Dawkins hopes free Bibles will turn kids off Scriptures
Richard Dawkins is backing a scheme to send a commemorative copy of the King James Bible to every state school, but only because he thinks it will turn kids off the Scriptures.
Last week Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, began sending commemorative copies of the Bibles to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the King James Version.
Professor Dawkins says that the initiative is justified because of the historic text’s impact on the English language.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ...but the KJV comes with heresy and error attached!
Incorrect. You should not speak of an inerrant Bible in such terms.
Besides which, you yourself claim that no-one knows where are the errors in any particular Bible, or there would be a perfect Bible produced without errors.
But then, the King James Bible is inerrant; it is God's word; it is truth; and the devil HATES it. Do YOU hate it Jim?
Yes, John, I've never told anyone they absolutely can't use the AV, though of course they shouldn't. The AV translators though any Bible in which the translators made an honest serious stab at translation was a Bible, q.v., The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only position.
Jim Lincoln wrote: it is utter nonsense and heresy to say the KJV is divinely inspired!
Even if the KJV was accurately translated from the divinely inspired originals? You would then have truth communicated in greek which was divinely inspired, and the same truth communicated in english which was not divinely inspired.
Jim Lincoln wrote: it is utter nonsense and heresy to say the KJV is divinely inspired!
How many times have we got to tell you Jim.
The problem is that modern versions come with heresy and inaccuracy attached.
The Anglican Liberal Roman Catholic sympathising Westcott and Hort Greek text which is used by the modern version club - is erroneous and doctrinally deficient.
God used the KJV/TR for centuries!!!
The Holy Spirit would not go into competition with the KJV Word of God by using these two heretics to rewrite the Greek and the Bible. Therefore that proof is sufficient to see that modern versions do not compare with the KJV/TR in accuracy.
The REAL Bible is the KJV as ordained by God to become the common language Word of God for the people after the Reformation, because of the changes which happened from then to the Church and its people.
Jim Lincoln wrote: None of those are divinely inspired John, UK, including the AV
Face up to it Jim, you just do not have the ability to receive the Biblical truth about verbal/plenary inspiration. And that is doubting God Himself!! If you could then you wouldn't use the NASB.
Since modern versions are proven to be in use of the higher criticism works of a couple of Anglican Liberal heretics, - that fact of itself proves the authenticity of the Bible which God has used for centuries, namely the KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God.
Get yourself and use the real Bible KJB, Jim, before its too late for an oldie like you.
As I pointed out in another thread, For those who want to compare the some versions of the Bible I would suggest that you get a copy of Comparative Study Bible if for no other reason since it contains the KJV, NAS, NIV, and the Amplified. It will help you over some of the rough spots you may have with the KJV or the others. Yes, this is what sold at IHCC, you may very well buy it at Amazon and read the description there. I've been assured that the NIV in this printing isn't the TNIV with the book sold at IHCC.
Jim Lincoln wrote: who thinks the AV was verbally inspired
"Referring to the infallible authority of the Old Testament, He (Christ) said, "The Scriptures cannot be broken." The apostles believed the Scriptures to be an Infallible standard of truth. John said, "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, 'A bone of Him shall not be broken.' And again, another Scripture saith, 'They shall look on Him whom they have pierced.' " Paul said, "The holy Scriptures" alone are "able to make. . . wise unto salvation." The Old Testament writers themselves claimed to be inspired of God. "David the son of Jesse said. . . 'the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was in my tongue' " (II Sam. 23:1ff). They unfailingly used such language as, "Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you"The Infalibility of Holy Scripture
But sadly Christ, the Apostles and the OT saints did not have the great wisdom of Jim Lincoln!!
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, I accept that anyone who thinks the AV was verbally inspired is practicing a heresy.
You found THAT in the article? Where?
You WILL find: "In II Timothy 3:16 you have, Paso graphe theopneustos, which is paraphrased by our King James Version as, "All Scripture (here you have the principle, tota scriptura) is given by inspiration of God." Although this is not, strictly, a translation, at least there is nothing misleading about the King James Version, as there is in the case of the American Standard Version's rendering of this text, where you have, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable." That version of it is not only misleading but suspect -- really more a perversion. For it implies there is uninspired and therefore unprofitable scripture."
KJV-Only website wrote: The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?
Most KJV-only supporters say the KJV translators were inspired, otherwise they too were prone to human error. Most KJV-onlies also have very strong opinions about other translations of the scriptures both prior to and after the KJV was produced. However, it seems the KJV translators themselves would disagree with KJV-onlyists and the entire KJV-only position.
"The Translators To The Reader" is the preface of the original KJV published in 1611. In it I find some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism around. What makes these arguments even stronger is that they came from the KJV translators themselves.
As you read these quotes, ask yourself: Are these things that men under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit would say about a divinely inspired word-for-word inerrent Bible?
one Book wrote: The reason why Jim accepts any old "interpretation" of Bible is because he cannot receive the 'Verbal inspiration of Scripture'. Quote; "Verbal inspiration of Scripture is only a theory and not a matter of great importance for the Christian faith." This statement was not made by Karl Barth, Martin Luther King, James A. Pike, or some similar freethinker enemy of Scripture. It was uttered by none other than Billy Graham, ostensible champion of the cause of orthodox, evangelical Christianity. Modernists, like the above, agree with this statement, and tell us that there is much in the Bible that is unacceptable historically, so that it must, therefore, be interpreted mythologically in order to distill any relevant meaning from it. It is nothing for these same modernists to have the courage to tell us that the question of the inspiration of Scripture is of no importance. This has always been the liberalistic or modernistic view of the Bible. Now neither the neo-evangelical nor the modern liberal, in going along with such a statement, wants to be understood as denying the inspiration of Scripture....." BUT.....
Jim Lincoln wrote: of course I'll use any good Bible, the ESV, Darby, WEB, NKJV
The reason why Jim accepts any old "interpretation" of Bible is because he cannot receive the 'Verbal inspiration of Scripture'.
Quote; "Verbal inspiration of Scripture is only a theory and not a matter of great importance for the Christian faith." This statement was not made by Karl Barth, Martin Luther King, James A. Pike, or some similar freethinker enemy of Scripture. It was uttered by none other than Billy Graham, ostensible champion of the cause of orthodox, evangelical Christianity. Modernists, like the above, agree with this statement, and tell us that there is much in the Bible that is unacceptable historically, so that it must, therefore, be interpreted mythologically in order to distill any relevant meaning from it. It is nothing for these same modernists to have the courage to tell us that the question of the inspiration of Scripture is of no importance. This has always been the liberalistic or modernistic view of the Bible. Now neither the neo-evangelical nor the modern liberal, in going along with such a statement, wants to be understood as denying the inspiration of Scripture....." BUT.....
James, that won't happen, they plan to put in school libraries, Education Secretary Michael Gove Defends Plan To Send Copy Of King James Bible To Every State School. If you remember H.S., you know their libraries are for show, and our not used by students. When I was a student perhaps a Jr. or Sr., I pulled out a copy of "Das Kapital" probably having a ponderous style just like the AV, and found it a rather boring read But! when I was going to peruse it in another study break it was gone! I don't think I would have picked up any Socialist bent from reading it, as no kid would pick up Christianity from reading the AV. However, if any Qur'ans show up on the shelves as well they might in Britain, let's hope they will disappear also, as something unwholesome for kiddies to read.
All the AV's should have had at least a Strong's Concordance placed in back of those Bibles given to British Schools.
Well I dont see how this is going to be passed but I would like to see it most of the kids in the schools today have never been in a church let alone seen a bible. This could turn out for the good but alos for the bad with all the different false religions running around they could be like oh its only fair that we put one of our books in the schools if the Bible is going to be in there. They will prolly say something along the lines of it wouldnt be fair or in the intrest of fairness. Satan has some sly ways with words dont he.
Jim You keep quoting that same piece. Truth about KJV only...neo natzi...yea that's what natzis do push the KJV. Do you hear yourself? Do you read your own posts? I know you don't read ours...silly Jesuit tricks are for kids
Dr. Alan Cairns | 3/16/2009
COMMENTS 
locked 
The AV translators though any Bible in which the translators made an honest serious stab at translation was a Bible, q.v., 
By the way, for those curious, the RV was the last Authorized version of the Bible as far as Anglicans are concerned. They made a very good stab at it! 
udumdum: ""
