Today, Biblical Missiology released a report that said Assemblies of God USA and Presbyterian Church of America study committees have released reports that will be used by their denominations to review the issue.
The Assemblies of God document said: ‚ÄúOur fellowship is unrelentingly committed to the authority and infallibility of Scripture. While we appreciate the challenges missionaries and translators face in intercultural communication, we will neither compromise nor dilute God‚Äôs eternal truth, nor change its intended plain meaning. We, therefore, urge all believers to reject these and any other Scripture translations, whether for Muslim or non-Muslim audiences, for both public and personal use, that do not literally translate Father and Son terminology.‚ÄĚ
The PCA team recommends: ‚ÄúBible translations geared for Islamic contexts should not be driven by concerns that Muslims may recoil from...
Appology about pointing out errors or that the KJV isn't inerrant? Even the translators of the AV would call people who think that "peculiar" and they would be using the modern definition of that word, not Elizabethan! See, 1611 marginal notes devastating!!!. John U.K., I use not to care if a person used this bad version of the Bible, some well-known pastors past and present like, but definitely know that it isn't inerrant still pick it up. Some people think that at least some AV lovers try to reason about it, (See intro to, The Truth About KJV Only: The...Agendas ) But, the majority of conservative Christians condemns the spouting of nonsense about it, or other good Bible versions, get a copy of Comparative Study Bible which has the AV in it, but three good Bible versions too.
Where he looks at Textual Errors, Translation Errors, and Transmission Errors which will bring Dr. Combs to his conclusion:
Dr. Combs wrote: It must be admitted that the identified errors discussed so far are rather minor in terms of the overall message of Scripture. And although they do not exhaust the list of errors in the KJV, still, the total number is relatively small and not of major significance. No Christian need be concerned about identifying them in order to live the Christian life. My only reason for pointing out these particular errors in the KJV is not to disparage it above other translations, but to disprove this new heresy of a perfect, inerrant translation, a heresy that has now invaded fundamental circles....
westcoast reader wrote: Yes more accurate information John UK! The JW's hate the KJV and quickly quote the "errors". They also esteem the Emphatic Diaglott by JJ Griesbach one of the Textual Critics that inspired W&H. The ONLY reason the Mormons use the KJV is because after Joseph Smith tried and failed to correct the "errors", they totally abandoned the extremely faulty "Joseph Smith Translation" (JST). Mormons rarely read the Holy Bible, excusing it as unreliable with the phrase "as far as it is translated correctly". Articles of Faith #8 Conveniently dismissing anything that doesn't support Mormon doctrine, so that the Book of Mormon or the D&C or Pearl of Great Price or any Prophet of the church especially the current one, all have greater weight than the Holy Bible. Hmm... as far as it is translated correctly... hmmm... Sounds precisely and exactly like the Textual Critics! (modern version editors)
Thanks for the info, wcr.
And thanks for your interesting testimony earlier.
John UK wrote: Incorrect. The JW's have an article claiming 50,000 errors in the KJV, remedied in their own NWT.
Yes more accurate information John UK! The JW's hate the KJV and quickly quote the "errors". They also esteem the Emphatic Diaglott by JJ Griesbach one of the Textual Critics that inspired W&H.
The ONLY reason the Mormons use the KJV is because after Joseph Smith tried and failed to correct the "errors", they totally abandoned the extremely faulty "Joseph Smith Translation" (JST).
Mormons rarely read the Holy Bible, excusing it as unreliable with the phrase "as far as it is translated correctly". Articles of Faith #8 Conveniently dismissing anything that doesn't support Mormon doctrine, so that the Book of Mormon or the D&C or Pearl of Great Price or any Prophet of the church especially the current one, all have greater weight than the Holy Bible.
Hmm... as far as it is translated correctly... hmmm... Sounds precisely and exactly like the Textual Critics! (modern version editors)
Actually John UK, the KJV is suppose to be the JW's second favorite Bible (and of course it has the Mormon's stamp of approval.)
J.J. Prasch wrote: After the textual corruption of its own New World Translation, the Jehovah‚Äôs Witnesses prefer the KJV because like the the KJV reduces the Holy Spirit from a person to an ‚Äėit‚Äô, (the KJV translators on this point failed to grasp that gender in Greek does not mean what gender does in English) which the JW cult pint to when they are door knocking to persuade people to reject the Trinity.
John U.K., it does sound that you do need, "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 etc
Jim Lincoln wrote: ...who are similar to Jehovah Witnesses...
A friend and I were witnessing to two JW's yesterday at a craft fair in an hotel. They were not prepared to listen to any argument from the KJV concerning the deity of Christ, but were happy to debate from their NWT or from the New International Version.
That says rather a lot.
Indeed, I have met many JW's who are now using the NIV on a regular basis.
I am telling you that I followed all this garbage you presented, with and open and searching mind, wanting to know the truth. You should try the same... If you do, if you even attempt to study instead of just quote stuff you don't even read... you... might... see through these lies.
You've been answered on every point, many times and yet you continue as if it makes no difference. Railing against God and the KJV without hesitation.
Here is a good article by someone who was on the NKJV committee who turned away and embraced the KJV.
I actually have you to thank for turning me farther away from the modern versions Jim Lincoln. I used to follow your every link and listen to all the sermons and read every article you posted. It was in doing this and studying more that I began to see how far astray your material goes.
The date I quit listening to you and following your stuff was 3/26/ll (post #64 where I answered this topic then) at 5:36PM You were quoting this same kind of tripe. The conclusion of the Apostate Demon -Douglas Kutilek- in your article ... You can't trust any of it!
The KJV having nonsense in it such as Unicorns, bad language, etc. mocks God's W ord. However, for personal use it doesn't hurt too much except for downgrading the Holy Spirit, e.g.,
Doug Kutilek wrote: And I could write at length of the KJV's fourfold reference to the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, as "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11), which in my opinion comes little short, if indeed it comes short at all, of blasphemy. Baptist theologian Emery Bancroft ascribed this horrid translation to Socinian influence among the KJV translators (see Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8). The Socinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit was roughly the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation--alone of modern Bible versions--also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it.". . . .
Morphologist wrote: God did not change in the past, does not change now, and will not change in the future.
I read his point as intended. The KJV words are not subject to change in the same way the modern versions are.
However, God does not live in the past, nor the future, nor the here and now. God is eternal and exists fully outside of "time". A change in the future happened in the past before and after now. Not really "logic" we can grasp.
Faith. And having a Bible which reflects that idea is faith building, not doubt building. Can you honestly say that shifting words in the modern versions doesn't cause a little tiny bit of doubt? It does for me.
How does continually changing words in the modern versions of the Bible reflect God's immutability? [state cannot be modified after it is created]
BTW God was never created and always exists.
Thomas... James White's answer to Bart Ehrman... "We don't have to know which word to use, they are all there someplace." (paraphrase) misquoting Jesus debate.
one Book wrote: I did not say there were "REVISIONS" Please do not lie to make your point. There were *ZERO* - *NO* - revisions of the KJV from 1611 till today. The majority of modern versions have used the Westcott and Hort - Nestle-Aland Greek text. W&H are the Anglican Liberal heretics to which I refer below.
Perhaps I'm confused. I thought you wrote:
one Book wrote: There have been some minor word and grammar amendments to the King James Version since 1611...
This is what I was referring to so I apologize if that wasn't clear. So I'll ask again, If the English text read one way in 1611 and then "minor word and grammar amendments" occurred after 1611 then why couldn't the Lord who "inspired" the 1611 text cause those same words to not require amending. Could we expect more grammar ammendments?
one Book wrote: I would "exclude" modern versions with the W&H text, because the Holy Spirit would not use the heretical input of popish sympathising, Scripture rejecting Liberals to "compete" with the existing published Word of God, namely the KJV.
Would you exclude then contributions made by Erasmus who, as I recall never left the Catholic church, and whose friend was Pope Leo X?
thomas wrote: Agreed and I completely respect your conviction. I'm glad to know that you "read and study." My apologies for misunderstanding what I thought your line of reasoning was.
No need for an apology, Thomas. It is Mr Lincoln who needs to apologise for portraying all supporters of the KJV as demented cultists. He well knows where I stand, yet still persists in his subtle insinuations.
Regarding your earlier comment about visible good fruit in a genuine Christian, yea and amen brother! By the fruit ye shall know them. A consistent acerbic tone is a sure sign of a cold heart, maybe even a heart untouched by grace, born once only, and incapable of loving in a spiritual way. But when agape love is evidenced, this is a good indicator of a regenerate person.
Sorry for the back-to-back posts. I didn't want this left unsaid.
John UK wrote: There is a world of difference between someone who reads and studies only the KJV, because he believes it is the most accurate translation we have in print today, and those who have developed some bizarre and illogical doctrines about the AV1611, who are known generally as KJV-Onlyists.
Agreed and I completely respect your conviction. I'm glad to know that you "read and study." My apologies for misunderstanding what I thought your line of reasoning was.
Jim Lincoln wrote: many who support King James Onlyism mean just that, not all of course, but I don't see how you can't run into those here on SA who are closed minded as any cultist, and these cultists love to quote those writers that James White speaks of,
I'm a long time reader but infrequent poster in SA.
I'm also familiar with the cultist mind having been in a cult-like church for years. The Lord graciously brought my wife and I out and opened our eyes to the truth of His word. It is remarkable how tenaciously the cult influenced mind holds on to certain ideas in order to validate and protect itself.
To your point regarding writers that James White has quoted: another thing that baffles me is how one can keep putting their trust in those who have been fully exposed (in print) as misrepresenting (inadvertently at best and deliberately at worst) others to build their case. And then how caustic some of these people can be. Even the KJV can not be misunderstood on what John fully communicated in his epistles regarding love for the brethren. Yes, even after being immersed in a cult-like church for so many years, this really baffles me.
(I attend a fundamental Baptist church that uses KJV and is reasonable regarding modern versions) :-)
thomas wrote: Hello John, Could there then be additional corrections to spelling, or corrections to printing errors? If so, then how long can that go on? I'm certainly not trying to disparage the KJV; KJV onlyism is what baffles me. If you can concede something like printing issues then was the Lord somehow incapable of preventing such things but actually capable of ending up with a completely flawless product eventually? That seems absurd to me.
Thomas, I can tell by your questions that you have come across the cult known as KJV-Onlyism. Some of the answers to your questions then, must come from a member of this cult.
There is a world of difference between someone who reads and studies only the KJV, because he believes it is the most accurate translation we have in print today, and those who have developed some bizarre and illogical doctrines about the AV1611, who are known generally as KJV-Onlyists.
Regarding your first question: if you have in the KJV a word like "shewed", which is "showed" in the modern spelling, you could say, "Let's modernise the spelling of the 1769 KJV," and thus make a Bible for 21st century man based firmly on the KJV.