| Poster | Thread | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Quote:
chris,
This is not true! The Brother did not lay these claims.
Why do you continue to repeat false accusations?
Excuse me?
I could go back and copy and paste the words themselves. However, why don't you just go back through this thread and look at this man's claims.
He (along with a couple of others) joined this community less than two weeks ago and has repeatedly presented a very specific view in which he claims that God supernaturally perfectly "preserved" His Word and that an end result of this is the King James Version. He may not have used those specific words, but the underlying premise still appears to be the same.
He also has posted (or reposted) material that insinuates and outright accuses other translators, sources, language/manuscript experts and, ultimately, other translations of God's Word.
However, for clarities sake, I asked ten simple questions in order to ascertain the original primary thesis for such a claim. Too often, a claim about the KJV is quickly turned into attacks on other versions (and their translators, sources, textual cricism, etc...) -- which has happened in this very thread.
I have asked those questions in order to understand the perspectives that each person (including anonymous777) has regarding this issue.
Quote:
Why, instead of replying to my questions, do you use the opportunity to post more attacks on Brother anonomyous777?
White_Stone, I am NOT attacking this person. Rather, I am actually asking HIM to STOP repeating the attacks of other versions, translators, source manuscripts, text-types, language experts, etc... -- unless he has completely verified his sources. At times, this discussion seems to have meandered from a declarative position on the KJV...to an attack on other versions, sources, translators, etc...to questioning the motives and honesty of those who examine his own position, claims and words that he quotes from other websites and books.
Besides, right now, I don't even know what questions that you are asking of me. Perhaps I missed something?
Quote:
The Lord rebuke thee.
The Lord rebuke "thee?"
Okay...enough. We need to stop with this sort of repulsive, offensive and extremely ridiculous nonsense.
I think that some may be incorrectly "reading between the lines" here.
I am not the person going about loudly proclaiming views that faithful translations of Scripture are "hellish," "corrupt" or part of some conspiracy to add or remove words from God's Word. I am simply urging caution about using THIS FORUM to loudly proclaim such things as if there is no need for a discussion since the websites that a few people have consulted have indicated what some are convinced is the truth.
If you are so "free" as to go about spewing a vicious "the Lord rebuke thee" -- then there is nothing more that I can say to you.
However, you really need to stop spewing such nonsense -- especially if you aren't quite understanding a particularly simple cautionary point that is trying to be made.
May the Lord BLESS you.
_________________
Christopher
|
|  2011/4/4 19:45 | Profile |
| | Re: God's Word is still being "burned" today, one word at a time. | | Thanks for setting the record straight, Chris.
What I am posting now is for those of you that are interested in what is changing in the Modern Bible Versions.
My first post was about 10 pages in and I was applauding Tyndale for the difficult times he endured and what a great job he did. I applauded the KJV translators for desiring "to improve an already good translation and not to create a new one".
My second post and my original thesis was my concern for the contradictions that we never saw before in translations which we are seeing now.
A poster recently said, that I should have come in and said everyone should be cautious about modern versions and the changes that are taking place.
That is exactly what my 2nd post was all about.
Here is my 2nd post.
Quote:
Jesus-is-God has a signature with this website.
The Savior or the Scriptures
http://www.bibleviews.com/savior-scripture.html
It is an excellent read about Jesus Christ and the Word of God. They are not mutually exclusive and most importantly, there is no contradiction between Jesus Christ and His Word.
I think when I read this, a light turned on in trying to convey to you what our concern is.
What we are trying to say, is that with these new versions of the Bible, we are seeing contradictions that we never saw before between Jesus Christ and His "Word".
Is this not cause for concern and alarm?
I would expect someone to challenge my statement and want me to show them what I am talking about or to show me how I am mistaken.
Peace in Jesus,
777
This original question and thesis has been obfuscated over and over. I spent time showing many examples. But mainly one person kept trying to detract from what my main, initial point was all about.
When someone asks me what my final authority is in matters of faith and practice, I don't say, "usually the NIV, but I like the NASB and KJV, too". I would really be saying, "I have no final authority", if I said that.
I leave you with what I believe are red alerts that you should be concerned with. The skeptics will not read these. They will only draw your attention once again to a strawman that they are mercilessly beating on, instead of taking the chance that you might read and educate yourself about major doctrines being demolished. Here are some examples and remember, the additions/changes/deletions have not ended, for New Versions are pumped out every year and there will continue to be more "burning" of God's Word, word by word, until it will be on life support needing a couple of IVs.
Once you read these, I am confident that you will see what this battle is all about and what is at stake.
Some will claim that the weaker reading in the new Bible vesions is unimportant because for example, the NIV and NASB include the stronger reading in the margin. The question is why the seed of doubt should be allowed to be planted by contradicting the text in footnotes, and how long it will be before the footnote is removed entirely. Don't think the footnotes will not be removed someday, then you will not only not have the verse but the footnote about the missing verse.
Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm
NIV BIBLE QUIZ
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivquiz.htm
These can all be found here:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
IN THE BIBLE THAT YOU READ:
Are you washed in the Blood?
Rev 1:5
Was GOD manifest in the flesh?
1 Timothy 3:16
Does your Bible teach the Trinity.
1 John 5:7
Who is in control of the world, God or Satan? Can't be both. Matthew 6:13 ends with: "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen." This phrase is in brackets in the NASB and removed in the NIV, RSV and ESV. Jesus either said it or he didn't; they can't all be right.
The Grace of God Destroyed
http://brandplucked.webs.com/graceofgoddestroyed.htm
Is Jesus the Eternal, ONLY Begotten Son
http://brandplucked.webs.com/eternalonlybegottenson.htm
How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples
http://brandplucked.webs.com/messianicprophecies.htm
Does Your Bible Teach Racism?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsandracism.htm
Rejoice or Be Proud - Pride taught as a Virtue
http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsprideasvirtue.htm
Lucifer or Morning Star?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/luciferormorningstar.htm
The Deity of Christ
http://brandplucked.webs.com/deityofchrist3verses.htm
The SPIRIT ITSELF
http://brandplucked.webs.com/thespirititself.htm
Godhead or Deity - Is James White Right?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/godheaddeityschoolmast.htm
Fornication or immorality - Sodomites or something else?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/fornicationimmoral.htm
Are Some of God's Word's Lost
http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm
Do Ghosts Exist?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/ghosts.htm
How Old Was Jehoiachin, 8 or 18?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm
And many more:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
What kind of Sword do you have? Is it turning into a butter knife?
The only thing that I ask is that you be open about this and educate yourself on this subject.
I am glad to be here and thankful for the new friends that I have and do not consider anyone an enemy.
777
P.S. The 10 questions that a poster asked are easy to answer, but since it is a strawman that takes away from the original subject I sought to talk about, I won't be answering those question. It is just a distraction. No doubt, the poster already knows the KJV view and answer to his questions, already.
Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
|
| | 2011/4/5 0:57 | | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi anonymous777,
I am now opting out of this thread.
It is apparent that you cannot (or are unwilling to) validate any of your claims about the supremacy of the KJV. That was the first major thesis in this whole matter that is unproven.
In addition, you cannot (or are unwilling to) substantiate any of the allegations that you make about other versions, other translators, the sources, textual criticism, ancient manuscripts, etc... through firsthand source examination and presentation. And, apparently, you are either unwilling to validate the information that you read in biased books or websites...or you are unwilling to identify the extent of that research for each accusation that you make that has been contained here.
"That poster?" I guess that is me. It is ironic that you called my ten questions to you (and anyone else) a "straw man" -- when I was merely trying to get to the essence of the underlying premise that you make about the KJV. Unfortunately, any examination of that claim is treated with "suspicion" or a subtle personal accusation. It is impossible to get to the heart of the issue if we "dance around it" with back-and-forth innuendo and finger pointing.
At this point, and since you said that you are new to this SermonIndex community, all I can do is make a few suggestions:
- You should NOT use this website's forum to make allegations about the translations, the translators, the sources, the ancient manuscripts, the text experts, the language experts, the Bible societies, etc... Such public allegations -- especially when unsubstantiated -- are outside of the mission of this ministry.
- If you read an allegation about such things in a book or website, or if you hear someone else tell you them, you should verify those things for complete accuracy and authenticity before repeating them. You can read firsthand source material in university and public libraries. You can contact translators. You can read the writings of the accused. You can read the writings of the translators of the KJV, Textus Receptus, New Testament in the Original Greek, etc... Someone mentioned "time constraints" -- but that shouldn't be a problem given the amount of time people use to read the allegations or the time that they spend on public forums actually repeating the accusations.
- You should welcome anyone who wants to test the things that you claim. If it is really truth, it will withstand the scrutiny that comes from true believers who honestly want to prove those things.
- "I don't know for certain" is an acceptable position...if we aren't entirely certain of a matter, allegation, accusation or claim.
- You should refrain from subtly implying that those who do not agree with your beliefs about the supremacy of the KJV are a result of a famine of hearing the words of the Lord...or are unwilling to know the truth. Many of us prefer to hear HIS words above all else -- and we are willing to study in order to test those things that are claimed by others (even if their claims are presented as "fact").
Anonymous777, I do hope that you will truly be willing to verify those things that you read from others. I also hope that we are "slow to speak" regarding claims and accusations that aren't fully researched, tested and verified. It would be a terrible thing to find that out on that Day that we were wrong with such loud public proclamations about faithful translations of God's Word. After all, we will all give an account.
And, my prayer is that the Lord of Truth will lead and guide all of us.
With this, I am opting out of this thread. If further accusations or well-meaning "rebukes" are made toward me, they will go unanswered.
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2011/4/5 2:00 | Profile |
| | no! | | Quote:
What kind of Sword do you have? Is it turning into a butter knife?
NO, It, meaning Scripture, which is on this table, is an ESV translation and in the LORD, i can assure you is no "butter knife" and to imply otherwise, as i am led, is veering perilously close to committing the unpardonable sin.
This Book will cut chunks out the devil.
Brother, it is One Thing to know the Bible, what about the excellency of Knowing God?
the reason i ask this, is that there is one teaching by Len Ravenhill, on this site, "The Excellency of Knowing God"....turned me upside down. i hope you like dear Len, i almost afraid to post it up, fore i dont even know, if you think Len is ok.
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=20421
its a very very annointed bit of teaching, i think you'll like it, i dont consider you "enemy", and you wrote of the friends you've made here, but let me ask this, i dont know of any friend i would call "trip seven". Back in my military service, that might have been a call sign, but here...?
i use my name...many posters dont, i understand, the internet is very dicey place, but i have no fear of such things, or of man.
anyway, despite what you may believe, i'm am comfortable in the knowledge that my ESV translation of God's Word is no "butter knife".
brother trip seven, the only translation i have little regard for is the TNIV, but i guarantee you, that version is NOT a big seller. The reason i think its a bit off, is its all too earnest stance on being "gender neutral"....just even writing "gender neutral" makes me laugh, but its 2011, and we live in the new "Roman" empire, people can tell you who won the newest "American Idol"...WAY before they can tell you of the different uses of the Greek word "love" in recommisioning of Peter, at the end of the Gospel of John, which i find fascinating....so if the most hardened secular atheist even picks up a TNIV (!!!) to read, i bless God!
thats a start, a baby has to learn to crawl before they can walk, and i am fully confident in the Holy Ghost, that over time, such a person, (please LORD, bring them) will relize there are more "figs" on a better Tree...if that Tree is a KJV, Bless God, if its an ESV, NASB, whatever, Bless God!!
do you see what i'm saying?
Even within the Ekklesia, most followers of Jesus are Bible illiterate....they dont make it a discipline, to get to in the Word everyday....and/or they dont make it a discipline, an offering pleasing to the LORD to get on their knees and praise and speak to the Master of the Universe, everyday, and in transparency, i myself am guilty of neglecting this discipline, which is a daily private prayer ministry, but The Holy Ghost is dealing with me on this issue, and God willing, may i reconstruct a private ministry of secret prayer in my life, which used to be vibrant.
What more can be better? than talking with God, communing with Jesus?
Therefore i implore you, brother, beg you....just a little Grace.....please. Grace is Grace, it is not compromise.
search your heart, i searched mine, and i dont think saying, i "wouldnt fellowship" with ANY dear saint is a good thing to write, i'm sorry. If it seems like "anger"....ah, maybe, its more "passion" than anything. i'm not Paul, but look what that dear saint wrote in Galatians about the circumscion crowd?.......i'm sure you know, he wished they'd go all the way, and emasculate themselves!
lets just veer towards a heart of Grace, heart of Mercy, heart of Jesus.
May the Grace of the Lord be with you and all here, neil
|
| | 2011/4/5 8:17 | |
| | Re: no! | | Hi Neil,
That was my last post, brother.
Thank you for your kind words.
777
Regarding grace on the subject. The first scripture that came to my mind was God's opinion regarding the adding and subtracting of His words from HIS WORD. I think it was GRACE that HE WARNED US.
We'll see you around.
May the Grace of the Lord be with you and everyone else, also.
Are The New Versions Really New?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIXS5Ydbrsk
Catholic Church- Mother Of Corrupt Bible Versions 1/9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySheyYPB4Qo
A777 |
| | 2011/4/5 8:52 | | sarahsdream
Member
Joined: 2011/6/16
Posts: 183
| | King James Only - Where did the term originate? | | Ahh, I found this gem of a thread...
This was the original topic as posted by SermonIndex.
Quote:
"On its 400th anniversary, the King James version of the Bible is universally recognized as a literary masterpiece that profoundly shaped both modern Christianity and the English language.
At the Bible Baptist Church in Mount Prospect, Ill., however, it's accorded a much higher level of reverence.
"Using anything but the King James version is like shaving with a banana," said Chris Huff, the church's pastor.
The suburban Chicago church belongs to a loosely defined denomination known as the "King James Only" movement. Members believe that the King James version is not just another translation, but the indispensable underpinning of a Christian's faith. ..."
Today, the term "King James Only" is mostly a derogatory term, but it was not always that way...
King James Only - Where did the term originate?
The term King James Only has a tremendous history to it. Over time, the term has become a derogatory accusation by proponents of the modern versions. It has become synonymous with the understanding that King James Only means a bunch of King James nuts dancing around a King James Bible and worshipping it. Those who are totally void of reality in their lives will honestly believe that it is a worship of the King James Bible. Nothing could be farther from the truth but since most Christians get their understanding of Bible history from the comic pages, it is necessary to give a brief understanding of this term and how it came to be and the extreme wisdom behind it.
In 1603 when King James VI of Scotland was about to ascend to the English throne as King James I, something called the Millenary Petition was given to him. It was the signatures of over one thousand Puritan ministers who were thoroughly repulsed by the serious spiritual decline in the Church of England.
The Petition reached its high point with the Hampton Court Conference where the outcome was a suggestion by King James for a new Bible version. Up to the time of 1603, the churches in England were using several versions of the Bible, they were the Geneva Bible of 1560, The Bishops Bible of 1568, The Great Bible of 1539, Matthews version of 1537, Tyndale of 1526, and the Coverdale of 1535 (burnt according to the decree of Henry VIII in 1546). What was happening in the churches of England was there were many translations of the Bible and there was some confusion, even though they were from the same manuscript line which led up to the King James Bible 1604-1611.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
(Tyndale 1526) and for to loke for his sonne from heven whom he raysed from deeth: I mean Iesus which delivereth vs from wrath to come.
(Matthews 1537) and for to look for his son from heaven, whom he raised from death: I mean Jesus which delivereth us from wrath to come.
(Geneva 1560) And to looke for his sonne from heauen, whome he raised from the dead, euen Iesus which deliuereth vs from that wrath to come.
(Bishops 1568) And to tary for his sonne from heauen, whom he raysed from the dead: euen Iesus which delyuereth vs from the wrath to come.
1 Thessalonians 1:10 gives us a good look at the four versions which convey the same message but with different English in some places. It must be kept in mind that the English language was still in flux in the sixteenth century and that is why there was much difference in translations into the English. By 1604, the English language had started to become solidified and this is where the wisdom of King James came in concerning the term King James Only.
What King James wanted to do, was to unify all the churches in England with one Bible version so there would not be any confusion. King James was a strong Christian but was weak in body. He wanted unity in the churches between the pulpit and congregation, and between churches. That is the history behind the term King James Only. In fact, even up to 100 years ago here in the United States, there was unity of Bible usage as the King James Bible was still in use. The 1881 RV and the 1901 ASV never really made any serious inroads into the churches. The first serious threat to Biblical unity in Christianity was the Revised Version of the Communist Group National Council of Churches completed in 1952, then in 1959 came the New American Standard Version, and then Satans crowning achievement, the New International Version in 1973.
Now, not only do you have absolute confusion in bibles when you go from church to church, but now within every congregation in every church is a number of modern versions, all saying something different and you never get past, What does your version say? With Christian approval, Satan now marches into every church with a new version every six months, each one being more corrupt and neutralized than the one before it.
Now do you see the extreme wisdom of King James Only? It was for the purpose of making sure Christians can grow in the faith and when the Bible is discussed or preached, all will be on the same page with the same words and therefore no confusion in the mix. How many times I have heard preachers preaching from a modern version and then have to state in their sermon, Well the NIV states it this way, and The Message states it that way. King James was more prophetic than he realized when he wanted one translation for unity in the churches.
Now you know what King James Only stands for and the next time you hear it used derogatively, you will know the person is ignorant about it and you can correct him or her. Let us not continue to believe a lie!
By Dr. Ken Matto
|
| | 2011/7/15 13:10 | Profile |
| | Re: King James Only - Where did the term originate? | | And here we go again. |
| | 2011/7/15 13:33 | |
| | Re: | | I just spoke about intimidation in Robert Wurtz' thread, martyr. Is your comment meant to deride and produce subtle intimidation? I don't understand, can you explain what you mean?
I find it interesting where KJV Only originated, don't you? Does that pose a problem for you?
We would like to know what you mean by "here we go again" or would your perfect world be one where no one is allowed to speak about this subject anymore?
I found nothing offensive in Sarah's post. |
| | 2011/7/15 14:13 | | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi Julius21,
I took martyr's statement only as a reference to the fact that this topic has been discussed EXHAUSTIVELY in MANY divisive and hotly debated threads here at SermonIndex. I don't think that he meant disrespect, and I don't think that it is wise to publicly contemplate whether martyr meant to "deride and produce subtle intimidation."
As for the author of this article's claims:
What is presented in this little article is NOT the origin of the "KJV-Only" term as understood today regarding a handful of very vocal critics of ALL other versions besides the KJV.
Quote:
I found nothing offensive in Sarah's post.
I didn't find anything offensive by Sarah, but I did not agree with the highly divisive nature of some of the rhetoric within the article that was quoted, such as...
Quote:
"Those who are totally void of reality in their lives..."
Quote:
...but since most Christians get their understanding of Bible history from the comic pages...
Quote:
"King James was a strong Christian but was weak in body." (???)
Quote:
...and then Satans crowning achievement, the New International Version in 1973.
Quote:
Satan now marches into every church with a new version every six months...
Quote:
...you will know the person is ignorant about it and you can correct him or her.
Quote:
Let us not continue to believe a lie!
That last part doesn't sound like even the author of the article even wants an actual discussion. After all, he is convinced that his "research" is correct and everything else is a "lie."
That is the danger in these sort of discussions. I don't have a problem when someone discusses the issue of translations -- but there is a danger in meandering to the point to where it is a way to publicly proclaim something with an attitude that no discussion is necessary or that any criticism or analysis of such claims is the equivalent to "believing a lie" of the devil. That can be quite "intimidating" in and of itself.
I welcome such discussions. However, I think that we should present a view with meekness and we should always be willing to check and recheck our views, sources and manners by which we make loud public proclamations.
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2011/7/15 14:57 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Hi Julius21
I believe the United States Constitution guarantees one the right of free speech. Thus you may speak what you wish provided the SI guidelines are observed. I believe Chris more than elequantly explained what my statement meant. It was a statement with no offense intended. |
| | 2011/7/15 17:03 | |
|
