SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Why do most versions leave out the most important words?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
Do you mean to say that the KJV is a necessary ingredient for revival?



No, it's not the KJV. It's God's Word and His Spirit that caused these revivals. However, when you have a butchering of God's Word, which I am convinced that the modern versions are exactly that... then we get the opposite. The modern versions really took hold in England and the US since WWII. And where have these two countries gone spiritually since then? Not toward God, and thats obvious to anyone who takes a look.

I am convinced the KJV is the translation of the preserved Word of God. I believe every modern version since 1881 is the translation of a perverted "Word of God".

I have never claimed no good ever came from modern versions, I was saved in an NIV church. I know many people (a lot here as well) who use modern versions. But I dont believe you see, nor will you see, a great move of God that involves the modern versions. Instead... we get Saddleback Church.

Quote:
The old Russelites (pre-Jehovah's Witnesses) used the KJV. The KJV is just as volatile and dangerous in the wrong hands as any other translation.



Interesting that you bring that up. The New World Translation (The JW's Bible) is the purest translation of the Wescott & Hort Greek Text. The W&H text is the bedrock of ALL modern versions. As for their beginnings, using the KJV... anytime anyone uses God's Word without the indwelling Holy Spirit to teach and guide, you get confusion. People also say that the Mormons use the KJV, which they do. But everything that Joseph Smith wrote overrides the Bible... and his writings contradict the Bible in every sense of the word. They merely give lip service to the Bible. They dont believe it, and they dont study it. They just memorize proof texts for their door to door visits, but you wont see the Bible being taught in Mormonism. If they did, and people believed it, there would be about 12 Mormons left in the world.

Krispy

 2007/1/19 13:47
jimbob
Member



Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131


 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
I have stated that in our house church, we teach from the KJV, and that I would not submit myself to a pastor who did not. Thats my personal conviction and my personal choice.


(And your personal heresy.)


But I have never sat in judgement of those who do not share in that conviction.


(Sure you do, you just said you would not submit to someone who disagrees with you.)


Will I listen to a teacher who uses a modern version? I do it every day. But when submitting to someone's authority in my life, we will be in agreement on this version issue.

(Great. Yep, thats the Gospel that Jesus preached.
Do you realize just how sectarian you sound? Just imagine yourself back in A.D. 45 when none of these writings even existed... Think hard... How in the world did the Church get by?)


 2007/1/19 13:57Profile









 Re:

Jimbob... I'm only responding to serious posts. If you have something serious to add to the conversation I will be glad to discuss it with you.

Krispy

 2007/1/19 13:59
IWantAnguish
Member



Joined: 2006/6/15
Posts: 343


 Re: honestly...

whether you eat or drink, doit to the glory of God...

before you post, consider whether it will glorify God or not.

it's quite easy to argue over things such as this, and lose sight of the hundreds of thousands that are dying without hearing the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

what will you say to God when you have to give an account for all the time spent arguing on sermonindex.net opposed to getting into the word, getting to know Christ, and witnessing to others through a holy life ?

God is God, and you are not.


_________________
Sba

 2007/1/19 14:09Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4994
Sweden

 Re:

one sad thing is, when you speak whit a muslim, even as their koran says the bible is the word of God, they dont want to read it becuse there is so many versions, how do you know then whitch version is the word of God? thats a question that i got, and what do i say? this version is the word of God, then he asks another christian.. and that christian says... - no no no this version is the word of God, this is a problem, now days we have i dunno 100 different kinds,whitch bible is the word of God? witch one? can several be when they in some cases say different things?

it just makes me a little sad when there is such division in the body of christ when i belive it should be the greatest glued toghter and united thing on the entire planet.... even when we speak about bible versions


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/1/19 14:26Profile









 Re:

Quote:
what will you say to God when you have to give an account for all the time spent arguing on sermonindex.net opposed to getting into the word, getting to know Christ, and witnessing to others through a holy life ?



This is a great point that we all need to take to heart. Just dont make the mistake of assuming that this is all any of us do. I know in my case this forum is about 1% of who I am, and what I do.

There are street preachers, seminary students, pastors, elders, evangelists... even some whom I would consider to be theologians that contribute to this forum. Iron sharpens iron, and this forum is a great sharpening tool for anyone who will avail themselves of the wealth of Christian maturity that is available here.

Krispy

 2007/1/19 14:33









 Re:

Quote:
one sad thing is, when you speak whit a muslim, even as their koran says the bible is the word of God, they dont want to read it becuse there is so many versions, how do you know then whitch version is the word of God? thats a question that i got, and what do i say? this version is the word of God, then he asks another christian.. and that christian says... - no no no this version is the word of God, this is a problem, now days we have i dunno 100 different kinds,whitch bible is the word of God? witch one? can several be when they in some cases say different things?



Great point!

Which one? While this comparison I'm going to make does not necessarily answer the question, it does make one stop and think...

Textus Receptus... since 1611 there has been ONE translation, the KJV. It has been accepted and revered (until lately) as God's Word by all English speaking people. At least until 1881.

Alexandrian Text (a completely different collection of manuscripts with a completely different history than the TR)... and since 1881 there have been almost 90 different translations (some were paraphrases).

(of course I am only speaking about English translations)

TR - one translation since 1611, no confusion about that.

AT - 88 translations since 1881, much confusion and disagree among themselves.

KJV - great and numerous revivals.

Since the overall acceptance of modern versions in the US & UK after WWII... moral decline and apostacy.

I know someone will say I'm over simplifying, but just think about this and let it sink in.

Krispy

 2007/1/19 14:40









 Krispy

you wrote:

Quote:
Neal, I always feel like you're looking for an excuse to not like me.



you are so wrong about that. That is just the enemy, worming his way into the company of the saints, and I urge you, lovingly, to rebuke the "feeling" that I don't "like" you. That is a just a lie from the pit of hell, rebuke it, coz I love you , or as Paul the Apostle said in Galatians 5:6b
"The only thing that counts is faith expressing iself through love".

period, end of sentence.

I love you bro, but when you write stuff like this:
Quote:
Bible versions is a passion of mine, no doubt. I dare say I have studied it a lot deeper than you



I gotta smile and ask you; you sure about that?

Steve, if I boast, I'm only going to boast in the Lord, not flash Knowledge about the Deep Things of the Lord, which includes Bible versions, of which I have copies of all of them, except the paraphrase version, or teenzine versions. (lol)

its not the discussion I "hate".....and brother, I never use the word "hate"....I'm not kidding, when the Holy Ghost came to me, and turned me, the word "hate" suddenly became an ugly battle flag of a word. I speak the truth in my heart on that matter.

What grieves me about the "discussion", and i have every right in Christ to forthtell my heart in this discussion, is that when i read a man writing "if you don't have a King James Bible in your hand, you are not getting fed", thats stinks of religiousity and pride, and it divides the Body, into "less-thans" and "better-thans", and that is the same kind of junk that was prevelant in the time of Jesus, when you had the Pharisees castigating a once blind man, because he was healed by the Finger of God, and this man, who could now see, was told, "YOU WERE STEEPED IN SIN AT BIRTH!", simply because he wouldnt play into their rotten religious schemes, which was to denigrate the Ministry of Messiah.

I don't shut down anybody, I believe not only in the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the secular constitution, but I always believe in the Freedom of Christ, and IN Christ.

and dont EVER believe that I don't "like" you, coz thats a lie.

If you guys want to "contend" for the KJV, go for it! But, as I see it, it is a waste of time and entirely, completely divisive.

 2007/1/19 14:43









 Re: Krispy

Quote:
you are so wrong about that. That is just the enemy, worming his way into the company of the saints, and I urge you, lovingly, to rebuke the "feeling" that I don't "like" you.



Sometimes thats how your posts make me feel, thats just being honest. Rebuke it? Yea... I will, and I'll take you at your word.

It gets a little frustrating at times when someone asks a question about this issue (which they have a right to ask), and when some of us attempt to offer them our thoughts on the issue, we get accused of being divisive when nothing divisive has been said. I dont mind it when people challenge me on this issue, as Paul has. That, to me, is not divisive.

I just wish that those who have a distaste for this discussion would simply ignore the discussion. We have moderators here, and it's there job to maintain a level of civility here, and if a topic gets too hot they do a fine job of stepping in and locking it down if need be.

But for folks to continually jump in and claim we're all wasting our time and fighting etc when the conversation is actually very civil and very enlighting is really getting to be a drag and an annoyance.

Neal, I dont dislike you either. We have had some good conversations since you've come back... and hopefully we can continue down that path. But again, my opinion is that you should consider ignoring those issues which you dont care to discuss. It would remove stress from your life, and things would be a little less divisive.

Ya know?

I also find humor in this... if someone asks a question about Versions, it only takes a couple of posts before the conversion morphs into a debate about how divisive this topic is. The question rarely ever gets answered. It's funny... and sad... all at the same time.

Krispy

 2007/1/19 14:56









 Re: Krispy

Bartle said:

Steve, if I boast, I'm only going to boast in the Lord, not flash Knowledge about the Deep Things of the Lord, which includes Bible versions, of which I have copies of all of them, except the paraphrase version, or teenzine versions. (lol)

its not the discussion I "hate".....and brother, I never use the word "hate"....I'm not kidding, when the Holy Ghost came to me, and turned me, the word "hate" suddenly became an ugly battle flag of a word. I speak the truth in my heart on that matter.

What grieves me about the "discussion", and i have every right in Christ to forthtell my heart in this discussion, is that when i read a man writing "if you don't have a King James Bible in your hand, you are not getting fed", thats stinks of religiousity and pride, and it divides the Body, into "less-thans" and "better-thans", and that is the same kind of junk that was prevelant in the time of Jesus, when you had the Pharisees castigating a once blind man, because he was healed by the Finger of God, and this man, who could now see, was told, "YOU WERE STEEPED IN SIN AT BIRTH!", simply because he wouldnt play into their rotten religious schemes, which was to denigrate the Ministry of Messiah.

I don't shut down anybody, I believe not only in the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the secular constitution, but I always believe in the Freedom of Christ, and IN Christ.

Steve’s response:

I assume this was directed to me since my name is Steve. The crux of this matter is all about the manuscripts used to create the various versions. It matters not if you have all 80+ versions (NIV, etc) of the newer versions. What matters is that you understand that you are not comparing apples to apples when you take one of the these 80+ versions and compare it to the King James. You are actually comparing oranges to an apple. As Krispy posted previously (that you did not address in your reply to him) is the following:


Textus Receptus... since 1611 there has been ONE translation, the KJV. It has been accepted and revered (until lately) as God's Word by all English speaking people. At least until 1881.

Alexandrian Text (a completely different collection of manuscripts with a completely different history than the TR)... and since 1881 there have been almost 90 different translations (some were paraphrases).

(of course I am only speaking about English translations)

TR - one translation since 1611, no confusion about that.

AT - 88 translations since 1881, much confusion and disagree among themselves.

What does all of this mean? If I pick up a Catholic Bible am I picking up the Textus Receptus? No, I am picking up their Bible that is derived from the Alexandrian text. The Alexandrian text is corrupt, as has been documented on this site many times.

If I pick up a King James Bible I have picked up the Protestant Bible, that is derived from the Textus Receptus. I am not looking at a Catholic Bible when I have the King James in my hand.

However, if I pick up any of the newer versions (Those bibles printed since 1881 and that are not the King James) I should be aware that I do not have the Textus Receptus in my hands. Westcott and Hort [b][color=FF3300]replaced (got rid of)[/color][/b] the Textus Receptus and [b][color=990000]replaced it with their "Revised Version" in 1881 that relied on ONLY the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus texts[/color][/b]. The Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket (TRASH CAN) in a CATHOLIC MONESTARY (St. Catherine’s Momenstary-near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the (CATHOLIC) Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845. The Catholic bible relies on the Vaticanius, alone. [b][color=990000]However the newer versions, starting in 1881 rely entirely on the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus texts.[/color][/b]

What this thread has been about is exposing this fact to other Christians. This is the TRUTH that Krispy is referring to, that no-one seems to have any interest in.

I posted on this matter about this time last year and had a tremendous response from others that participated, and many others who did not participate, but sent personal emails thanking me for the revelation to them of these facts.

Do these facts have any interest to you in any way? I pray that they do.

God bless,


Stever :-D


 2007/1/19 15:19





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy