Jim Lincoln wrote:
Catholic Bibles can save

"Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on page 72: Quote: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.

It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!

It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17." (eduweb.co.uk)

This is a very untrustworthy Greek text which the NASB and other modern versions use.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
this is what Bob Jones Jr (President of the Bob Jones University) had to say about the position you're taking.

The Bible I have caused to be written as MY WORD is delivered in Greek (NT) and is called the Textus Receptus. Is delivered in english and is called the KING JAMES VERSION. I have confirmed this by maintaining its use in the church for FOUR CENTURIES.

By simple empirical observation in actual history we can see this.

Your modern versions are not tried and tested in the course of time. They have CHANGED the Greek, CHANGED the english and CHANGED the doctrines.

Common sense says, Stick with what GOD has approved, authorised and used to build His church in all nations for centuries.
What God has been pleased to accept for these centuries His elect can certainly trust.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Quote
"But when our Authorised Version was made some of the best manuscripts were not within reach of the translators"

*ALL* manuscripts were available to GOD who wrote the Bible!

Some HE clearly rejected - others He caused to be used.

GOD, in His providence, chose the essential manuscripts which HE required to be accurate in the record of THE WORD OF GOD!

The manuscripts which GOD used are called the TEXTUS RECEPTUS these GOD caused to be translated into english and the Bible which HE brought, by His grace into the church, and used for 400 years AND continuing today, by His grace, is the KING JAMES VERSION.

The Word of GOD is forever - NOT just the last few decades!!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
the AV is not devinely inspired, in any shape or form

That is the work of God without which man would not have a copy of said Word.

Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

# If GOD is going to make these promises - His people will and do believe them.

Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

119:42 So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word.
43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments.

119:50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

*CAN* you believe these promises for all generations Jim??

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Ah, how often has it been pointed out that God used the Vulgate for a 1,000 years. Are you claiming that was an accurate Bible?

Most of the prolatariat could not read. But God brought man through this state of history according to His providence.

Then with Wycliffe and Tyndale and others God gradually brought the Bible through versions until the KING JAMES VERSION emerged by His grace. The Geneva was one of these versions.

BUT the Bible which GOD brought to the fore was the KING JAMES. Praise be to God for His providence, Amen!

Clearly God's plan is perfect, in all respects, and we can but worship and praise Him for His mercy. Amen!

Thus the proven Word of God, by God, in time and history is the KING JAMES VERSION.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Why KJVO Claims and Arguments Cannot Be Trusted

"Generally speaking, modern version only writers have no interest in being fair or impartial in their handling of the manuscript and textual data of Scripture. They also have little desire to accurately or honestly reflect the opinions of those with whom they disagree. Indeed, there is no effort made to appreciate the strengths of the positions of anyone who would speak a word against the inerrancy of the modern version."

You keep forgetting Jim that God has been using the KING JAMES VERSION of God's Holy Writ for FOUR CENTURIES!!!

God has been building His churches upon the foundation of the KING JAMES VERSION of His Holy Word all over the world.

Thus the KING JAMES VERSION has been "AUTHORISED" by God as His version (AV) to be used for 400 years!!!

Actual historic experience of the Church confirms that GOD uses the KING JAMES VERSION of His Word.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Everybody knows that the AV had to bring this on. Using a 400 year old Bible is a joke.

The real blasphemy around here is YOURS Jim Lincoln!!

In the
17th century
18th century
19th century
20th century
21st century
GOD has made HIS Truth, Law, Precept, statutes and doctrines known through the KING JAMES BIBLE!

Only in these last few decades has the alternative bibles and alternative Greek manuscripts been used by some, in lieu of the KING JAMES BIBLE.

Recently we have observed as the modern version users, confused as they are, have replaced all the others (NIV, NASB, RSV ET AL) with the ESV.

THE QUESTION IS WHY?

Obviously even the modern version users distrust these modern versions.
Confusion reigns!

Whereas GOD continues to apply and use the KING JAMES VERSION OF HIS WORD, and of course the TEXTUS RECEPTUS.
Praise be to GOD! Amen.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I point out "True Sword," he should read the letter, Dear KJV Only Advocate:. If you are so fond of the Textus Receptus why don't you use a Bible that follows it more faithfully, It is from what I have casually observed used more than the AV.

I also studied the various books on versions which have come out in these recent times, and recognised the bad practice of modern version translation, eg Dynamic Equivalence of the NIV.

I have posted enough evidence of the NASB problems also and note of course that you don't pay any heed.

But perhaps the Lord has reached others who with perception, have followed good advice and stuck to a Bible proven by the Lord over these last four centuries to be HIS Book of choice to teach and guide the Church.

The LORD carries His Word through history. (Not just the 20th century)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
just how are you not a KJV-only type person? You just prefer the AV? You think the AV is better than any other version (Wow, you're already on slippery ground there!) Or, do you think it is inspired and perhaps even more so than the original Greek and Hebrew texts?

If GOD accepts and uses it in HIS Church for 400 years - WHY CHANGE???

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Modern versions

"Additionally, other aspects of Christology are more strongly presented in the Traditional Text."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
[A][V]

Quote
"It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. The UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as their starting point and departed from it as their evaluation of manuscript evidence required" unquote.

Westcott and Hort texts are also used by cults such as the Jehovahs Witnesses and their Bible rewrite (NWT). So your NASB, NIV et al are connected to these cults through these heretics.

Remember Jim that GOD used the KING JAMES VERSION, thus the Textus Receptus, for the last four hundred years. GOD provides the KJV - and does not use heretics to write HIS HOLY WORD.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
let's do blood

The phrase "through His blood" states that we are redeemed - our sins are forgiven - through the blood of Christ, meaning His atoning death on the cross. Take out the blood, i.e., take out the cross, and this verse loses not only its precision but becomes deceptive since without Christ's death on the cross, there is no redemption or forgiveness of sins.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
No, let's do blood first, since you wanted me to answer that.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 KJV).

"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 NIV).

There is a very simple explanation why the scholars who produced the NIV did not include the words "through his blood." When the passage was translated into English, the words did not come from the early Greek manuscripts.

That is they used the Greek Texts of Nestle-Aland.

NOTE.....

There is very little difference between the Nestle-Aland text AND the text of the heretical ANGLICAN LIBERAL Bishops Westcott and Hort!!

GOD used the KING JAMES VERSION of His Word for four centuries.

The KING JAMES VERSION is based upon the TEXTUS RECEPTUS.

Therefore God USED the Textus Receptus for 400 years and still ongoing.

NB:: GOD does not use heretics to write HIS Word.

_________________

BTW Jim Lincoln, The JW's "NWT" is based on the Westcott and Hort Text.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
note that the NET Bible is much easier for person of today to read. In other words, I would expect TR supporters to come out in favor of the NKJV over the AV.

Colossians 1:14

KJV...... "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:

NIV....... "redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

NASB... "redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

NRSV... "redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

REB..... "our release is secured and our sins are forgiven"

NWT.... "we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins"

NAB...... "redemption, the forgiveness of our sins"

Jim Lincoln wrote:
from, Dr Robert A Joyner.
I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.

Poor ole Dr Joyner is a lousy historian. As I posted before to you Jim. But I guess you're desperate looking for any academics to support these heretical modern versions - based on such badly translated erroneous texts.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
a) I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians

b) and authorized by a king who hated Baptists.

c) While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists....

If God accepts it - then the real Christians can, did and do by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

b) Even if this was true, (and it isn't) the monarch of the country has and had absolutely no bearing upon the work of the translators, who were the best academic theologians of the day.
Further to compare them with todays Anglicans is ludicrous in the extreme.

c) The Textus Receptus was used BY GOD in the KJV therefore THIS HAD TO BE THE BEST TEXT, otherwise GOD would NOT have used it as HE did.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Ah, and there's a lot to be said about Erasmus, His Greek Text, and His Theology What Did John William Burgeon Really Believe About the Textus Receptus and the King James Version? I would think you might look at John MacArthur's viewpoint on it also, The Biblical Position on The KJV Controversy.

Try his site [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/]]]Dean Burgon Society.[/URL]

In this site you will find all the facts about the best version of the Bible - the KING JAMES VERSION.

Also you will find details on the two HERETIC ANGLICAN BISHOPS Westcott and Hort whose Greek errors were incorporated into the modern versions like your NASB. Dean Burgon fought against these two heretics.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Oliver Cromwell did not use that corrupted version of the Bible, Authorized King James Version The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV. He used one done by Christians!

“However the King James Version didn’t just influence our literature and language. It also had a beneficial influence upon political and constitutional affairs.”""

Excellent idea!Its good to see the real Bible getting the recognition it deserves.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
"Textus Receptus" was not published until 14 years after the AV

"Stephanus is best remembered for his edition of 1550. It followed the Erasmus editions of 1527 and 1535 and was the first edition to include marginal variant readings, which were collated from fourteen manuscripts and the Greek New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot. It became one of the best known editions of the Textus Receptus. Called the "Royal edition", it was very popular in England and is still published today in the United States in the form of an interlinear which is sometimes referred to as the "Berry" text. This is a misnomer because George Ricker Berry simply added the "Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament" and a chapter entitled "New Testament Synonyms" to the edition of the Stephens 1550 text.