On its 400th anniversary, the King James version of the Bible is universally recognized as a literary masterpiece that profoundly shaped both modern Christianity and the English language.
At the Bible Baptist Church in Mount Prospect, Ill., however, it's accorded a much higher level of reverence.
"Using anything but the King James version is like shaving with a banana," said Chris Huff, the church's pastor.
The suburban Chicago church belongs to a loosely defined denomination known as the "King James Only" movement. Members believe that the King James version is not just another translation, but the indispensable underpinning of a Christian's faith....
on modern versions wrote: "So why are "scholars" spending millions of hours and millions of dollars to "reconstruct" a text from corrupted, fraudulent manuscripts, which are often written or "corrected" by unbelievers? There have been many reasons listed by various authors. The underlying spiritual reason for extolling the possible virtues of the GTO has not been clearly stated or has been missed. It is the old old problem recorded for us in the book of Genesis as the etiology for the fall of man. The problem is the refusal to come under authority. The authority of the words of God frightens men. The Apostle John record these words for us, "Never man spake like this man," [Jn. 7:46] because the Lord Jesus Christ spoke with authority. The ultimate agenda of those promoting the LXX is to destroy the authority of God's words because "Never man spake like this man." His true words frighten men, because if they are preserved, infallible, plenary, and inerrant, they will have to come under their precise and/or specific authority and judgment. Satan and man have fought this authority "from the beginning."
Very good point! I'd not thought of that before - thanks!
"So why are "scholars" spending millions of hours and millions of dollars to "reconstruct" a text from corrupted, fraudulent manuscripts, which are often written or "corrected" by unbelievers? There have been many reasons listed by various authors. The underlying spiritual reason for extolling the possible virtues of the GTO has not been clearly stated or has been missed. It is the old old problem recorded for us in the book of Genesis as the etiology for the fall of man. The problem is the refusal to come under authority. The authority of the words of God frightens men. The Apostle John record these words for us, "Never man spake like this man," [Jn. 7:46] because the Lord Jesus Christ spoke with authority. The ultimate agenda of those promoting the LXX is to destroy the authority of God's words because "Never man spake like this man." His true words frighten men, because if they are preserved, infallible, plenary, and inerrant, they will have to come under their precise and/or specific authority and judgment. Satan and man have fought this authority "from the beginning."
If the truth about the Received Texts (Masoretic and Greek Traditional Text) can be discredited by assumptions and theories, then men can claim we have no absolute authority." (H.D.Williams)
The brazen serpent scenario was a one-off event, supplied by God in grace at a certain time. The scriptures, however, are the word of God for all times and all people, even to the end of the world. We would not even know what a Nehushtan was except for the scriptures.
Imagine a world where there was no scripture. Imagine if God took all the scripture away and left us to flounder about in darkness. Imagine if he had not chosen to redeem mankind. We should all perish in our sins and be eternally lost.
Where do we read about the cross except in the scriptures? How are sinners born again of the Spirit except through the word? How are we instructed in the faith? How do we know what happens at the end of the world? Why does the devil continually want to destroy the scriptures?
Jim, do you really expect me to believe that I have made a Nehushtan out of the Bible?
Let me give you a clue.
If there was no debate, no modern versions, no attacks on the KJV, then the church could get back to being a church like it was in former years. I remember meeting elderly Christians from that time who had perfect trust in the Bible and never needed to defend it. They were a delight to be with.
hyper linkz speak wrote: Speakz for Jimz to undastanz... Howz cumz da saints in the UK in tha 60's experienced the revival with da olde KJV when youz sayz it waz a dusty no good Coz theyz couldn't understanz th' ark ache ick language in the dark 60's, bruz? IZ Jimz the hyper-linker a wise bruz in his speak? Me linkz youz to da real ting and the evidence of the real blessing of the KJV in the 60's in the UK. Nowz Jim, youz the main man- listen to it and learn as the beginnings gave you 100 churches and SERMONAUDIO.COM Using the KJV Sermon audio remembering the 60's
Thnx 4 da 4-11 bro. Jimz keeps kicken us to da curb.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Yes, there have been corrupt men corrupting the scripture such as the Anglican Bishop
And Jim; Don't forget to mention the two Anglican Liberal heretics who helped write your bible the NASB, and modern versions, Westcott and Hort.
"The Westcott and Hort (B and Aleph) Text Was Based Only on the "Crime" of Partial and Unrepresentative Evidence"
"To cast away at least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not less even than a crime and a sin, and only by reason of the sacrilegious destructiveness exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical method." [Dean Burgon]
"Westcott and Hort used only partial evidence and a very unrepresentative sample agreeing with less than 1% of the manuscript history. Ximenes and Erasmus, on the other hand, though also using partial evidence, had a representative sample agreeing with over 99% of the manuscript history." (Dean Burgon Soc)
Jim Lincoln wrote: John, U.k., it is not a smoke screen, because it is valid reason according to the AV translators that new versions should be adopted, as they themselves adopted a new version of the Bible in the A.V.
Well now, there is both a smokescreen AND another strawman, man.
Let me explain it to you like this, Jim. Other folks will see the reasoning in my post, so if you want to stay in the race you will have to think before you speak/post.
1. I have never said that I am opposed to a new version of the scripture. Therefore I am not a KJV-Onlyist Cultist.
2. I believe that there has NEVER been any new translation of the Bible which has merely updated the archaic language of the KJV.
3. I believe that if the KJV was merely updated in its language, in accordance with what its own translators said, it would be the word of God in modern English, yet it would suffer from the loss of certain language traits found in the 1611 AV.
4. MV's continually smokescreen with the "language" bit; but in reality they want the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to be THE texts, along with spurious mss found in the Sinaiticus like 'The Shepherd of Hermas'. No reply to that, eh?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Anyway, for anyone who have a group of people beating on your door advocating the biblical Nehushtan that is the A.V.
You might wish to then ask them why they do not search the Reformed Protestant Trinitarian Bible Society articles and come up with some sound reasoning instead.
Jim, what was the Bible used after the Geneva went out of use from the 17th century to the 1960's?
Why do you keep refering to Canada saying NO to the KJv as John has pointed out to you that Canada as a country has lost all appearance of Biblical christianity NOW. (See John 3/25/11 4.20 Canadians losing faith as religion faces extinction?)
It is a simple fact that the complaints of archaic language in this magnificent Bible, the King James Version, are but a smokescreen for the real issue behind the modern versions.
Since the new testament, corrupt men have sought to corrupt the true word of God, being inspired by Satan himself who has enslaved them to do his will. Such are born only once, and have no spiritual life or sight, no faith in a God who works miracles, no faith in a redemption "through his blood", no belief in being "justified by faith", and flounder about in this world doing nobody any good whatever. Such were Westcott and Hort, both liberal anglicans, both determined to undermine the evangelical Christianity which was prospering under the King James Version, introducing a clearly corrupted manuscript like the Sinaiticus, which was used in the translation of the Revised Version of 1881. The rest of the RV team were horrified when viewing the end result.
It is most rewarding to research this issue and have faith increased in the preserved word of God as found in the KJV, applying it daily without doubting, and promoting it worldwide to the salvation of countless souls. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
His solution? You can't trust any of it! (what kind of dictionary can you use to fix that?)
[Quoting the resource] What shall we say then? Which text shall we choose as superior? We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text (or its modern kinsmen) nor the textus receptus (or the majority text) as our standard text, our text of last appeal. All these printed texts are compiled or edited texts, formed on the basis of the informed (or not-so-well-informed) opinions of fallible editors.
I have decided Mr. Lincoln that your resources are totally misguided and no longer worth investigating.
You have been blinded by your hatred of God's word. Don't listen to those foolish professors any longer!
Stop and think, should we put effort into changing what God has said to suit our taste, or put effort into understanding what God has said?
You can use a program like theword or e-sword and simply hover or click a strongs number for definitions if you are confused. These are free programs, and I consider a great gift.
If you need to piggyback the work of other men, and continually rely on others so you can link to their work, I suggest you also get to work and do some serious studying so that you can actually put forward something of your own. Mind you, you'll need to get a dictionary or two if you want to be a serious Bible student. Most people know that.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Just to make it simple for you if you need a dictionary to translate the Bible into English, throw away that Bible and get a more modern one, such as the New American Standard Bible
If you need a dictionary to read the KJV then go back to the school you went to and get your money back. Education there did not work.
If you go for a modern version then the heretic Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort is where you are directed. Since together with the Roman Catholic Vaticanus text that is where modern versions get there base Greek text from. Then I can only wish you "good luck" with all this human effort.
As the King James Translators pointed out, in the Preface to the AV,
1 Corinthians 14 9So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for you shall speak into the air. 11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks shall be a barbarian to me. --Amer. KJV
Just to make it simple for you if you need a dictionary to translate the Bible into English, throw away that Bible and get a more modern one, such as the New American Standard Bible.
Jim Lincoln wrote: westcoast reader, I really don't understand your complaint
That is both of us I guess, because what you just wrote didn't make any sense at all. All I see is your hatred of the King James Bible. That is sad.
I haven't finalized my conclusions on this topic, but I can smell garbage from either side and what I read on raputeready from your link, was double speak, and I thus personally disqualified it as reliable (it is unreliable). I am afraid the arguments you bring to this so far, have all been of that same sort.
I wish you or someone would actually have some reliable information I could study. The longer I study this, it appears that it isn't going to happen.
I found it strange that man linked to appears to "speak with forked tongue"
In one place he accurately exposes the attack on the Bible by "higher critics" who don't believe the Bible. (Such as those whom are followed by Westcott and Hort of the CRITICAL TEXT which underlies the modern versions)
["] The first major attack against the Bible began with what is known as "higher criticism." It arose in Germany around the end of the 17th century. The promoter of "higher criticism" insisted that the Bible was a human product, brought about by the church to express what individual men had to say about God.[/"] Can we trust it?
Then in the link you posted he too attacks the KJV with his own "higher still" criticism.
["] Language is always in a constant state of change. A word may mean one thing one year and have an opposite meaning a year later. [/"]
Remember: The Bible is NOT just a common book we can change at will to suit our taste!
It is just as sinful to add words to the Bible that don't belong there as taking away from those that do, King James Onlyism.
2 Timothy 2 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.---NASB
Perhaps both verses should have been given?
Any British version of the Bible, which only had English translators, such as the AV, is inferior to almost any American translation which usually has a multiethnic translation team. By the way, the Strong definition for the word in question,
James Strong wrote: 04704: [Study] 4704 spoudazo spoo-dad'-zo from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:--do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study. see GREEK for 4710
study vb. 1. to apply the mind to the learning or understanding of (a subject), esp. by reading: 'to study languages'; 'to study all night'. 2. (tr.) to investigate or examine, as by observation, research etc.: 'to study the effects of heat on metal'. 3. (tr.) to look at minutely; scrutinise. 4. (tr.) to give much careful or critical thought to. 5. to take a course in (a subject), as at a college. 6. (tr.) to try to memorise: 'to study a part for a play'. 7. (intr.) to meditate or contemplate; reflect. C13: from Old French estudie, from Latin studium (zeal, inclination) from studere (to be diligent).
Now I hope readers will notice that the KJV "study" is a short two syllable word, simple to read and even simpler to understand, and is correct.
The modern versions insist on complicating this, often using three words where one is sufficient. And then they have to use a three syllable word (dilligent), which although is acceptable as a translation, makes it harder for the turnip to understand, and therefore defeats the object. And the MV's are like that all the way through, as any test proves.
But "do your best" from the ESV is not even close to the meaning, and should cause folks to think twice about such a version.