Jim Lincoln wrote:
Dr. Robert A. Joyner
Inspiration in the Bible refers only to the original manuscripts. Each translation has to be judged on its own merits, or lack of them. This includes the KJV which is really only a revised version itself, being based on William Tyndale's translation and the Bishops Bible.

Everybody knows that the two heretics Westcott and Hort have a direct input into modern versions such as the NIV and your NASB. This is accomplished by the Nestle-Aland Greek text which partly comprises the higher criticism of W and H.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
No translation is perfect

Jim Lincoln wrote:
English either it is an Elizabethan

Mike wrote:
So there were no heretics before the modern versions showed up?

A couple!

None on the team of the KJV.

But Nestle-Aland brought Westcott and Hort onto the team of the modern versions.

-------

Jim Lincoln wrote:
a Bible only 400 years old? It is a new translation

Mike wrote:
The Holy Spirit has been around a lot longer than 400 years, which is the blink of an eye in comparison. Yet we imagine him confined to a version. How is that?

The Holy Spirit of course would not use the higher criticism of Anglican Liberals, Westcott and Hort, who accepted some of the Roman Catholic idolatries eg maryolatry.

Since they were heretics the Holy Spirit would not work with Westcott and Hort to produce the Word of God.

We only need to look at the development of such evil interpretations as the NIV, TNIV etc to demonstrate that man without the Holy Spirit goes the way of heresy.

Dumbing down and removing the "Name"

We don't need another new version. In fact we don't need any of the modern versions. Everytime they bring out a version "they" - whoever "they" are seem to think that everybody is uneducated or stupid, and that a special edition of "todayspeak" must be produced for the masses, or they won't understand.
If you go back over the last 400 years the nations got the message across even before school was invented.
Education does not produce believers, the Holy Spirit does. "He will guide you into all truth."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
But, TS, the Anglican Bible a.k.a. KJV, depends on the translation of a Catholic heretic

Now your NASB and the modern versions have come out to compete against the Version which God has used and authorised.

Westcott and Hort the Anglican Liberal heretics who had many leanings towards the Roman Catholic heretical pagan philosophies, maryolatry etc, has helped write your NASB and other modern versions. The so called "higher criticism" used by these two Anglican Liberals was recognised as far back as the 1880's in America, as well as the UK, as objectionable and incompetent.

Why Jim do you use such a book full of errors and inaccuracies?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Rewriting the Bible to please a group of men is a grievous sin.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I also support the most accurate version of the English Bible at the present time, The New American Standard Bible.

By your own words you have committed a quote, "grevious sin."

REPENT Jim!!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I was correcting an erroneous statement, which occur all too often with KJV supporters.

We simply know to receive the Word of God, King James Version....

As opposed to the modern versions which are corrupted by heretic Anglican Liberals namely Westcott and Hort.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
If you want an English version that is closest to the original languages, you should get the NASB

In the 1880's Westcott and Hort wrote their own version of the Bible. When it was sent to America they rejected it as inaccurate and badly translated.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
These and numerous other articles, give reasons and should have stated what I have, and note this--again--The KJV is first-rate literature, but a third rate Bible!

God does not use a quote "third rate Bible," u/q. and HE did not use such a book for four hundred years of Church building either. You must stop insulting the Lord Jim.

As for works the Lord would NOT use! HE would not use the work of heretics such as your brothers Westcott and Hort the Anglican Liberals, who helped write the modern versions such as your NASB.

Matt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

So Jim, you had better not continue your blasphemy of the Holy Spirit whose chosen sword is the Word of God, and HE has been using it in english as the KJV for many centuries.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
because I did make a mistake about the Holman version

Quote;
"although Farstad had envisioned basing the new translation on the same texts used for the original King James Version and New King James Version. After Farstad's death, the editorial team replaced this text with the Greek New Testament as established by modern scholars. The editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece were those primarily utilized, along with readings from other ancient manuscripts when the translators felt the original meaning was not clearly conveyed by either of the primary Greek New Testament editions." (Wiki)

Not you pope wrote:
Don't the NIV and KJV tributaries both find their source in the Roman Catholic river?

Now Westcott and Hort were recorded in their own writings as being heretic. For example they held various Roman Catholic heresies such as maryolatry. *ALSO* they used the Vaticanus text which is known to be corrupt.

The KJV Greek text, the Textus Receptus, was used by God for four centuries in the REAL Church, that is the Protestant Reformed Church. So we can historically and empirically observe that the KJV is authorised by God.

It is said quote; "Until the discovery by Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex was unrivaled. It was extensively used by Westcott and Hort in their edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881."
So it is easy to see that the heresy incorporated in the Westcott and Hort text originated from the Vaticanus text which real Christians have avoided like the plague for centuries.

Looks like more folks are beginning to see that Jim Lincoln et al is wrong about modern versions.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Wescott and Hort techniques are only used in part anymore, and of course they were better Christians than some of the translators of the AV which means they are much more acceptable anyway

Jim Lincoln wrote:
as far as many Protestants are concerned there are only nine effective commandments

Ten for those who follow the King James Version of the Word of God - AND every "jot and tittle."

Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/biblesearch.asp?keyword=Matthew&chapter=5&highlighttext=tittle&highlightmode=words]]]KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of GOD[/URL]

Polus wrote:
Thank you, a classic example of double speak, sophistry and inconsistency.
Your Mr Waite has redefined "quite literal" to meet his nonsensical whim. "God forbid" was always a 17th century colloquial equivalent, and never a literal word for word formally equivalent translation. He documents the fact that the word "God" is not there, and then excuses himself from his own standards! Truly breathtaking audacity.
Simple honesty and integrity would require him (and you!) to apply the same "used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence" to the AV as well as to the modern versions. Instead we see a double standard, now he speaks in terms of "only fourteen times".
"Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! "

Polus wrote:
AV passages documented as dynamic

Polus wrote:
That's not research. Do you know what research is?

KJV used ONLY Formal Equivalence.