RJP--

I really am struggling on how to answer you on this thread. From reading all your posts, on this thread and others dealing with this subject, you say that you use the KJV mostly, but have no problem with the MV's. From the tone of your posts, you express no confidence in any english Bible, putting all your confidence in the original languages, and in your education. You say that when God said something or promised something to a person or group of people, what was said or promised can only be applied to who God was talking to.

For instance:

Jer 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

This promise was made to Jeremiah, but in your thinking, only Jeremiah can claim this promise, maybe Israel, but no Christian of today can claim this promise as it was not made to us. That's wrong. I believe every promise God made to any person or group in the Bible, I, as His child can claim also. Any warning He gave, reguardless to whom it was given, I must also heed.

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

ALL SCRIPTURE is PROFITABLE.....You will probably say I am taking this completely out of context, But if God made a promise or warning to somebody and only meant it for that person or group, why would He have made it a part of Scripture?

Ps 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

I will not spend to much time analyzing both sides of an issue. Spending to much time studying something I don't believe WILL cloud my judgement, and could very likely cause me to go astray.

Ps 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

The more time I spend on something I know to be wrong, because of my flesh and human nature, the more apt I will be to gravitate toward that position. I will educate myself on the tactics of the enemy, but I do not have to sleep in their camp to understand them and their position.

I read the KJV and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me through His Word. When the Holy Spirit teaches me something out of His Word, it is in complete agreement with the rest of Scripture. He would never teach me something outside of His word; if I learn something He has not taught, I have faith in Him to set me straight.

In my recent studies, I came across something that puts this discussion in a very clear light, I have forgotten the name of the one I got this from, as soon as I find out I will post it. When God gave the Old Testament Scripture, He used one language to give His Word to the world, Hebrew. When He gave the New Testament, He used one language to give His Word to the world, Greek. When He brought His Word togethr in one volume, He used one language to give His Word to the world, English.

Before the KJV, Gods preserved inspired Word was still around, but it was fragmented and not all together, His preserved inspired Word was still around though.

You have cast great doubt on Gods Word. To you, education is more important and practical that faith. For evrything God has done and will do in this world, He has chosen faith as the conduit through which He will work; not education; not intelligence; not strength, mental or physical; but the weak and beggerly things He will use, because these things depend on Him, not on us. Let me remind you:

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Using the MV's is like going to a restaurant that has a reputation of not being very clean, you may get a good meal there once in a while, but eventually, if you go there often enough, you will get sick. Wouldn't it be much better to go to a restaurant that is always clean and where you can have confidence that you will always get a good meal?

The KJV is Gods Word to the world. The very fact that all the MV's, when compared to the KJV, have changed words and left out verses and passages should tell you something. By the way, you say that the KJV underwent at least three revisions, you know this is not true, corrections were made to spelling, and were corrected in updated "EDITIONS", not revisions. Over 70% of these corrections were made within 30 years of the first printed KJV. You can continue to cast doubt on the KJV, and you can continue to put forth your trust in your education and knowledge of the original languages; as for me, I will continue to put my faith and trust in God and His Holy Spirit to guide me into His Truth.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I have nothing other to add to this thread. I know what I believe. I am sorry if I have offended you, but I am not sorry for what I have said or the stand I have taken.

SJ,

Not avoiding a reply, just real busy and can not reply well right now.

SJ and all,

Thanks for the discussion. It has been good for me to look at these things again. I am sorry, but I am not going to reply to this issue any more here. And, I will do my best to overlook any KJVO rhetoric on other threads.

For those who understand what I have been trying to say, futher comment is not needed. For those to whom I have been unable to either make myself clear or who disagree, any further debate on this one would probably serve little useful purpose. It is neither my desire to discourage anyone or to incite others beyond a reasonable challenge to examine their beliefs in light of the Word of God and historic Christianity (which is [edit], both of which are, [end edit] nearly 2000 years old, not just 400).

As I have come to know some of you through your words (out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh) and as I have prayed much for many of you, I no longer have the peace of God about continuing the debate (Col 3:15). In fact I question my own heart and whether or not I should have started it in the first place. Only God can fully know my heart, and I open it before him, and to some degree for you all.

It is my prayer that all who have participated and all who have read will be strenghtened in their belief that God is indeed faithful to His Word. If by "His Word" we understand that to mean something a little different may God grant us the grace to disagree in an agreeable manner.

See you guys on other threads where I hope to continue to "consider one another" and "to provoke unto love and to good works" (Heb 10:24).

If anyone one has any heart-level questions, not from a spirit of debate or contention, please feel free to contact me.

rjprince@minister.com

This is my web-based e-mail account. I have given my ISP e-mail address on another thread. Either will work to contact me.

I wonder what the out cry would be if we tried to change Macbeth into a new modern English, or maybe some other great literary work...Would it not be a great cry not to change the wording would we just say it was just traditional rhetoric Remember we are not dealing with word usage, but word meaning in the new versions and most of the time total changes of word meaning with liberal ideas or thoughts put into view.
Let us face facts...God's Word is much greater than any thing man has written. Matthew 24:35
Let us not try to change God's Word! Let us Hear it, Heed it, Honor it, but never try to change it.
Proverbs 30:5-6 , Revelation 22:18-19

Unfortunately very accepted. Remember the Romeo and Juliet done by Hollywood in 96? Widely accepted and loved by todays youth.
Unfortunately a trend and sign of the times. You know, much like why I believe the modern versions are here today? Fulfillment of prophecy......

Jim

Hmmmmmmmmm.....that's like the fourth time it logged me out before I posted........strange.

Jim

NCUNIT33 brings a couple of thoughts to mind by putting it in that light...

The KJV is recognized even by nonbelievers as a great literary work, just as Macbeth.
Several classic plays have been rewritten in order to reach "today's generation", which is a reason I've heard given for MVs.
None of the theatrical works that have been redone that I know of are recognized as half as great as the original; rather, they are viewed as poor imitations by those who have studied the originals. The same is true of the KJV v. MVs. There is just no comparison.

It's interesting that with all the discussions on the different versions used. Not many mentions the manuscripts. I believe the KJV is the correct version for every church. not just because I think it is God breathed, but because it did not use the critical text manuscript in which the others had evolved. I think that most Baptists stand very steadfast with the KJV, but really don't know why! They can only answer that it is the only God inspired version, and can not follow it up with facts.

Try a book "Do not touch an unclean thing" it's very dry in spots, but explains exactly why we believe the KJV is the only true God inspired word.

I hope I have got many curious....
I don't always get back here often, but when I do I can feed you more if asked.

Sent in Brotherly Love
Kevin

pastorkevin,

are you referring to:

“TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING” by David Sorenson?

This is the only book titled similar to the one you have suggested.

I have not read the book, but it looks interesting.

Also, I was incorrect in my understanding of inspiration earlier in this thread. I always took it to mean an original thought, however as the dictionary defines "inspired" (to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural ), I wholeheartedly believe that the KJV is the inspired Word of God. Not in an original thought as I earlier supposed, but in the perfect preservation by the Holy Spirit who would not have allowed the translators to err in His Word. I do not believe this to be the case in the MV's. I do not believe there is inspiration in these at all.

To say the KJV is NOT inspired is to say that man has enough to tell us all about God without needing God to help. I think that is self-sufficiency and is blasphemy. The MV's are obviously not inspired.

I think it is interesting to see my own growth through a lot of this. It is reestablishing things I have let slip by, like why I will only use the KJV for my study and reproof. So please, I hope noone will criticize me for points I have made earlier on, I am growing and the Holy Spirit is working in me and I praise God for that.

Also, I wanted to point out something else here in my worldly view of this subject. Where are our "great preachers" of olden times? Do they exist anymore? Do we hear any of the "old greats" using scripture from any other bible other than the KJV for reference? When we think of the great teachers and evangelists who taught with power and authority, what bible are they reading from? Have we heard any powerful speaker, preaching in truth of the Word of God using the MV's? I haven't, not the true ones, anyway.

Just a few thoughts.....

In Christ,

Jim

JIm

Thank you for the title correction. I guess that's why I don't use notes when I preach.....I can't read them. 8O

Kevin

No problem brother,

I can say with the utmost certainty that I make more mistakes and corrections than stating things right the first time. You wil lsee that from the majority of my posts.

In Christ,

Jim

Ah my friends. There is an excellent article in the September 28th issue of The Sword of the Lord about this subject. It makes for wonderful reading. I strongly suggest getting a copy and reading it.

This is part of the article. I do not recall reading this in my Bible before but it is apparently one of those things that gets truly revealed to me as I grow and learn.

(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

(2Pe 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is my understanding of these verses that any interpretation other than what is written in the bible this came from, which just happens to be the King James Version, is contrary to God.

It flat out says that NO prophecy of scripture is open to any private interpretation. It goes further than that by saying that these are not the words of man but the very words of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

It is quite apparent to me that the liberals that use the modern versions are not keeping with the Word of the God they profess to know and to love. And yes friends, by mere definition if one uses a modern version of the Bible one is a liberal.

Find a copy of that article by Dr. Shelton Smith. He tells it like it is.

As for the preachers of old...they still exist. There are men like Dr. R.B Ouelette, Dr. David Gibbs, Dr. Paul Kingsbury, and many others that use the King James Version and have been gifted by the Holy Spirit with incredible preaching powers. Dr. Paul Chappel, the afore mentioned Dr. Shelton Smith, also fall into this catagory. There are many more of them also. Dr. Eric Capaci also comes to mind.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

I have studied the different versions out- such as who actually translated these, where the different versions come from, etc- and my research has only convinced me more so than before that the King James Bible is the only truly inspired word of God. If I want to compare the different versions, there are several concordances out that have a section which compares the versions.

I wanted to address a few more issues on this topic.

First, the usage "dynamic equivalency". Dynamic equivalency, IMHO, is a farce used by today's Westcott and Hort supporters who have nothing else to stand on beyond the erroneous things they create which have no basis. The KJV has not suffered a "dynamic equivalent" problem since it's inception. The modern versions, were NOT translated word by word, but are ingrained with the dynamic equivalency of it's time.

Second, The usage "Thee, Thou, and Thy" are NOT Elizabethan english! It is biblical english. Remember, the bible was, is, and always will be God's Word for the common man. The usage of these pronouns denotes a type of respect for the deity of God/Christ. The bible uses the words "Thou and you", and "Thee and you", and "Thy/Thine and your/yours". Why have we replaced these? Because we have lost complete respect for the deity of God/Christ. The perfect usage of the pronouns in these cases were used properly in the King James. "Thee, Thou, and Thy" were only used in reference to the Father, and using "you and yours" to replace them was a deliberate denial of His deity. Grammarians will try to tell you that the "archaic pronouns" were used informally and todays pronouns were used to denote respect. These are Shakespareanists who cannot understand the proper usage of these words. Ask yourself one question, and forgive me Lord, for typing this, Would you go out and say, "Oh, hey God, how are you doing?" That is the same attitude which is so prevalent among young people today to their elders. A complete loss of respect. Some of the same people who decry CCM in the House of the Lord have no problem with using a bible that has no respect for the deity of Christ (although, it is difficult to find people who do not accept both). Is that not hypocrisy?

The commonly accepted problem with today, is the fact that scholars have gotten a hold of the bible. The bible was NEVER meant for scholars to lay hold on and "translate". It was a book given to the "common man". It was not an article to be dissected by scholars to find out the best "translation". It was God's word given to us in the common tongue. It was inspired through the autographers and preserved as He promised. We have the error-free infallible Word of God in the KJV. I will not argue the terms of "error-free" and "infallible" as it has already been discussed and I know what they mean and it is up to you and your studies to determine for yourself what is truly meant by these terms.

This last paragraph leads to the usage of "textual criticism", yet another modern fad to get away from the true usage of God's word. It is used to tie up the scholars in arguing with the "common man". A question is posed: "How can anyone using "textual criticism" avoid using "dynamic equivalency"? Simple answer: They cannot. They go hand in hand. Anyone today trying to "translate" the "original manuscripts" or any of the TR's are going to get a lot more than they bargained for. They CANNOT be translated accurately today. If you think they can, then answer this question. What is the longest span the english language survived with no changes? 20-30 years at most? Maybe more? We could take the KJV and even "translate" it into modern english. We wouldn't need any other TR's or Alexandrian philosophy to help us.

Here are some examples of scholar vs. common man:

Another question:


Did you ever wonder why it was called the "New American Standard"?

They wanted to REPLACE the KJV! Why else would they have called it a "standard"? A standard is "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example"


Oh today's society has one and only one priority: To try to undermine God and God's authority and make ourselves God!

This is blasphemous and I will in confidence now say the MV's are blasphemy.

Love in and through Christ Jesus my Lord and Saviour,

Jim

I have to agree with you entirely Jim. The KJB (AV) is the most accurate in my humble opinion. As Dr Paisley once proclaimed at a lecture, take out your NIV and sit on them for we are going to read from the King James Bible.
That is not to say to vanquish all others totally. They are of use for comparison sometimes.