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!
Ancient Dead Sea Scrolls digitised in co-project by Israel and Google
Anyone with an internet connection will now be able to take a new look into the Biblical past through an online archive of high-resolution images of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls completed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and Google.
The scrolls, most of them on parchment, are the oldest copies of the Hebrew Bible and include secular text dating from the third century BC to the first century AD.
IAA, the custodian of the scrolls that shed light on the life of Jews and early Christians at the time of Jesus, said it has collaborated with Google's research and development centre in Israel for the past two and a half years to upload digitised images of thousands of fragments from the collection.
Yossi Matias, the head of Google-Israel R&D centre, described the project launch as "exciting"....
I'll be very interested to read everyones comments on the comparisons that I linked to. I don't know if they will amount to actual changes in doctrine, but I do wonder about how some may be just different enough to mislead in other ways...
Hi guys...not trying to get in the middle, but I've been studying this particular topic on my own for a while. I don't understand the manuscript end of it yet so I've been sticking with basic scripture comparisons for now and keeping it simple. Now, I have to ne honest and say that I've been using the King James as my measurement stick to test all others because I always thought it was the one that should be used. Anyway, I thought this link might be a useful tool for researching Franks last post. Whether it's this comparison, or any other, this is the type of research that has kept me glued to the King James. My understanding is limited to these types of comparisons for now because I'm lost with the rest of the manuscript types of evidences.
Frank wrote: I was only defending my use of the NASB. If someone could present me with a doctrine from the KJ that is not present in the NASB, then I will quit using it. I would say that was a quest for truth.
Frank, there is no doubt in my mind that the more you research the differences between the NASB and the KJV, the more you will come to see how glorious is the KJV.
Now is repentance necessary for salvation?
If, for example, the devil was corrupting the modern versions, would he not wish to make repentance not necessary for salvation?
So has he effectively and subtly removed repentance from this verse?
Jesus speaking: Matthew 9:13 KJV 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Now the basic and fundamental doctrine found in those words of Jesus is that he "calls men to repentance".
And when men repent and believe the gospel, they will be saved.
Now seeing as you have an NASB, check out the verse and see what you have there.
John UK wrote: It is a very simple matter to knock down some of the arguments which the KJV-Onlyist tribe come out with. I could easily do the same. But it is rather a shame when KJV-Users are confused with such. It becomes impossible to argue sensible points. So I will leave you to play your no-contest games, and you can have the hollow victory you soooo earnestly desire. May the great apostasy continue!
Now John, since I post using the KJV, then what sort of victory, hollow or not would I be seeking. Do you really believe I would post using scriptures that I didn't think were godly? Now Angela might do that, but you? In fact, I used the acronym KJO in my post. I think you protest too much. I never said anything whatsoever against the KJ user; not even in the slightest.
Shallow victory I was only defending my use of the NASB. If someone could present me with a doctrine from the KJ that is not present in the NASB, then I will quit using it. I would say that was a quest for truth.
Dr. Robert A. Joyner wrote: I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.
Doug Kutilek wrote: Let me say it again--the sole justification for producing and publishing any Bible translation is so that those who do not understand the words in the original languages can nevertheless gain access to them through words they do understand in their own language.... [By necessity, a translation in contemporary English ]
It is a very simple matter to knock down some of the arguments which the KJV-Onlyist tribe come out with. I could easily do the same.
But it is rather a shame when KJV-Users are confused with such. It becomes impossible to argue sensible points. So I will leave you to play your no-contest games, and you can have the hollow victory you soooo earnestly desire.
Contextisitcorrect wrote: It is better to give the full quote and page reference SOURCE INFO SAID:
Thanks for the link! I take this issue even further. I don't particularly care what Westcott and Hort thought as long as they translated the bible properly. Can anyone imagine what was in the hearts of the KJ translators? Now unless someone wants to say that God spoke directly to those able scholars, then they are being illogical and biased. Were they not sinners? I use the NASB and all of the doctrines are intact; the same as in the KJ. I challenged someone early on to provide me with what doctrines were destroyed by Westcott and Hort and no one would accept that challenge.
Anyway, nothing you can say will convince these KJO folks. They use this issue as a litmus test. We all draw lines in the sand so to speak; this is where they draw their lines.
It is better to give the full quote and page reference
SOURCE INFO SAID:
"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort)
So are you correct or is this website simply misquoting and copying and pasting error? Either way we need to be very careful...can you confirm your source and full quote for us to check, thanks.
Question wrote: And of course the churches have known no periods of apostasy whilst we have had the KJV: it has been one unending revival after another. How silly!
What purpose the word of God?
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
How does the devil keep people from coming to faith in Jesus Christ?
He casts doubt on the word, he corrupts the word, he changes the word, he removes the word, he adds other words, he makes the word illegal to possess...etc.
If you apply a bit of thought to what is going on with the modern versions, you also will see the hand of the devil. It will make no difference to me, but it sure will help you out.
The inerrant Bible - where is it? Your modern version publishers claim that ALL Bibles have errors. BUT....they can't tell you where those supposed errors are. Which makes the Bible useless or, at the very least, it causes the reader to doubt it.
Me, I don't doubt the scriptures.
What is your true opinion of the scriptures? Can you read John's Gospel and believe every word? Or do you have to read it like you're some modern critical scholar, stopping every so often to check it against the Vaticanus?
Question wrote: And of course the churches have known no periods of apostasy whilst we have had the KJV: it has been one unending revival after another
No! Thats actually not true.
We live in a fallen world. Is this a surprise to you and your religious convictions?
Also the suffering Church will be persecuted as the Bible teaches us.
2Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the **way of truth** shall be evil spoken of.
Falsifying the Bible is one of Satan's main strategies. If you get people to follow a false path then they don't arrive where they might think they are going to.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I was really hoping you have gotten over the The Truth About KJV Only...Agendas
Jim. The satanic Roman Catholic agenda which you and modern versions are riding on is something you need to get rid of.
Westcott and Hort - The Roman Catholic connection. "...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort)
"Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship"
"When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.
"Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts"
James White wrote: Generally speaking, KJV Only writers have no interest in being fair or impartial in their handling of the manuscript and textual data of Scripture. They also have little desire to accurately or honestly reflect the opinions of those with whom they disagree. Indeed, there is no effort made to appreciate the strengths of the positions of anyone who would speak a word against the inerrancy of the KJV.
Christopher000 wrote: Thanks for the reminder, John. I was listening to a sermon recently and the speaker was discussing the King James Bible. He also made mention of the fact that all apostate churches have curiously turned from the KJ, even telling their members not to use it anymore. Very interesting insight.
Yes Christopher, the evidence speaks for itself. I think we shall see the modern versions getting further and further away from the truth, in order to embrace the diverse opinions of the apostate churches until eventually there will be no gospel left within the "Bible".
It is most noticeable that the truth about hell-fire, with its torments and eternal suffering, is being slowly removed from the modern versions, being dismantled piece by piece, so as not to alert discerning believers, but will eventually be not found in the pages of modern scripture. Rome was not built in a day, and neither will the apostates Bible appear on the shelves in a short space. But it is happening, and will happen!
When our Lord Jesus returns, the KJV and those using it for evangelism, may well be in a minority, but it will be shown to be true, as it is the word of God.
Bringing the Truth wrote: Come now Mike. We are working hard here to teach you the truth about the truth. And remember God didn't have to wait till "modern" expertise?? to deliver His Word and Doctrine. Neither did He need the aid of heretics such as Westcott Hort Nestle and Aland. God has been providentially bringing the Truth and His doctrines into the His Church for thousands of years. Which is why we don't need another fifty six (or whatever) copies of modern (variation) versions to know we have the Word of God. The King James Version of the Word of God is and always has been sufficient to the needs of the elect. BTW A very Happy Tuesday to you and yours. ___________________
Thanks I'd wish you the same, but it's pagan, and we have only been safe from paganism 400 years.
Tuesday: The name Tuesday comes from the Old English Tiwesdæg (pronounced Tee-wes-dag or Tee-wes-dye), meaning "Tyr's day." Tyr (in Old English, Tiw, Tew or Tiu) was a god of combat and heroic glory in Germanic paganism. The name of the day is based on Latin Dies Martis, "Day of Mars" (the Roman war god); compare French Mardi and Spanish Martes.
Christopher, the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning, not the print.
Thanks for the reminder, John. I was listening to a sermon recently and the speaker was discussing the King James Bible. He also made mention of the fact that all apostate churches have curiously turned from the KJ, even telling their members not to use it anymore. Very interesting insight.
I don't know how it works in America, but in the UK we have groups of churches in towns whose unity is only in the doctrine of the trinity. And so in for example, Bedford, you have a group called "Churches Together in Bedford".
These groups are part of a nationwide group called "Churches Together in England". When you investigate further, you find that eventually, you get to the "World Council of Churches", to which all these little churches are affiliated.
It is ecumenism on a massive scale.
Gospel churches stand aloof from these apostates.
Why is that? It is because gospel churches believe the gospel is the most important aspect of their existence. It is the gospel of God's grace which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.
Now then, it is interesting that the apostate and ecumenical churches have all turned from the Authorized Version to modern versions based on the Westcott and Hort greek text, which itself is based on the Vaticanus ms. Er....which text? The Vaticanus. Hmmmm. Vaticanus, Vatican, Vaticanic.
What do the apostate churches have in common? Salvation by works. They all deny the redemption of blood. Well, the NIV should suit them fine. And later versions will suit them finer.
Come now Mike. We are working hard here to teach you the truth about the truth. And remember God didn't have to wait till "modern" expertise?? to deliver His Word and Doctrine. Neither did He need the aid of heretics such as Westcott Hort Nestle and Aland. God has been providentially bringing the Truth and His doctrines into the His Church for thousands of years. Which is why we don't need another fifty six (or whatever) copies of modern (variation) versions to know we have the Word of God.
The King James Version of the Word of God is and always has been sufficient to the needs of the elect.
BTW A very Happy Tuesday to you and yours.
___________________
Question wrote: fatuous nonsense.
Don't fret Q. The Lord Himself will reveal the whole counsel of God to His elect all in His good time. In the mean time keep up with the research and remember God the Holy Spirit guides us into the truth and has been doing this for centuries. HE wouldn't wait for these "modern" apostate times to reveal the true Bible, that has been there for His Church for millennia. And He surely wouldn't use deficient versions, would He.
add2 wrote: "The New International Version (NIV) is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version (NASB) which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version which are handled separately in this book) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt." (Samuel C Gipp) ---.
Gipp? Oh.
67
There are a total of 166 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
I was only defending my use of the NASB. If someone could present me with a doctrine from the KJ that is not present in the NASB, then I will quit using it. I would say that was a quest for truth.
]
