Jim Lincoln wrote: 1) The KJV was translated by the Church of England
2) They reveal their bias by refusing to translate words like ‚Äúbaptism‚ÄĚ
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
1) Thats a lie!
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.
The real reason for Joyner's writing stuff like this is because he is (like Jim Lincoln) an advocate of the modern versions.
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.
Long live the Word of GOD, KING JAMES VERSION. Amen!
The TRUE Sword wrote: The Geneva "Bible" Was Based On & Translated DIRECTLY Out & From THE LATIN VULGATE BIBLE
That is NOT true!
"The Geneva translators produced a revised New Testament in English in 1557 that was essentially a revision of Tyndale's revised and corrected 1534 edition. Much of the work was done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin. The Geneva New Testament was barely off the press when work began on a revision of the entire Bible, a process that took more than two years. The new translation was checked with Theodore Beza's earlier work and the Greek text. In 1560 a complete revised Bible was published, translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I. After the death of Mary, Elizabeth was crowned queen in 1558, once again moving England toward Protestantism. The Geneva Bible was finally printed in England in 1575..." (reformed.org)
"The vast majority come from other Bibles from the 16th century." The turns of phrase in those other Bibles "were simply siphoned through the King James 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.
"The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it." Psalm 68.
"Is God the Author of Confusion? For a long time, the "official" English version used in each Bible-believing church was the King James, with the others used occasionally for reference study by teachers and pastors. Now, however, confusion reigns. Congregational unison reading is no longer possible, and church members often don't even bring their Bibles to church. The pastor preaches from one version and the people in the congregation each have their own, so they can't follow the pastor anyway, and thus they just listen, and soon forget. Scripture memorization, which has been an incalculable blessing in my own Christian life, is almost a lost art these days." [URL=http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_kjv/]]]Creationist's Defense of The King James Bible[/URL]
"The RSV of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14: where the RSV replace the word "virgin" with "young woman." (R.Flanders) [URL=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm]]]from King James Defended Articles[/URL]
Jim Lincoln wrote: Supporting a corrupted version of God's Word
Jim Now that you have blasphemed against God and insulted Him in your posts against the Word of God KING JAMES VERSION, which God used to teach and build His Church in the nations. Are you going to reply to the accuasations which correctly demonstrate that GOD Himself produced the KING JAMES VERSION in the 17th century?
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?
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
Yet. Isn't it fascinating that GOD used this same Bible, namely the KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God!
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?
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
Well Michael. I don't know you (or Jim Lincoln) from Adam, so I can only take you at your word. As to conviction a very interesting and powerful verse in Scripture which Jesus Himself taught is Matthew 7:21-23.
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 You really should stop all this undermining of the Word of God. This is Satan's work!
"From the outset of his dealings with mankind the devil has sought to undermine our confidence in the Word of God, especially in those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. He has done this especially by promoting a corrupt text of Scripture as the true Word of God.When this text is subjected to the Christological test it is found to be seriously wanting concerning the Person and Work of Christ. It would be quite wrong to say that modern versions such as the NIV bear no testimony to the truths we have been considering, as a systematic survey of the complete contents of these versions will show. Yet at the level of individual verses or passages there is a dangerous, cumulative undermining of important truths. The fact that these alterations go unnoticed by many who read modern versions or hear them read makes the matter all the more serious. Our stance concerning this vital subject should be clear: we should shun the modern versions." (David Blunt)
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?
The thing is Mike is why did the heretics Westcott and Hort remove the Greek word "Theos" at this point? And WHY does the NASB and other modern versions do the same?
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(?)" ___________
If the modern versions users "love" Christ that much - WHY do they remove His titles and name from their versions of the Bible???
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.
1. Reversing the view of correct doctrine by looking through sinful man at doctrine accuracy is not practical is it Scott. EG "Is the Word of God in error because of mans theological views?"
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.
5. 'Waite' is not the only person to perceive in the lives of Westcott and Hort, the unChristian activities and heresies. For example Hort's OWN WORDS in a letter declare his belief that quote, "Mary worship is very much in common with Jesus worship in cause and result."
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
1. Perhaps not? That really depends on God. But we would not then have the BEST translation, nor the BEST Greek text in english.
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.
The modern versions come from a faulty if not fallacious Greek Text that taints doctrine and omits important words relevant to doctrine.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Four hundreds years of using The [A][V]
Thats absolutely true Jim.
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 ‚ÄėPieta‚Äô the size of life [i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ]‚Ä¶Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.‚Äô" (Westcott)
These are the Anglican Liberals who helped produce your NASB, NIV and other modern versions.
Jim Lincoln wrote: then you should be using the Vulgate version which was used a 1,000 years
Jim You are not going to learn proper Christian doctrine if you don't heed our warnings on these threads. Now I have already taught you why the Vulgate is not appropriate. Are you reading all this good advice?
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]
Try and remember the dangers we have taught you about modern versions like your NASB. All those [URL=http://www.jesusdrivenlife.org/bibles.htm]]]OMISSIONS[/URL] in the NASB
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?"
More versions can only mean more confusion. These are evil times especially in relation to the authority of Scripture and doctrine. Bad times to fabricate modern versions.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Anyone who takes a rational approach to what Bible to use
A "rational" approach for human beings Jim, would be to (A) Use the same version which GOD has been using successfully for FOUR CENTURIES to build HIS Church and teach HIS Holy Doctrines. (B) Use the same Greek text which GOD has been using for FOUR CENTURIES. (C) NOT try to fix what is proven NOT to be broken. (D) NOT use the work of proven LIBERAL ANGLICAN HERETICS.
History "rationally" demonstrates that GOD used the KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God to build HIS Church and teach HIS Doctrines.
At a time when the authority of God, the authority of Christianity the authority of Scripture is being shredded by the growing evil in the western nations. It is NO surprise that the Word of God, King James Version is also attacked.
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.
During this debate one good thing which has come out of it, is that in my research I have been able to see just how inaccurate, fallacious and misleading the modern versions are. So thanks Jim for converting me to the REAL Bible - KING JAMES VERSION.