it should be translated in the past tense, "HAVE fallen away." Another distortion occurred at Heb. 10:38!
The final critic who went over the whole KJV as editor was Dr. Miles Smith, who was a Calvinist.
Richard Thomson was one of the translators of the 1611 KJV. He was a known drunkard, who was never removed from the translating committee.
Few KJV Onlyites seem to realize that the 1611 KJV was not the first English Bible, neither is it the edition of the KJV that most read in our day.
See our exposé on Gail Riplinger for documentation.
Please also see our open letter to KJV Only proponents.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvonly.htm

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

Written and Posted in Christian Love

[This is an actual letter which we expanded upon for the WWW.]
Permission is granted to reproduce this in its entirety only.


Please also see our critique of Gail Riplinger's scholarship and KJV Onlyism

Dear KJV Only Advocate:
Greetings in Jesus' name.


We're sure you must have been wondering if we'd ever write you back! We have several reasons for the delay, but the primary one centers around the apparent futility of it. By this we mean that you seem unmovable, as we are, regarding this divisive subject, which you brought up and made an issue, that is, the KJV is the only reliable English Bible.


First, please note that we do not try to defend the sole use of the NIV (or any version) as the only reliable English Bible. This should be apparent by looking at our ministry catalog. It is our opinion that the best method is to study several different translations and have a Greek-English interlinear handy if possible. We have received great blessings from reading versions such as The Amplified Bible, The Wuest translation and Young's Literal.


I used to read the KJV for the first five years after I was saved. (By the way, I was saved by reading a Bible that wasn't the KJV! As a former Catholic, I would never have trusted any translation other than a Catholic Bible, so that is what I read and got saved through!) When I finally switched from the KJV to the NIV, my comprehension of the Word of God soared. What I struggled to understand from the KJV was now easily understood!


While reading the KJV, I had come across "unicorn(s)" (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7) and knew they were fictitious animals and it momentarily cast a shred of doubt over me about the inspiration of the Bible! Thank God this did not stop me from continuing in the Scriptures!


The bottom line in all of this is that one must be able to understand the Word of God. In regard to this, there are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, i.e., suffer, filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, gay clothing, etc.! This is just a partial listing.


The King James Bible Word Book by Ronald Bridges and Luther A. Weigle, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, states the following on the inside jacket:



"Did you know that in the King James Version of the Bible the word 'advertise' means 'tell,' 'allege' means 'prove,' and 'conversation' means 'behavior'? That 'communicate' means 'share,' 'take through' means 'be anxious,' and 'prevent' means 'precede'? That 'meat' is a general term for 'food,' and 'anon' and 'by and by' translate Greek words which mean 'immediately'?

These words -- and many like them -- made perfect sense to readers when the KJV was published in 1611. But today, after nearly four centuries of changes in English, few readers know what such words mean. And most readers miss the riches of the all-time favorite King James Bible" [emphasis ours].
A clear example of this shines forth by comparing the KJV to the NIV and NKJV. Heb. 2:18 in each translation reads:


"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted" (KJV).

"Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted" (NIV).

"For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted" (NKJV).
How many people do you think in our modern day readily know what "succour" means? Though this made sense in the 1600's, its meaning is hidden from us today.


Another example of KJV obscurity is found at 2 John 10 which reads:



"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed"(KJV).

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him" (NIV).

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him" (NKJV).
These are only two examples of many passages that could be contrasted and which would reveal the obscure way the KJV cites eternal truth! If one would add all the obscure passages up, how great of a distorted overall picture would he have in the end?


Another relevant fact about the Shakespearian language of the KJV is vividly expressed in the following:



"The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians. The words of Edwin H. Palmer are not too strong: 'Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible. . . . For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' " (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102) [emphasis ours].
The comprehension factor alone should cause one to lay down this oblique translation in favor of a reliable, understandable, modern translation of God's Word so that the original meaning, which is crucial in our spiritual battle, won't be greatly hindered by archaic words and obsolete phrases! This is indisputable fact.


Furthermore, the modern KJV edition that you read from is probably not the 1611. It's probably the Blayney edition of 1769. The 1611 edition of the KJV underwent various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769. With this in mind, which edition of the KJV do you like the best? Why do you favor that particular edition over the other editions?


Also, if one claims the original 1611 KJV is the only inspired, infallible Word of God, he is claiming that Purgatory is true, since the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version and it teaches Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:45). (Perhaps the KJV 1611 edition should have also included Grimm's Fairytales with the Apocrypha.)


If you want to argue that the NIV left words out such as the blood of Christ, how do you know that the KJV didn't add these words? You must at this point go to the Greek source to answer. Certainly, there is a difference here. But which source is right? (By the way, words that are omitted in the NIV are footnoted in.)


But did you know the KJV has important omissions also? Consider Jude 25:



"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (NIV).

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen" (KJV).
Comment: Please note that the KJV left out the words, "through Jesus Christ our Lord." If I were to turn the tables on your camp, I could say from Jude 25 (and also John 14:14 which we'll soon examine) that the KJV must be part of a New Age conspiracy or that the KJV's Textus Receptus (TR) is corrupted and contaminated since it conceals the mediatorship (and deity) of the Lord Jesus Christ! But to argue in this fashion would be extreme and unfair, even though many who hold to your position apparently don't think so!


But what about John 14:14? Jesus taught:



"You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it" (NIV).

"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" (KJV).
Comment: Similar to Jude 25, this passage seems to omit a word in reference to the Lord Jesus which would bring Him glory and honor and even suggest His deity. (Please note the KJV does not footnote these omitted words, unlike the NIV!) Why is this important word omitted in the KJV? One might be wondering: "Should we pray to Jesus Christ as well as praying through Him to the Father?" Clearly, first-century Christians did both. Regarding the former, Stephen, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, prayed directly to Jesus, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59).


This is a good point to make with the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Lord's deity. (By the way, the Hagin-Copeland crowd likewise denies praying directly to Jesus.)


Another similar problem for the KJV Only camp, which exalts the TR, comes from a comparison between the KJV and Young's Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads:



"The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation" (KJV).

". . . who declare to us a way of salvation" (Young's Literal).
Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield "the way of salvation." Young's Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates -- a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR -- "a way of salvation." This rendering is much more consistent with the immediate context where we see a demon speaking through a girl describing Paul's message to the people. Demons want us to believe that there are multiple ways to God, Jesus just being one of the many ways. John 14:6 shows how narrow the road is. See also Matt. 7:13,14.


In response to the definite article being unjustly added or omitted, Dr. Robert Young wrote in the preface to the revised edition of his translation of the Bible:



"For example, in Mat. 2. 4, Herod is represented as enquiring "where Christ" should be born. But "Christ" is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James' Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where "the Christ" should be born. Herod knew of "the Christ," the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original" [bold emphasis not in original].
Also note Jn. 3:16 in Youngs, regarding the continuous tense for believe:



"For God did so love the world, that His son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during."
This translation, with the verb tenses, opens up the clear meanings of Scripture, hidden to people who only read the KJV.


Again, regarding the superiority of the TR, please know there are other English translations based upon it such as the New King James and Young's Literal translation which was just cited. But they do not have the archaic English words that the KJV does, as previously cited. Hence, these other versions greatly enhance the reader's ability to comprehend the Word of God! How can you justly reject these English versions if you are arguing from the point of view of the superiority of the TR?


We have a reprint copy of the 1611 KJV translation. Notice the following verses cited exactly as seen there:



"Betooke themselues vnto praier, and besought him that the sinne committed, might wholy bee put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Iudas exhorted the people to keep themselues from sinne. Forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to passe, for the sinne of those y were slaine. . . . And also in that he perceiued that there was great fauour layed vp for those that died godly. (It was an holy, and good thought) wherupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be deliuered from sinne" (II Maccabees 12:42,45).
(Can you justify putting the Apocrypha next to Scripture, as the 1611 KJV edition did? How many do you think were deceived into thinking Purgatory exists based on this obvious 1611 KJV error?)


Another verse from the 1611 edition of the KJV is Rev 21:8. Please note how hard it is to read:



"But the feareful, and vnbeleeuing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all lyars, shall haue their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death."
In our personal library, we have a book written by Ralph Earle titled, Word Meanings in the New Testament, published by Baker Book House. He comments on the words "now full" as used in Mark 4:37 of the KJV:



"The Greek does not have the aorist tense, suggesting completed action (see the Blass-Debrunner Grammar), but the present infinitive of continuing action. So a better translation is 'already filling up' (NASB) or 'nearly swamped' (NIV). If the boat had been 'now full' (KJV), it would have been at the bottom of the lake!" (p. 37).
Earle also comments on the KJV rendering in Romans 8:16 of "itself" (on page 179):



"The KJV reads: 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.' The RSV changes 'itself' to 'himself.'

Orthodox Christianity has always held to the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Modern liberalism has frequently denied both. The KJV rendering here would seem to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, calling Him an 'it.' Even if one is reading the KJV in the pulpit he should always change 'itself' to 'himself.' By doing so we affirm our faith in the Holy Spirit, not as an impersonal influence, but as a living Person who dwells in our hearts.

The question may well be raised: Why does the KJV use 'it' in referring to the Spirit? The simple answer is that the Greek word for 'spirit,' pneuma, is neuter. Hence it is necessary for grammatical reasons that the pronoun referring back to a neuter noun as its antecedent should also be neuter in form. But not in meaning! This is just one of many examples of an accidental disharmony in the grammatical usages of two different languages. As every student of foreign languages knows, the precise distinction between masculine, feminine, and neuter to which we are accustomed in English is little known outside our language. We have to translate the thought, not just the mechanical form of the word. Paul believed in the personality of the Holy Spirit! This very verse is the declaration of a personal function: The Spirit witnesses" (p. 179) [emphasis ours].
I have a ministry which includes reaching out to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They use the KJV against true Christians because it erroneously states, as already cited, in Rom. 8:16 (and 8:26) that the Holy Spirit is "itself" instead of "himself." They claim the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and use the KJV to support this in their argumentation against the Trinity! Hence, this mistranslation in the KJV has helped to promote this heresy. This is fact, not mere conjecture!


Finally, Earle comments on the words "Father, Word and Holy Ghost" in 1 John 5:7:



"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus inserted them from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the inspired Bible" (p. 452, emphasis ours).
Who was this (Desiderius) Erasmus to whom we just referred?



"Erasmus, Desiderius (c. 1466-1536), . . . Augustinian Monk from 1486 to 1491" (Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, Elgin Moyer, Moody Press, 1982, page 133) [emphasis ours].
Even more descriptive of Erasmus is the following:



"Why does it not point out that Erasmus, unlike Luther and Calvin, never left the Roman Catholic church?" (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carson, 1979, Baker Book House, p. 74) [emphasis ours].
The Mormons also use the KJV in their endeavors to exalt the Book of Mormon (BOM). In the book of Acts, there are three accounts of the Apostle Paul's conversion experience. Seemingly, as it is worded in the KJV, there are contradictions between these accounts of his salvation experience (Acts 9:7 cf. 22:9). They use this seeming contradiction (which really is no contradiction at all) to discredit the Bible in their indirect attempt to exalt the BOM. So again, the KJV's obscured wording has been a snare to some.


So, as you can see there are multiple problems which you cannot Scripturally and adequately resolve with your KJV only view. This is an incredibly divisive issue in the body of Christ today. Some of the few people we encountered who know that eternal security (or perseverance of the saints) is a "license for immorality" and are willing to stand against it, let themselves be unsettled over this issue, to the great detriment of God's kingdom. This should not be!


I have also heard it stated that an advocate of the modern English translations of the Bible, during a debate format on TV, was rendered physically incapable of speaking when given the opportunity to present his case. This event has been used by some coming from your view to "prove" that the KJV is the only reliable English translation available. This, however, can certainly not be proved by such! Please ponder the following Scripture:



"I will make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth so that you will be silent and unable to rebuke them, though they are a rebellious house" (Ezekiel 3:26).
Note: Ezekiel had the truth, yet he was physically incapacitated at that moment to verbally proclaim it! His incapacity for the moment must not be construed to mean he was speaking wrongly or did not know the truth.


Please know we feel we were forced to defend our position about the KJV which stems primarily from a strong desire to comprehend the Word of God through the use of reliable translations of the Bible. This letter should be enough to convince you that the KJV Only position, which seems to be of ultimate importance to many people, is based on inconsistency, ignoring the facts and jumping to unprovable conclusions! Unfortunately, besides hindering many from properly comprehending the Word of God to their own spiritual harm, more divisions in the already severely fragmented Body have resulted over this issue.


God bless you.



Following Jesus To The End,
Dan and Cheryl Corner
[This is an actual letter which we expanded upon for the WWW.]
Return to top


http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm

[water]

These translation debates need to be informative and not divisive.

Everyone is going to have an opinion on the subtle variance that exists between translations.

Personally, unless the translation has gross errors in doctrine (e.g. saying homosexuality is ok, or that Jesus is not the only way, etc.), I tend to trust that God is in control and has his hand on the varying translations.

Actually, I think the best way to discuss and compare translations is to do it one or two *issues* at a time, otherwise the theads get way out of control and it makes my brain hurt to read all of it.

I understand where you are coming from, Miz, even if we do disagree on some points, we can still discuss them...eventually you will understand the truth. LOL!

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

How about Acts 5:30

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. KJV

the KJV seems to say that Jesus was killed then hung on a tree...

Act 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. NASB

[mizbayakh]

mizbayakh,

" think these discussions regarding versions need to stop talking in broad views and get down to the nitty-gritty."

I agree

You must have misunderstood me. Your most recent posts added more debateable, neverending back and forth chaos...I meant looking at actual passages. Not the tests...but ALL the places and BIG changes. Not silly things like Passover - Easter. If you think that sort of translation change is what KJVonly folk are up in arms about you haven't read the posts, nor checked it out for yourself.

... I read through and can find rebuttals for your posts, but you have worn me down. Most of my answers would be on the other threads on this topic.

I'm searching for a new church and came across this place. The folks at this church use the NIV. (????!!!!)

http://www.consciousharmony.org/who_we_are/essence.htm

This is my point...it's not necessarily a salvation issue. These new versions are usable for a broad road - preparing the way for a one world religion. I have been going to different churches for months now (sometimes 2 on a Sunday) and the key elements are either NIV or NASB and Purpose Driven Life.

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

mizbayakh,

I have never seen one verse in a modern translation such as NASB that is so dangerous as is proposed by the KJV onlyist.

Show me one! And not out of context.

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

as pointed out in above post here is a verse where KJV tries to protect OSAS:

Hbr 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame. KJV

Hbr 6:6 and {then} have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. NASB

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

I'm going through the verses I can find that are under question...perhaps my mind will be changed along the way...


Matthew 1:25
KJB: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NAS: and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
NWT: But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.
NAB: He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son whom he named Jesus.

(To exchange "a son" for "firstborn" perpetuates the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children than Jesus which is false as the Bible openly refutes this heresy - Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 3:31; John 2:12; 7:3,5; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19)

http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm


Give me a break! How absurd!

Luk 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. NASB

Obviously the NASB doesn't have something against describing Jesus as the firstborn

---------------------------
Matthew 5:44
KJB: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

NAS: "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you
NWT: However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you;
NAB: My command to you is: love your enemies, pray for your persecutors.


Again:

Luk 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luk 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Luk 6:29 "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

NASB
----------------------------
Matthew 8:29
KJB: And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

NAS: And behold, they cried out, saying, "What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
NWT: And, look! they screamed, saying: "What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?"
NAB: With a sudden shriek they cried: "Why meddle with us, Son of God? Have you come to torture us before the appointed time?"

Okay, this is getting old...I'll just post the ones that make some sense...

[njfishwatchTurkey&Isr]

so far it looks like things that are said to be omitted from modern translations are not in fact omitted as they are found in corresponding passages...perhaps the KJV added the words in corresponding passages to try and bring cohesiveness.

[Bob the Quiet]

Miz, while you claim that it is the newer translations which pave the way for the One World Religion, it is in fact the KJV which is used by many cults including the JW's and especially the Mormons. Not the NIV, or the NASB or any modern translation, but instead the KJV. Why? Perhaps because the KJV's archaive, 400 year old dialect is not readily understood by a modern English-speaking audience.

Now, please understand, I have nothing against the KJV. I read out of the KJV myself every night before going to sleep. However, I also read the ESV as I find it easier to understand - I don't have to look at reference notes to see what a particuler 400 year old word means with the ESV as I do with the KJV.

[mizbayakh]

My last post in this thread -

There is info here:


It's a spiritual battle and it's a big picture thing.
I'd love for you to see it and if you are TRULY interested you can go to other threads on this topic. Read "New Age Bible Versions", find the testimony of Frank Logsdon (a co-founder of the NASV)
I tend to let ego in the way when this KJV issue ensues...

Give me a break! How absurd!

Maybe you are too?

For me...REALLY...I have to bow out - it's so hard....ouch.

[water]

I heard BTQ secretly reads from the MTV bible.

[Bob the Quiet]

((Actually, I never could stand MTV))

[OBXBob]

water,

He is of the correct age group....hmmmm....

Blessings,

Bob

[Holly]

James: Your response in defense of King James Onlyism is a cop out. You said:

Ultimately, God makes Himself known to people who dilligently seek Him. If you want to know how accurate my information is, ask God to show you the truth, rather then trusting some Bible Scholar you searched on Google.

If you pray, and search, you will understand why the authorized KJV is the only reliable source for Gods words.

In other words, you can ignore all the arguments and evidence I presented and won't provide any yourself. But you expect someone to accept your view because "God revealed it to them." Isn't this similar to the "burning in the bosom" experience that Mormons advocate to support their faith? They say that if we pray and ask God to reveal the truth of the Book of Mormon to us, He will verify it by giving a burning sensation in the bosom. The Bible warns us to test all things by Scripture, not to trust subjective experience.

[James]

James: Your response in defense of King James Onlyism is a cop out. You said:

Quote:
Ultimately, God makes Himself known to people who dilligently seek Him. If you want to know how accurate my information is, ask God to show you the truth, rather then trusting some Bible Scholar you searched on Google.

If you pray, and search, you will understand why the authorized KJV is the only reliable source for Gods words.


In other words, you can ignore all the arguments and evidence I presented and won't provide any yourself. But you expect someone to accept your view because "God revealed it to them." Isn't this similar to the "burning in the bosom" experience that Mormons advocate to support their faith? They say that if we pray and ask God to reveal the truth of the Book of Mormon to us, He will verify it by giving a burning sensation in the bosom. The Bible warns us to test all things by Scripture, not to trust subjective experience.

When the Holy Spirit speaks to you, Scripture will confirm all it says. As far as me 'copping out' and ignoring your evidence, that is not the case at all. My response can be found in my previous posts,

You have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.

I do not want to wrangle about words here, because that is where this thread seems to be going. I would rather look at the Biblical evidence supporting the source of the KJV, and that of the modern translations. It becomes a choice, Alexandria, or Antioch?


James

[mizbayakh]

Antioch!!!!
Again...it came up while witnessing tonight - the versions issue is a big deal and it will only grow bigger as we merge toward a one world religion. I promise you, those who merge won't be using the Authorized Version as they merge.

[mommyjen]

I do not want to wrangle about words here, because that is where this thread seems to be going. I would rather look at the Biblical evidence supporting the source of the KJV, and that of the modern translations. It becomes a choice, Alexandria, or Antioch?

Okay, you can't be serious. I love you miz and James I don't know you well but I am sure that as a brother in Christ I would love you too. Now listen here KJV supporters. Be very careful about falling into a works theology based on your Bible version. I truly believe with all of myheart that reading the NIV is reading the same word as the KJV. I have read the arguments and whn you boil an argument down to where did it come from?? I feel like you must seriously be kidding me. As though a place that a Bible was written makes it holy. No, it is Holy because it is God's word. I love you guys but I have never met someone who supports a KJV only idea and has not been very works based in their faith. I hope I am wrong about you guys. Think about it truly. Do you believe that God will boot me out of heaven for having read the NIV my whole life and memorized scriptures from it, and witnessed to people from it? That would not the God that saved me or anything to do with my Jesus who died for me. You can not do enough or be enough to get yourself into heaven. I just really cannot even believe this is an issue!!

You know to think back, I had a friend in high school who said the very same thing about the KJV. I wonder if she felt I was less of a Christian because I read the NIV. I am going to ask you guys, is that what you feel when you see someone reading a different version. I am not talking about paraphrases, but versions. Think about it. I am cool if the KJV hits it home for you but NIV has hit it home for me and then also I read from the Greek as well. I don't look down on you for reading the KJV, in fact I think of how wonderful it is that you are reading the Bible! I am wondering if someone has convinced you that the KJV is the only way or if the Holy Spirit has truly convicted your heart about it.

Now I am sorry this is getting long but I have a little stamina tonight. Let us think about those people around the world who don't have a Bible. I am hoping that we would send Bible translators not with the KJV or NIV, but with a knowlege of all of it and the Greek to translate what it would be into the people's languages. If we are obediant and let the Holy Spirit guide us with these matters, then all will be well. I haven't ever felt the KJV conviction. I am just hoping that your holding steadfastly to the KJV only position is not actually causing you to stumble in your faith by judgi other Christians as less or even *gasp* as not Christians because of their Bibles. Did the early church even have Bibles?? It is one thing to regard the Bible as God's word but another to reagard it as an idol. I am just asking for you to consider and pray about what you are saying and what the ramifications are of what you are saying to other Christians.

Consider this Miz... if the Lord has told you to use the KJV, maybe it is to reach those who are able to respond to that version the best. You have said many times it has come up during your witnessing. I have never once heard anyone have an issue with versions in real life except for my friend in high school. I know that I cannot read that versions well, I get lost in the words. You might say, well if you pray hard enough, God will let you understand. There are plenty of posts hear I can't even get through because of the way people type them, depending on their type size and their coloring and even the use of the .... like Mrs. B (love you!!). I am just not really seeing this as an issue, I see it as more of a way to divide and sort out those who are more Holy because of the version they read.

[mizbayakh]

Mommyjen - Here is ONE of many changes that are DIFFERENT. I have posted so many comparisons and links I could cry...the tons and tons of comparisons are there if you will only look.

catholic/alexandrian manuscripts say no repentance required: they say - "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
KJV says, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.

You think the KJV is hard to read with archaic words???
Here is a chart showing the NIV compared to KJV...astounding!



Gail Riplinger does a great job to show in categories how the new versions rip and tear at the very foundation of our faith.
It's subtle and sneaky and deceptive. Even the elect could be fooled (and are).

The demotion of Christ upsets me to no end...

The things you point out Mommyjen, I'm sorry to say, sound very much like people I talk to about Christ being the only way. I'm told to be open minded, God is not judmental, God loves everyone, everyone is going to heaven, but I am being devisive and judgmental for telling them the Truth. We could all get along if I'd live and let live...
IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT...not because I'm riding high on some ego trip or "think I'm better than you". Honestly, aren't you tired of unbelievers thinking that about you because you tell them about Christ?? It's motivated from love and concern...not "holier than thou" and you must know that!

I don't have the moderators agreement on this...rather they see this as a divisive and unimportant topic...so with that I cannot say all I would like to. I have faithfully shared the Truth and pray for eyes to be opened.

Written by Dr. Frank Logsdon - co-founder of NASV
"I must under God denounce every attachment to the NASV. I'm afraid I am in trouble with the Lord...I wrote the format...I wrote the preface. When you see the preface in the NAS, those are my words...it's wrong., it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many..Are we so niave that we do not suspect satanic deception in all of this?"

Look up (google) Dr. Frank Logsdon



On Way of the Master Radio just last week one of the guys they send witnessing said he met one of the NIV editors who is living in an openly gay lifestyle (wotmradio doesn't even care about Bible versions - it just came up when he went to witness)

[mommyjen]

The things you point out Mommyjen, I'm sorry to say, sound very much like people I talk to about Christ being the only way. I'm told to be open minded, God is not judmental, God loves everyone, everyone is going to heaven, but I am being devisive and judgmental for telling them the Truth. We could all get along if I'd live and let live...

God does love everyone! Christ is the only way by which we can get to God, there is no other person, or work, or sacrafice, that could save us. I believe in works.

Yes the words in KJV are archaic in the thee, thou, thy. No one talks even remotely like that. How would that translate out into another language. Now let me say that I would use the KJV if we were together in real life it caused you to stumble in your faith. Would I not have to based upon the Sciptures. I actually asked my husband to stop drinking pop based on that it was making me stumble in my fatih for him to drink it. I did look at the chart and I have no trouble understanding the words on either side, except that alcove- I thought was aclove and didn't know right away what that was- lol!

Now you are talking about certain particualr verses you can pull out that you say change the meaning of Scriptures. Not really though because I don't base my theology one one Scripture. I don't feel like it is watered down at all. I am sure that God would convict my heart if this were so.

Now I am going to go through these links and give you a response. God is the judge. Now I see that you believe this. We will be judged by the same measure we judge others. That probably does not sit well with me as I have been extremely judgemental in my life and have a leaning towards that and it has come back to bite me in the butt many times. Please please Sandra know that I am not a wishy washy Christian. I will look through this but if something causes you to sit in church on Sunday and judge other Christians that really doesn't affect their theology even though you may think it does and they really do believe what you believe, then it will fall back on you. I really think you are wonderful whether or not you believe it. There are certain people that God puts in my life in which it is easy for me to say that and you are one of those people. Just wanted you to know.

I am not sure what I could say to bring this issue to a rest, as I am sure that it will always be an issue. Perhaps I should memorize KJV and NIV together. I will see what God thinks Not being cheeky, super for real on that one.

ETA: I totally cannot spell sometimes so I had to do a spell check. If anything sounds weirdo it is because it is late and I am tired :P

[mommyjen]

Another thing- don't make someone's salvation depend on their version, make it b based on their beliefs as the early church did not have a Bible like we do except for the OT. Please remember that when all of those verses you pull out of the NT to use against the NIV. If I believe what you believe, then what can you say against me. I just wanted to have you keep that in mind.

[mommyjen]

Another thing though, I really want to know if this is something that God has placed on your heart and not something that some man or person has convinced you of by intellect and words. God's word is the Bible but the Holy Spirit lives in us and convicts us of ungodliness and I am wondering if you truly had a moment as this.

[mizbayakh]

I have stated again and again I do not believe it is a salvation issue for individual believers who are now reading something else.

I think it is INCREDIBLY important for the future and the set up for the one world religion...I was a new ager and I see so clearly the set up.

I was apathetic to the KJV vs other versions debates. I found them incredibly boring and unimportant until about 4 months ago.
Someone sat down with me and had a few versions and we went through it one night.

WOW WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Was it the Holy Spirit? I don't know for sure, but I did change completely that night.
The more I read out of it, the more I witness, the more I am convinced the other versions are a set up.

Then I read Dr. Logdson's repentant letter.
Then I read Gail Riplinger's book...pouring over the charts and seeing the connection to the spiritual charade I had lived in the new age movement.
Then I saw some videos on the subject where they pointed out so much more....it's so clear, but it's subtely deceitful somehow.

Look, you don't believe me and I have shared all I can.
I don't judge you, so chill.
I love you lots...you were one of the first people I felt like I knew here. I have no judgment about your salvation AND I still think this is important and I wish more Christians cared.

[mizbayakh]

Please remember that when all of those verses you pull out of the NT to use against the NIV. If I believe what you believe, then what can you say against me. I just wanted to have you keep that in mind.

I don't understand this at all...what am I missing?

[mizbayakh]

The things you point out Mommyjen, I'm sorry to say, sound very much like people I talk to about Christ being the only way. I'm told to be open minded, God is not judmental, God loves everyone, everyone is going to heaven, but I am being devisive and judgmental for telling them the Truth. We could all get along if I'd live and let live...

God does love everyone! Christ is the only way by which we can get to God, there is no other person, or work, or sacrafice, that could save us. I believe in works.

God doesn't "love" everyone in the way I have described it to you above. The way the "man on the street" thinks God loves him...he thinks a "loving" God would NEVER send anyone to hell. Then I am usually told I am unloving for suggesting they might be headed there (even if I haven't gone there yet).
The "man on the street" has a different definition of love than God does.

That's what I was saying there.