The Education Secretary will this week send commemorative copies of the Bible to schools in England in celebration of 400 years of the King James Version.
No taxpayers’ money will be used for the project, the £370,000 cost is being met by donations from charities and individuals.
Secularists have nevertheless criticised the plan, saying the money could have been better spent on other things.
John, I was a smart 10 year old! But no, and it's parents that are suppose to be guiding children, and for the sake of argument, let's say this verse does apply to children-- Mark 9 42 "And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.---NASB
though no doubt applied to any new believer, not just children. In any event, it is the parents duty to raise up children in the correct way. Hey, but soon to British school near you may also have a Qur'an! Education Secretary Michael Gove Defends Plan To Send Copy Of King James Bible To Every State School. However if are placed in school libraries, as I read on the web, then these copies will be completely ignored by students--whew!--that was a close one!
Jim Lincoln wrote: John you're going to become a Calvinist yet! The Elect will be saved.
According to the Flower Power Fraternity, I have been a Calvinist since 1981. But I make no claim to such an unbiblical title.
When I was 10, I was also presented with a Bible, which was a NEB. I too said, "Ugh" and tossed it aside. But I would never use such a ridiculous argument to downplay that particular Bible. (Are we to bow down to the opinions of 10 year old kids now?)
Any "Bible" can be used of God to bring people to himself. But as you know, I have never denied that. What concerns me is the DIRECTION the MV's are going. It is all part of a greater agenda to gradually change the word of God until future generations will no longer be aware of what was originally there. Without serious research by individual Christians, no-one will know about omissions.
And also, as I've said before, the argument that the KJV is not comprehendable, you should weigh up the modern man's lust for learning the new technology, which is a whole new language, and which he will put time and effort into, in order to be able to bank online and get money out of ATM's. So that line won't wash either.
The KJV will reign supreme, no matter what you say.
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.
John you're going to become a Calivinist yet! The Elect will be saved. May I remind you, however,
1 Corinthians 13 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.---NASB
John U.K., I was given a KJV by my parents at a young age (10 I believe) and of course I just said ugh! and tossed it aside. I still have it a box, somewhere. This is what of course any sensible person of any age will do with KJV. But praise God, at the time he appointed for me to receive him, a good Bible (when compared to the AV) the RSV had come out, all which help me be brought to God! Now, to say even if a highly readable Bible such as the ESV, NASB, NKJV etc. happens to be handy it doesn't say that a person will pick it up and believe it, but it has to be in a language a person understands, which is of course, Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Whose going to explain to the children what they read, atheists and Mainliners?
The answer, if you really want it, was found in the very first verse you quoted, and illustrates what I meant when talking about God's sovereignty. Have a look at it:
Acts 8:26 26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
Now what was Philip doing when the angel of the Lord spoke to him? He was engaged in seeing hundreds, maybe thousands, of converts in Samaritan cities and villages. What a harvest for any preacher! But the Lord is also speaking to someone who has left Jerusalem on his way back to Ethiopia. He is reading a Jewish copy of the prophet Isaiah, in chapter 53, concerning the Messiah and his suffering in the place of sinners. And he cannot quite grasp it. God hath chosen through the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.
Note,
Acts 8:37 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
John, U.K., you didn't respond to my comment at all, so apparently you others think the AV is a talisman? Pity, that's heresy. I see they are also going to foolishly have these Bibles (You know, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today ) in primary schools? Whose going to explain to the children what they read, atheists and Mainliners?
ACT 8:26 ¶ But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road.) ACT 8:27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, ACT 8:28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. ACT 8:29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." ACT 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" .... ACT 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.---NASB
west coast reader wrote: Or Bart Ehrman... (I was blown away when I saw Jim quoting a clear willing Biblical apostate set out with the express purpose to destroy Bible credibility. Jim is getting worse and worse, falling farther and farther. Please repent of your attacks against the Bible Jim. Islam apologist's love to quote Bart Ehrman too when they attack the Bible, do you see your company Jim Lincoln?)
Yep! Worse and worse he gets. He's either a fifth columnist or going into dementia, possibly senility. Either way, he will not debate, nor seek the truth. He has been told many times, and may God have mercy on his soul.
John UK, you may be somewhat surprised that we might have a slight agreement. First a reproduction of the original 1611 AV should have been given to schools. I assume you can any old 1769 AV lb for a pence. Kids won't even be interested in that, now something that is historical, something that haven't seen before, and guess what! they might even look at few verses. If they are of the elect those verses may have meaning to them immediately or years down the road. Why should even those who have a mundane (and no more understandable) 1769 AV covering a blemish on a coffee (or tea ) table already, want to look at one in school?
I would also not be passing out Bibles to schools that didn't have 14 year old kids or older.
1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.---NAS
kenny wrote: But he might if Gil Rugh, Doug Kutilek or John Ankerburger told him to.
Or Bart Ehrman... (I was blown away when I saw Jim quoting a clear willing Biblical apostate set out with the express purpose to destroy Bible credibility. Jim is getting worse and worse, falling farther and farther. Please repent of your attacks against the Bible Jim. Islam apologist's love to quote Bart Ehrman too when they attack the Bible, do you see your company Jim Lincoln?)
I do not believe that you are "just curious". So until you begin to debate the subject in a rational way, and hearken to what is said, even if you don't accept it, I will answer none of your ridiculous questions.
John that is it! You nailed it! He does not want to discuss, debate or entertain the possibility that he is wrong or can be added to. Jim is a Jesuit coadjitant, that only wants to discredit the Erasmus text, namely the KJV. I think the only reason I post about this is for the other people that might be poisoned by Jim. But Jim wouldn't change his mind if Jesus came down and told him to use the KJV...
Jim, you haven't really given much thought to evangelism, nor to the sovereignty of God. You seem to imagine that conversions can be accomplished by taking folks through a few verses in Romans, and getting them to express a belief in THAT.
Howbeit, true conversions occur when God calls his elect, inwardly and outwardly, and it makes not a scrap of difference what version of the scripture is utilised. I hope you can grasp that important point. In many of the gospel texts, there is little difference between Bibles, but I should not want the new convert to begin studying a Bible which contained theological error. It is like drinking juice with just a touch of arsenic in it. Why not give them the very best we have today? Namely, the Authorized (King James) Version. At least that is unchanging, whereas the modern versions are changing all the time, with all their deletions and additions. Even some whole verses have been omitted. Amazing how those omitted verses contain important doctrinal statements, eh?
The war for God's word began in The Garden, and has not ceased ever since. And it will not cease until the second coming of Christ Jesus.
Actually, I can look over the 1611 one in electronic form, but I haven't very much however, the secularists can more effectively use the argument that this is giveaway is a tool of the evangelists in England. If anyone thought about it even they should realize it's a very ineffective tool, though. I would also say that the Ecumenicists won't like it either. The first group I mentioned don't have an argument still because Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations if one is going to use a Bible as an evangelism tool you put it into contemporary English, and the AV isn't, now I really don't care what ecumeniscists think either as you probably don't.
But as a historical tool this gift does fall way short of what its stated purpose is. Now, am I worked up about that, not really, it's a waste of money, but people on the whole should have a right to waste their money, even a lot of it, anyway they choose.
Have you SEEN a 1611 AV? Do you think it would be edifying to anyone to read something in a different text type? And do you think a sinner would spend time reading The Preface? And do you think it would help a sinner to read the apocryphal books?
I can assure you that there are many in the UK who read the 1769 AV, even many children. And they admirably memorise great portions of God's word, which is able to make them wise unto salvation.
So, no, I have already posted what I think of the AV, but as I said, I didn't find out if it was the 1611 one or the 1769 one, as Bibles they're both riddled with errors, so that is nothing new to anyone. So, I'm just curious. So, on the question on which version of the AV was being handed out, I have no ulterior motive, since I consider the AV important as literary and historical document.
Jim Lincoln wrote: So, I'm just curious what are passing out in British schools?
I do not believe that you are "just curious". So until you begin to debate the subject in a rational way, and hearken to what is said, even if you don't accept it, I will answer none of your ridiculous questions.
Notwithstanding, if you peradventure have a change of heart, maybe I will seek to help you out of the deceptive quagmire into which you've esconsed yourself.
John UK, I still didn't get an answer if the 1611 or 1769 AV was given out in schools. To be historically accurate, these AV's of either year should have had, the Preface, the marginal notes, and The Apocrypha included. Now, the Secularists, could have a minor argument this was a stealth prothelizing program, if these Bibles didn't include the above three items. However, by now you and others should have realized that I --and no doubt the majority of Christians-- would not consider this any sort of spreading the Word of God, because it's in an antiquated language, which children will ignore or laugh at. So, I'm just curious what are passing out in British schools?
What NASB versions do I use, well on SA, usually it's just simpler for me to use the 1977 one, The 1995 that I use in church, e.g., changed the prayers, which have the antiquated "Thee's and Thou's" in them, the later version changed all of these into correct English, q.v., and Why the NASB?.
The RSV, by the way, has many less serious errors than the AV! O.James, you mean the AV added to the Bible.
As for the NKJV the following omissions make it unacceptable: omits " Lord 66 times, God 51 times, Heaven 50 times, Repent 44 times, blood 23 times, he'll 22 times, all these extremely archaic Elizabethan words are omitted. Also the NKJV ignores the Textus 1,200 times siding with Alexandrian and replaces the Masoretic OT with the corrupt Greek Septuagint.
Codex sinaiticus 1 of the 2 documents upon which all modern text are based: MISSING – Gen all but Chap 23-24, Exodus, Leviticus, Num except chap 5,6,7, O.T.: Deut., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles (except 9:27-19:17), 2 Chronicles, 1&2 Kings, Ezra 1-9:8, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations 2:21- 5, Ezeliel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai. (way more missing than actually present) However while they could not maintain the Cannon books of the OT they maintained many Appocraphal : Tobias, Judith, Abdias, Sophonias, Aggeus, 1 & 4 Machabees, Esdras, 1 Paralipomenon N.T. is complete (allegedly) including apocryphal and Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of
Codex vaticanus the most important (so they claim) of all manuscripts 1 of 2 text used not much better : MISSING - Gen 1-46:28 , 2 Sam 2:5-7, 10-13, Ps 27-137:6 , Heb 9:14-13:25 , 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus , Revelation, Philemon, Colossians
Not only do these text have HUGE omissions and additions, but they do not even agree with each other on any 2 consecutive verses. This is why Vaticanus was rejected by Erasmus when it was offered to him. Just as he rejected the bribe of a cardinal to stop his work. Keep propping up these terrible text, Jesuits. God wil
29
There are a total of 48 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Alan Cairns | 3/16/2009
Pastor Greg Locke | 6/26/2008
COMMENTS | 
But no, and it's parents that are suppose to be guiding children, and for the sake of argument, let's say this verse does apply to children--
However if are placed in school libraries, as I read on the web, then these copies will be completely ignored by students--whew!--that was a close one! 
stever: "
therighthandoffellowship
'the secret handshake crowd' :confused:
..."
