Whew, I am glad you will not argue anymore because I cannot tell you how corrupt that website is! It presents illicit facts and boldface lies. The very essence of it{website} denies God in every aspect.

I will respond to your answers with secularity. I will understand the term "We" as used by yourself as the blind. As being blind, your answers are used as worldly a fashion as to which they were intended.

Better Accuracy? Simply not true. I have no other way of explaining it. The Lord warned of this happening:

Readibility? This excuse has lost merit by the many explanations you were given.

Comparative Analysis?
My friend, if you had done any "comparative analyses" of your own with the help of the Holy Spirit, you would come to the same conclusion as everyone else has in the truth.

The only "comparitive analyses" all these so called "theologians" have done is used garbage for their basis and no guidance by the Holy SPirit whatsoever, hence being addressed as who they are in 1 Timothy 6:3-5.

There is an awfully familiar pattern forming with you folks that support the MV's and it is simply this:

The major argument that most christians and the unsaved who support the MV's have, is that they do not believe the bible is anything beyond a set of words, and that can have the world's logic applied only to it. They see it as something that can be categorized along with all other secular literature. It means nothing to them but maybe a law or set of dry directions. They do not believe Hebrews 4:12. They do not believe that they have anything to learn from the bible beyond that which is inked on it's onion-skin pages, and only just that shallow.

The argument with them is fruitless. They cannot see our argument, they are blind to it. To change this person's view of the bible would require changing this person heart and understanding of God's true holiness. If a person believes that nothing is holy and sacred, then they certainly would never apply those words to the Word of God.

We are arguing over what color the sky is with a blind man.

In Christ,

Jim

You still did not answer the questions. I read what I perceive as a "political" answer. You skirted around the issues without really answering them.

Start with the very first question. I asked why we need so many of them. That question was not answered. The same holds true for the rest of them.

I asked who you are trying to convince. That was not answered.

Again you reinforce my assertion that you do not believe the Bible because the Bible (the King James Version anyway) tells us that it is the preserved Word of God. I am truly sorry that you do not believe that.

Since you are so holden to your ways and will not acede to Truth there is nothing more that I can say. You either believe the Bible or you don't.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

For a little reference here, I want to post some information.

Please keep this in remembrance: The KJV is not based on the Western manuscripts(Codeces Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), it is based on the Byzantine manuscripts(Codex Alexandrinus).

Also, please do not confuse the terms Alexandrian manuscripts and Codex Alexandrinus, they belong to the opposite familes of manuscripts(Alexandrinus is Byzantine, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are Alexandrian/Western), this is a common confusion today. Somebody got a little confused when naming these I guess.

Anyhow, the following facts are from an objective scientific entity that studied the parchment it was on, however, read what it has to say and you can draw your own conclusions.

Remember:

KJV = Codex Alexandrinus

MV's = Codeces Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

The argument of the bibles is not which manuscripts they are based on, that is commonly accepted fact. What is not commonly accepted fact is which of the codeces are most accurate. You read the following and judge for yourselves.

These are unbiased reviews of the evidence shown of the uncials of these codeces. The reviewers had no ulterior motive. They simply reported scientific evidence of the type of ink used, it's age, color, and writing style of the translator or editor.

Love in Christ,

Jim

One thing that I believe may have been overlooked here is the statement about the modern versions being written in today’s language and the fact that the KJV was written in a style that is not in use today. While that may be true in essence there is a glaring omission here.

That omission is the FACT that the language of today assigns entirely different meanings to words than did the language of the time the King James Version was translated. Words have an entirely different meaning. Let me give you a couple of examples.

First let us look at the word "marriage" as defined in the current Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Gosh, that makes me shudder! There is no mention of God. There is also use of the completely abominable reference of same sex un**ns.

Let us take a look at the same word in the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary that is the closest dictionary in meaning to the words of the English Bible as preserved in the AV.

My goodness, would you look at that? It actually says that God Himself instituted marriage! Now let's look at the word "faith."

Do you see the difference in these? In the current definition of the word "faith" there is no mention of the word "truth" yet "truth" appears to be of primary focus in the meaning of the word as it was written in the time of the Bible.

Let us break this down a bit. These are but two examples of words in modern English that have vastly different meaning than the words as originally written. There are many, many more of them. That leaves us with the glaring question of when you read the modern versions of the Bible which definition of the words do you use? Do you think of the meaning of the words as originally intended or since you read the modern language Bible do you affix the modern meaning of the word?

It stands to reason that since the modern versions of the bible have changed the appearance of words to a sometimes-drastic effect they have also meant to change the meaning of the words. How can a book that was written in modern language use meanings of words that were written so long ago?

I sincerely believe that anyone that opens their eyes and their hearts to understand truth will see that there is no way that the modern translations of the Bible say anything like what claim they do.

Remember that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth..." Now you don't suppose that the reason for the change in meaning of the word faith and the elimination of the constant reference to truth has anything to do with the abhorrent leanings of modern society to a godless, truth less existence do you? I certainly do.

It has been pointed out, and can be verified with a little research and using Google, that the modern versions of the Bible are not easier to read than the King James Version. Reasoning follows that since they are not easier to read regardless of the claims of a lot of people they are also more difficult to understand.

I just cannot understand how anyone that compares any of the modern versions of the Bible to the King James Version can continue to defend them much less continue to read the newer ones. My goodness, the NIV is called a "dynamic equivalent." What does dynamic mean? It means constantly changing. By definition and self-admission it changes the Word of God.

The Word of God does not change. Nor should the meanings of His Words.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

As a note to the above post, please forgive the appearance of the series of asterisks or stars in three places. It appears that I used the forbidden "U" word again three times! After that last time I typed a long post and the system ate it because of the forbidden word I decided this time to beat the system. It took some doing but I finally suceeded.

I had made the comment the last time this happened for the same reason that I found it silly that the use of that word would cause such a thing. I was told that the use of that word would cause the entire system to crash. By silly I meant that I thought then and I still think that with all the modern technology we have it seems rather silly to me that one word can bring down a whole system. Perhaps I just don't have enough techno expertise.

Ah but that is just me. I figured out how to get past it this time. I could not figure out how to say the same thing without that particular word though.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

You are completely right George.

It is funny how man can always justify his present state no matter what that state is at that particular moment.

We do not need to change the bible to meet todays language, it is todays language that needs to be changed to understand the bible.

Like I have said before, A translation today would be impossible. I understand that if we used the Masoretic texts and TR, we would have something close, but todays perverted language could never accurately describe the holiness of our Lord and Saviour, in my opinion.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Why do we reject the mv’s as an instrument for study in our daily lives as Christians?

The devil works in any way he can to deceive Christians from the truth, or make us ineffective in it. Do we all agree on that? I hope so. If we do not, then we need to change the subject.

If he will do anything he can to keep us from being effective from the truth, how exactly does he do it? I believe that if the devil cannot change the Word of God, he will try to replicate it, not being the Word of God, to say what he wants it to say. Not being so blatant that it is obvious that it is not of God, but subtly, to deceive the minds of those who are not sober:

If Satan cannot come here and pen it himself, then how is it perverted?

Why is this praise from David to the Lord iterated? Why would he praise the Lord for preserving His Words from “this generation?” Did he have a premonition that mankind would attempt to change God’s Word? If we do not believe that to have taken place in the modern versions of the bible, must we just take by faith that those perversions of scripture came and went and none was the wiser? That does not seem likely, nor is it scripturally sound. If we are to suppose that we do not have anything of God’s Word that has been perverted, then we deceive ourselves. Look at the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All three of these codices should agree with each other, but they do not. Why? Because two of them were altered. If all three agreed, we would not have the perversions that we do today, supporting the ushering in of the end times.

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was 'found' in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai by a man named Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament. Scholars have identified three scribes as having produced the manuscript. The one who was involved with the NT is labeled Scribe A. It can be shown that the scribe of the OT copied the manuscript from dictation in part of that portion. Likewise, it is held that the NT portion was copied down from a written exemplar. Taken altogether, perhaps as many as nine correctors worked on the manuscript from the fourth to the twelfth century. (Why in a trash pile? Hmmm...)

The Vaticanus was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9: 14-13:25, and all of Revelation. One scribe worked on the OT and another the NT. A corrector went through the manuscript, probably soon after its writing. Then a second corrector worked on the manuscript much later (10th or 11th century) and traced over the faded letters with fresh ink omitting letters and words he considered to be wrong. He also added accent and breathing marks. (In the Vatican Library? Hmmm…)

The Alexandrinus was generally accepted to have been discovered in Constantinople 1624, when Cyril Lucar had intended to present it to King James I, but he died before receiving it, so it went to Charles II. It consists of 773 parchment leaves measuring 12.6 by 10.4 inches. Virtually all of the OT (630 leaves) and NT (143) are preserved in the codex. No changes have been suspected in this codex.

I want to note something here using some common sense. Realizing that none of these codices were available during the KJV translation, why would mv supporters even say that the KJV was correct all? After all, the mv’s translators used these codices during their translations. Unfortunately they solely used the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus simply because they are “older”. They dismiss the Alexandrinus, because of it’s disagreement in so many places with the other two which were edited many times since their inception! Not only were they in disagreement with Alexandrinus, they were in disagreement with each other.

So, we have three codices, two of which were blatantly changed, with no one knowing why, and another one with no changes having been made to it. Which one would you use, all things being understood and equal? I am not limiting this exposition simply to this, but pointing out, I think, the more important logical points to be made.

The KJV generally used the TR for it’s basis. The mv translators (hereafter referred to as mvt’s) used all different kinds of sources, new and old. The mvt’s also used different ways of translating from those sources (formal equivalency, dynamic equivalency, paraphrasing, literal). They also used two corrupt codices in their sources, and the KJV did not. We know the KJV did not because 1) The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not known of at that time, and 2) The Vaticanus was not referenced as it did not agree with the traditional text.

The KJV used the traditional texts and the TR. It is generally accepted that the KJV used all of the TR’s with the focus being primarily on Beza’s and Stephanus’ versions.

We can get into the translational issue all day long, and it will never be settled as long as this world exists. So what are we to do? What about faith? While man squabbles all day long over their “intellectual” reasons of why the KJV is fallible and no better, in fact is worse, than any mv, he is identified by the very bible he is trying to translate:

I have faith that the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God. If you don’t believe it, then all of our conversations are going to be different. Everything we believe the bible to say, will boil down to a translational issue, because the mv’s do not agree with the KJV.

So, we KJV defenders, let’s ask ourselves a question:

Are we just as guilty as those who defend the mv’s? Read the above verse. If we argue with them according to the logical translational issue, we are sinning, because it causes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings. We are to withdraw from those types of arguments.

I am guilty of this sin. I will no longer post on this subject in a logical or scientific translational stance if it causes these types of arguments. We must take on faith that we have the preserved Word of God in the KJV. I believe that the mv's are corrupt and are tools of Satan to deceive and desensitize Christians to make them ineffective and puff themselves up and justify their sinful life. I need to learn to defend the KJV with the KJV, not my intellectual pride. God's Word is settled in Heaven, He doesn't need me to settle it for Him.

Psalm 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Love in Christ,

Jim

At Jim's suggestion I have moved this response to this thread from the My Spiritual Journey thread. This is one of the things I addressed in the New Forum Categories thread. These things are all so interwoven it is very difficult to separate them in my opinion. (As if my opinion counted for anything.)

Bill, in all honesty don't you think that this is one of the more common problems today? People will not make any effort to understand what the Bible really says. This modern society that we live in has no desire nor inspiration to do anything that requires a little work and effort. Now-a-days folks seem to want everything handed to them on a silver platter. If it takes any work at all they will shy away from it. (I think it all started with the first electric can opener.)

To me this is not better and directly akin to the hoards of people that are what I call "Sunday go to meeting" Christians. I will see these people in Church for an hour on Sunday (as long as there is not a basketball game or football game or even NASCAR race that is more important to them on TV) and they disappear for the rest of the week. We have so many ministries in Church that could use help. Some time back an appeal went out for Awana workers. The result was very disappointing. People would rather sit home and watch TV or go to the movies or something of that nature than work with children in a very important ministry.

Those same folks are the very ones that will not open a Strong's or a Webster's 1828 or anything resembling one of those books. We recently had an evangelist in Church that was extremely good. We had a time of testimony before the sermon. One of the Church ladies stood up and said that she wanted to praise the Lord for different translations of the Bible. She went on to say that "we" (not me Brother) will skim over or ignore the parts of the Bible that are difficult to understand so she went out and bought a New Living Translation. Shudder!!! I know that my face must have gotten contorted at that statement and I did see that the evangelist's face had a rather shocked look to it. Our Pastor just glossed over that comment and moved on to the next person.

This is a perfect example of someone that does not want to make any effort whatsoever to understand God's Word. It is the "vanilla pudding" crowd that wants no spice in their food.

It is especially sad to me that when the Pastor or even a visiting evangelist delivers a really good sermon about just such a thing the people that need to hear it are not there. These folks that will make no effort to understand the things in the Bible are the same ones that show up on Sunday morning during a time when an evangelist is in Church for a whole week.

It is a rather sad commentary that you bring up here. I don't think that God ever promised us that anything was going to be easy.

Let me give you an example of how this affects people in their personal lives. As you are aware, I am the Chapter Director for Reformers Unanimous in our Church. There is a young man in Church that previously had a terrible cocaine addiction. He was all for RUI when we started it. I have talked to him many times about coming to RUI. He won't make the effort to do the thing that he could benefit the most from. The sad part is that he appears to have exchanged one addiction for the other. He has a tremendous weight problem. He is quite obviously just a really bad day or two away from falling right back into the snare of drug addiction. You may think this harsh but it is the truth.

To me this is a very similar situation if not exactly the same situation as those that will not open a Strong's or Webster's 1828. We teach directly out of the King James Version of the Bible in RUI. We like to dissect and define. We will take Bible verses and cut them into individual words, define the words and then put them back together to understand just exactly what the Bible says. Here is a tool in which this man could greatly benefit in his personal life by taking two hours out on Friday evening and learning about how to overcome such things and he will not do it.

What a sad thing our country has come to. I find myself guilty of it in some ways. I get lazy at times. Quite often instead of opening up the Webster's 1828 which is right next to me I use the on-line version. The book is right next to me but I use the computer because it is easier at times. The same is true of Strong's. My Strong's "all the words in the Bible" is gathering dust downstairs because I have it on the computer. You may be saying to yourself that at least I use those two tools. While that may be true it is also true that I believe it to be the lazy way out.

Shades of TV dinners, electric can openers, automatic car washes and things of that nature. We have become a completely complacent society. When we will not even open up a book that helps us to understand God's Holy Word that is supposedly our sole authority for faith and practice. It is a rather fitting commentary on the way we live our lives today and on many of the problems that exist in our country today. People are lazy (not all people) and are much more willing to use a so-called Bible that hands them a perverted version of Scripture than to make any effort whatsoever to learn.

I recently witnessed a funeral service in which the Pastor was from some off-the-wall, liberal Church. He used at least three different versions of the Bible in his eulogy. I say at least three because that is where I stopped counting. This man, who is supposed to be leading a flock in assuming a closer walk in the Kingdom of God, obviously had so many different versions in his head he could not even quote the proper reference in his eulogy. A number of times he mixed up verses by saying they were, for example, Romans 6:23 when he actually quoted Romans 3:23. How on earth can the people in his Church possibly know what they are supposed to believe?

What a sad state our Churches have become.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

I agree with you completely that God's word is not always easy to understand. My only point is that if an english word in the KJV is obsolite or viturally has changed meaning in todays language, I think we should
update those words so we don't have to grab an english dictionary. Now using a strong's concordance or a vines greek dictionary to look up the greek or hebrew eqivilant for a word is a diffrent story, and I completely agree with you that every christain should do in depth bible study. I try to make that a top priority in my life. I also agree our society is terribly bible illiterate, and few really care about the knowlege of the lord. All we can do my friend is lead by example, and pray for the people God has placed in our lives.


Also, as Jim suggested in the last topic I posted, I will only use the KJV when disscusing things here from now on, though I don't agree with most people here about modern bibles. Don't get me wrong though, I still use the KJV for both reading and study, and it certainly helps me in my understanding of God's word.

Also, I will not bring up this topic again nor post on it, as it was no doubt very wrong of me to do so in the first place, as I knew exactly what I was getting into, and the response I would get. I hope from here on out to have good fellowship with everyone.

In Christ,

Bill

[quote="Jim"]For a little reference here, I want to post some information.

Please keep this in remembrance: The KJV is not based on the Western manuscripts(Codeces Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), it is based on the Byzantine manuscripts(Codex Alexandrinus).


[end of quote]



Actually that is not entirely true- considering that the Latin Vulgate itself had a far greater impact on Erasmus than many would like to admit ...

I know I'm viewed as being a thorn at times but even the "Received Text" or "Byzantine Text" is presumed to be superior because of its 5,000 manuscript + support but in reality actually the "Received Text" manuscripts diagree among themselves many times-

And yet we see that this is the basis of most arguments of this particular subject, where we have to always resort back to faith......which is better for us anyway.


I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"
I say "Yes, it is", you say "No, it isn't"

Etc. etc. etc......

Love in Christ,

Jim

No actually i think i say yes and you say no

I want to be positive

I truly believe whatever you believe will have to be taken by faith because that is an essential element of who we are in Christ and why we believe Him...

In this scenario your faith is being placed into something that has obvious "questions" and "doubts" concerning the authenticity of parts of the text because of "disagreements" -- You are a convicted man on this issue. I say yes it is in that I believe God for a great thing and that is to leave us His Word in spite of minor variants even within the received text, but those are varaints none the less...

also let me say i spent a long time in classes that praised Erasmus... he was used by God but it doesn't change the fact that his theology was seriously warped and he was Roman Catholic and other philosophy garbage mixed in and yet he was instrumental in applying the LAtin Vulgate to our "received text"- yes vaticanus was in the vatican- and Erasmus and his warped Catholiscism or loose faith was also in Him when he worked on his greek text so applauded by Fundamentalists