Jim Lincoln wrote:
1) The KJV was translated by the Church of England

2) They reveal their bias by refusing to translate words like “baptism”

3) The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha,

4) Also, it contained a list of holy days,

5) There was not a big variety of denominations on the KJV translation committee.

6) There was not one Baptist

2) The translation was accurate, God saw to that in collecting the most eminent Greek, Hebrew and language experts of the day. All praise be to God. Amen!

3) So what?

4) So what?

5) There wasn't a quote "big variety" of denominations around then! Which BTW is good not bad!

6) Yes you are correct GOD did not use Baptists to translate His Word into English. - That is a very interesting point Jim.
The "Baptist" denomination had only just been invented and the Reformed Church eg Puritans didn't accept them except as a bunch of heretics. History shows that the Baptists were a long time in becoming acceptable. - Tough but thats reality for you.

GOD has authorised the KING JAMES VERSION of His Holy Word in the most practical of ways - "HE" used it for centuries over all other versions and texts.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Robert A. Joyner wrote;
Some people seem to think the KJV translators were an elect group inspired by God in a special way to produce a perfect translation. When, in fact, every Christian has as much right to translate as any other....

Remember the KJV translators criticized their own version and corrected it in many places. Then they came out with new editions, in 1613 and 1629. Some people accuse me of blasphemy when I point out errors in the KJV.

....people condemn the NASB or the NIV for revising and correcting, just like the KJV translators did.

Again as we have said before the REAL problem with today's modern versions, eg NIV and NASB is that they have come from a different source to that which GOD has used in these last centuries, with the KJV and the TR.

The modern versions utilise the Papist Vaticanus Text and the works of two Liberal Anglican heretics called Westcott and Hort, who themselves were heavily influenced by Popish theology and interpretation.

This simple fact negates the Joyner-Lincoln reasoning.

The TRUE Sword wrote:
The Geneva "Bible" Was Based On & Translated DIRECTLY Out & From THE LATIN VULGATE BIBLE

It is historic fact that many of the 16th century Bible tranlations into english owe quite a debt to William Tyndale, who was executed for his efforts to bring the Bible into the common language. The Coverdale and the Matthews Bible for example, leaned heavily upon his work. Even the great Geneva Bible used his work to produce their translation, although it should be remembered that the Geneva, as with the King James Bible, came directly from the original languages throughout.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Oh, oh

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Supporting a corrupted version of God's Word

Also can you show in your arguement why GOD "requires" or "needs" to change the KING JAMES VERSION OF His Holy Writ, which HE and His Holy Spirit have used so effectively and successfully for centuries.

After all it was Christians taught by the KING JAMES BIBLE which brought the Indian Hills Community Church into being. Wasn't it Jim?

IHCC 1959

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Dr. Robert Joyner wrote:
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

So is Dr. Joyner and of course our friend Jim Lincoln, blaspheming God for His choice of Bible and His choice of Greek Text?

Does Jim Lincoln seek to establish incompetence in God because HE used the wrong Bible according to Jim?

God records that His Word will be forever.
God records that His Word is essential to Wisdom, Law and Doctrine.

According to Jim Lincoln, God has failed to meet these commitments.

Who are we to trust God, - or Jim???

Psalm 119:49 Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast CAUSED ME TO HOPE.
50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word HATH QUICKENED ME
74 They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I HAVE HOPED in thy word.

Can we trust these promises of God over the last 400 years?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
1. Ah, you means God protects the Elect from buying the AV!

2. Authorized King James Version was written had the superior Bible, The Geneva Bible Of 1560, why did they need an inferior one such as the AV, but of course

2. GOD did not use the Geneva.
GOD used the KING JAMES BIBLE for the last FOUR HUNDRED years since it was printed IN 1611.

If GOD uses the KING JAMES BIBLE - then there is no need, nor no proof that anyone needs to use any other Bible OR Greek manuscript other than the Textus Receptus and the KJV.

Michael Hranek wrote:
a NASB translation of the Bible and began to read it for myself ... And God very graciously spoke ......... bringing me to Salvation

As to which version of Bible to use the reason I defend the KJV is because it is the best translation and Greek Text that has ever been published. How do I know that? Because GOD has used it as the Sword of the Spirit for centuries.

More recently man has decided it is not good enough and sought to 'better'? it by publishing a myriad of alternatives. The implication of this action begats the question "Do we have the Word of God?"

Modern versions did 'NOT' just come in to use so called "modern language" - that is a lie. What they in fact did is CHANGE the original manuscript which God used for centuries, and CHANGE and omit many verses, words and doctrines. Contributions from the Anglican heretics W & H were also used in their productions.

Therefore I am left to contend for the Bible which God used and applied to HIS Church. As a servant of God what else can I do?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Textus Receptus

Mike wrote:
A feeble argument. "He" cannot be anyone. "He" can only be Christ, as long as you are willing to read the whole verse and don't have an agenda. Name one other who meets ALL the criteria in the verse.
So who was manifested in the flesh, AND
justified in the Spirit, AND
seen of angels, AND
preached unto the Gentiles, AND
believed on in the World, AND
received up into Glory?

As for "he" - THAT isn't there even in the corrupt Greek Text used by the NASB and other dubious translations. They have "added" it to make sense(?) of the text? Which they modified?

Now of course we do know that the LIBERAL ANGLICAN heretics Westcott and Hort were not entirely convinced of the divinity and deity of Christ, - So that might be the reason?

I wonder if the modern version users deny the divinity and deity of Christ?
After all Socinianism is nothing new in the "church(?)"
___________

Michael Hranek

ONE!

The real Bible!

Called The KING JAMES VERSION!

Since GOD has used it for four hundred years since translation into english, to teach and build His Church, then there is absolutely no need for anything else.

Scott McMahan wrote:
1. The point about the KJV having correct doctrine is confused, because those who use the KJV do not agree....

2. The point about having to learn a new language to read the Bible simply begs the question of what a "translation"

3. the point about great spiritual movements using the KJV is one-sided. Most Pentecostals, Word of Faith

4. many, many sermons by people who use the KJV, and I have heard many errors

5. DA Waite.

2. I have not found it necessary to "learn a new language" just to understand the Bible, - AND what the Holy Spirit guides me into.

3. Great Spiritual movements have carved the Church into the history of the nations, (By the Grace of God) despite all the pseudo Christian movements - Using KJV.

4. See # 1 above.

Matt wrote:
1. The world would not end if the KJV disappeared

2. the fact that it was authorised by a British king

3. I thought it was based on a rushed-out version of the Greek manuscripts that had parts of Revelation missing.

4. Silly me

5. an archaic dialect that would have impeded the common person from understanding.

6. However, the KJV had phrases in it that were archaic even when it was written, completely contrary

2. GOD used the KING JAMES VERSION for four hundred years. Thats authoritive enough for common sense.

3. Oh I see they do balony in Australia too.

4. Good comment.

5. Is this a comment on Australian education?

6. The KING JAMES VERSION is taken from the Textus Receptus and NOT the heresy loaded Nestle Aland UBS text. This demonstrates an accuracy in translation which cannot be bettered and certainly isn't by modern versions.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Four hundreds years of using The [A][V]

God has used the KING JAMES VERSION of HIS Word effectively and successfully in HIS hands for four hundred years.

Why anybody would reject GOD's example and invent and use a new bible based on the works of heretics in its Greek interpretation - is crazy?

God's hand, God's Spirit and Christ Himself authorise the KING JAMES VERSION by not using the Nestle Aland UBS Greek and modern versions for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.

Jim you need to get a Bible soon.
One that is not infected by the Westcott and Hort heresy.

From the letters of Westcott and Hort.
Aug 14 1860 to Westcott - On the Divinity of Man.
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort)

1847.
"Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ]…Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’" (Westcott)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
then you should be using the Vulgate version which was used a 1,000 years

Also don't you know; [URL=http://watch.pair.com/another.html]]]Another Bible - Another Gospel.[/URL]
Stick to the proven and true Word as used by GOD over these centuries. The KING JAMES VERSION!

Stick to the Greek Text which GOD authorised to be used in the Church over these centuries. [URL=http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.asp]]]The Received Text.[/URL]

Like we need another hole in the head.
Who wrote this article - Jim Lincoln?

Example:: The NIV has been dismissed by the requirment of the ESV. The ESV was brought out by a bunch of so called "evangelicals" - Why?? If the NIV was acceptable?

Dynamic Equivalence relies too heavily upon the theology of man, viz a group of "certain" translators whose task is interpretation as well as translation!

Modern versions also rely upon Greek Texts which are dubious as well as retain the critical works of the Anglican Liberal heretics Westcott and Hort.
God does not use heretics!

God used the KING JAMES VERSION of His Word for four centuries after translation, this combined with the Textus Receptus demonstrates HIS acceptance of the KJV and HIS authorisation of its use in the Church.

Whereas Satan wants confusion!
Thus the increasing number of modern versions, plants the seed question, "Do we really have the Word of God among us?"

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Anyone who takes a rational approach to what Bible to use

History "rationally" demonstrates that GOD used the KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God to build HIS Church and teach HIS Doctrines.

_________________

Mike wrote:
The world doesn't care about versions

In point of fact we can EXPECT the "Real" Bible to be attacked at such a time as this in the nations, when Liberalism the arch enemy of all authority, law and decency in societies is elevating man to be his own god.

Notably the modern versions are not attacked by the world.

This demonstrates that this Bible does hold real divine influence in mankind.
Satan is scared of the KJV.

The King James Version of the Word of God is not just the "best" version amongst many - it is the ONLY version.

The King James Version earns well the title of "inerrant." After all GOD has been using it for four centuries as THE english (and other languages) Bible, which HE brought through these centuries, and used to build HIS Church with.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Excellent, Ahem, and conidering,
'Was the translation process from original languages into English of 1611 A.D. protected from error by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
"KJV only" advocates say yes!
The Facts say NO!'
from, Canada says "NO!" to KJV only
King James Onlyism is a divisive cult which supports The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife murderer! Replacing Bibles done by Christian translators with this?

Jim Lincoln is a serial LIAR!!

Obviously there is no point posting the Truth whilst Jim Lincoln ignores even the basic facts and studies done which contribute to this debate on the subject.