A retired headmaster was dismayed to find that young people at a funeral could not join in the Lord's Prayer because the words were not printed on the service sheet.
"The mother of one teenager was shocked that he had been at school until 15 and had never even heard of the prayer," Rob Medway said in a letter to the Church Times. "Boris Johnson recommends that we observe Ramadan with our neighbours," he added. "Who is recommending that every child should learn this unique template prayer?"
You are a pathetic person, Mr Lincoln, because you are so unteachable. I agree with Poindexter, you shouldn't be allowed to post your continual drivel about modern versions of the bible on Sermon Audio.
Poindexter, funny, at least one Anglican I saw on another website, was pointing out that the Anglican (Laodicea) Church that the Authorized King James Version was their bible, and no doubt high church members use it because of the similarity to the Catholic Bible, which it is has much in common.
However, I just pointed out the one huge weakness of using the original [A]nglican [V]ersion which is not in contemporary English. I pointed out a Public Domain version which slavishly follows the AV. This is for people who do wish for the neophyte to understand the Word, q.v.,
Michael Peter (Stone) Engelbrite wrote: This is a new translation of the Bible, based on the original King James Version. It is a simple word for word update from the King James English. I have taken care to change nothing doctrinally, but to simply update the spelling and vocabulary. I have not changed the grammar because that could alter the doctrine.
'Ah, Moderator Alpha if I may point out something, anyway? I would hope that SermonAudio in its worthy endeavor in sending out the Gospel of John, makes it plain that you are not Mormons, since the KJV (161l) is so tightly connected with that group?' Jim Lincoln quote
Ah, but Jim remember also the Anglican churches don't use the AV today they use the RSV and NIV-WHY?-so your silly rabbit trails don't make sense do they Big deal the cult of the Mormons use the KJV BUT interpreted by the Book of Mormon. Why did the Watchtower Society (a bigger cult than the Mormons) abandon the KJV??????????
Please Moderator Alpha examine the wisdom of Jim's comments. The Free presbyterian Church has 50 plus churches on your site using the KJV as do the majority of Reformed. His personal attacks on the KJV are as bad as KJO Ruckmanism on modern versions, lacking Christian charity and wisdom. If Jim had his way he would want you to abandon the Gospel of John endeavor BECAUSE IT uses the Kjv
Let Jim read this and then go and think it through for himself. Many who despise KJO ism still consider the KJV an excellent translation...so why is Jim becoming as extreme in his attacks as a Ruckmanite
Ah, Moderator Alpha if I may point out something, anyway? I would hope that SermonAudio in its worthy endeavor in sending out the Gospel of John, makes it plain that you are not Mormons, since the KJV (161l) is so tightly connected with that group? I would still wonder why they and others who wish to remain attached to the AV would not use the American KJV? example: Matthew 6 9After this manner therefore pray you: Our Father which are in heaven, Hallowed be your name. 10Your kingdom come, Your will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11Give us this day our daily bread. 12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For your is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.--AKJV
Too many people seem to forget how many Americans hate Shakespeare and might not be very happy with English, like Irish descendants.
Guinness wrote: What valid points have you brought up? Not one.... you post circular argumentation like this:- Whoso wrote: 9. Doubts like these are doubting the Lord. You really should not critisize Him that way Jim. God has always provided for His elect.
The reason whereby I brought up this point was because of Jim's statement quote ""Jim Lincoln wrote: 9. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior?""-
Jim here has doubted that the LORD did provide the Word of God and HIS purpose requiring the Word in the people of History at that time, prior to 1610.
That should be simple for most people to comprehend.
Guiness wrote: leave the field to genuine defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine text type please
The debate here is on KJV being the best translation, - versus modern versions. The KJV comes from the TR, modern versions have not. Thats pretty plain and simple too.
My position is straight forward in that the KJV has proven itself in the hands of the Holy Spirit for over four centuries, whereas modern versions HAVE NOT!! Thats pretty simple to observe too, in fact - IT IS A FACT!!!
John UK wrote: I always post quotations on here using the Authorised Version. But then, I know why I do; but I know not why you do, Guinness.
I know why you do to:-
John UK wrote: I read and study and memorise the inerrant word of God as it is found in English in the Authorised Version of 1769.
Whoso wrote: 2. There is only ONE KJV!
You two can argue amongst yourselves.
The Authorised Version is an excellent translation that partially stood on the shoulders of giants.
The Authorised Version of the scriptures is not inerrant. Yours is a strange doctrine that is alien to Christianity. For example:-
"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of its writing was most generally known to the nations) were immediately inspired by God, and were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence. They are therefore authentic , so that in all controversies of religion , the church must appeal to them as final."
Guinness wrote: political device by a man who decided in his own "infinite" wisdom to have a new Conservative version written for his own ends
I see you don't trust in a Sovereign God.
The KJV was translated by the best and most gracious expertise available to the purpose of God in the 16th century.
The purpose of God - throughout the centuries - is perhaps something you might consider in all this. Try not to exclude Him from ecclesiastical history.
If you are dedicated to the modern versions then please beware of the points I and others have brought up. We do genuinely care for the Word of God.
After studying Greek at college I quickly saw the problems with the modern versions, and also recognised the accuracy of the KJV. This I contribute to the grace of our Lord. After studying the available literature on the modern versions and perceiving the critique as factual, I went over to the KJV because of it's accuracy.
This is the way God has brought me.
As I said before *IF* the modern version is so accurate and trustworthy - WHY is there so many different versions of them. The Spirit and the church was working diligently away for centuries on the KJV, THEN 20th century decided to change Greek texts, doctrine and grammar. WHY???
Due to the 1300 character limit I was not able to post an introductory sentence.So let me make myself clear now.
When I take Whoso's fallacious argumentation and turn it around the purpose is not to endorse fallacious reasoning but to expose it and the double standards on which it rests. These are Whoso's arguments not mine!
Whoso - Please be advised the 15th century ran from 1401 to 1500.Please give me an example of a 15th century English translation of the scriptures? Preferably an uncorrupted Protestant Reformation translation (again irony intended).Or even a Greek text?
So the TR is okay because it is only a little bit eclectic? Double standard. Where was your unadulterated Bible to be found before it's publication? Name the Greek manuscript you hold to in its 100% entirety.
May God deliver the Authorised Version from silly and stupid modern argumentation and defences!
As said on another thread - When will it all end? I don't know exactly when it will all end, but end it surely shall in a blessed day and hour. But one step along the way here was the Authorised Version. This was a simple political device by a man who decided in his own "infinite" wisdom to have a new Conservative version written for his own ends.
Jim Lincoln wrote: 9. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior?
10. If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism?
# The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV
@ Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
9. Doubts like these are doubting the Lord. You really should not critisize Him that way Jim. God has always provided for His elect.
10. "KLV Onlyism" as you call it Jim, is simply the elect trying to improve the lot of the Church on earth by directing all to the Truth, and contending for the faith against the forces of darkness.
# Talking about the Anglican influences Westcott and Hort were both ANGLICAN heretics - they contributed to heretical Greek interpretation which emerges today in the modern versions like your NASB and the NIV et al.
@ No contest Jim. The TR was brought into use by the grace of God and REAL christian servants; - As opposed to heretics like Westcott and Hort. Remember the old story of those two clowns that when the so called RV was sent to your country in the 19th century, the good people rejected it. SO SHOULD YOU Jim!!
I didn't know those 10 questions had to be put up! I would suggest you go to that site and read all 10 and see if you agree with Guinness conclusions! .... " AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE "BIG 2" QUESTIONS 9. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.
" 10. If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?" 10 Questions for KJV-only Supporters
1. False dichotomy. 2. There is only ONE KJV! 3. This was done in the 15th/16th century. 4. T.R. Is hardly anywhere near the "eclectic" definition applied to the modern version. Do you understand the point made? 5. Dean Burgon 19th century - no input into KJV. Whereas Westcott+Hort(Heretics) - DIRECT input into modern versions. 6. KJV was the culmination of ENGLISH TRANSLATION VERSIONS. Your point is not relevant. 7. This has NOTHING to do with the previous point made! 8. Again NOTHING to do with the point made! - You appear to be getting desparate? My questions appear to be doing well!! 9. NOBODY said the KJV was 'THE' Spirit and 'THE' Truth. When reading Scripture it is the HOLY SPIRIT which delivers 'THE' Truth, thats why all who read it are NOT converted. The Truth can set you free!! John 8:32. It is not reading which sets you free!! AND The Spirit guides the 'elect' into all truth. John 16:13. Get it!!! 10. Again your response does NOT deal with the question raised. I am disappointed with your points raised Guinness. I am also serious about the version question!!
Guinness wrote: ... 5. And their major opponent was heretical Dean Burgon who believed in the heresy of baptismal regeneration. Why do you use a version defended by such dubious sources? ...
Now then, Guiness.
The devil is far cleverer than you and me, isn't he? Let us suppose a scenario, in which your odd question plays a role.
Let us [rightfully] suppose that the AV Bible is a superb translation of divinely inspired texts. How would the devil cast doubt on this word of God?
#1 By asking the question, "Yea, hath God said?" thus causing fallible human souls to doubt, even momentarily. This is what hapened to Eve, didn't it?
#2 By causing heretics to embrace this Bible, so that men like you, Guiness, could say, "Well, this Bible cannot be true because it is endorsed by known heretics."
#3a By causing his own followers like Origen (a high-positioned teacher of scholars in Alexandria) to corrupt the word of God.
#3b By causing other heretics like Westcott and Hort to fall for Origen's lies and subterfuge, and make their own Greek Text from Vatican sources, and arrange (again by subterfuge) to have their text used in the translation of the RV of 1881, thus paving the way for all modern corrupted versions.
Hort to Metzger (Critical Text Proponents) agree Orthodox Christianity from the 4th to the 19th cent used the TRADITIONAL texts as the PROMINENT text. (the testimony of modern church history=Waldenses, Albigenses, Reformers etc)
The friend of Popes Tichendorf found the Sinaiticus 1844 and we know by 1881 W&H's own Greek text (inspired by the Vatican(us) library) gave us the English Revised Version. (E)ssentially (R)oman (V)atican.
In light of the comment even by a Modern version onlyist:
'it is obvious that the KJV has been the providentially appointed version of the Bible for most English-speaking people since 1611' (R C Newman)
and Guinness: 'an excellent translation'
Did the 4th to 19th cent Christians have the pure word of God or were they too using "Tommy Rot"
Let us see where your own TOMMY ROT leads you-the confused persecutor of an Excellent Translation-the providentially appointed version of the Bible for most English-speaking people since 1611
1. This argues in favour of the Geneva Bible and other earlier Bibles over the KJV. 2. And, why are there so many different 16th and 17th century versions? 3. Being as there is a myriad of variant ancient texts in both the Byzantine and Alexandrian families - which one is accurate? Can you prove it? 4. The âTextus Receptusâ is an eclectic Greek Text which post-dates the eclectic KJV and is based in part upon it. 5. And their major opponent was heretical Dean Burgon who believed in the heresy of baptismal regeneration. Why do you use a version defended by such dubious sources? 6. The KJV came amidst a flood of Bible versions from Tyndale, Matthewâs, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, Rheims and the glorious schism of the Reformation. Or should we go back to Rome? 7. And contemporary Christians 'led by the Holy Spirit' rejected the KJV ... 8. False dichotomy but note that the KJV translators said âSo that to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue âŠ was esteemed most profitable to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalm, As we have heard, so we have seen.â 9. False dichotomy. The KJV is not the âSpirit and Truthâ, but an excellent translation of the Scriptures. 10. Equally you âprovedâ nothing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: the latest version of NASB has no thee thines
10 questions for modern versions users.
1. Why use a version which does not have the same longevity and proven track record as the KJV? 2. Why are there so many different modern versions? 3. Being as there is a myriad of modern versions - which one is accurate? Can you prove it? 4. Modern versions have used eclectic Greek Texts, can you prove the authenticity-accuracy of these? 5. Modern versions have used sources such as the discredited Anglican Bishops Westcott and Hort, which give rise to doubt in translation. Why do you use a version using such dubious sources? 6. Modern versions have emerged at a time of such growing discord and doubtful doctrine in churches, which brings a climate of schism. Why buy a version from this store? 7. KJV in the hands of the Holy Spirit has converted for centuries - Why change a success story for man's editing? 8. The concept that a modern vernacular is essential to the work of the Holy Spirit, is human works reliant. Is this sound doctrine? 9. If language and grammar is all that prevents usage of KJV - Why do you doubt the Spirit and Truth? 10. Can you prove the Holy Spirit requires the change behind a modern vernacular neccessity?