That's funny, I thought I made it very clear that I do NOT support what the NKJV is based on.

Read on my lutheran friend:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html

In Christ,

Jim

I am not Jim nor can I speak for him but speaking for myself it is simply because the New King James version is a piece of trash as are all of the other modern perversions. It does exactly the same thing to denigrate and deny the divinity of Christ among many other things.

I have seen the New King James characterized as possibly the worst and most dangerous of all the new perversions. With a little bit of reasearch on the web you can find that information also.

Another reason is that we do not need another New King James Version. There was nothing wrong with the other one. Again I stress something that has been said in these forums over and over again ad infinitum, God's Word does NOT change. The only motivation for continued production of newer versions of the Bible is that of profit. My goodness, there are over 120 different versions available on the market today. Why? One Bible is all we need and one Bible is all that God gave us.

All of these other so-called Bibles are the workings of man. They are tainted by certain built-in motives and driven by the profit factor. These folks have produced Bibles for children, beginners, teens (seperate ones for both boys and girls) women, young marrieds, and the list goes on and on. One Bible is all that is necessary. One size fits all.

I do not know how anyone that has read any of the New King James Versiona nd compared it with the Real Bible can ask a question like that. They are nothing alike.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

Well gentlemen, if you insist on using the King James Bible as "the standard" to judge all newer translations, even though itself is nothing but another translation, I strongly disagree with you. The NIV, NAS, and NKJV, are all God honoring translations that do not at all deny the deity of Christ nor remove any doctrine. Even more interesting I might add, is that you seem to believe that someone who uses these translations will learn and beleive bad doctrine. Yet the most questionable teachings I have ever heard have been from pastors who advocate the King James Bible.

One example of this is Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel:

http://www.shepherdschapel.com/


Not to say the King James is bad to use, but I have seen no evil come out of using a modern bible. I would also like to remind you that I don't disagree with you on any doctrine, but only on this issue. So am at a loss as to what false doctrines I will come to believe as a result of reading a modern bible. Moreover, bad doctrine ususally comes from false interpretation, rather than from which bible is used.

Peace in Christ

May I ask you a question? I consistently ask this question to people who advocate the use of the modern versions, but for some reason can never get an answer.

What is the purpose of them? Why do we need them?

I will not accept the answer that they are easier to read, as I do not believe the NIV is easier to read than the Living Bible is easier to read than NASB is easier to read than the NKJV and so on and so forth.

What is it about the newer versions that we needed to create them? Do they show us the Word of God better? If you think that, I would love to see that evidence, but as you have oft supported, you don't think that. So what is it?

If they are not any better, and are not easier to read, then why?

Why?Why?Why?Why?

Someone please answer this one simple question.

All of these interpreters making all of these different modern versions, do they claim they have better translation than the other? No. Then why produce them? Simple. Money. As so often shown by George and others here, the only motive is money.

If they are no better, then we can conclude by secular logic that they must be worse. It is a simple logical conclusion. If something is not better, it has to be equal to, or worse than. Since we can conclude that it certainly is not equal to, because of the need to not reproduce something that is equal, we must therefore scientifically conclude that it is worse.

So my friend, if you will not take the biblical stance of the MV's then take the logical stance.

Oh, but people must say, "Well, I don't like coke, so I want pepsi" that is why we have different types of translations. Mmmmmmm good answer then. So we must conclude that people need different bibles, then we must also conlude that those same people need different Jesus's. One Jesus for every desire.

Do you see where all of this is going?

Let me ask you something. Are there warnings in the bible about the end time? If so, what are those warnings? Are we to think that everybody is pretty much ok and most of us are going to heaven? What foolishness:

There are going to be a lot more going to hell than heaven in these end times.

If there are so many who are going to be decieved in the last days, where are they? I have a feeling just about anyone and everyone you ask thinks it won't be them. Chew on that for a while.

If so many are going to be deceived by false prophets and ravening wolves, wouldn't you want what you know to be the one true Word of God in the KJV?

And one last thought, you keep talking about us "insisting" on using the KJV as the "standard", what do you mean by that? If I could read Greek, I would use the Textus Receptus, but I don't so I use the bible that was based off of it. If I could read ancient Hebrew, I would read the Masoretic Text, but I don't so I will read the bible that is based off of that.

What? The MV's aren't based off of these? Why not? Is it a little too strongly worded for our pillowed behinds? Does it stab a little too much for our cushioned tushies? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh......... I certainly wouldn't want to have the conscience pricked of our soooooooooooo comfortable lives here. That is what life is about isn't it? comfort? It isn't? Then what is it about? It certainly can't be obedience, the mv's don't talk about that. It MUST be comfort then, because that is EXACTLY what those books speak of.

Love in Christ,

Jim

So you agree with what the JW's say with their NWT? And you agree with what the catholics think with their bible? And do you agree with what the Muslims believe with the Quran?

What a statement to make. Now your just being silly and argumentative.

And BTW, if Michael Jackson drove a corvette, does that make all corvettes bad?

Just wondering,

Jim

Ok, Jim, allow me to clarify my position:

I'm sorry if I have given that impression, because I do in fact beleive that modern bibles are more accurate than the King James Bible. I do not, though, dismiss it's use and fully support anyone that wishes to use one.

So I do think that modern versions are 1. Easier to read and understand, and 2. in many cases more accuate. Non of them are the "perfect" word of God, but they are efforts to become even more accurate and at the same time more readable to the modern man.

If we follow the example of the apostoles at Pentacost, we will give God's word in the language of the common man so they can better understand it. This is why we have modern bibles.

Here's some examples of where the King James language falls short for today's readers:

http://www.solagratia.org/article.cfm?id=647


Now please understand me here...

All I'm trying to do is to show you that the KJV does have errors and falls short in many places.

But so do our modern versions! As long as fallible men are the translators, this will happen. God's message, however, has been, and will continue to be preserved.

For those who wish to use the King James, I completely support you, as it is a Godly translation that has brought many to christ, but it is still a translation, and falls short in many places in both accuracy and readablility for the common man today.


Also:

Where are you getting this from, Jim? I never said I agreed with the NWT, Jehova's witnesses, or what have you..

Secondly, I made it clear that I was not trying to demonize those who use the King James, but only trying to show that users of any bible, including the King James, can learn and teach false doctrine.

I apologize if I was unclear about that...

Peace in Christ

I would LOVE to see your basis for this statement. What do you have to back this up?

What??!! We CAN'T follow the examples of the apostles at pentacost, because we are not apostles! That was the initiation of the church of Jesus Christ. They were beginning the fulfillment of the prophecy of going and preaching unto all nations. The Holy Spirit came upon them with the sole purpose of speaking the Gospel of Christ to all of the people present, which contained many different languages. We do not need tongues today, and we certainly do not need modern versions of the bible.



Quotes by Dr. Edward:

What a fool he is!!!!

The sites you give are censure in themselves.

Really, where did you show me that?

For your definition of a common man, I completely agree with you, it does fall short for the common man as unsaved, because the common man cannot understand the bible!

Go back and reread what you have stated then read the following verses:

So, as you can clearly see, if we have a bible that is translated by men, for men, for the ease of readibility, then we lose the Word of God.

The KJV cannot be read by the eyes of the world and understood, IT IS SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED!!!!

Mark my words, The mv's can be read and understood by anyone, unfortunately at the behest of true doctrine. There is only one depth to be learned by the MV's and that of the flesh and for the flesh. There are many unsearcheable depths to be learned in the KJV which will not be revealed to eyes of the flesh!!!, They will only be revealed to the man who is spirtual, indwelled by the Holy Spirit and only revealed by the Holy Spirit!

Yes, it does contain errors, but never at the behest of doctrine. It might contain spelling errors, but that's it. Does it fall short, hah! What a statement! There is nothing short at all about God's Word.

The issue is NOT errors, when are you going to realize that? The issue is deliberately using erroneous materials as a basis from which something is translated, and not directed that, by the Holy Spirit. That is not the ultimate goal of ANY of the translations today. It is simply money.The KJV used the best preserved copies of the manuscripts and texts available, the mv's do not.

And of course God used fallible men in the translation to english in the KJV, they had it in their hearts to obey God, not man like the mv translators. The readiblity reflects that.

Correct, in the KJV

You as much as said it when you said the following:

You were criticizing the teaching of those specific pastors more, by the use of the term "most", than you were criticizing a Khilifat or Imam by using the Qu'ran.

Maybe you ought to be more careful in how you say things? Or do you really believe this? Or maybe you are saying you have never in your life heard any teaching other than christianity?

I am aware of this, hence the point I was making in my earlier post to you:

In Christ,

Jim

Pretty easy to figure out Jim: $$$$

I am getting some kind of obtuse pleasure out of reading the things from the supporters of the modern perversions and especially our Lutheran friend whom I find falling all over his own words, back tracking and having to make explanations for a lot of things to correct and clarify previous statements. Before I am challenged on that statement just go back and read the thread.

It can be seen in Luke 4 that our enemy, the devil, knows every word that is in the Bible.From the time of creation he has been twisting it. Read the story of Eve and the fruit. No, it was not an apple! Satan has worked himself so well into the lives of people that profess to be Christians that they are using perverted versions of God's Holy Word and they stand and attempt to defend them.

Each and every last time that someone has made a defense of any of the Modern Perversions of the Bible when that translation has been presented it has been shown to be wrong. Someone here even made the silly (that is putting it mildly) statement that the modern perversions do not change doctrine and do not make changes to the important aspects of the Bible.Our Lutheran friend just made the completely erroneous statement that the King James Bible has errors in it. Show me one! Just one! Don't just throw a verse out there and tell me that the NIV, NRSV, NASB, etc, etc, etc to over 120 different Bibles on the market today disagree with the King James Version. Show me how you can prove that the AV is wrong. It can't be done.

The modern perversions do not affect doctrine? What a deluded load of hogwash inspired of the enemy that is! The NIV, which has been characterized conversely as the best of the modern translations and also as the most dangerous of them even by one of the men that served on the translation committee, denies the deity and divinity of Christ 155 times! Oh but you say, what about footnotes and things of that nature? If is important why was it relegated to the status of footnotes in the first place. 155 times this preversion denies the deity and divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Why on earth would you want to continue to read such trash unless inspired of the enemy? If you do not believe the statement of the 155 denials there has been a book written on the subject which is readily available on the 'net from a number of different sources. The NIV also leaves out entire verses and in some cases entire chapters. How can that not affect doctrine? Perhaps this is coming from the Arian shcool of thought? I have just been reading a portion of a book that details the Arian school of thought. The things I see here concerning the modern perversions and their defense certainly do parallel that cult. If you ahve any interest go back and read about the history of Christianity that led to the convening of the council of Nicea. You will find that Arianism is one of the prime factors for convening that council.

The NIV, which is being highly defended here, leaves out approximately 65,000 words of the Bible. You cannot leave that many words out of any document without affecting doctrine. I am sorry, but that is just another delusion.

Unfortunately our adversary, the devil, has found a highly successful way to delude well-meaning folks. What better way for him to get people to read his ideas than to disguise them as a Bible?

I pray often for people that have been delude by the wiles of the enemy. It is so sad to see.Their eyes and their minds have been veiled. I pray often that the veil will be lifted and people will come to know the absolute Truth which is our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ and not some perverted word that has been inspired of Satan and not God, The Father.

I know those are rather strong words but I believe them to be necessary. The Bible tells us over and over again that things are either of God or they are satanic in origin. It cannot be both ways. the history of the King James Version of the Bible can be directly traced to the very first English Bible, the Wycliffe Bible of 1382. It has been purified seven times. It is not full of errors as has been supported here. The modern perversions of the Bible are nothing more than the inspiration of the enemy that he is using to drive divisions between Children of God. The Bible also warns us of that fact many times.

If these things are not true why is it that the independent, fundamental Baptists are the fastest-growing denomination in the United States and possibly the world at the present time? Why is it that there are many people coming from Catholicism, Lutheranism, the JW's, Mormons and other such denominations into fundamental Baptist churches? It is because we at those IFB Churches tell people the Truth and can support it from the Bible. Each time I am challenged personally and able to sit down face-to-face with someone that is defending one of the modern perversions it does not take long to show them that whatever Bible they are using is full of errors and changes in doctrine. Full to the extent that I can almost smell an NIV from all the way across the auditorium.

It must be extremely difficult to attempt to found one's faith on a document that is so lacking in Truth.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

Because the end times are coming and the Lord is separating His flock.

Exciting, isn't it?

Love in Christ,

Jim

Ok.....

The KJV was translated by men, for the ease of readibiblity (for that time).

So if your reasoning is true, then your saying that the KJV has lost the word of God!

Secondly, were any of the bibles translated before it spirtually discerned? If so, why can't they be now?

Hmmm..

As I read those verses you posted (I Corinthians 2:7-14 ), it tells me that only those know christ have spiritual discernment:

So to say that modern translations are not spiritually discerned is to say that the translators are not christian and do not know christ. How you could reach such a conclusion is beyond me.

Read Dr. Kenneth Barger's book sometime about the making of the NIV, Here was one of the head translators, and you judge if he knows christ or not.

Moreover, do you think I don't have discernment becuase I read an NIV? Or would any true follower of Christ be led to read the KJV.

If that's true than I guess I must not know Christ...

Aaa.. Jim, God's word is not the KJV. And since enlgish did not come into existence till quite some time after the origanial manuscripts were written, there is no way you can perfectly traslate them into enlgish.
Words may change, but the message stays the same.



Peace in Christ

I am sorry that you hold no respect for the Word of God in truth. The way you nonchalantly describe it just being like any other translating process is quite disturbing.

Because the modern versions have nothing in them that can be spiritually discerned, they are for the shallowness of man and his thoughts.

Now it's my turn.....

It is obvious to any christian that this is true. How else do you suppose you get spiritual discernment?

If this is your conclusion, then you say so. I am simply saying that Satan can blind and manipulate christians just as easily as unsaved if the permission is given. And seeing the agenda behind the mv's, it is highly probable.

Since you have broached the subject, what I have to say may be harsh, but I am still commanded to give the truth. If you cannot spiritually discern these things, it is one of two reasons: 1) You are really not saved. or 2) You are blinded by the god of this world. or 3) All of us on this site are truly incorrect and we really are not doing a good job rightly dividing the Word.

I would be a fool to believe the third, because I wouldn't be moderator otherwise.

Then this is your admission, and it supports reason number 1.

It is unfortunate that you know more than the bible about what is or is not, the Word of God. It is also unfortunate that, by your own admission that you do not believe in the Word of God. If you do not believe in the Word of God, then you probably are not saved by this fruit you have shown.

Jim

I beleive the word of God! But I beleive that the true word of God is found in the original texts and not in any translation of the those texts!

The message itself does not change nor it's truth, but as long as any translation has happened from the original texts, the resulting translations will have errors because men are fallible, even if they are indwelt by the holy spirit.

I am not claiming to know more than the bible, but affirming what it says!

Men are fallible, and they will error! Plain and simple!

To say that the King James Bible, or any translation from the original is the perfectly preserved word of God is nothing but heresey! If you hold this belief you must reject the fallibilty of man, or at least the fallibilly of King James translators.

Our God is a God of grace and love, however, and he forgives us despite our shortcomings.



Peace in Christ

The true Word of God? As opposed to what? The false Word of God?

I also believe the original texts to be perfect, infallible, and inspired. I believe the translation of those exact texts through the Alexandrian/Majority text, TR, on through to the KJV to be the preserved Word of God. I do not include the mv's in that preservation line.

If you do not believe that the Word of God exists today, then we are certainly in serious trouble.

Well, the KJV translators were in fact guided by the Holy Spirit, if not, we could not say that we have the preserved Word of God. But, they were, so we do in fact have a preserved Word of God.

As we see the KJV, we look at men, guided by the Holy Spirit, using the correct manuscripts. As we see the MV's we look at men, not guided by anything other than their own desires, using erroneous texts manipulated by other men with an agenda.

I agree, but this has never been the argument. The difference is as stated so many times before. Let me outline this in simplicity:

Modern Versions:

1) Written by men who had no desire to be guided by the Holy Spirit and whose ulterior motive was profit
2) Based off of erroneous early manuscripts and Westcott and Hortt manipulated scripts.


King James Authorized Version

1) Written by men with no other motive but to be guided by the Holy Spirit, so the mistakes would be minimized, and preserve the Holy Scriptures for modern man.
2) Based off of the most accurate majority manuscripts and TR's in which all parties agreed were not subjected to manipulation.

This is so often repeated with out the finality it is getting tiresome.

Our God is ALSO a just God and a judging God who will not tolerate sin, and will not tolerate people who corrupt His Word. Changing His Word is not a "shortcoming", it is a sacrilege that I certainly would not want to be guilty of!

Because God loves us, He will not let us get away with butchering His Word. He loves us so He preserves His Word in the KJV for those of us who will stick to the faith and desire to learn what He has for us.


John 8:31-32
...If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

In Christ,

Jim

Okay, a lutheran, let me reiterate some questions that have been asked of you that you have not or can not answer.

Why do we need so many modern translations? Do you not believe that God's Word has been preserved? If you do believe it then which of the more than 120 different versions of the Bible that are available in the English language today is the preserved Word? Who is it that determines which one is the preserved Word?

Here is another good one for you. Why is it that the King James Version existed, pretty much unchanged, for exactly 270 years before the first of the modern translations appeared? If there was a need for revision of the King James Version based on the discovery of newly found manuscripts or a better understanding of the original texts used to compile the King James Version why was it not done until 1881 and not as the new things became available? I say 1881 because according to research and based upon the book, "The Journey From Texts to Translations" © 1999 by Paul D Wegner, Published by Baker Academic, a division of Baker Book House Company, P O Box 6287, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49516, the first modern perversion of the Bible was published in 1881, that being the Revised Version. At that point I should note for accuracy that only the New Testament appeared in 1881. the entire Bible was not published until 1885.

I would dearly like to see your explanations for all of these factors.

I must ask you this also. Who are you trying to convince? If you expect for even a moment that all of your rhetoric and statements that have not been backed up with any concrete evidence will sway me one iota from my beloved King James Bible I am sorry to have to tell you that you are wasting your breath. Are you trying to perhaps convince yourself? Your whole discourse reminds me of the plight of an atheist. An atheist must have the highest level of God consciousness in the whole world because they spend every minute of every waking day trying to prove to themselves that something does not exist. If it does not exist, it does not exist. By the same token, if you believe tha the NIV is the preserved Word of God then let it rest.

I cannot speak for the others on this forum but I do not believe that any of them will be swayed by any of your arguments. My goodness, if I wanted to listen to the hogwash that is contained in the NIV or any other modern translation of the Bible I would go to a Church that uses it. I don't, so I won't.

You have been asked questions that remain unanswered. You have been faced with Truth as it appears in the Bible and refuse to accept it. That to me sir shows me that you do not believe the Bible.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

Wrong George, I have answered your questions, but you don't agree with my answers.

But I'll answer again:

We need modern bibles for 3 reasons:

1. Better accuracy

2. Readablility

3. Comparative analysis (probably the biggest reason) - because no translation is perfect and without error, more translations allow us to compare and contrast how words are translated in each translation. This allows us to look at the pro's and cons of each translation, so we can see where they may be inaccurate or confusing in wording, and also allows us to be more accurate in our interpretion of the origianal manuscripts.

There is one thing you seem to assume here. That is that unless we have a perfect English translation, we don't have a perfect Bible.

But since English did not exist until more than a thousand years after the last words of scripture were written, to say that any English translation is the standard to judge all others is an error.

Think about this:

Lets say the US Constuitution was translated into the language of another country. How much sense would it make for someone in that country to take one particular translation of the Constitution, insist this one is "the" standard, and say that unless this translation is perfect, than no perfect Constitution exists anywhere? Yet this is exactly what you are saying!

God has perserved his word by making sure that the new testement was so quickly spread over all the known world that no man/church/or group could gather all the copies together and make wholesale changes. By the thrid century entire manuscripts were buried. If major changes had occured during that time, they would be easily detectable by comparison with those earlier manuscripts.

As I have said above, no English translation can be called perfectly preserved. Only the original manuscripts can.

As for which Bible to use, I cannot recommend every modern bible today, as some are obivous perversions such as the New World Translation. But it is unfare to say that I must be either for all modern bibles or for non. Many translations are just as Godly, and in many cases more accurate then the King James, and then, yes, some clearly try to change doctrine.

I dissagree completely with you that main objective is for modern bibles is money, though I do agree they are often marketed for such purposes. Even so, the text of the bibles themselves do nothing to take away from the sound doctrine of Christ, nor will they leed fellow christians astray in the faith.

Apparently you do, seeing how you seem so confidant that the KJV is the original manuscripts perfectly preserved in Enlgish.

The true answer, though, is that non are perfectly preserved, but most are as accurate as they can be despite any shortfalls they may have, including the KJV.

Read the following excerpt:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=706


If you don't agree, you don't agree, but I have answered.

And you are right, I should let this issue rest.

These are my reasons, and I won't argue anymore.

Peace in Chirst