Just in time for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, Lionsgate is set to release a docudrama that portrays the story of one of the most venerated books in history.
“KJB: The Book That Changed the World,” hosted by award-winning actor John Rhys-Davies (The Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade), walks viewers through history, explaining the origin, significance and impact of the King James translation.
“Its imagery, its language and its influence has been felt around the world for the past 400 years, it also claims to be the living Word of God,” Rhys-Davies says....
Jim Lincoln wrote: John of UK ...all English Bibles are imperfect
Well isn't that just dandy! All Bibles have errors, but no-one knows where these errors are, or they'd rectify them and produce a perfect Bible, wouldn't they!
If you've got a Bible with errors, Nebraska Man, you cannot develop any doctrines from it, coz you don't know if your proof texts are correct or corrupted.
As for me and my folks, we'll stick to the inerrant, infallible word of the Living God, as found in the King James Bible.
Thank you.
Thanks also to David Cloud and the Trinitarian Bible Society.
People should again be reminded of the PBS special, which will probably be shown again this year about the KJV, Secrets of the Dead: Battle for the Bible except for the last five or ten minutes, really quite well done. You can read about at the above URL.
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, John, UK, you really need a copy of the NASB...
No, Nebraska Man, I do not really need a Bible which has been translated from the United Bible Societies and Nestle Aland greek texts.
And why do you quote DK in his harangue against KJV-Onlyist cultists, when there are no KJV-Onlyist cultists posting on this thread? Mmmmmm?
Question for Doug.
If all Bibles are different, does that mean that all but one are corrupted, or that all are corrupted? Or does he have a devilishly subtle but useless third possibility? _________________
Rick, thanks for giving your testimony about your own experience with God's word. I found it most edifying, and it gives glory to the Lord for so enabling you by his grace. Praise God and Amen. No doubt that many more could say similarly, including myself.
Jim Lincoln wrote: To understand the AV? Yes, plus the Oxford Dictionary or at least a James Strong's concordance.
If you were refering to my post Jim, I was not using Matthew Henry and the Pulpit commentary in order to understand the King James English. Those commentaries were using King James English. My point was that if a High School drop out with ADD can understand those resources (Particularly the KJV) then anyone can.
To understand the AV? Yes, plus the Oxford Dictionary or at least a James Strong's concordance. Not only is that a problem but there are many others for King James Version (KJV) ONLY??? crowd, e.g.,
Doug Kutilek wrote: I have repeatedly challenged those who claim to have “the final authority” in their hand and mock the very idea of the “original authority” view. My challenge is this: “Which ONE KJV edition is the infallible ONE?” There is no “wiggle room” here. We are told by the KJVO faction that “God wrote only one Bible” and that “things which differ are not the same.” So, tell me straight out: which one KJV edition is the infallible one. It must be only one (if any at all), not two or three, or the KJV editions taken collectively. It must be just one. Until you can with certainty identify it for us, the objections raised against those who appeal to the "originals” as their final authority is entirely discredited.
John UK wrote: Ask anyone who has studied the KJV all their life if they have any problems with it due to language. That minor difficulty is easily overcome by one who loves God and his word, and who believes the Bible they hold in their hand IS the infallible and inerrant word of the Living God. And if the New Testament was still only available to read in greek, I would make the effort to learn greek as fast as I could. And that's one difference between a disciple and an impostor.
Great point. I was saved at 17. I was a High School drop out with ADD and dyslexia. But when I got save I started reading the N.T(later the whole bible)through, and then studying a chapter a day. I used Matthew Henry, and the Pulpit commentary as assistence in studying my KJV.
When someone gets saved they are given spiritual eyes. Even with that, just a little effert was all that I needed to understand the KJ language. Later I started using modern versions but studying verse by verse it became evident there were many missing verses. Here it is 35 yrs later and I still believe the KJV is the surperior English translation
Personally I don't mind a bit of hard graft when it comes to studying scripture. Like using a dictionary or Bible dictionary, or praying for assistance, or fasting. Those who imagine an MV will take all the work out of understanding God's word will no doubt be disappointed with their newest and latest version. Spiritual truths need understanding spiritually, not by effort of intellect, nor by using baby language, but by enlightenment.
Ask anyone who has studied the KJV all their life if they have any problems with it due to language. That minor difficulty is easily overcome by one who loves God and his word, and who believes the Bible they hold in their hand IS the infallible and inerrant word of the Living God. And if the New Testament was still only available to read in greek, I would make the effort to learn greek as fast as I could. And that's one difference between a disciple and an impostor.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I would remind you as I have others, James May: "Instead it teaches that the KJV is the one and only perfect Bible and that all modern translations are corruptions of the Word of God."
Of course it's a strawman from Nebraska Man, but I will see if I can help you.
If all Bibles are different, then either one Bible is the word of God and the others are corrupted, or
Yes indeed
None of them are the word of God, inerrant, infallible and fully trustworthy.
Which one do you hold to Jim?
I've got a funny feeling you believe that we just don't have the word of God, merely a mishmash of texts, some of which are the words of God, some of which aren't.
Man you're one dangerous dude to be around a Bible Believing Website.
How do you react to Steve Lee's mailout which uses the KJV for its Bible verse every week?
James May wrote: There are many Christians who do not understand the very serious nature of the King James Only heresy. They suppose that KJVers prefer the 1611 Bible over all other translations, believe that it is the very best of English versions, and perhaps use the KJV to the exclusion of all other Bibles. Unfortunately the King James Only movement goes far beyond such a moderate belief and practice. Instead it teaches that the KJV is the one and only perfect Bible and that all modern translations are corruptions of the Word of God. Christians who do not exclusively use and defend the KJV as the perfect Word of God are viewed as disobedient and/or ignorant. King James Onlyism teaches that true blue KJVers should separate from their less obedient brethren, or at least diligently seek to win them to “The Truth.” Those who teach these false views frequently display a smug confidence that they alone are the true defenders of the Word of God. More extreme forms teach that people can only be saved through the words of the AV 1611....
When it comes to the modern Bible versions (including the NASB) there are only two streams: corrupted and perverted. All fit into the corrupted stream, but only the loose, paraphrased (i.e. NLT, TLB, The Message) fall into the perverted line. For those of you who love to publicly destroy the KJB do please bear in mind. You also fall into one of two streams: the deceieved stream or the spiritual blind (unsaved) line. Truly it takes one or thy other of the aforementioned streams, to not see the true evidence. I find a very common theme amongst those who love corrupted modern versions...they also love worldliness, contemporary praise rock music, textual criticism, debates, dialogues, all of which go against God's Word. There is one other thing that is quite common amomgst this great group, and that is a misunderstanding, and misapplication of scripture and very commonly twisting of scripture.
I would suggest you open your eyes and see the evidence for youself. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Timothy 4:3-4)
I would suggest that you don't fall into this trap,
James May wrote: King James Only literature is notorious for poor research, unfounded assumptions, dogmatic nonsense, and just plain old foolishness. This lack of factual accuracy is not confined to matters directly related to defending the alleged perfection of the King James Bible, but also extends to side issues as well. Any extensive reading of KJV literature will demonstrate that, as a general rule, such writings are sloppy in regard to grammar, punctuation, spelling, the reproduction of quotations, logic, and the presentation of supposed facts in the defense of the false position. Unfortunately this has not diminished their influence among large groups of conservative Christians. . . .
Jim Lincoln wrote: If your KJV doesn't have the Apocrypha than it isn't an AV!
Jim Don't forget to make sure your Roman Catholic NASB has the Apocrypha in it to authenticate your bible.
"It is more than a little hypocritical of those who promote the modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard etc. to condemn the King James Bible of having at one time placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the two Testaments, when the very texts used as the basis for these modern translations contained the same Apocryphal books MIXED AND MINGLED among the other O.T. Scriptures themselves, and most "evangelical publishers" continue to this day to publish Catholic and Protestant editions that still contain these books." (W.Kinney)
"Even today the same "Evangelical" Publishing Houses who print the NIV, NASB, ESV continue to publish Bible versions that contain the Apocryphal books. Zondervan publishers, who put out the NIV, also publish a combined New American Standard Bible (NASB) - The Message edition that includes the Apocrypha. (W.Kinney)
How come you never mentioned the United Bible Societies in all of your responses. Oh I know, you prefer the little strawmen which you can knock down and feel better.
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: As noted previously, many KJVO writers argue God had the KJV written so that through the translators, He could produce an inerrant English Bible.
But once one realizes how Erasmus, who was a Roman Catholic priest, put together his authoritative Greek text from which the Textus Receptus and the 1611 King James edition came, it is clear that Erasmus’ text is not perfect.
Jim Lincoln wrote: If your KJV doesn't have the Apocrypha than it isn't an AV! The AV has the New Testament Apocrypha still in it
So it isn't an AV but a KJV? Well who cares what you call it, it's still the inerrant, inspired, infallible word of God in English. As opposed to the MV's which have for a greek text the NU text, which, as you know Jim, is the Nestle/Aland and United Bible Societies text. And we all know about the United Bible Societies and their ecumenical and heretical leanings, being liberal an' all, and unbelieving, running alpha courses and hanging out with both anglicans and catholics and orthodox.
Sure, you can hang out with all those folks if you want, it's a free country after all, but as for me and my houseboat, we will remain independent of all those liberals, modernists, unbelievers and filthy lucreists, and stick to the best Bible ever produced in the history of the world.
You know you really should get your facts straight, (I'm going to start leaving off the "?" on this url even if it is in the title, Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?. It sure is. If your KJV doesn't have the Apocrypha than it isn't an AV! The AV has the New Testament Apocrypha still in it, something that King James Onlyism in its way complains about.
Now there is one modern translation that handles the spurious parts in the New Testament the way I would prefer, the NKJV. It marks then off, however many of the other new translations, just remove them for what they are--non-inspired Catholic additions to the New Testament. The KJV mixes these false passages in, just like any good Catholic Bible does it, besides having the Old Testament The Apocrypha.
Jim Lincoln wrote: While Indian Hills Community Church only lists
Ok Jim; Which is it? Does Indian Hills list to port? Or list to starboard?
As for all this jargonese you have just posted - or is it postonese?
You didn't answer the question Does the NASB need the Aporypha to become authentic? You chickened out.
"It is more than a little hypocritical of those who promote the modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard etc. to condemn the King James Bible of having at one time placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the two Testaments, when the very texts used as the basis for these modern translations contained the same Apocryphal books MIXED AND MINGLED among the other O.T. Scriptures themselves, and most "evangelical publishers" continue to this day to publish Catholic and Protestant editions that still contain these books." (W.Kinney)
Mind you Jim Perhaps he has forgotten that your NASB is supported by two Anglican-(R)Catholic Liberal heretics who helped write your book.
Any NASB you buy for IHCC, e.g., NAS Pew Bible will not have the Apocrypha. We have no state church telling us what should be in our Bibles, but we do have sources such as, Comparing Bible Translations. to help us think about what should be in a good Bible . You should read it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The 1769 version had the Apocrypha
Jimmy boyo; Did you know that NASB does Apocrypha too. This means that you too can "authenticate" your NASB with an Apocrypha.
Quote "Even today the same "Evangelical" Publishing Houses who print the NIV, NASB, ESV continue to publish Bible versions that contain the Apocryphal books. Zondervan publishers, who put out the NIV, also publish a combined New American Standard Bible (NASB) - The Message edition that includes the Apocrypha. The New Living Translation (based on the same Westcott-Hort N.T. texts as the NASB, NIV, ESV) from Tyndale Press also contains the Apocryphal books. Zondervan also publishes the New Revised Standard Version, the RSV, and the New American Bible, all three of which contain the Apocrypha. You can even get a Today's English Version Catholic edition 1992 put out by the same American Bible Society, and it contains the whole of the Apocryphal books in its pages." (W.Kinney)
106
There are a total of 125 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Pastor Greg Locke | 6/26/2008
COMMENTS | 
unity and continuity: "
lurker
obviously you have a point to make so why keep us..."
