Bruce Smith, the leader of the international organization renowned for translating the Bible in dozens of languages, announced that his group has been working at full capacity to get the Word of God out in never-before-seen numbers.
He went on to explain that interest in Bible translation around the world has "gone viral.â
Due to Wycliffeâs new strategies, methods, tools and resources, the Bible-translating organization has seen 193 completed New Testaments in the past three years alone.
[URL=http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/959901/posts]]]When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine[/URL] [The following, titles to the subsections of the article] 1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha.... 2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.... 3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine.... 4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine.... 5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself.... 6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith.... 7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible.... 8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word.... 9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations.... 10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy.... 11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators.... 12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians....
Whitewashâ Conspiracy â re: The King James Only Controversy by James White Summary This book by James White, attempts to show that believing the Authorised 1611 King James Bible to be the pure words of God and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is wrong, because: ďˇ There is no âconspiracyâ behind the modern versions against the AV1611 ďˇ Summary answers to Whiteâs essential postulates are as follows: No Conspiracy? John Burgon âVanquished by THE WORD Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against the WORD written..."
A short 800 page refutation of White's disparate dissimulations.
White has played down evidence, e.g. that of Rev J. A. Moorman , that conflicts with or refutes Whiteâs notion of what is or is not scripture, e.g. with respect to John 7:53-8:11. White has tried to excuse omission of important words and phrases such as âof the Lord Jesus Christâ e.g. in Ephesians 3:14, because similar wording is found elsewhere in the New Testament, thereby condoning the gradual weakening of major biblical doctrines.
"Hey, I this car is missing a Wheel " "don't worry -lean to the left- it still goes!" Âżtrustworthy with respect to âscripture of truthâ?
Dr. James White wrote: .... ...The arguments put forward by Dr. Morris are thoroughly examined and, in each case, refuted, in my full-length work, The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House, 1995). However, as the questions that are raised by Dr. Morris are common, I would like to comment on them in passing.
Dr. Morris, throughout the article, falls into the trap of making the KJV the "standard" by which all others are judged. The problem is, the KJV is not the standard, and cannot be the standard. Think about it for just a moment. Were there not translations before the KJV? Of course. Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and so forth, all served the needs of English speaking Christians prior to 1611. So why not choose one of these as the "standard"?
...We are also told that the KJV translators were great scholars, and this is true. However, those same scholars denied the idea that the KJV was perfect, or not to be improved upon, in their introduction to readers...
---[URL=http://tinyurl.com/j6lkkdc]]]A Response to a Brother in Christ--Dr. Morris' "Defense" of the King James Bible Reviewed[/URL]
Remember, IE, [URL=http://tinyurl.com/ybynnegv]]]http://tinyurl.com/ybynnegv(The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?)[/URL]
Infallibility of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic?
It is a fact that most professing Christians today do not believe in an infallible Bible nor in the infallibility of Scripture in any language. Kinney put together a rather extensive article with various quotes and polls from present day Evangelicals which prove that this is the present state of Christianity all over the world. You may see it here if you wish. It is called âThe Bible is NOT the inspired and infallible word of God.â
- Bible Agnostics do not know what the Bible is or where to get one. "In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word. In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay ..the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199). This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic."
BDM wrote: .... One can certainly appreciate the point that many modern translations are suspect because of the heterodoxy of the translators. Still, insisting on retreat to a less than perfect translation of 1611, as all translations must be (and in fact usually using a 1769 tenth edition of that translation, which alleviates some of the earlier nine editionsâ imperfections), is still retreat, not an advance for the Kingdom of God. We can continue to appreciate and use âthe KJV (tenth edition)â without making it into an idol that is as detestable to God as any other idol.... [ ]
Conclusion KJV-Onlyism runs the gambit from moderately reasonable advocates (David Cloud, E.L. Bynum, John R. Rice), to the wacked-out, stone throwers ( D.A. Waite , Jack Hyles , Samuel Gipp, Walter Bebe, ... , Peter Ruckman, ..., etc.). A couple of years ago, Gary Hudson launched a website devoted to exposing the errors of âKing James Onlyismâââ [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/]]]The King James Only Resource Center[/URL] .â Gary has a number of articles and reports posted. This site has become a âone stopâ resource center for all questions related to âKing James Onlyism.â
excerpt from [URL=http://tinyurl.com/y9dln8uf]]] KJV-Onlyism--Biblical or Cultic? [/URL]
KJV Older English Glorifies God & Boosts Study by Dr. L. Bednar Careful study will reveal that KJV older English has some very important purposes. It can magnify the glory of God, and can be part of the authentication of scripture as the Word of God. It can ensure maximal accuracy of language according to context, which can enable the reader to understand all that God teaches us about fruitful righteous living, and the need to understand applies to every reader. 2 Tim.2:15 says, " Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth," which applies, not just to full-time ministers of the faith, but to all believers, who all have a role of some type in ministering to others.
There are good reasons why we should never bring Bible language down to the level of man, but should bring man up to the level of Bible language. Like other languages, the English keeps degenerating, and eventually reaches the point where it's unfit for the sacred text since the manner of expression becomes unfitting to display God's Word.
KJV Translators wrote: ...About the need for Scripture in vulgar (common), everyday language, not some archaic language or dialect
"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11 [ (NIV) "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?] ] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11[ (NIV) For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed."] ]"
"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."
--[URL=http://tinyurl.com/ybynnegv]]]http://tinyurl.com/ybynnegv (The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?)[/URL]--' "The Translators To The Reader" is the preface of the original KJV published in 1611. In it I find some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism around.'
Fakers like Ergun Caner touted by Ankerberg put him in "ignore" category
No integrity?? No time to spend.
When u doubt the Bible from the very 1st verse U fall for Caner lies that are worse As much as u polish your lies & rehearse Truth died in the street & U ran down with your hearse. đ
And, reading the statements by all the prominent people coming to Erganâs defense at the beginning of the article just makes me sick. The evidence is so clear, yet they make statements like:
âAnkerberg said he believes Canerâs testimony is âcompletely true.ââ â Christianity Today
âHaving examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. âŚ Dr. Caner is a man of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to Christ.â â Dr. Norman Geisler
Ankerberg ignores lies exposed long ago.
"Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge." Pr19:27
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
More recently, KJV only advocates have argued that the scholars who produced the WH text and those who embrace it belong to a global conspiracy. They often charge that the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace, etc. is destroyed by these scholars. Some say that a New Age conspiracy is behind the modern translations.
In response, just a few points should be made. First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. đ¨By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence.đ¨ (One recent book that pushes a conspiracy theory actually has thousands of factual errors and misrepresentations in it, all of which go unchallenged by those sucked in by its aura.) ...
--[URL=http://tinyurl.com/lu4zk32]]]http://tinyurl.com/lu4zk32 (The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations)[/URL]
Did you even read the John Ankerberg piece? with various supporters of some of the various Bible versions. They weren't really even attacking the KJVâ
In any case, it is clear from Ankerbergâs comments when moderating the Hovind-Ross debate (with an unfair old-earth bias) that he picked up many compromise views at his seminary. And as shown by Dr. David Mentonâs letter to Ankerberg in June 1992, Ankerberg was clearly an old-earther at about the time of the booklet. This letter shows the disrespectful way Ankerberg treated high-profile young-earth creationist Ph.D. scientists, who had given up much time to record programs for him, and instead he substituted the gross errors of old-earther Hugh Ross.
But Jesus didnât say Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of the âcreation periodâ But once you start, rephrasing the Bible continues
Dr. John Ankerberg wrote: Okay. Ken, you have the different editors of the different Bibles sitting right next to you. Theyâre your buddies. But you still prefer NIV. Art still prefers New King James. Don still prefers NASB. Does that break up your fellowship?
Barker: Not at all. In fact, I think all of us should maintain Christian fellowship. As I said before we went on the air, weâre going to have to live together in heaven. Weâre trusting in the same Christ. And so we need to treat each other like brothers in Christ. When it comes to splitting churches, no; I donât think this is an important enough issue to divide a church over.
However, I do think the time has come, probably now more than ever, when every individual church needs to decide, make some kind of official decision, decide what translation it wants to use, adopt that, put it in the pews, and use it for preaching, teaching, Scripture memorization, public reading, pews, etc., just to avoid some of the confusion that I think we are experiencing.
excerpt from, [URL=https://www.jashow.org/articles/uncategorized/the-king-james-controversy-revisited-program-5/]]]The King James Controversy Revisited â Program 5[/URL]
Cloud on Burgon re: Greek Received Text page 154, "For Love Of The Bible" Burgon "felt it could be revised, but he also held that it could not be revised unless 14 requirements were met ârequirements that made it impossible for such a revision to have been done in his day and that would have made it impossible, in fact, for it ever to have been done. (For these requirements see two books by D.A. Waite: Ten Reasons Why the Dean Burgon Society Deserves Its Name; also How and When Would Dean Burgon Revise? The Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108).
In regard to the nature of the Received Text I have the benefit of looking back over 100 years of history since Burgonâs day. I can see the confusion that has come from the multiplicity of Greek texts and English versions. The One Standard was divided into two, then into three, then into four, and there has been no end of further division. Today there are hundreds of texts and versions, each with its own peculiar witness as to what God supposedly said. The âThus saith the Lordâ of the nineteenth century has become âthe Better Manuscripts Omit This Verseâ of the twentieth. The Received Text was blessed and exalted by God in a way that no text of Scripture has ever been."
read Mat17:21, 18:11, & 23:14 from an NIV. Youâre in for a big disappointment: no such verses are found in the text. But after dropping all 3 verses clean out of the Bible, does the NIV change the verse numbers? Oh no! After telling you that the verse numbering system in the Bible is not inspired, the apostate hypocrites on the NIV committee keep the KJVâs verse numbers. This creates a ridiculous situation. In Matthew 17, the verses run 18, 19, 20, 22. In chapter 18, they run 8, 9, 10, 12. In chapter 23, they are 10, 11, 12, 13, 15. Whatâs the matter, boys? Didnât learn how to count in the first grade? if at first you donât succeed, try, try again! Letâs try Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28. What?! Theyâre not there either?! Having a little trouble finding âevery word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,â are we? Despair not! Look up Luke 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. Oops! They vanished into thin air. Those were some more words that pro- ceeded âout of the mouth of Godâ that simply evaporatedââgone with the wind.â -how about Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, &28:29? 1 more time?How about Rm.16:24? Having a little trouble finding it, are you? You see, if âALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of Godâ (2 Tim. 3:16), someone just knocked out 16 verses Who? 2 Cor. 11:4
Bill Combs wrote: ...Burgonâs view of preservation that have become the foundational principles for KJV-only advocates. But as we have noted, Burgon did not hold to the perfection of the TR, which most of his followers now insist on. And although he decried the changes in the RV, Burgon was careful to insist that these textual changes did not result in any doctrinal differences between the KJV and the RV: âLet it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truthâ (Revision Revised, p. 232). Unfortunately, KJV-only advocates have not followed their mentor in this âjudgment,â but universally insist that modern versions which fail to follow the TR are guilty of perpetuating doctrinal error, and that includes every English version of the Bible since the KJV....
--[URL=https://www.dbts.edu/2012/03/14/dean-burgon-father-of-the-kjv-only-movement/]]]Dean Burgon: Father of the KJV-Only Movement[/URL] had some things will come on with this earlier Anglican Bishop, [URL=http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/bancroft.html]]]The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV[/URL]đ
Above we have White lying about Ruckmanâs &Gippâs position on the KJV, lying about Baptists with PhDs, lying about KJVOs debating Catholics, ad nauseumâŚ paid consultant for ver$ion$ have ve$ted intere$t .. Love of money. - https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1462113322.pdf -- Translation or a Catholic edition 89% of the time (pp. 747-769). Are we to believe that God gave the cults the correct text and not Christians? For the entire 818 pages proving White wrong see: Earlier link-
â˘ Peter Ruckman (Scholarship Only Controversy, 472 pages). After the publication of the book, White challenged Ruckman to a debate, and Ruckman agreed, setting a time and place. White put on his break light and took flight. His stage fright regarding the upcoming dog fight, made him an outright âno-showâ.
White leans heavily towards Rome&Watchtower. In spite of what James White would undoubtedly profess to the contrary, the departures from the AV1611 that White favours and which occur mostly in the NASV, NIV, also occur to a considerable extent in Catholic & Jehovahâs Witnessesâ bibles.
White levels criticisms at 241 passages of scripture as they stand in the AV1611, 252 verses in total, of which 24 verses are from the Old Testament. Of that selection, the NIV stands with the AV1611 in only 9 of the 241 passages, or in 4% of the total. However, it lines up against the AV1611 with the JR, DR, JB and NWT* in 28% of the passages, with the JB and NWT in 70% of the passages and with one or more of the JR, DR, JB, NWT in 89% of the passages that White mentions. *DR - Douay-Rheims, Challonerâs 1749 Revision, JR - Jesuit Rheims 1582 New Testament, from the web, www.studylight.org/desk/ and probably a reproduction of the DR - it doesnât differ, JB - Jerusalem Bible, NWT - New World Translation
Dr. James White wrote: ... If you are familiar with Peter Ruckman and his followers you will hardly be surprised at the tenor of the following materials. If, however, you have not been exposed to his bombastic, acerbic style, you may well be taken back. Terms like âliar,â âstupid,â âwimp,â and terms I personally find to be beyond the pale of clean language, are everyday fare for Dr. Ruckman and his followers. Anything goes in attacking and demeaning those with whom he disagrees (and thatâs 99.99% of the Christian world). You may at times have to read something twice just to figure out how Dr. Ruckman came up with the ideas that he did. For example, if you conclude that Dr. Ruckman said that Mr. Pierce is a âliarâ simply because my book, The King James Only Controversy, was dedicated to Mr. Pierce, you are right. If you are confused about how a man can call someone else a liar without ever having met that person, without ever having read anything that person has written, or heard anything that person has ever said, join the club. Thatâs just how Dr. Ruckman thinks, and acts....
--[URL=http://tinyurl.com/yaynk6bg]]]The Debate That Never Was â James Whiteâs Challenge to Dr. Peter Ruckman to Debate[/URL]
Re-reading John Burgon on Church Fathers about the ending on Mark -- in favor of the passage: Tatian, Diatessaron (I 10:125â129).â¨Irenaeus, Against Heresies (I 1:426).â¨Tertullian, Resurrection of Flesh (I 3:627), &Against Praxeas (I 3:627). Cyprian, Seventh Council (I 5:569).â¨Gospel of Nicodemus (I 8:422, 432, 436, 445).â¨ Aphrahat, Demonstrations (II 13:351).â¨Apostolic Constitutions (I 7:457, 479).â¨ Ambrose, The Holy Spirit (III 10:133, 134), On the Christian Faith (III 10:216), and Repentance (III 10:335).â¨ Of those, both Tatian &Irenaeus wrote around A.D. 170, about 160 years before Sinaiticus &Vaticanus were supposedly written. &Church Fathers who rejected the passage are: A GREAT BIG GOOSE EGGâ0. -- See first page of Burgon- Every page of Vaticanus has three columns of script EXCEPT ONEâthe end of Mark. There, the scribe left a HUGE space, as if he knew more verses should go there, but he never put them in. ÂżSo 1 of scholarshipâs 2 "authorities" for omitting the passage?questionable at best. -- ÂżDoes your bible doubt "the last 12 verses of Mark"?
Jesuit Elephant in the Room
Paul told Timothy that the âLove of Moneyâ was the root of all evil, he was making an important point. Bible$ $ell doubt$
Reconstitute&Conserve Corruption? 16) Mark 13:14. âSpoken of by Daniel the prophetâ has been deleted in the Popeâs translations. Arm in arm with the Pope here are the ESV &RSV. 17) Acts 17:26. As it stands in the AV, the word âbloodâ has been taken out of the Catholic Bibles to make humanity not âone.â In agreement with this Evilutionist private interpretation are the : the ESV & RSV. 18) John 17:12. The Catholic Douay-Rheims has omitted the words âin the world.â Following suit are, of course, the ESV & RSV.â¨19) Acts 7:30. Once more âthe Lordâ has been booted out of His own Book (see 1 Cor. 10:28, 15:47) by Jerome &the Pope. He has also been evicted by guess who. You only get one guess; not two. 20) Romans 8:1. This time the ESV &RSV have cut out more of âthe holy scripturesâ (Rom. 1:2) than the Rheims version of the Jesuits. It only removes âbut after the Spirit.â The apostates on the ESV and RSV committees got rid of âwho walk not after the esh, but after the Spirit.â As we have seen so far, the âConservativeâ revision of the RSV, the ESV, not only agrees with the Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, but often is worse than them. How âConservativeâ can one get?
So,follow apers of Rome?đđđblind lead dumb dogs deaf to truth - false memories hacked.
11) Mat27:4. Rome has always wanted to put as much emphasis on the ânon-bloodyâ Mass as they do on the actual blood of Christ. Hence, the article âtheâ (KJV) is omitted from the verse by the Catholic âBible.â Following Romeâs lead are both the ESV &RSV. 12) Mat16:3. Since Rome is Postmillennial in its theology, & since it reserves for itself alone the right to interpret the Bible accurately, it strongly resents Christâs remark in regards to being able to âtellâ the future. It changes the KJV reading âdiscernâ (âto perceive or recognizeâ) to âinterpretâ (âto explain or understand as having a particular meaningââRomeâs meaning); ditto the ESV &RSV. 13) Mat20:22. Following Jeromeâs lead, Jesuit Rheims âBibleâ of 1582 omits Christâs (&the believerâs) baptism of suffering. ESV &RSV follow suit.â¨14) Mark 6:11. The half of the verse about âSodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgmentâ was taken out by Origen &Eusebius. This corruption was preserved in Vaticanus for Jerome &the subsequent Roman âBiblesâ based on his Latin Vulgate. In agreement with the Dark Age reading of the Jesuit Rheims version are the ESV &RSV. 15). Mat6:13. The ending to the Lordâs prayer is missing from the corrupt Roman âBibleâ as well as the ESV &RSV of apostate Conservatives&Liberal Protestants.