Jim Lincoln wrote: in the KJV the Holy Spirit is "it"
Jim Go straight back to the school which taught you English grammar and get a refund for your dollar.
Dictionary:- "it" 1. (used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): 2. (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded):
BTW You should also get a copy of the real Word of God King James Version and learn the truth.
Quote: "The Roman Catholic Church now had two manuscripts which were used by Hort and Westcott to create the critical text which would become the underlying text for all the modern versions."
Quote: "I want to get to a quote taken from the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text giving undeniable proof that the modern versions are Roman Catholic in origin. While there may be Protestant translators on each of the Bible Versions, they are ancillary to the supervision which is under the Vatican. Am I making this up? The following quote can be found and verified on page 45 of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text." (Dr K. Matto) http://www.scionofzion.com/rcv.htm
Jim Lincoln wrote: Are the KJVOnlyers Christian? Well, at the very least, they are a schismatic, aberrational group.
Don't forget Jim, God has been KJV Only for centuries.
And don't forget Jim, God hates the heretics who try to offend Him by changing the Bible to suit themselves.
The heretics Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland AND their followers are sinning against God by defacing His Holy Bible. As God has recorded of these heretics - "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev 22:19 KJV.
pennnelope wrote: you can't fool me TS! Erasmus was a Roman Catholic Priest. Our Greek scholars are preserving the Word of God for the world and for the generations to come, despite your romanist efforts and authoritarianism!
I take it from that you did not study Greek?
As for Erasmus. GOD used him in a powerful way to write the Word of God and reveal the truth to the Reformed (True) Church. When God uses someone in this way and strong Christians such as puritans confirm his works then the real church perceives God's hand in the process and praises God.
How you can suggest I am quote "romanist" is quite ridiculous. I support the Bible KJV which God has used to build His church for centuries. As a Bible believing Christian I can perceive by His grace that the Reformation and the Protestant movement AWAY from the Roman Catholic church was ordained by God. I am a part of that Protestant and Reformed Church and can plainly see the errors, idolatry and heresies of the RCC.
pennned wrote: all opinions spoken by those who have never learned Greek, have never looked at original copies and thus have no authority to speak on what the original languages say.
I studied my Greek at Theological College, what about you?
As for the "original copies" of Scripture - I trust in God to deliver the Word of God to HIS servants accurately to us today as HE did in the old times when HE caused HIS servants of old to write the Bible.
I also believe God when HE writes :- 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." # AND That HE will continue this inspiration of HIS servants, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, throughout history.
Thus by the grace of God we have the Word of God today.
As for versions - God has used the KJB for centuries to build HIS church; That practical reality can be trusted in the hands and the grace of God.
Whereas the modern versions are partly based on the works of heretics. These modern versions also use the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus Roman Catholic texts = NOT a safe place to find the truth.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Remember if the NASB disagrees with the KJV -- the NASB is right
Read the facts in the post below.
Jim. Perhaps you should join John Yurich in the RCC pews since your NASB comes from the Vaticans Greek texts and your two favourite popish sympathising heretics edited your bible. -----
"The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names."
"So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch. " http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_48.asp
"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.
For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone." ~~~~
"the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected TR as their foundation" http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/
"concerning His Son - "Jesus Christ our Lord," - who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3)
"The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is - "the Lord" - from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47)
In these two verses, the absence of "Jesus Christ our Lord" and "the Lord" in the NASB results in the loss of precision as to whom the verses are referring to. In the first of these two verses, Romans 1:3, we need to wade through 3 commas and 4 phrases beyond it in NASB to decipher that "His Son" does in fact refer to Jesus, while in the latter verse, 1 Corinthians 15:47, the NASB version never clarifies who the second Man is."
The NASB carries many of these errors and omissions and changes the very honour of Christ.
"The question arises, "If the NKJV and the NASB are both translations of ancient Greek manuscripts, why do they differ?â€ť
The answer lies in the fact the two are the translations of different ancient Greek manuscripts. NKJV is the English translation of Textus Receptus ("TR"), while NASB is based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus ("SV")."
"why did B.F. Westcott and F.J. Hort, the two Cambridge scholars who brought the SV to the world as the Westcott & Hort Greek Text, use Codex Sinaiticus, found in the garbage pile of a Catholic convent at the base of Mount Sinai, and Codex Vaticanus, which the editors of TR had deemed worthless because it was filled with errors and corrections on itself, omitted 46 chapters of Genesis, 32 chapters of Psalms, entire books of Paul's Epistles, etc, and instead contained the Catholic Apocrypha, which even the Catholic church today admits isn't part of the bible? Why did they ignore the 95-99% of the kids in the arena and choose to believe the handful of kids with the shady reputation?
from Hort himself: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus...Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts; it is a blessing there are such early ones." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 1896)
Hort's assertion that TR leans on late manuscripts is false and undermined by his own admission that he has read "so little" Greek Testament." http://www.jesusdrivenlife.org/bibles.htm
Jim You are still ignoring the fact that God used the KJB to build His Church from the Reformation onwards.
By taking this view you seem to support the idea that GOD did not publish His Word until 1984 and Modern version time.
The church and its preachers and disciples were being taught by the Lord using the KJV/TR for centuries far before the modern versions came on the scene.
You know why we refer to the heretics Westcott and Hort - BECAUSE they are USED TO EDIT THE MODERN VERSIONS.
America rejected the Westcott and Hort RV in the 1880's as being bad interpretation and translation.
"While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the RV (1871-81), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (ITim 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead." http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight8
Jim Lincoln wrote: KJV, it's actually bombastic Elizabethan gobbledlygook. Use the Amer.-KJV which has translated the KJV into English at least.
Jim Don't forget that GOD used the King James Bible (and of course the TR) for all these past centuries and only in these lawless apostate times do we find your modern versions making inroads into the pews.
Calling the KJB names won't change the fact that in the hands of GOD this was the chosen Bible which GOD Himself used to build His Church.
Whereas the modern versions may put modern vernacular into print - BUT the sad thing about them are the associations with heretics such as Westcott/Hort/Nestle/Aland. Try and remember God does not use these heretics and Vatican sympathisers to publish and teach HIS Holy Word.
Here are some excellent proofs for you:
"Why Jesus Cannot Use the New King James Version" (J.McElroy) http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/mcelroy-nkjv.html
"King James Bible Questions & Answers" (D.A.Waite) http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22001174513
Throughout history millions of people have never seen or heard of the Bible. Whole nations have not been evangelised even by Latin versions. But wherever God's elect have served there you will find the Word of God available for reading and teaching. God has always been sovereign in saving His people and is sovereign in publishing His Word. The King James Version was brought into use in the church by grace alone. Other versions will have been used by the Lord to complete His purpose. However the problem with the modern versions is the errors and omissions found in them which imply heretical input. Does God use the heretic to produce and interpret His Word? Are the Roman Catholic or the JW bibles just as valid as the KJV? When we observe their results we say they are not. The errors and omissions in the RCC/JW bibles appear not to bear fruit in conversion and faith. So errors and omissions are important and God makes the journey to salvation a specific path by His grace. The KJV has been the chosen Bible of the true Church for centuries. History has observed many true Christians converted and using the KJV. Proof of this versions credibility in the grace of God. Beware imitations of the Bible.
Would you say the same wrote: then of the Latin Vulgate? how about the Luther Bible? or the Douayâ€“Rheims Bible? all have been around for centuries
God ordained a Reformation in the 16th century, this made a powerful difference to the Church and it then required a good copy of the Word of God for lay people as well as preachers.
The Bible God brought to this NEW Church was the King James Bible.
The next stage of God's purpose and process for HIS Church was to print HIS Bible in a language ALL people could understand. This was and is the KJV.
God's purpose has been working throughout history and the various local vernacular language versions such as Wycliffe and Tyndale preceded the KJV which eventually took off as the Church Bible of use - All by the Grace of God.
The early Latin versions of the Bible had their purpose in history by HIS grace - But not available to the ordinary people.
The KJV is the Bible which opened the Word of God and His doctrines to the ordinary people. God has used this version for centuries. Since GOD does use the KJV to build HIS Church and teach all people - There is no reason at all to use the badly translated modern versions with their heretical input.
Jim Lincoln wrote: BM, the KJV weren't inspired by God, they made errors, some of them very serious, I will again point out this:
God used the King James Bible for centuries and thus proves HIS acceptance of it as Holy Writ.
It was only when the modern versions (NASB/NIV etc) edited by heretics (eg: Westcott/Hort etc) came into being that some in the church found it necessary to move from the Bible which God was using effectively in HIS Church.
"Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?" "Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!" http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Jim's bible 'modern version' the NASB heavily leans on the works of two Heretics called Westcott and Hort. Two chaps who were influenced by the Roman Catholic idolatrous religion.
Quote; "1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!
2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.
3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.
4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.
5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.
6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.
7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.
8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.
9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity." (av1611.org)
Jim Lincoln wrote: ALL BY ITSELF it proves the KJV-only position is nothing more than an unjustified, idealistic fantasy.
That's very strange Jim. After all GOD's position was KJV/TR only for centuries. And as far as we Christians know still is HIS position since HE is still converting people using the KJV.
Another point is that no one knows whether GOD really required man to change the KJV and write the modern versions with editing by heretics such as Westcott and Hort.
After all God's elect are not saved except with God's personal intervention, John 6:44, so the facts of history illustrate that God saves His elect and uses the KJV.
The idea of quote "modernising" the language is irrelevant since it is the Holy Spirit who "guides us into all truth" John 16:13. And HE has done that since the beginning Long Long before the modern versions arrived.
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. Psalm 12: KJV.