This MP3 sermon was last played: 31 hours ago | more »
More Sermon Details
More Sermon Details:
The NIV is based on a corrupt textual foundation, uses an unbiblical translation methodology and speaks a language inappropriate for the purposes of the worship of God. It is not the word of God, but the word of men.
“ Great Sermon! ” Bottom Line
The NIV and all other versions teach a different Gospel, a different Jesus.
3 points : the Person of Jesus
The deity of Jesus: and Salvation.
The KJV is almost 400 years old.
All other version needs to be burned.
Jim spannagel from NEW HAMPTON, NEW YORK (9/1/2005)
“ Great Sermon! ” I wanted to feature this sermon. Can Sermon Audio tell me why I can't?
Acts 5: 39 "BUT IF IT BE OF GOD, YE CANNOT OVERTHROW IT: LEST HAPLY YE BE FOUND EVEN TO FIGHT AGAINST GOD"
Does Sermon Audio suffer from the same affliction as Family Radio.
Jack from Singapore (6/1/2004)
“ Great Sermon! ” Hi there thanks for the sermon on what`s wrong with NIV.I`m now able to tell my friends, family memebers and others that I meet who are chrisitans.Thanks for this sermon.I hope there is more such sermons like this.Thanks be to God for the speaker Howard King!
Way to go Howard King.
Daniel Lee Ford from Jackson, Mich. (10/25/2003)
“ King's case is great: ” Red herrings:
1.Erasmus, did not create the Textus Receptus so
"problems with the text" of Erasmus have NOTHING to do w/the King James Bible.(it was subsequent greek texts that the KJB was based on)
2.King James did not translate ANY part of the the bible, besides it is breaking the commandment against 'bearing false witness' to make spurious claims of sodomy against him. NO one made this claim while he was alive. It was a SMEAR made up by political enemies after he was dead. Sodomy was a capital crime in King James' reign.
3.The arguments in favor of the KJB as the only authorized scriptures OPPOSE the Roman Catholics' corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus line out of Alexandria.Providence,not tradition, preserved the Bible.
4. Those who claim that Hebrew and Greek were not kept perfect by God
can cite NOT ONE scripture that says this. 100% preservation of the Scriptures is found in Matt 5:18 as stated in the Westminster Confession. Other verses are Ps 12:6-7, Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33; a perfect, infallible and inerrant Bible is not only in the Autographs but also in the existing and tangible Apographs (the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Scriptures on which the KJB is based).
Steven M Moulson from Conyers, GA (10/19/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” I am not a big fan of the NIV myself, seeing as some of the translations that come about as a result of dynamic equivalency leave something to be desired. However, Erasmus, who edited one of the Greek versions which would be used to create the Textus Receptus, which is the foundation for the KJV, admitted himself that there were problems with the text which he was providing. How can we then claim that the KJV (translated by men for the probably bi-sexual King James) is the only word of God? Further, all of the arguments in favor of the KJV as the only authorized scriptures are the same ones used by the Roman Catholics in defending the Latin Vulgate. Even our Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were not kept perfect by God lest we should make idols of them as the Catholics and the fundamentalists have done with the Vulgate and the KJV.
Sandy Allan from Blanefield,Scotland (10/3/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” Great sermon, Thank God that even in these wicked days the Lord, still has his 7000 who have not capitulated to false translations of the precious scriptures. Not once have I been blessed reading the NIV ,dut when I read the KJV it has and will continue to bless me. I have no academic qualifications
but I have no problems understanding the English of the KJV.
William Hill from British Columbia... Canada (9/29/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” I have access to multiple versions, but when the chips are down and I'm engaged in a tete-a-tete with the J.W's / Mormons / R.C.'s....there's no messing with the KJB...it's excellence stands apart from the rest. Pauls' challenge to the Corinthian Church was the manifestation of success and victory and not of a lot of empty words! What concerns me regarding my fellow brethern, are those who brashly declare that NO Bible is free from error. If that be the case, then I guess our God is not able to transmit the fullness of his word to the "superior critics" in the church....
Andrew Hall from United kingdom (9/28/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” An excellent presentation of this subject. The one single abiding factor that is the major stamp approving the veracity and dignity and God-inspired faithfulness of the KJV is that thousands paid with their lives to keep these texts intact for passing down generation to generation. Tyndale himself strangled and burnt at the stake by Romanists for daring to bring the scriptures to the common man.
What have the 'transalators' of the 'modern' era done apart from detract and trample on and reduce the the word of God? Nothing apart from wallow in Western lifestyles of materialistic delights. They have not sweated nor bled for this work, but they have plenty of letters after their names.
Yes, we do see so-called reformed and so-called evangelical churches going after new translations - but then these are the tares that have been planted overnight.
That the enemy is so determined to destroy the word and has used every ploy over the centuries should make us rejoice that we have the right one in our hands.
Andrew Hall,
Christian Watch,
United Kingdom.
Daniel Lee Ford from Jackson, Mich. (9/27/2003)
“ Ad hominems prove the KJBible ” Casebolt's case of ad hominems and generalities fails to respond to ANY of the specific points of King's teaching. With THREE whole years of study Casebolt presumes to correct Machen!, Dr. Hill, &King's case, denegrating the classic, time honored text used by the great reformers and blessed with tremendous revival.
The New Testament was not written in street Greek, as some allege. Since it was written by Jews, it naturally has been influenced by the religious Hebrews' modes of thought and expression, just as the Greek Old Testament that early Christians used was. Edward F. Hills, J. Gresham Machen, and others have pointed out that it belongs to a subset of Koine Greek which might be called "Sacred Greek", distinctive as it is from both the Greek of the marketplace and the Greek of the Classical culture. Paul himself said of the words he used in recording the truths of God for men:
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (I Corinthians 2:12,13)
Casebolt's 2nd point, attempting to deny the PARAPHRASE proven by King, otherwise know as dynamic equivalence, again, by not refuting King's specifics, upholds the fact that the NIV is NOT translation, but a poetic interpretation: fine for a children's story bible, but obviously NOT the word of God. By ignoring the SPECIFICS of King, Casebolt concedes the fact that the NIV is NOT the word of God.
Casebolt's third point seems to be that NO ONE has in their hands the perfect word of God. He probably believes this. But LISTEN to King's case, and take heart: God HAS providential preserved His word: the KJ Bible.
Nathan Casebolt from Castaic, California (9/27/2003)
“ What's Wrong with the KJV? ” Thank God for people like Pastor King who are concerned for God and His Word; may the Lord raise up many of like mind. However, out of concern for truth, I have three main concerns on which I want to comment.
First, the Greek of the Bible (Koine) was indeed the Greek of the common people. I have studied New Testament Greek for three years now. Frankly, the only reason I can claim any level of proficiency at this stage of my training is that New Testament Greek is, with the exception of Luke's writings, common Greek. The syntactical constructions are simplistic and the vocabulary is basic. The only real difficulty comes with ungrammatical constructions which the writers of the New Testament frequently employ. The argument that the Bible should be in 'high' as opposed to 'low' language lacks foundation. The writers of Scripture wrote to be understood clearly, not to be literarily lauded.
Second, I take issue with contrasting 'dynamic equivalence' and 'word for word' translations. It is impossible to produce a 'word for word' translation which is intelligible; many words, both Hebrew and Greek, have no English equivalent and cannot be translated. Other words must be translated by several words, while certain Greek phrases should be translated by a single English word. The real difference in translation philosophy is between dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, and the degree to which one pursues either course. The phrase 'word for word translation' gives the misleading impression that such a (non-existent) translation is faithful, while all over translations are "made up" by the translators.
Third, the KJV has numerous problems of its own. By no means would I demean the tremendous work of ages past; but the KJV is not without fault. For instance, in the book of Romans alone, many different Greek words with different shades of meaning are all translated with a single English word. On the flipside, the same Greek word is often translated by many different English words with no contextual justification, obscuring the real meaning of the text. My point is not to criticize the KJV; rather, I desire to point out that no translation is without error.
Again, I thank God for the care with which Pastor King develops his message. I hope, however, that as members of the Body of Christ we can honestly explore the issues behind what we believe.
Tim Dean from Oxford, MI (9/27/2003)
“ Go Back a little farther ” The KJV was translated due to a need for a "modern translation" of the Bishops bible of 1568. I'm sure people were up in arms when it first came out.
Jim spannagel from NEW HAMPTON, NEW YORK (9/26/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” Thank God for men who " Earnestly Contend for the faith, once delivered unto the saints"!
I have listened to the sermon at least 5 times and thanked God for it each time. Over the summer at Family Altar I have endeavored to teach my children why, we as a family hold to the KJV.
This sermon has been an encouragement to my heart as I teach my family the must, of submitting ourselves to the authority of scripture.
Dr. Ken Matto from Edison, NJ (9/26/2003)
“ Timely Sermon ” I like the comment right at the end that if we are going to have Sola Scriptura, then we better have the right Scriptura. Many who use the NIv do not know that two sodomites worked on it and God never gave His word to any sodomite to correct. I have been fighting this battle since 1986 and have received 99% rebuke and 1% favor. Pastor King is right on target but the truth is that the majority of Christians are lazy and really believe that by having some type of modern version they will have instant understanding. Satan has deceived these people into believing this. The NIV is probably one of the worst modern versions only second to "Today's New International Version." If Christians would stop being so lazy and go back to their King James Bibles, they would find a new stability and strength in their Christian walk, and would not be easily duped by new teachings.
David John Wilson from Brisbane Australia (9/24/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” This needs to be sounded loud and clear today. It is getting harder and harder to find a church where God's Word is respected and God Honoured. I am currently debating with the session the use of swaying and clapping. They think I am too old fashioned, God has not changed so I come before Him in fear and trembling.
May God deliever us and grant us men who will not fear the voices of the fallen. Keep up the good fight.
David
Daniel Lee Ford from Jackson, Mich. (9/23/2003)
“ Why 'good' men use BAD versions ” Some will say, "If it's really all that bad, then why do so many good men use and recommend it?" I don't know who's a "good" man (Matthew 19:17), but surely one of the criteria of a good minister has to be whether he is a faithful guardian of the canonical Scriptures. What's good about a man who is sufficiently educated that he ought to know better, who nevertheless can't seem to recognize the fatal deficiencies of a patently bad translation? (Ezekiel 44:23) How can we call a man "good" who is an unfaithful "steward of the mysteries of God"? (I Corinthians 4:1) Is it "good" to pass on to succeeding generations a bastardized "bible" that removes, adds, and changes the original God-breathed words in thousands of places? (Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:6-19) Sin is still sin -- no matter how many "authorities" give their approval, no matter how socially-acceptable or respectable it has become. (Exodus 23:2)
Seth Meyers from Schaumburg, IL (9/22/2003)
“ Great Sermon! ” Well-documented and clear. Is there a thoughtful response that can deal any better with the issues? Praise the Lord for a return to reverence with regard to His Word.
Lewis from Joplin, MO (9/22/2003)
“ Don't Fully Agree... ” There are some parts of the NIV I disagree with. There is some of the sermon I disagree with. The KJV could be criticized at many points of translation also. I hope this doesn't get censored (The negative sermon didn't...)
Howard Douglas King is a Reformed Christian, a staunch Biblicist and anti-Modernist. He studied at Toronto Baptist Seminary and Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He formerly served as a deacon and licensed preacher in a calvinistic Baptist church, where he edited the quarterly "Gospel... | more..
SermonAudio.com is not an association, organization, or denomination. Ecclesiastical fellowship is not necessarily implied by becoming a broadcaster. SermonAudio.com is a privately-owned and operated site that seeks to promote the " Fundamentals of the Faith." Articles of Faith | About Us
Email Sermon
Digg
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Furl
StumbleUpon
Twitter
|
