Bob Sanford wanted to create a Bible that would bring order and clarity to the text. Instead, he's waded right into one of the great debates of biblical scholarship.
The Chronological Study Bible will be released this fall in the midst of a Bible-publishing boom in the United States. In an industry that now as much to do with profits as with prophets, Sanford expects his new edition to have wide appeal.
"(Our challenge) is to take the scholarship and make it enjoyable to a readership that enjoys history," said Sanford, who oversees the Bible division for the giant Christian publisher, Thomas Nelson....
preacherjond wrote: ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS(THAT BEING ALL THAT CAME AFTER THE KJV)ARE NOT THE INFALLIBLE, INERRANT, DIVINELY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD ...
They are COUNTERFEITS ...
each one also is mingled with ERROR ...
they are becoming more and more ERROR FILLED ...
you have outright BLASPHEMOUS books like "THE MESSAGE".
The devil is up to his same old tricks ... he keeps injecting more and more POISON ... he's sure doing a very good job of it.
ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS ... COUNTERFEITS ERROR ... ERROR-FILLED ... BLASPHEMOUS ... devil injecting POISON.
Okay, you've stated your case quite clearly -- you've made your charges. Now ... so I can get on with burning ALL my other versions of the Bible except the KJV, please give me the doctrinal ERROR(s) which so fill them. Show the outright BLASPHEMY contained therein. I don't want innuendo, specious inference, or merely variances in translation. I WANT MEAT! I want a verse (or passage) out of one of the modern translations [not a paraphrase] that is so obviously and so seriously WRONG concerning an essential, fundamental Christian doctrine that, if believed, would lead me to damnation.
Provide me some proof other than your typical KJVO bombast, and I, too, will become a KJV-Onlyite!
Churches and scholars today do not agree on one English Translation of the Bible but they all seem to have persuaded christians to turn away from the KJV-so they have achieved at least one unity in agreement-to cause the English speaking peoples to reject the most excellent version that was the ONE translation blessed of God for hundreds of years.
I would suggest that some of us could profit by studying the literature of the Trinitarian Bible Society which is Reformed in doctrine and ask why godly and greatly used UK preachers still hold to the authorised version. Are they as illiterate KJ onlys as some here seem to suggest or have they too studied the matters of translation etc in great depth. A few seem to enjoy what is no more than attacking the KJV and all who use it.
Why for example does the minister of Spurgeon's old church Metropolitan Tabernacle (and remember he is possibly the best writer on neo-evangelicalism and its errors that we have in the UK) defend the av?
I don't think the Trinitarian Bible Society is divisive neither is Peter Masters in their position of defending the authorised version but I wonder who is instigating division-the scripture says Satan is the master of such.
preacherjond. wrote: Let me preach it loud and clear, ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS(THAT BEING ALL THAT CAME AFTER THE KJV)ARE NOT THE INFALLIBLE, INERRANT, DIVINELY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD.
The Word of God. (KJV)
Rev 19:11-13 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called .....
..... The Word of God.
. . .
If you are going to swear by the KJV and condemn all others thereafter then why don't you regard its terminology? Who sits atop the white horse?
DJC49 wrote: "one of HIS false bibles" (?) Are you asserting that anything other than the KJV is a "false bible" belonging to Satan? You better be absolutely 100% certain that the NKJV or the NASB I hold in my hand is a "false bible," because if it's not, then you are ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil ... and that's the unpardonable sin, preacher!
Let me preach it loud and clear, ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS(THAT BEING ALL THAT CAME AFTER THE KJV)ARE NOT THE INFALLIBLE, INERRANT, DIVINELY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD. They are counterfeits that claim to be. Each one contains truth, but each one also is mingled with error, and they are becoming more and more error filled and you have outright blasphemous books like "THE MESSAGE". Each of these versions claims to be the infallible Word of God but is far from it.
The devil is up to his same old tricks that he used to deceive Adam and Eve in the garden--he is mixing lies and falsehood in with the truth. He started ever so subtily getting people away from the true Word of God, and as time goes on he keeps injecting more and more poison, and the professing church gets closer and closer to being fully innoculated. And he's sure doing a very good job of it.
Why do so many put the KJ Bible and Shakespeare together? That would be the same as a modern rapper and a bible preacher in the same light.
One he was "catholic", by family anyway Much of what he wrote was as ungodly as it gets for the time. He was known to use much slang or vulgar innuendo. If he used a bible (doubtful) it would have been a catholic version from the 1500s He died only 4 years after the 1611 KJ first came out... and Catholics rejected it .... Most of the argument on here fit in
James 3:16-18 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. Titus 3: 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
from link below- the Bible, our Authorised Bible is the "GOLD STANDARD" for EVERYTHING in the Christian life! 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." As I have told my people â The Bible tells us whatâs right, whatâs not right, how to get right and how to stay right.
Since THE BIBLE IS SO IMPORTANT, it should come as no surprise that the true Words of God as found in our King James Bible, are under attack by our adversary the Devil, who has transformed himself into an angel of light and his ministers into ministers of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
there are two VERY DIFFERENT Greek text streams. I have in my possession a book by Dr. Jack Moorman of London, England that lists the 8,000 Differences between the New Testament Greek words of the Textus Receptus underlying the King James New Testament and the Nestles-Aland 26, 27 Greek New Testament underlying the Modern Versions. I tell you that to say this: The first front in the battle over Bible versions has to do with what manuscript stream is used for translation. Things that ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT the same!
No, Engineer, I don't think the TNIV is a good version at all, e.g., "...Today's New International Version (TNIV), which makes slight improvements on the NIV's already excellent textual decisions but goes gender neutral, adopts some questionable egalitarian readings, and is startlingly inattentive to verb forms, in which category it ties for last with the Message."Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions.
No, Daniel, what is devilish is putting the KJV in the same position as the Roman Catholic Church, as an authority that can't be questioned, and that type idea was questioned by the translators of the KJV, as this article pointed out this idea is heretical, The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only Position. You can prefer it, you can use it (as many errors that it has) and you won't be led astray in theology matters, anyway. However, saying it is to be preferred over, the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew texts, is just wrong.
Too bad, the marginal/footnotes of the KJV wasn't left in and also the Preface, and yes perhaps even the Apocrypha, just so the idea of KJV only would never have falsely have started up!
Daniel Lee Ford wrote: "probably +95% of the original bibles"(?) Are you asserting that 5 percent of ANY bible is a "false bible" belonging to Satan? You better be absolutely 100% certain that the Authorised Bible I hold in my hand is a "5% false bible," because if it's not, then you are ascribing the work of the Holy Ghost to the devil .. and that's the unpardonable sin, preacher! You might want to be a little more circumspect about your pontifications. But we all understand, we understand .. You scholarship-ONLY fuzzy logicians just LOVE to loosely throw around "devil talk" when it comes to "one principal good" English translation. It's in the NG Instructional Manual & Marching Orders Handbook silly 'blasphemous' debate tactic So now we see you're a parrot of NG, and after you claim your position is "debateable" you try to intimidate preacherjond when he debates! Early Corruption documented BTW Reconcile John 1:18 NKJV's "begotten Son" as the same as the NASB "begotten God"? or 1 Sam. 13:1ESV???
Yours is not a very original post, now is it? Try again. BTW, that "Early Corruption documented" link is a farce! Ha!
8/25/08 8:46 PM DJC49 wrote: "We have probably +95% of the original in our Bible versions. The rest is debatable "
"probably +95% of the original bibles" (?) Are you asserting that 5 percent of ANY bible is a "false bible" belonging to Satan?
You better be absolutely 100% certain that the Authorised Bible I hold in my hand is a "5% false bible," because if it's not, then you are ascribing the work of the Holy Ghost to the devil ... and that's the unpardonable sin, preacher!
You might want to be a little more circumspect about your pontifications.
But we all understand, we understand ... You scholarship-ONLY fuzzy logicians just LOVE to loosely throw around "devil talk" when it comes to "one principal good" English translation.
So now we see you're a parrot of NG, and after you claim your position is "debateable" you try to intimidate preacherjond when he debates! Early Corruption documented BTW Reconcile John 1:18 NKJV's "begotten Son" as the same as the NASB "begotten God"? or 1 Sam. 13:1ESV???
preacherjond. wrote: rogerant, and MurrayA, DJC49 ... You think the devil would want everyone to know this passage is about him? Looks like he has fooled you into thinking that its not WITH ONE OF HIS FALSE BIBLES [emphasis added]
"one of HIS false bibles" (?)
Are you asserting that anything other than the KJV is a "false bible" belonging to Satan?
You better be absolutely 100% certain that the NKJV or the NASB I hold in my hand is a "false bible," because if it's not, then you are ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil ... and that's the unpardonable sin, preacher!
You might want to be a little more circumspect about your pontifications.
But I understand, I understand ... You KJV-ONLY boys just LOVE to loosely throwing around "devil talk" when it comes to other translations of Scripture. It's in the KJVO Instructional Manual & Marching Orders Handbook.
rogerant, and MurrayA, DC49, nobody said anything about baptism being a requirement for salvation. I was referring to the fact that one must be a true born again believer as a requirement before they are baptised, the same as they are to be a true born again believer to receive the Lord's supper. If this verse is left out, you have an open door for all sorts of unbiblical baptism doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, the baptizing of infants, and such.
And the passage in Isaiah shifts its subject and begins to speak about the power behind the seat of the king of Babylon. The descriptions that are given and the language used makes it impossible to fit the king of Babylon. Without this passage and the one in Ezekiel 28 you have no background information about our adversary who was an angel of God and now wants to decieve us- and is doing a very good job on you.
You think the devil would want everyone to know this passage is about him? Looks like he has fooled you into thinking that its not with one of his false bibles
And the "Johaninne comma"... thats a real scholarly name huh? The fact is that there IS manuscript evidence for the verse, so it does belong in the Word of God, and it only proves all the more that the line of divine preservation is distinct.
Why Waite says KJV is the valid Bible 'for English speakers'
the NIV is now Outdated- the SAME 'scholars' who gave it want you to accept the TNIV- do you think the TNIV is a good translation?
TNIV - The Controversy "In my assessment, the translators have battled to a draw. That leaves the individual, like any Police officer called on a domestic disturbance, to come in and with objectivity and impartiality, make judgments, and break it up. ... I have read the King James Version almost my whole life. I have found the others are "weak," attenuated, and with the massive amount of research I have coming in of Bible translations these past few months ... I'm beginning to see why. With the decline of the deterrence and influence of Christianity and the Church in American popular culture these past thirty years, there are few who can recognize the correlation." - The Author, in private correspondence to a TNIV proponent.
Really makes about as much sense as taking a bottle of white-out to the Declaration of Independence because it says 'all men are created equal.' We don't alter historical documents â DON'T alter the word of God.
DJC49, there's even be a very good effort to update ASV! "If you prefer the King James Version of the Holy Bible, then, by all means, read it and do what it teaches. I think that the KJV was a wonderful Contemporary English translation of the Holy Bible when it came out....Unfortunately, the evolution of the English language continually erodes its value as time goes on. It is now outsold by the excellent New International Version, for many good reasons. "I guess that there are a few people that seem to believe that the KJV is more accurate than the original Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Bible, and that all the other versions are tainted with heresy and conspiracy. I've read some of their literature. I found it to be some of the most non-Christian and illogical literature that I have endured, thus further proving the claim that the KJV is the only valid Bible to be wrong, at least in my mind. I guess I've now put myself on record as being a heretic in their eyes, but I must follow God, rather than men." ---editor of the W.E.Bible, and one should always look at Dr Wallace's comments, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today
rogerant wrote: Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? 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. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip *, that the eunuch saw * him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
If we were meant to read the book of Acts as a didactic, we would have to conclude the following from Acts 8:35-39.
The means of salvation would require that we climbed down out of a chariot to be baptized, and evidence of our salvation would be that our baptizer would be caught up by the Spririt. Was the person that baptized you caught up by the Spirit into heaven?
preacherjond. wrote: Do you think he would leave out the only verse in Scripture that specifically names the trinity? Do you think He would leave out a verse that specifically gives a requirement for biblical baptism?
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? 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. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip *, that the eunuch saw * him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
The book of Acts is not to be read as a didactic or intended for instruction. It is not a "how to" instruction book for dummies on how to do baptism. It is the historical account of the early church.
The "how to" book for dummies on how to baptise would be written like Leviticus.
God does not give us a "how to" on baptism. Why, because man would turn it into a means or work "for" salvation.
These show an extremely strong support for the Authorised Bible.
Why Battle Over Bible Versions? The Bible is the foundation of literally everything in New Testament Christianity! Therefore it is imperative that you have an uncorrupted Bible. If something does not have a biblical base it should be rejected....
The Devil called "the morning star". Haven't you read the preface in Isa.14:4? It's part of a taunt against the king of Babylon (Note)! And the prophet uses the language of irony, taunting him with titles which he claimed, but is not entitled to. I care nothing for later interpretations (N.B.) that refer this passage to the fall of Lucifer, one which originates with Jerome.
"the only verse in Scripture which specifically names the Trinity?" Oh come off it! Do you seriously mean to tell us that without 1 John 5:7 the NT would be ambiguous on this doctrine?? What about Matt.28:19? 2 Cor 13:14? The "God, the Lord, and the Spirit" theme in 2 Cor 3?
"the requirement for Biblical baptism" I take it you refer to Acts 8:37, a verse that has come into the mainstream text from the Western text, as attested by Codex D and certain Latin mss. Again, do you seriously mean to tell us that without this text the requirements for baptism would be obscure and indiscernible? Then you are proclaiming to us all how little you know your Bible. Likewise with the Trinitarian verses above.
preacherjond ... hey ... wait! You forgot your sandals!
As for "morning star" This entire passage [Isaiah 14:4-21] is a "taunt-song," or Biblical SATIRE, and one of the finest in the Bible. "Morning Star" as applied to Lucifer is said in ridicule and mockery to him, not exaltation.
As for the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) This verse just isn't found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and is probably a marginal gloss which found its way into the text of some VERY late mss. So, as convenient as it is to have a handy proof-text for the Trinity, the HS probably did NOT include it in the original God-breathed autographs. BTW, is there anywhere in Scripture where the HS is identified as God?
A "requirement for biblical baptism?" Where? You mean that one can NOT be saved without water baptism [immersion]? Really? A lot of OT saints are certainly in for a surprise!
[QUOTE]And what I meant when I posted: "because I read several Bible versions, none of this 'stuff' tends to bother me all that much" is that by comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated BY THE HOLY SPIRIT through the translations.[/QUOTE]Do you think the Holy Spirit would call the devil the morning star, a title of Christ? Do you think he would leave out the only verse in Scripture that specifically names the trinity? Do you think He would leave out a verse that specifically gives a requirement for biblical baptism? Do you think He would change words in thousands of verses to give them different meanings? I don't think so.
And about your last post... KJVOers do not idolize a translation. They take a stand for the Word of God against books that are not the Word of God, but claim to be the Word of God.
One is proved better than many wrote: Why is the KJV so abhorent to modern evangelicals ...?
I can't speak for anyone else. But as far as I'm concerned, the KJV is perfectly acceptable, and if it weren't for some "rough sledding" due to the language it employs, I might use it all the time. It's the rabid KJV-Onlyites who put a burr underneath my saddle with their fanatical idolatry of the KJV translation. And it IS INDEED idolatry! There are those among the KJVO Klan who will NOT have fellowship with you and don't even consider you a Christian if you do not use the KJV exclusively! That's sick.
One is proved better than many wrote: One day there will be a kick back as Romanists will use the very same arguments by modern scholars against the one Reformation text!
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Reformation was WELL underway before the 1611 KJV made it's debut. Although its roots dated well before Martin Luther, the Reformation's start is given by historians as 1517.
And I rejoice that you came to know Christ through the 1 Tim 3:16 verse of the KJV!
That being said, if it were a matter of people being saved by ONLY using the KJV, I'd be burning my other Bible version RIGHT NOW! But that's just not the case.