Jim Lincoln wrote: RSV A couple of times, NIV, (1978) version and of course the [URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
So you began reading the Bible with the RSV then moved to the NIV and now you read the NASB? I assume you consider the NASB superiour to the other two? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Actually why don't I just point out, something about a blasphemous Bible?
Doug Kutilek wrote: ...the KJV shares this distinction only with the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and to a lesser extent with the RSV and NRSV translations of the apostate National Council of Churches. If it were the NIV or the NASB and not the KJV which had this feature in common with these notoriously unreliable versions, it would be shouted from the rooftops by Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger, Cloud, and the rest of the KJVO rabble. But because it is the KJV, they are silent as a tomb, and are very accommodating to this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
To call any person, but especially to call one of the Persons of the Trinity by the English pronoun "it" is degrading and debasing, and is inexcusable. The correct pronoun--the ONLY correct pronoun--in such a case is "He."
from, [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_spirit_itself_defect_pr.htm]]]"The Spirit Itself," Or, The Greatest Defect In The King James Version[/URL]
RSV A couple of times, NIV, (1978) version and of course the [URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
Why don't you publish a booklet about the alledged superiority of the NASB or the NKJV over the AV? Make sure to quote extensively from the AV, NASB & NKJV throughout. Distribute it widely.
Then notice that no one anywhere is saying one word to you about the verses quoted from the AV. You can quote, quote, quote to your heart's content.
Soon, however, notice how quickly you are contacted by The Lockman Foundation, Zondervan or Thomas Nelson regarding your use of the NASB or NKJV! I suspect a cease & desist order and/or a lawsuit will follow if you don't pay them an exhorbitant royalty.
Why Mike of NY, that is my common description of the KJV, The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer. So, I am just parroting myself.
Yes I do recognize that the [URL=http://www.raptureme.com/rr-kjvo.html]]]King James Onlyism[/URL] is a fringe group. Just politeness makes me resist putting accurate modifiers before that term. If you wish use such a universally recognized poor translation there is not much that one can do about it. For the people who attend churches that require the AV I would suggest you get a [URL=http://www.amazon.com/Ryrie-Study-Hardback-Letter-Bibles/dp/0802438598]]]The Ryrie KJV Study Bible Hardback- Red Letter[/URL] . This would alleviate the need to carry around a dictionary and encyclopedia to translate the AV.
Unfortunately, Dr. Ryrie errors on the conservative side in that he doesn't point out such severe errors in the AV such as neutering the Holy Spirit, q.v.,[URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_restating_obvious.htm]]]Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations[/URL].
Bob, why not complain about those publishers pushing an incomplete AV, and don't have to pay anything in royalties?
Does anyone in this discussion really feel like these publishers are cranking out all these new versions because they believe them to be superior to the version released the year before? Also, what of the copyright laws? For a "new" version to be copyrighted it has to be significantly different then all others....hmm?!?! Just these two issues make me very suspicious of any "new" versions.
"KJV Onlyism is not preferring the KJV because it is a superbly accurate translation based on the best manuscripts"
"Extremism like this is an embarrassment to those who prefer to use the Authorised Version and a stumblingblock to those we wish to persuade to adopt the best English translation."
"The Greek Christian Fellowship is a small group of Greek evangelical Christians who have a burden to preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Greek/Cypriot ethnic minority in Britain whose approximate population is 300,000."
Do you SEE Jim. You can only set up a straw man KJO advocate BUT you can not deal with those who have studied the issue.
Now please explain how a Greek speaking people (their first language)prefer the KJV BECAUSE IT IS **the best English translation** and **superbly accurate** and **based on the best manuscripts**
Why don't they follow your logic and go for the NIV or some other modern version?
They are not KJV only advocates and do not hold that that version is perfect, but see the KJV to be superior for many reasons having studied both sides. That is why they use the KJV as their English bible.
Jim Lincoln wrote: T.S., The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer, is a Catholic Bible, Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’? Some people consider the errors in the AV minor, but they are even worse then the one in the RSV using the term "young woman," for "virgin," e.g. "it" for the Holy Spirit. They AV is a third rate Bible that he isn't even allowed to be second rate by being translated into modern English
But Jim GOD Himself ordained the KING JAMES BIBLE to be made available to the common people. Therefore you are attacking and blaspheming GOD and HIS WORD by your remarks. Do you think that HE would allow such a book as you describe to build His Church and teach His doctrines. The KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God has been used by the Holy Spirit to convert the elect for centuries effectively. God does not use defective tools. AND God did not call for a replacement Sword of the Word (modern versions) - Because His Book, KJV, did what was required of it in the Lord hands.
T.S., The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer, is a Catholic Bible, [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm]]]Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?[/URL]. Some people consider the errors in the AV minor, but they are even worse then the one in the RSV using the term "young woman," for "virgin," e.g. "it" for the Holy Spirit. They AV is a third rate Bible that he isn't even allowed to be second rate by being translated into modern English.
[URL=http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm]]]Dear KJV Only Advocate:[/URL]
'Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible. . . . For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable'---Edward H. Palmer
Jim Lincoln wrote: A) Remember that the AV was a modern translation at one time.
B) Dr. Wallace wrote: 7. It was a compromise translation between various factions within England—including High Churchmen and Puritans, and to a degree, between Protestants and Catholics. Even though it was ostensibly based on the Bishops’ Bible
A) "Remembering" this fact is supposed to do what Jim??? Is it supposed to excuse the other fact that the modern versions are based upon the Roman Catholic Vaticanus text, AND based upon the works of Two Popish leaning Anglican Liberals from the 19th century???
B) Jim you need to get a better expert than "Dr Wallace" - you see he is quite wrong in his assumptions. The Papists have never liked the KJV and the Bishop's Bible is not where the KJV translators started - THEY started with Hebrew and Greek. Just like Tyndale did before them. As for "High Churchmen" - (or anglo catholics), the differences between them and the Puritans had already begun in ecclesia before the KJV translation by God. Bible translation was not their problem - Bible interpretation was.
Remember that the AV was a modern translation at one time. It is the trollop mother to the bad modern translations, since it had so much anti-Christian participation. One should thank the Christians who did the [URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/]]]New American Standard Bible[/URL], NIV, ESV, to replace the AV. As was pointed out about the AV,
Dr. Wallace wrote: 7. It was a compromise translation between various factions within England—including High Churchmen and Puritans, and to a degree, between Protestants and Catholics. Even though it was ostensibly based on the Bishops’ Bible (to satisfy the High Churchmen), it really looked a lot more like the Geneva, and even borrowed from the Rheims-Douai. So everybody had something to like about the AV!
8. Finally, it had the financial and political backing of the throne.
Essentially, the KJV stayed in power because of the mixture of political clout, religious compromise, and literary power. And that’s a threefold cord that’s not easily broken.
excerpt from, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1824]]]Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy)[/URL].
American Christians have every reason to use a modern Christian Bible, British ones, should find a way to do so also.
TS wrote: Comparing the Justice and punishment system of today with that of 400 years ago is a rather sad and rediculous way to defend the modern (badly translated) versions of the Bible. Jim are you getting desperate? From Tyndale to the translators of the KING JAMES BIBLE, God used His servants to bring His Holy Word into reach of the common man. Then God used this to teach His doctrines to the Church. Thus the Church grew over these centuries. It is perhaps relevant to point out that today we observe the huge decline of church membership and doctrine, and all things Christian - WHEN all these "modern versions" are available. Is GOD telling us something?
Yes, he's likely telling us people have cast belief itself aside, rather than a favored version of scripture. You might better ask, how is it the true word of God can be displaced by so-called false versions in the first place? Such power the false must have over the true! If you wish to place blame, blame the churches, not the versions. Liberalism was welcomed into churches before the new versions existed. It matters little which version is used, including the KJV, if it is not believed to be God's word to us.
ross wrote: .modern translations allow ordinary people to understand gods words and instructions more clearly .those who say only kjv should be used would do well to read original Greek bible as it is the proper authorised bible .
Interestingly many modern version Pasors tell us we can not really get to a deep understanding of any scripture without a working knowledge of the original languages.
Hmmmm...I guess then that if any spent an hour getting to grips with singular and plural and verb endings and a list of the archaic words in the KJV I suspect they would then have little problem ever again with that old version, but would be amazed at the reverence and majesty and accuracy of that Protestant Bible so greatly blessed for 4..no 40...no 400 years.
How many hours before I know Greek enough to accurately order in a Greek restraunt and then Hebrew to read Leviticus fluently An hour?
If any are interested I can send them 5 DVD sermons by Dr Allen of the Trinitarian Bible Society for free, but be warned you might then have some great reservations about modern versions and most particularly the shocking NIV which Uncle Jim so heavily recommends in an earlier post
Too bad Cliff that church doesn't let in Bible versions done by Christians, but instead, The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer
You need a bookstore that will carry, [URL=http://sw.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_desc&item_id=LE4M8kmVLzeQXoHyCQTYnknNn]]]King James Version Debate[/URL], [URL=http://sw.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_desc&item_id=W10tqVjzBQvzWE8sOze5OQXJC]]]King James Only Debate, The Facts on[/URL] and [URL=http://sw.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_desc&item_id=1CwPJPdSlH7L583Cz0sG5ntS1]]]King James Only Controversy[/URL]
But I recognize there are political reasons in Great Britain to support a bad version of the Bible. Some of those political reasons, I understand and I'm not condemning the folks in Great Britain, for those reasons to use the AV, though still, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL], and one can argue the AV is anti-American for some of those very same political reasons.
great to acknowledge kjv bible however we need to remember that the original Greek scriptures were written in the common language of the people .no one uses old English in normal conversation these days .modern translations allow ordinary people to understand gods words and instructions more clearly .those who say only kjv should be used would do well to read original Greek bible as it is the proper authorised bible .
Jim Lincoln wrote: Rick Norris wrote: Some may question whether the High Commission Court with its "distinguished" members such as some KJV translators and several Archbishops can be fairly compared to the Inquisition. As members of this Court, George Abbott and Lancelot Andrewes urged the burning at the stake of two men for their religious views and King James approved this sentence.
Comparing the Justice and punishment system of today with that of 400 years ago is a rather sad and rediculous way to defend the modern (badly translated) versions of the Bible. Jim are you getting desperate?
From Tyndale to the translators of the KING JAMES BIBLE, God used His servants to bring His Holy Word into reach of the common man. Then God used this to teach His doctrines to the Church. Thus the Church grew over these centuries.
It is perhaps relevant to point out that today we observe the huge decline of church membership and doctrine, and all things Christian - WHEN all these "modern versions" are available.
Brian Edwards | 7/17/2008
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
An hour?
