To the person signed in as guest that does not even have the courtesy to assign a name to his or her post: (What might be the reason for that?)

The following is a cut and paste from one of your messages;

It appears to me that you may not be that familiar with the earlier printings of the AV or chose to ignore the content of them. The earlier printings of the AV have a rather lengthy statement to Prince James that is an admission there are errors in the translation of the AV. They did the best they could with what they had. There is nothing contained in that book whatsoever that claims it is "perfect" as you state.

It is widely known that the MSS and things that were used to translate the AV were the work of scribes. Secretaries if you will. I realize that is a really simplified version of the duties of a scribe but I think is fitting. In copying the manuscripts if one little dot or line was misplaced or an extra little line put in one of the characters it completely changed the meaning of the word and sometimes assigned a totally different word.

The major discovery of fragments, manuscripts and even complete scrolls that we have to go by at the present is the material discovered at Qumran, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These writings only serve to emphasize and add credence to the fact that the AV IS the most accurate translation that is in existence this day. My goodness, the largest find at Qumran was the Isaiah Scroll. It is composed of seven rather large pieces of leather sewn together that when opened measures about 33 feet in length. This writing is almost an EXACT word-for-word duplicate of the Book of Isaiah as contained in the AV.

As for the reference to the elimination of the Apocrypha in the current printings of the AV, if you are really a student of the origins of the AV you will know the answer to that question. The Canon of the Bible spells out pretty well why those books were not included. They are not the inspired Word of God. I have a few older printings of the AV, including one printed in 1688, that contain the Apocrypha. In reading those books it is fairly easy to see why the folks over the years that came up with the Canon of the Bible chose not to include them. They do make good reading and are profitable for learing ancient history but so are the works of Josephus, Erasmus, Origen and such as that. I note that the NASB you refer to does not contain the Apocrypha.

In looking over reference materials I have about the various versions of the written version of the English Bible I note that the translators of the NASB are anonymous. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps they didn't even want people to know they were involved. I don't know the answer to that one but do find it curious.

The AV actually dates from an earlier time than 1611. The original 1611 version was a revision of the Bishop's Bible (1602 ed.). It is a word-for-word translation and not a dynamic equivalent, paraphrase or any other thing.

All-in-all I still firmly beleive that the AV is the most accurate translation that is available to us today. The other versions of the bible that I use occassionally in research quite often do not have the same meaning. The almost constant attempts at "modernizing" the Bible serve only to water down the meaning. If one wants to truly understand the meaning of verses in the AV it is rather easy to use the proper tools to do so. That is why we have Hebrew-Greek Study Bibles. We have ancient language lexicons. We have one of the best tools available in the Strong's numbering system. If you do not agree with that one you can use the Cruden's concordance or whatever study aid you choose. I have not seen an argument yet about the meaning of the original words as contained in these study aids.

As for me, I will sitck to my AV. I believe it to be the Inspired Word of God, preserved as such for the believer. Each of the various more modern translations of the Bible were done by people that had their own agenda and set out to come up with a version of the Bible that fit their own needs and desires.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

RJP, Jim posted a number of questions for you. I have but one: Who are you attempting to please? Are you attempting to please the Lord or men? (I know that is two but they are actually one and the same question.)

Your use of various versions of the Bible because the meaning of words has changed and you want your listeners to easier understand what you are saying appears to me to be a want ot please men and not God. Look at this portion of one of your posts:

"If we are speaking to people who understand the meaning of a word in one way, we must define our terms to prevent confusion."

I am sorry, but that is nothing more than an attempt to please men. If you want to be pleasing to the Lord you don't set about to change the words you explain what they mean. In Reformers Unanimous we call that Dissect and Define.

A very good example of changing the words to please men is the NIV. is is widely known that one of the people on the translation team of the NIv was an openly homosexual, pro-abortion feminist. An activist at that. Thus the elimination fot he word "Sodomite" in that Bible and the way that particular translation lightly regards the abomination of homosexuality.

I have been truly blessed with being able to hear a number of the most widely respected preachers of the modern day. Soem of them men that are on the Board of Directors or the Advisory Board of The Sword of the Lord. They do not change words to please people. They preach from the Bible (the AV) and explain what the portions mean.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

RJP/guest--

First, let me state what I believe is missing from this discussion. I too believe the KJV is the preserved inspired Word of God. I don't believe men and only men translated the KJV. I believe the Holy Spirit guided the translation, and the translators, just as He dictated the original manuscripts to the original authors. I believe He chose every word that was translated to the KJV. There were other versions available at the time the KJV was translated, but the Holy Spirit chose the KJV. This is evidenced by the fact that the KJV has been and still is in wide use today.

You say that you use the NIV if the wording is closer to the original languages. This might not be as bad if the words and the verse you are preaching as your text are actually found in the NIV. Of course, on the other hand, with all the Scripture the NIV authors chose to leave out, and change, how could you possibly even consult that knowing that God had absolutely not part of that book?

You said:

"Why should the words of the NAS be any less significant in claiming that it is a perfect word for word and letter for letter preservation of the original autographs? "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17)."

Lets look at this. The NAS uses "training" instead of "instruction" used by the KJV.

Training=chanak-figuratively, to initiate or discipline:--dedicate, train up.
This word is used 4 times in the Bible, De. 20:5; I Ki 8:63; II Ch 7:5; Pr 22:6. The first three it is translated to mean dedicate. In Pr. 22:6, it is used to train up a child.

The KJV uses,

Instruction= paideia- tutorage, i.e. education or training; by implication, disciplinary correction:--chastening, chastisement, instruction, nurture. This is used 6 times in the Bible, and and is translated to mean, nuture, instruction, and in Heb. chastening.

As far as the NAS using "adequate" instead of "perfect " used by the KJV, well, You are intelligent, you know how inadequate the word "adequate" is used in this verse.

I sincerely believe the KJV is the only pure Bible in the English language. All the other versions water down the Bible so much.

You asked:

"Yeah, I know, with God all things are possible. Then is it not possible that the NAS is the right one?"

No, it is not possible. To say that any other version other than the KJV is the right one, would be to say that God has changed His message, because these other versions change the meaning and therefore the message of God.

I do not worship the KJV...I worship God through the KJV; because the KJV is the only version that represents God for who He really is, and gives Him the position He demands and deserves.

Amen Brother Jerry! Well said!

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

First I will state my (this websites) position on the KJV.

I am not a believer of secondary inspiration. I do believe that God has preserved His word.

I dont believe God would tell us his word is preserved forever. And then not have a copy available that is completely preserved. Its by hearing the word of God that we are saved.

If its possible that the word of God is corrupted then how do I know which part is corrupted?

Using that argument you could say that maybe all the texts that speak of salvation were added by men with agendas and therefore are not true. Or the parts that talk about sodomy etc. Where does it end. That is the kind of position that the enemies of our God take. They want to cast doubt upon Gods word so they can try to live their wicked lifestyles without guilt. If God does not provide us with a preserved copy of His word then we are left to try and figure out what words in the Bible are actually His and which words were added by men. It would be impossible to figure out.

Thats exactly what you have with the modern versions. Words are changed therefore meanings are changed. Which would mean that interpretations would change. Compound that with the fact that people are using different translations than each other. There is no unity of doctrine. You can justify any doctrine you hold to by finding a translation that agrees with your position. Or translate your own as in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses NLT.

What happens if someone using an NIV is at a Bible study with a group of people who are each using a different translation. For instance the KJV, NAS, NAB,RSV and The Message. Now, in the course of their study they find that these bibles do not agree in certain key passages. Some has certain passages and some dont.

Who's Bible is correct? How would you figure it out? Is it going to be the guy /gal who can shout the loudest?

You would have to go back to the original manuscripts and compare it with what is contained in the translations. And thats where the controversy begins.

Which manuscripit do you use? The Textus Receptus or the westcott and Hort texts which are the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus?

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and the modern versions are translated from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

The Textus Receptus has about five thousand greek manuscripts that agree with each other and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus has two that do not even agree with each other.

If you look in the notes of any Scofield or Ryrie Study Bible you will sometimes see a reference that says "not found in the better manuscripts". What they mean is it is not found in the older manuscripts. Meaning the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Scofield actually wanted to use the RSV in place of the KJV. But at the time he released his study notes the KJV was used more than the RSV so he used the KJV instead. I also read somewhere that Scofield met with Westcott and Hort, or at least attempted to. You'll have to do a search of the internet to get a more accurate account on that.

It is automaticly assumed that because the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older, that that makes them better or more accurate. They were also found in better physical condition. The problem with that is that this could signify that these two copies were not worn from use. Which in turn could mean that they were found to be in error and then discarded. The Sinaiticus was itself found in a trash heap http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/wastebasket.asp.

So really what it comes down to is which manuscript do you believe is more accurate based on the evidence. Personally I believe that it is the Textus Receptus.

I cannot read or speak greek. But I have been instructed by Godly men who are more learned than me. I have also read books by men who are more learned than me. And of course I've visited the websites of both sides of the argument.

I am at peace with my conclusion.

There is so much more information that I can write but I need to cut this short because I have something that I need to take care of.

I will finish this post by saying that I also believe that it is a serious offense to add to or change the meaning of the word of God. Which is what many of the modern versions attempt to do.

In Christ
Ray

Touche sailor and Ray!

I want to add a little more, is that ok?

Why is there such a vehement criticism of Fundamentalists? Why is it so offensive to everyone to see a bible defender so zealous about Christ? I can understand if the fundamentalist was doing it in a selfish way, but I do not see that to be the accusation anywhere except by true Christians. Is somebody afraid that their "religion" is being trampled on?

I hate it for anyone, but if I use scripture for the basis of anything I explain or believe, I will use the KJV. And yes, I am convicted of the Holy Spirit to only use the KJV for growth and spiritual food, and not the others. I just find it interesting that I was not being fed by other versions, trying to use them all of my life before now. Is that not testimony in and of itself? I am sure you will hear of everyone else saying they were "saved" by other versions, or "grow" by other versions, but I have to reply to the first as I don't know of anyone that was "saved' by the bible. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never known the use of the bible to be salvation. Salvation comes from Christ and the conviction of the person repenting. The bible is used as a tool by believers for believers. It is the believer's responsibility to "go unto all nations....".

As for the last, Can you truly grow by a bible that is written not to convict but, to weakly inform? DO you absolutely think Satan cannot have manipulated the scriptures to be weakened so as to usher in his era of control? Would this not stop producing good, strong, bible believing Christians ready to "contend for the faith". How many of you that solely use(I am going to try to be careful here) 20th century versions think you have enough accuracy of the scriptures of those version to effectively fight off the attacks of the devil? If you were somebody with access to your enemies guns, would you replace live rounds with blanks? I would. They would operate similarly, make a lot of noise, and still eject brass, but still be ineffective nonetheless.

Truly, have we become so stupid in our society to warrant a newer translation? Isn't that kind of like how we are lowering the standards in our public school systems to help pass the lazier kids?

Don't you think it a little too coincidental that these newer verson are coming out at the same time the world is in it's fastest downslide since Noah's days? Just coincidence? If not, what is the reason? From what I am hearing from grammaticians, the KJV is more grammatically correct than any other version, but that, IMO, is niether here nor there.

I am not growing by reading the modern versions, I do when I read the KJV. SO what is going on when people say "I grow when I read the modern versions". I would say, "Just in what way are you growing?" Spiritual maturity I believe can manifest itself in the way a bible defender presents himself/herself. No offense to anyones' intellect, but God puts far more weight to someones wisdom than their knowledge. I have noticed the more a biblical scholar learns, the further his/her faith falls. Just something in generalization I have noticed, not specific.

I have a question, how come you never see people argue faith? Is it because there are no different versions of faith? What about levels of faith? Why did Jesus tell us that if we had the faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains, but did not tell us if we had a great knowledge of the bible we could? I am not saying this to denigrate bible knowledge and I do not say any of this ecumenically, or secularly.

In Christ,

Jim

I may be getting off on the wrong foot here (first post), but frankly I use a variety of translations, not only the KJV but also NASB, ESV, and a few others. I have nothing bad to say about those who use the KJV exclusively, so I'm not trying to start any trouble. I take the matter seriously, have done quite a bit of research, have read many MVs cover-to-cover, and most importantly have submitted the entire issue to the Lord. I believe the KJV is to respected, but I also believe that many MVs are just as able to lead one to godliness. I've witnessed ample evidence of this, both in my life and in the life of others. Anyway, this is where the Lord has led me. Each Christian must decide for himself.

RockyMts, Do you actually believe what you have posted here?

" but I also believe that many MVs are just as able to lead one to godliness. I've witnessed ample evidence of this, both in my life and in the life of others. Anyway, this is where the Lord has led me. Each Christian must decide for himself."

You state that the various "MVs" are able to lead one to godliness. What sort of godliness? It has been shown many times just in the course of this thread that the "MVs' as you call them, are doctrinely incorrect and are often perversions of the Scriptures. How do you determine which one you are going to use? How do you reconcile the fact that in some churches folks may have five different versions of the bible in the same service and none of them say the same thing?

"Each Christian must decide for himself." That my friend is a rather scary proposition. You say that a mortal sinner must make a decision of their own as to what version of the Bible they are going to read? Perhaps that is just the problems in today's "modern" churches. I know that is definately the problem among the evangelical crowd.

(Pro 14:12) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

(Pro 16:18) Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Making their own decision as you put it is nothing more than the ways of man. It is also not the Biblical way of doing things. My goodness, the Bible spends many, many chapters and verses teaching us to not use and trust our own decisions. How ludicrous can you get?

To make a personal decision without consulting the Lord is nothing more than pride. It is of self, ego if you will. I spent a whole lot of my life making my own decisions. It almost got me into the grave yard and thus into eternal damnation. You can see what the wisest man in the Old Testament has to say about pride.

(Pro 16:18) Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

My goodness man! The more I think about what you said and the more I type about it the more I just cannot believe that you said what you did. This is very obviously not a fundamentalist viewpoint. Perhaps you have spent time reading Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life program? It would be right up your alley! Warren spends a lot of time teaching folks to be self-reliant and trust their own decisions. Warrens' program is also a blatant perversion of Scripture. Of course, since he uses somewhere in the neighborhood of five different versions of the Bible in his program it would probably be to your liking.

The problem with these "MVs" is that, as I said before, they have been produced by people with their own agendas. God's Holy Word did not say what they wanted it to so they changed it. They suffered the apostasy. Shades of Billy Graham!

I will go you one even further than that. These so-called "MVs" were produced to line people's pockets! Let me say that again so that you can be absolutely clear that is what I said. These so-called "MVs" were produced to line people's pockets. Rick Warren's purpose in life is to be driven right straight to the bank.

The AV or King James Version of the Bible is NOT copyrighted!!! You may find different printings of the AV that have copyright statements contained in them. However what they are copyrighting is the way the Book is laid out and the things contained in it other than the Scriptures. Anytime a publisher chooses to put different types of material in the particular copy they are printing such as maps, time lines, "between the testaments" material, doctrinal statements, etc they are copyrighting that material, not the Bible itself.

(Mat 10:7) And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

(Mat 10:8) Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

(Mat 10:9) Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,

Jesus Himself taught that we were given all these things freely. WE are to give them freely in return. It specifically states to not provide precious metals (the metals of coinage in those days) as payment for relaying His word to others. The King James Version of the Bible is a relaying of His Word.

However, you will either see and hear and read Truth and believe and understand it or you won't. I guess that is one of those personal decisions you spoke of. You either follow the Bible or you don't. Not some person's version of the Bible. Not some version that was produced with a motive other than teaching God's Word. Not some version that is perverted.

The King James Version of the Bible has stood the test of time for many years. According to research I have done the first "MV" was produced in 1881 (NT) and in its entirety in 1885: the RV. The revisions of the AV did not start for over 350 years! It worked fine for that period of time. Notice that all of the various "MVs" are considered REVISIONS of the AV. Revision means: to correct or improve; TO MAKE A NEW VERSION OF. There is no need to make a new version of the Bible except it be to alter it to say something other than what it originally did. The NIV is a perfect example. The NIV is called a "dynamic equivalent." Dynamic equivalent means constantly changing.

My word, the things you stated in your post are downright frightening to me!

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

I meant to add this to my last post but forgot...so I will add it here. The Holy Spirit uses the KJV in many different ways. Some say it is hard to read...some say it is hard to understand, and in some places it is, but mostly, it is very easy to both read and understand. To read it superfically, one will only get so much out of it. We are told in II Timothy 2:15 to study, and in John 5:39 to search the Scriptures. We are told in Joshua 1:8;Psalms 1:2; 119:15, 23, 48, 78, 148 to meditate in Gods word. If we will obey God and do these things, the Holy Spirit will open up Gods word to us.

For instance, my faith was at a low point and I needed something. I had just read Matt. 14 a couple of days before and I was driving and mediatating on a passage there. It was a very familar passage:

Mt 14:4 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

I have read this passage many times, as probably have most of you. Many sermons have come out of this passage to not take our eyes off Christ...and they are very good sermons. But the Holy Spirit opened this up a little more to me and showed me something that I had never seen before...

In verse 28, Peter is essentially praying to Jesus to prove Himself by allowing Peter to come to Him on the water...Jesus immediately said come. So Peter climbed out of the boat and began walking on the water. Now, Jesus, in order to answer Peters prayer to prove who He was, suspended all the physical laws of nature (His own laws), and allowed Peter to walk on the water. If Jesus was willing to suspend all the physical laws of nature to answer Peter's prayer to prove who He was, to what extent would He go to answer our prayers?

The Holy Spirit can interpret His word, and can open up precious treasures like that when we need it. We must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and ask Him to open up His word to us.

If we read all these other versions trying to get a better understanding of the "original language", we will miss all the precious treasures Gods Word has. The Holy Spirit has used the KJV for over four hundred years, He has opened His Word to countless men and women of God over the centuries, why would we seek another message...God has not changed, nor has His message, we have changed. We want to get His Word quicker thru "easier to understand" and "modern language translations". I dare say, very little of Gods Word is in those; and if they have watered down, left out or in any other way changed Gods Word, how will the Holy Spirit reveal to us what is not there? God is not the author of confussion, but that is all these other versions offer is confussion.

Let me apologize for not being logged on for my earlier post and therefore appearing as guest. If you read the earlier posts with my name, the continuity of thought should become obvious. In any case the lengthy post - Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:34 am - right after the one with my name is mine.

WOW! What a firestorm of responses. Yet, I did note a lack of substantive response to the questions I asked.

Regarding the question about which edition of the KJV someone suggested that there was an earlier KJV. No, 1611 was the first KJV/AV. There were earlier English translations that predated the KJV however. Wycliffe (1380-1382, NT-OT); Tyndale (1525-1536, various printings); Coverdale (1535); Matthews (1537); Taverners (1539); The Great Bible (1539, essentially Tyndale’s); Cranmer’s edition of the Great Bible (1540); Geneva (1557); Bishops (1568); Rheims-Douay (1568, Roman Catholic). The first KJV was printed in 1611. Not earlier, and it competed with the more popular Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) for about 50 years till finally being overtaken by the KJV.

Jim, thanks for your plea for love and compassion rather than divisiveness. It is just this very divisiveness to which I am responding! (And I do know that sometimes division is a good thing.) Some (MANY) KJVO advocates hold that any Bible but the AV1611 is a perversion and a corruption, therefore anyone who uses another version is preaching a corrupt message. PLEASE, FOLLOW THIS OUT WITH ME!!! If this is true then no one could have preached a faithful message until 1611. ALSO, if one used a KJV with changes in it (I will list in a moment) then they were preaching from a corrupt Bible. If there are differences, they cannot all be the perfectly preserved Word of God. God does not change His Word! So, was there not a perfect English translation prior to 1611? If there was, why change it in 1611? If there wasn’t, why did it take till 1611/1768/1850 to get it right? If the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word, why are there changes?

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS FROM 1611 to 1768/1850. IT IS NOT CORRECT THAT ONLY LETTERS AND SPELLING WAS CHANGED! Here are the changes and variations:

First is the reference - next is the 1611, next is the 1768/1850 revision.
Note that words are changed, added, deleted, and change in number.
Genesis 19:21 - concerning this thing; concerning this thing also
Genesis 23:18 - gates; gate
Genesis 39:1 - hand; hands
Genesis 39:16 - her lord; his lord
Genesis 47:6 - any man; any men
Exodus 15:25 - he made a statute; he made for them a statute
Exodus 21:32 - thirty shekels; thirty shekels of silver
Exodus 23:13 - names; name
Exodus 35:29 - hands; hand
Leviticus 2:4 - it shall be an unleavened cake; it shall be unleavened cakes
Leviticus 10:14 - sacrifice; sacrifices
Leviticus 19:34 - shall be as one born; shall be unto you as one born
Leviticus 20:11 - shall be put to death; shall surely be put to death
Leviticus 25:23 - were strangers; are strangers
Leviticus 26:23 - be reformed by these things; be reformed by me by these things
Leviticus 26:40 - the iniquity of their fathers; their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers
Numbers 4:40 - houses; house
Numbers 7:55 - charger of an hundred and thirty shekels; charger of the weight of an hundred
and thirty shekels
Deutnomy 5:29 - keep my commandments; keep all my commandments
Joshua 3:11 - covenant, even the Lord; covenant of the Lord
Joshua 7:14 - households; [2nd occurrence] household
Ruth 3:15 - and he went into the citie; and she went into the city.
1 Samuel 18:27 - David arose, he and his men; David arose and went, he and his men
1 Samuel 28:7 - servant; servants
2 Samuel 16:8 - to thy mischief; in thy mischief
2 Kings 11:10 - in the temple.; in the temple of the LORD.
2 Kings 23:21 - this book of the Covenant; the book of this covenant
1 Chron 7:5 - were men of might; were valiant men of might
1 Chron 11:15 - of David; to David
2 Chron 28:22 - this; his
Job 33:22 - His soul draweth near; Yea, his soul draweth near
Psalm 141:9 - snare; snares
Proverbs 7:21 - With much fair speech; With her much fair speech
Eccles 2:16 - shall be forgotten; shall all be forgotten
Sg of Solm 4:6 - mountains; mountain
Sg of Solm 5:12 - water; waters
Isaiah 34:11 - The cormorant and the bittern; But the cormorant and the bittern
Isaiah 49:13 - heaven; heavens
Isaiah 49:13 - God; the LORD
Isaiah 57:8 - and made a covenant; and made thee a covenant
Jeremiah 4:6 - standards; standard
Jeremiah 31:14 - be satisfied with goodness; be satisfied with my goodness
Jeremiah 31:18 - thou art the Lord my God; for thou art the Lord my God
Jeremiah 51:12 - watchman; watchmen
Jeremiah 51:30 - their; her
Ezekiel 6:8 - that he may; that ye may
Ezekiel 12:19 - violence of them; violence of all them
Ezekiel 24:5 - him; them
Ezekiel 24:7 - poured it upon the ground; poured it not upon the ground
Ezekiel 48:8 - they; ye
Daniel 3:15 - the midst of a fiery furnace; the midst of a burning fiery furnace
Daniel 12:13 - the lot; thy lot
Joel 3:13 - the wickedness; their wickedness
Amos 8:3 - Temples; temple
Zechariah 7:7 - of the plain; and the plain
Malachi 3:4 - offerings; offering
Matthew 12:23 - Is this the son of David?; Is not this the son of David?
Matthew 14:9 - othes; oath's
Matthew 16:16 - Thou art Christ; Thou art the Christ
Mark 6:26 - othes; oath's
John 11:3 - sister; sisters
John 12:22 - told; tell
John 15:20 - the Lord; his Lord
Acts 5:34 - a doctor of law; a doctor of the law
Romans 14:10 - we shall all stand; for we shall all stand
1 Corinth 10:28 - The earth is the Lords; for the earth is the Lord's
1 Corinth 12:28 - helps in governments; helps, governments
1 Corinth 15:6 - And; After
Philippians 4:6 - request; requests
2 Thessa 2:14 - the Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Timothy 1:4 - rather than edifying; rather than godly edifying
2 Timothy 4:8 - unto them also; unto all them also
Hebrews 3:10 - hearts; heart
Hebrews 12:1 - run with patience unto the race; run with patience the race
1 John 5:12 - he that hath not the Son, hath not life.; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Revelation 13:6 - dwelt; dwell

The following are differences in the Cambridge and Oxford Editions of the KJV
Reference - Cambridge KJV, then Oxford KJV (the differences are minor, but they are differences)
2 Chron 33:19 - sin; sins
Jeremiah 34:16 - whom ye; whom he

George, I am very much aware of the preface to the original AV. I have a copy. That is exactly the point I am trying to make!!! Even the KJV translators acknowledged that their work was not perfect! If someone needs to see the quotes, I can easily cut and paste them. The original translators were sometimes unsure of the best way to translate a word, hence they supplied marginal notations with alternate translations. Regarding the Essene community at Qumran (I have been there) and the dead sea scrolls I realize the closeness of the Isaiah scroll to the Masoretic Hebrew text, but since my Hebrew is very weak I will not even address OT MSS and transmission. My comments are generally focused on the NT. Regarding the Apocrypha, I do not think they are canonical! I just question why they were included by the KJV translators in a book labeled “Holy Bible”!? Regarding the KJV being a revision of the Bishop’s Bible I am quite confident your information is inaccurate. The Bishops Bible was published in 1568 and was a revision of the Great Bible authorized in 1563 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker. It was a poor translation and never received popular support and failed to replace the Geneva Bible. Whereas the Geneva Bible had Puritan leanings, the Bishops Bible was an Episcopalian translation. Regarding pleasing men or pleasing God, that decision was made years ago and I have lost a goodly number of church members through the years because I insist upon faithfulness to the truth of God’s Word rather than the popular opinions in the pews! I may not have stated my position clearly, I do not care one iota whether or not someone understands what I am saying – the only thing that matters is that they understand what God has said. Regarding Gail Riplinger’s lie that Virginia Mollencott was a translator of the NIV, it has been well documented that she was only a style consultant and never did any of the translation. Further, as soon as her lesbianism was revealed she was removed from any and all association with the project. Further, King James’ sexual preferences are not all that clear as far as reputable historical sources are concerned. Yet, I would not suggest that this has in some way tainted the KJV! I have most everything Dr. John R. Rice has ever written. I heard him in person many times and some of my copies of his books bear his autograph! As you mentioned the Sword of the Lord, have you ever read Dr. Rice’s position on the King James Only issue? If you would like to, I can dig it out for you. At some point I believe you mentioned dynamic equivalency, but you failed to address the KJV’s use of dynamic equivalency in the phrase “God forbid”.

Sailor Jerry, thank you for clarifying your position on the mechanical theory of inspiration for both the original autographs and the KJV. I am at a loss for words to respond... However, let me say that I am grateful to the Site Host for clarifying that the official position of the site does not endorse secondary inspiration. Jerry, I will say that the variation in wording of the NASB and the KJV you spent some time explaining does not address the issue I raised. Both the KJV and the NASB clearly claim to be the inspired Word of God. Why are the claims of the KJV superior to the claims of the KJV? That is the question I asked earlier. Waiting for a response...

Raymond, thank you for your clarification of the site position. Anyone ever tell you that the likeness under your name looks a lot like C.H. Spurgeon?

I will try to respond very carefully and respectfully as I am your guest on this site.

Regarding a perfectly preserved copy of God’s Word available to us today – Why are there differences? In the Greek MSS, no one is the same. In the English versions predating the KJV? Was there not a perfectly preserved copy of God’s Word before then? If there was, why mess with it? If there wasn’t we must admit that the KJVO position then argues not for a PRESERVED Word of God, but for a RESTORED Word of God! It is impossible to have it both ways. This then leaves us with the question of which KJV, note the differences listed above. He/She is a significant difference! Which is it?

Regarding Greek texts, I generally use the TR but not where it differs from the Majority Text (the other 5000 or so) and not where it varies from all of the other editions of Erasmus (1,2,3, and 5). I do not accept all of the critical theories of Wescott and Hort, but neither do I malign their names with unfounded accusations that they were spiritists. Regarding Scofield’s note at one point, the text of the KJV is only found in 2 MSS, not thousands. The thousands of MSS, citations by the church Fathers, and other historical data argue against the comma johanneum (and yes, I have read Michael Maynard’s book on the passage). This is not a case of siding with flawed MSS! This is a case of siding with an overwhelming preponderance of textual evidence! Not that I agree with all of the notes by either Scofield or Ryrie, I do not.

Regarding preservation, where does the Bible promise that English speaking people will have a perfect translation in their language? French? Spanish? OK, now for the tough one, what about language groups that do not even have one verse in their language? Did God forget about them? If He promised it in His Word why have many generations of believers in Communist and Moslem countries had no copy of the Word of God AT ALL?! Why did generations of Israelites live and die during a time when the Word of God was largely absent? AND IF THE KJV IS THE PERFECT INSPIRED WORD OF GOD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THEN ANYTHING ELSE WAS NOT. WHY DID GOD NOT PRESERVE HIS WORD UNTIL 1611?

Jack Chick is not exactly a reputable source of scholarly information, though he certainly has been responsible for bringing many people to the Lord. I will not take the time or energy to discredit his tract on the version issue, but please understand that it contains some serious inaccuracies (more gentle words than I use for Gail R.)

RockyMts, Praise God for a little bit of balance here! I certainly understand that your statement “each Christian must decide for himself” does not mean that each Christian is free to take whatever part of the Word they want. What I understood you to mean was that each believer is individually responsible before God and that no other believer has the right to judge another in matters of conscience. All believers are bound by clear statements of the Word of God, but the KJV does not have any unique claim to be the only true authoritative reliable translation in the English language.

George, as far as modern versions being doctrinally incorrect, there is no Bible doctrine that is dependent on any one translation! If it were, that doctrine would be open to serious doubt! The modern versions do not weaken doctrine! They may follow a different manuscript and have different words in some places, but if you think that any Bible doctrine has been removed from the MV’s tell which it is and I will clearly demonstrate that the main MV’s all earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Now the NWT is a different matter, it is a doctrinally biased translation, but great effort has gone into most of the MV’s to prevent any doctrinal bias from getting in the way of the translation. The TNIV is also a different matter. It was the intent of the translating committee to produce a version that was gender neutral and therefore they have biased the translation and it is a bad translation overall.

For someone to say that they do not know anyone who has grown as a result of MV’s is a demonstration of a very narrow view. I have family members and friends who use the NASB and the NIV almost exclusively and their walk and witness for the Lord Jesus is quite strong. Again, the KJV did not exist till 1611, were there no strong or growing believers till then? Get real.

Quoting scripture out of context does absolutely nothing to bolster your point. Neither Prov 14:12 or 16:18 are speaking of different Bible translations. ALL VERSIONS TEACH THE ERROR OF FOLLOWING MAN’S WAY AS OPPOSED TO GOD”S!!! That is not the exclusive domain of the KJV.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE KJVO CROWD. The KJV becomes a test of faith and fellowship. “If you use a different version you do not have a real Bible and you are not as fundamental as I am”, or so the mantra goes. I guess nobody was spiritual or had a real Bible till 1611. That is the only possible conclusion of embracing the KJVO error!

Regarding Rick Warren, I believe it is about 23 different versions in Purpose Driven. Whenever someone prefers a translation because it makes his point better rather than on the basis of how faithfully it renders the underlying text, I also have a serious problem with that.

As far as copyright, that is a bunch of baloney! THE KJV MOST CERTAINLY WAS COPYRIGHTED!!! I have a photographic copy of the Title Page! Any one who claims it wasn’t is demonstrating a lack of research and study. That one has been repeated ad infinitum ad nauseum. Put it to rest. As far as the follow up idea that the MV’s are just out to make money, put a KJV and an NASB study Bible side by side and compare prices. Guess what, the same Bible in different versions is the same price! So, the KJV is making the greater profit since royalties are no longer being paid to the king and NASB still pays royalties.

Maybe someone will learn something from what I have written, maybe not. But it is good for me to take a stand for the faith once delivered to the saints rather than a version once delivered to a king. That this is such a divisive issue is absolutely mind boggling to me. It speaks of such ignorance in the church. I never cease to be amazed at the circular reasoning and faulty logic, not to mention weak principles of Bible interpretation I see from many in the KJVO crowd. A translation that did not even exist until 1611 has become the covenant symbol of faithfulness for the elect of all ages. Amazing.

I mentioned Dr. John R. Rice in the above post but did not clarify his position. He held that the KJV was a good translation, but that there were other good translations as well. He was definitely not KJVO. Since his death some years ago, one of his daughters has written to affirm her Dad's rejection of the KJVO position. I have it somewhere if anyone wants to read it.

You know RJP, I am rather surprised in that you seem to be a fairly well educated man and yet you stated things in your last two posts that are blatantly incorrect. You did not read the entirety of my earlier post before you chose to jump all over it.

I stated most clearly that there are King James Bibles out there that are copyrighted. For the conservation of space and my fingers I will not go and cut and paste or quote the earlier post but you can go back and read it. The Scriptures themselves are NOT copyrighted. I have many King James Version Bibles in my collection that are NOT copyrighted.

Your statement that my mentioning the fact that the King James Version of 1611 was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1602 is inaccurate is without basis and shows either a prejudice toward the AV or a lack of knowledge of the basis for the AV. Let me give you part of the information that I took that statement from:

"The Authorized Version was guided by principles drawn up or at least authorized by King James himself:
1. The 1602 eidtion of the Bishops' Bible was used as the basis for the revision, but the original Greek and Hebrew texts were to be examined. ("The Preface to the Readers" cites that all the English translations, several foreign versions [Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch], several Latin translations, the Septuagint, the targums, and the Syriac Peshitta were used in determing the best readings of the Hebrew and Greek texts.)see, Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 221"

This information is taken from the book, "The Journey from Texts to Translations, The Origin and Development of the Bible", by Paul D. Wegner, copyright © 1999 by Paul D. Wegner, published by Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The list of revisions to the 1611 printing is rather impressive but essentially does not uphold your point. You did nto mention the fact that the vast majority of these changes were made to correct printing errors. Again, that can be substantiated in many places if one takes the time to look.

You have emphasized the fact that there was a major revision of the AV in 1768. While that is true the version that was produced was not a literal translation, took great liberties with the original writings, and was not well received. "In 1768 Edward Harwood prepared a liberal translation of the Authorized Version; that is, he took great liberties with the text to render it more understandable. The Lord's Prayer is three times longer than the Greek Text." (Same reference as earlier quote)

You have posted a very lengthy statement that does not really say much. I really wonder what your prejudice against the AV is? What is your motivation? Have you come here to purposely cause division? You have the statement from the site owner as to the basis for the beliefs of the site. The site was founded by and is maintained by Independent, Fundamental Baptists. These things are our beliefs and we have shown over and over again why they are our beliefs.

It is rather obvious you do not agree. As for me, you are wasting your time. You have made statements that you do not back up with fact. You said that at least one of the statements I made was inaccurate yet you do not post your source to show that it is inaccurate. This is an indication that the statement comes from conjecture and has no basis in fact other than possibly what someone may have told you at one time or another.

I will not participate in this thread any longer. I do not feel or believe that the AV needs any further defense. My beloved Bible has been in use for close to 400 years with a great deal of acceptance and success. It does not need any Johnny Come Latelys to attempt to denigrate or demean it.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

"Regarding Gail Riplinger’s lie that Virginia Mollencott was a translator of the NIV, it has been well documented that she was only a style consultant and never did any of the translation"

This again is a statement that is not based on fact. In numerous interviews Virginia Ramey Mollencott has stated that she was given "stacks and stacks' of material to translate.

I expected nothing more from a defender of the NIV. The facts are there. Take a little time to research them. She has stated this numerous times. Gail Riplinger is not the only source of this statement.

Even if the translation team distanced themselves from Ms. Mollencott after the fact it is still true that her influence was on the translation and is included in this perversion of the Bible.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

RJP, no need to walk on eggshells for me. I am not intolerable to people who may disagree with me. If your worried that I would throw some kind of tantrum and delete your post, worry no more, because it wont happen. This is a discussion board. What good would it be if I stifled the discussion. Im not easily offended and your not my enemy because we disagree.

Oh, and yes that is Spurgeon.

I was going to make a post tonight but its pretty late. So I will reserve my response for tommorow.

Just one thing. One of my questions was not answered either. If God has not preserved his word. How are you able to tell which part of the Bible contains Gods Words and which words are the words of men?

If it contains errors and I cant be sure where they are, Then how can I trust any of it?

Concerning the translations that pre-date the KJV, I used to have a tract or pamphlet that listed reliable translations that pre-dated the KJV (according to the author of the pamphlet). Ill see if I can find it.

I am not really familliar with anything before the Geneva Bible.


Also, I never said that God only preserved His Word in the english translation. But I do speak and read only english so I cant argue for or against any other language as I dont speak or understand them.


Its late.

Ray

Yep, I gotta go to bed myself. I am just having such a great time posting to the other threads that don't have as much controversy or require quite as much thought as this one.

Just quickly on your questions, though.

I do believe God has preserved His Word, “for ever... in heaven” (Psalm 119:89). Some ask, “What good would it do up there, we need it here!” So was God unjust in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin even though they probably did not have a written copy of the Pentateuch? They certainly did not have the whole Bible, the NT had not been written yet!

How much of the Bible does a person need to get saved? A person does not even need the Bible to be justly condemned! Nature alone is enough to do that (Rom 1:18-20). Certainly the Jews got by for a long time without all of the Scripture that had been given.

Many people in many countries have no Bible at all in their language? Did God promise to give it to some, but not to all?

This idea that every believer should have a copy of the entire Word of God in a form that they can expect to be perfect in every word and letter does not square well with recorded history. Few generations have had that. Even if you believe the KJV to be the perfect translation, which one? (See above. They are not all the same!)

Why do we say that God must preserve His Word perfectly in any English translation? Would like to consider the Scripture used to support such an argument.

How can you tell which part of the Bible are the Words of God and which part are the words of men. If you can follow thousands of Greek MSS down through 1500 plus years of history (the oldest fragment of the NT dates back to the early second century) and find virtually 99.9% agreement in the words, that is probably enough to cover most of what we need for faith and practice. Jesus and the Apostles used the versions of their day (demonstrating this gets way technical and way over the heads of most folks on this site, in fact this is an area that is pretty deep for me and I have spent a lot of time swimming in these waters!). Ultimately, bottom line, you accept the Word of God by faith. But Faith is always based on substance, even if not seen. Faith is never based on groundless supposition and arbitrary speculation. God never calls us to believe anything that He does not clearly present for us.

One more thing, Where do we get the idea that every individual believer should be able to understand all of the Word of God simply under the direction of the Holy Spirit? My Bible tells me that God gave “...pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry” (from memory, don’t hammer me if I missed [perverted] a word).

I think there are some things in the Word of God that don’t come clear without a lifetime of study. Even then, I am constantly refining my understanding of the Word of God. SOMEBODY needs to know Greek and Hebrew to help with some of those things. Why do we think that every language (or even just the English language) must have one perfect version that totally and clearly communicates perfectly the sense of the original autographs (the only ones I believe were inspired!). Anybody got clear chapter and verse on this? I have spent my life in the Book, and haven’t seen it yet. Help me out if you can.

Night. See you guys tomorrow, or rather later today, later this morning.