Jim Lincoln wrote: The KJV is a bad translation of the Bible, blaspheming the Holy Spirit
Jim God does not accept your judgments. God and His Holy Spirit used the KJV/TR for centuries and built His Church with it. God ordained the KJB/TR God Does not accept heretics such as helped write your modern versions NIV/NASB.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I know that the humanist heretic, Erasmus, His Greek Text and His Theology which was the foundation of the AV, as well as the The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV. As a church in the Commonwealth, puts it, Canada says "NO!" to KJV only.
In any event, any Bible that isn't in good contemporary English shouldn't be given to children, except those in foreign language classes like Latin or Elizabethan.
Apparently GOD disagrees with you Jim. HE used the TR/KJV for centuries. In fact HE still does today.
Canada is one of the most Liberal influenced countries in the world. Best not to go there for your advice, Jim.
Apparently Jim, Even YOU recognise the heretical influences to be found in the NIV organisation.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Lisa, it's good that the children get a Bible that is in English and not Elizabethan -- what a turnoff! What's bad however, it is not a complete Bible. Half a Bible is better than none, but still they should get the whole Bible.
"Whole Bible" Jim. Might you mean the whole counsel of God? If so then the KJV is the only "Whole Bible" available.
As you know Jim, the heretics Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland robbed the Word of God TR/KJV, and supplanted it with the inferior modern versions such as NIV/NASB etc.
Mike wrote: I thought you didn't like man's input. So the 54 translators appointed by a man must have been angels then? Well, maybe 7 of them weren't angels.
The KJV has been authorised and approved and used by God for four centuries and equates to the best mss used for the last 2000 years. It is ludicrous to suggest that God needed to wait for man's archaeology to write and teach the whole truth. Your arminian need for human action is showing again Mike.
"Man's input" are the heresies he has included in publications - NOT the Holy Spirit guided work of writing God's Holy Word.
Iron Jaw wrote: I suppose you think that the Dead sea discovery was a hoax??"
Nope!! Just entirely unnecessary to communicate and teach the Church the Word of God. The True Word of God was already in existence in the form of the King James Version - AND this by God Himself as HE promised.
Can't you trust your god to deliver his word law doctrines precepts????
Bro. James wrote: Brothers , i feel that some of you may be so dogmatic out of ignorance so i hope to enlighten some of you. Actually the truth is that MOST of (notice i did not say all) newer translations are more accurate than king jimmy simply because archeological discoveries over the last 400 yrs since its inception have rendered older manuscripts than were used in translating kjv. In fact, a recently discovered papryus
In other words you cut GOD out of the Word of God.
According to you GOD had to wait for archaeology before teaching the whole counsel of GOD.
According to your understanding previous generations could not receive the whole counsel of GOD because it didn't arrive till recently.
GOD's Word has been in existence for 6000 years the NT for 2000 years and man didn't get involved except to publish heresy like Westcott and Hort/ Nestle Aland did.
The King James Version is the most accurate publication of the Word of God.
Modern versions/mans input/archaeology are used by Satan as competition against the KJV.
Jim Just alittle piece of friendly advice for you. When you quote from Scripture you should use the KJV, in respect of sensible Christians who would rather not use the Liberal version of the NASB, et al, which contains the higher criticism and short-changed Greek of Anglican Liberals.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Oh, something for the KJV only types, from, "Human nature is such that once people are locked into a tradition, they find it very difficult to change. Even the most pleasant changes are sometimes difficult to adjust to emotionally. If a person has used only one version of the Bible all his life, any different version will seem strange."
Nope Jimmy boyo. That won't work either. I started off with the NIV, moved out when I realised it was a counterfeit and tried several others before the LORD helped me to arrive at the Bible He has been using for centuries. Which Jim as you know is the KING JAMES BIBLE.
Praise be to God.
Remember Jim that we KJV users had the good sense to check out the Liberal Anglican buddies of yours and recognised they were a couple of heretics and papist sympathisers, whose higher criticism counterfeit text is used by modern versions; - And then took the version which God has Himself authorised over centuries, by HIS use; = KJV/TR..
Jim Lincoln wrote: I'm not a Catholic which makes an idol out of a Bible version. "J. Harold Greenlee wrote: The Textus Receptus is not a `bad' or misleading text, either theologically or practically. Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars had won the struggle to replace this hastily-assembled text by a text which gave evidence of being closer to the N. T. autographs"
No Jim but you are very close to the Roman Catholic heresy sympathisers, and Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort who helped write your bible, nasb, and the modern versions.
As for your pal Greenlee. He too is obviously an admirer and friend of the Anglican Liberal Papist sympathisers. "hastily assembled" - Absolute nonsense!! As we have educated you before Jim, the TR that was finally used for the KJV was edited and worked over many years, by other Christian godly academics prior to its use. NO Anglican Liberal heretics there Jim.
You really need to get some real logical erudite and academic theologians Jim. And a decent version of God's Holy Word as authorised by Himself for four centuries.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, a Bible that preaches heresy!
But Jim. We have taught you so many times that the Bibles preaching heresy are those written by heretics.
For example the Modern versions such as the NIV and your NASB were contributed to, by the heretics, the Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort.
Letter written by Hort. October 15, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy" (Letter From Hort)
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, remember most of the transcripts are the Vatican's, Erasmus was a dedicated Catholic, and this is one reason that the AV
By the same token Jim, the NASB is a Roman Catholic bible since your two Anglican Liberal buddies Westcott and Hort, who wrote p/of your Greek text, leaned heavily towards Rome in things like maryolatry and for example Hort wrote in a letter...
July 6, 1848 -- to Mr. John Ellerton -- On Roman Catholicism
" . . . almost all Anglican statements are a mixture in various proportions of the true and the Romish view . . . the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort)
AND: October 17, 1865 â€“ to B.F. Westcott -- On Roman Catholicism
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and â€˜Jesusâ€™-worship have very much in common in their causes and resultsâ€¦we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood." (HORT)
Talking about errors Jim. The Westcott and Hort Greek which your NASB uses in its interpretation was recognised for what it was worth back in the 19th century.
Quote: "Westcott and Hort's Greek Text Was Based on "Ingenious Conjecture." Dr. Scrivener wrote: "There is little hope for the stability of their [that is, Westcott & Hort's] imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary." [Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1883, p. 531, quoted by Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. iv]." Westcott and Hort Greek Text and Theory Refuted
Jim Lincoln wrote: when one thinks about it, it is really hard to call the AV at least a fit Bible.
GOD used it as a "fit" Bible and the Word of God and used the KING JAMES VERSION for 400 years to build His Church.
Even though the Lord could have put the Anglican Liberal Westcott and Hort higher criticism version together in 1611 - God did not! BUT He did use the Word of God, which history proves to the Christians.
Jim has decided to go against God and use the anglican liberal version.
Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, most Christians apply this to the whole Bible, Revelation 22
Are you Christian enough to believe this Jim?? 19 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.
Quote; "Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!
The chart below illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was replaced with a text assembled by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in the nineteenth century and used as the basis for the English Revised Version, which nearly all modern translations closely follow"Words crossed out from passages in modern versions
Jim Lincoln wrote: but it has to be in a language a person understands
#1. The King James Version of the Word of God was ordained of God 400 years ago to be translated into english and is such that english speaking people can and have read quite adequately ever since. Thus has the Lord built His Church.
#2. God, in addition to this historic fact, has ordained and recorded.... "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13
#3. Further to the good reception of the truth it should be urgently notified that the modern versions published in recent decades have utilised the Greek works of the Anglican Liberal heretics Westcott and Hort.
"The facts in the case are these. The KJ translators used Greek MSS that represent the type of Greek text supported by an overwhelming majority of extant Greek MSS of the New Testament. There are, according to Wilbur N. Pickering, more than 5,000 Greek MSS of the New Testament. Eighty to ninety percent of these MSS are in basic agreement among themselves. The Greek text contained in this majority of MSS is known as the Majority Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Traditional Text (TT). The text of the KJV, which belongs to this majority of MSS, but is not perfectly identical with the TT, is known as the Textus Receptus(TR) - the "Received Text." This text was accepted as the authentic text of the New Testament by the Protestant Church from the Reformation to the nineteenth century and by the Greek Church for more than a thousand years before the Reformation.
In the nineteenth century, Westcott and Hort asserted the superiority of a type of text represented by a small minority of Greek MSS, particularly Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), which had recently been discovered" (Rev D Englesma)
Modern versions NASB/NIV etc, use the Westcott and Hort text.
SOLA AUTOGRAPHA or SOLA APOGRAPHA? A CASE for the PRESENT PERFECTION and AUTHORITY of the HOLY SCRIPTURES Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
"... But I believe that the Bible is the Word of GOD-and I believe that GOD's Word must be absolutely infallible. I shall therefore believe the Bible to be absolutely infallible,-until I am convinced to the contrary."
"No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal;-as much GOD's Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with human voice ... [T]he Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of GOD: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of it,-aye, and the very letters of it." Amen and Amen!" (Dean Burgon)
Dean Burgon defends the King James Version of the Word of God!
Ah Jim. I see you love the RCC bible too. I suppose this reflects your indifference to whatever Greek text supports your version/NASB?
The RCC bible is supported by the texts; Codex Alexandrinus "A" Codex Vaticanus "B" Codex Sinaiticus "A" Collectively known as the "Great Uncials."
Quote; "I must point out something ironic about these two alleged "oldest and best" manuscripts. They do not agree with each other! "There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2, p.1). John Burgon points out that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. We should find that very disturbing. My research has led me to conclude that the three "Great Uncials" are at best unreliable. I am thankful that the Bibles of the Reformation were based on what came to be called the Traditional text or the Textus Receptus." (Pastor David L Brown Ph.D)
Title "Why you shouldn't care what Daniel Wallace thinks about the King James Bible" By Brandon Staggs.
Daniel B. Wallace has written an essay he titled "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today." Dr. Wallace is the senior editor of the NET Bible, an also-ran modern English Bible version, so it's interesting to see how he defines his dismissal of the KJV. Interesting, because his essay brings forth quite a few false charges against the underlying text of the King James Bible, the Textus Receptus. The same old allegations are trotted out as if they haven't already been answered before." Essay. Response to D.Wallace
"Besides the sheer chutzpah Wallace exhibits in assuming how God will preserve his word, at the same time saying that we can not know how God preserves his word, Wallace is further deceiving his readers by making the unsubstantiated assumption that Erasmus did not have the verses in question in a Greek manuscript." (B.Staggs)
Jim Lincoln wrote: Really don't talk to me about the minor faults of Westcott and Hort --when compared to some of the translators of the AV-- it's really an argumentum ad hominim the much more serious faults of the AV.
Rubbish arguement Jim!!
Since, again, we can always come back and declare that God used the KING JAMES VERSION 'and' the Textus Receptus to build His Church over the last four hundred years!!!!!!
Both are therefore authorised by God Himself - The "AV"
Whereas your modern versions are produced within a time of such abject apostasy!!!!