SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
Charisma House Announces 'Most Modern Version' of KJV
Charisma House has announced plans for an update of the King James Version (KJV) Bible, to be called the Modern English Version (MEV). Described as "the most modern of the KJV," the new version will be released next year.
The MEV is the most modern translation produced of the KJV in 30 years, according to officials for the book group of Charisma Media. The word-for-word translation maintains the beauty of the past, yet provides clarity for a new generation of Bible readers. The MEV also accurately communicates God's Word anew as it capitalizes references of God, "maintaining reverence" for the Scriptures.
"To Bible readers who value biblical truth, the MEV literally translates God's Word in a way that preserves the message, but remains readable for today's world," said Tessie DeVore, executive vice president of Charisma House. "And because of this, we anticipate that the MEV will have broad...
North wrote: The point made is that the JW heretics found that the Westcott and Hort adulterated and debased hybrid version was acceptable to their theology. As for Calvinism, at least we leave God sovereign and omnipotent in our theology, unlike the RC/Arminians et al. ---
JW theology is not like any other. You are still trying to equate them with any who are not of your accepted theological and translational leanings. You really think they looked into Wescott/Hort to come up with the idea that Jesus Christ isn't God, but is "a god"?
Calvinism limits God's sovereignty and power when it says he cannot do something, such as give man free will in time. Doesn't matter what you believe about free will as such, but whether God can give it. Who is it limits his sovereignty by declaring what he cannot do?
Mike wrote: Guilt by association doesn't work. The JWs wrote up their own Bible, designed to accomodate their already existing religion. They are not Arminian, but they are works based. It sounds like your premise is, if you aren't a Calv KJVer, you must be Arminian.
The point made is that the JW heretics found that the Westcott and Hort adulterated and debased hybrid version was acceptable to their theology.
As for Calvinism, at least we leave God sovereign and omnipotent in our theology, unlike the RC/Arminians et al.
And; "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon
"Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible." CHS
Westcott and Hort wrote up their own Bible, designed to accomodate their already existing beliefs/religion. In this world there is only one authorized Bible! and the rests are FAKE Pseudo Bibles.
North wrote: Jehovah's Witnesses are arminians with a works based religion. As for their bible the NT Greek text which the JW's use is based upon the Westcott and Hort religious and theological fallacy. Which modern versions eg nasb/niv also sadly follow.
Guilt by association doesn't work. The JWs wrote up their own Bible, designed to accomodate their already existing religion. They are not Arminian, but they are works based. It sounds like your premise is, if you aren't a Calv KJVer, you must be Arminian.
New translations. Isaiah14:12 calls Satan... Morning star. Revelation22:16 calls Christ bright morning star. Why are they equating Christ and the devil as bright and morning star? Why is Matt.17:21:18:11;23:14 Mark7:16;9:44;9:46;11:26;15:28 Luke23:17 John5:4 Acts8:37;24:7;28:29 taking out of Modern translations? I can keep going one...
Seth wrote: If the JW's actually followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort they would not be JW's. If Westcott and Hort had followed their own Greek text they would not have been damnable sacramentalists.
You seem to have it the wrong way round. Considering Westcott and Hort two Anglican Liberals who supported the idolatry of the Roman Catholic religious unbiblical heresies; not to mention their other weird convictions; - Wrote a Greek text in their version of higher criticism and idolatous heretical hearts.
No Christian should follow that and the Holy Spirit would guide nobody in that direction.
North wrote: Jehovah's Witnesses are arminians with a works based religion. As for their bible the NT Greek text which the JW's use is based upon the Westcott and Hort religious and theological fallacy. Which modern versions eg nasb/niv also sadly follow.
Correct! It is not modern versions per se, but modern versions which use the W & H corrupted text taken on board by the ecumenical United Bible Societies and Kurt Aland/Nestle etc. Recognised by **NU** in your margin.
Mike wrote: I would hate to go up against a Jw NWT with a modern Bible. Because they are so similar. When they ask what Bible I use? I show them my KJV. It's hard for them to prove it wrong. When you use a modern version with scripture taken out, they have a field day. And say the NWT is just a more modern way of explaining, just like the rest of the Modern translations. When you have Verses taking out, you have a situation.
It is a pity that you are so unschooled in the Scriptures, or have so little confidence in them, that you feel that way.
JW's can be refuted with the recent modern bibles just as much as with the early modern period bibles such as the Authorised Version.
I would hate to go up against a Jw NWT with a modern Bible. Because they are so similar. When they ask what Bible I use? I show them my KJV. It's hard for them to prove it wrong. When you use a modern version with scripture taken out, they have a field day. And say the NWT is just a more modern way of explaining, just like the rest of the Modern translations. When you have Verses taking out, you have a situation.
Good examples that you don't have free will bro. James. Did you pick your own name? Did you pick the language or culture you were going to raised in?
Romans 6 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.---NASB
Bro. James wrote: Would you guys be so kind to xplain how it is that we do not have free will?? Seriously. I am not being crude. I want you who have made that statement to please kindly enlighten me sirs.
"Free will" means that we are able to exercise a will in whatever direction we please unhindered by outside influences. But can we deny our nature in the exercise of this will? And if not, is it so free?
Which is why some theologians prefer to distinguish the 2 concepts by stating that we have free agency, but not a free will.
If our will were truly free (including from sin) then we would not need light or grace, or indeed the Holy Spirit to bring us to Christ!
Bro. James wrote: xplain how it is that we do not have free will?
Prior to being born again and thus born of the Spirit, (John 3:6) we are under the dominion of sin. Sin holds power over our will it is therefore not free.
Note, "In which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them" Col 5:7. - What Paul is alluding to here is the sins (see v5,6) we used to walk in before being saved. So he identifies the two phases of life, once under sin, the other under grace.
Grace helps us to overcome sin, whose power remains with us (see Rom 7:14ff), and thus releases us from its bondage, even though it still tempts us and overcomes us sometimes.
After regeneration we are under grace and so is our will.
See also Eph 2:2,3 - in dominion of sin V5 - Under grace.
Bro. James, What he was in essense saying is not that we don't have a "free will" as free moral agents, but that our will prior to regeneration is in bondage to sin. Since we are dead in trespasses and sin according to the Scriptures, our will is a slave to unrighteousness and therefore it is only free to choose in accordance with its nature.
It is not until the new birth where we are given a new nature, made a new creation in Christ, that we truly have a free will able to walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh. God's Grace is what liberates our will from the bondage of sin. It is in that sense that we truly have a free will.
Bro. James wrote: Would you guys be so kind to xplain how it is that we do not have free will?? Seriously. I am not being crude. I want you who have made that statement to please kindly enlighten me sirs.
Certainly James. The doctrine on Free Will is found in the BAPTIST confession. The link will take you straight to it, and it can be read very quickly.
Your question is theological which is best answered by theologicals.
Would you guys be so kind to xplain how it is that we do not have free will?? Seriously. I am not being crude. I want you who have made that statement to please kindly enlighten me sirs.
21
There are a total of 40 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Alan Cairns | 8/17/2009
Brian Edwards | 7/17/2008
COMMENTS | 
