SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Corrupted King James?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Stever's response to dhcoles:

It is a pleasure to find: 1) a Brother in agreement on this important issue

I truly agree with everything you say below.

God bless,

Stever
xxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

dhcolesj wrote:
I think his post DOES clarify the base issue, that of source. This is the reason I adhere to Received Text translations, (or translation considering I only use KJV). The source behind almost all other translations is that of godless men such as Wescott and Hort, and as such cannot be reliable or accurate.

The question the verse asks in Psalms (11:3) is "if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" So, if there are two basic families of Greek text, the Alexandrian, and the Byzantine, and the Alexandrian has been proven unreliable, then the translations based on them, must also be unreliable. If so, then those based on the Byzantine must be reliable, unless you believe we do not have a reliable source for God's Word in our day.

Now, the question has also been posed about those not able to speak english. I think this is foolish, and only distracts from the original question. There is no one in their right mind who holds to the King James who would say that someone in China would have to learn English before they can read God's Word. Niether have I heard of anyone who would point out the same to any other group of non-English speaking people. The question deals with the English language, lets keep it there. Note to those who think Chinese people must learn the KJV: You heard me right, you are NOT in your right mind, and are no better than the Romanist who did their best to kill anyone who tried to translate scripture into English in the first place.

Now, as to source I can't speak to where STEVER came up with his information, and since I am no longer near the University I can't look up the material. However, I have read this from various sources myself.

 2005/12/22 1:38









 Re:

Steve's response to the Letsgetbusy (Below)

Praise the Lord- What a wonderful thing to witness with your own eyes and ears. There really is a difference that can be seen by people that have eyes to see and ears to hear!!!

God bless,

Stever
xxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

letsgetbusy wrote:
I am presently going to a seminary class designed for our organization that ministers to inner-city youth. The author of our textbook is very obviously not a KJV fan. I made comments in my textbook where I disagreed with the author but left the issue alone during class.

One day, one of the other guys started really going into a lot of the details of what is not in the NIV, as he had just learned the info during a Sunday School study on the history of the English Bible.

There were many different responses. Some were very sensitive and defended the modern versions, and some were pro-KJV. I made comments that I chose the King James after hours of comparing. The issue came up probably every class since then, but in small amounts. Someone might just interject a comment or two, but it was still brought up.

Today, we exegeted a passage from one book of the Bible that we had studied in-depth. Three of the students had done 1 John. Interestingly enough, one of the guys focused on 1 John 5:7 as a foundational verse to his faith. The teacher commented that his NIV read differently. Being familiar with the debate, I just kept quiet, I just let it play out, relying on the fact that I had told people to just compare the versions to see which is superior. This study I feel is perfectly reasonable.

I think that something must be realized, that all versions do not say the same thing, and the differences are not over un-important statements. 1 John 5:7 is a prime example. While I am a pro-KJV guy, I don't reject guys who aren't, but I think it is ignorant whenever I hear this statement that the differences in the Greek manuscripts are not important. I do understand that they agree well above 90 percent, but they don't say the same things.

While I believe you can get saved from a Catholic Bible, a Living Bible, an NIV, or a AV, I think it is fair to look into which is superior since they don't say the same thing. And I think we must respect our brothers and sisters who stand with a different version. However, I see that many of the anti-AV crowd often says they all more or less say the same thing. They don't. Two Sundays ago we covered a verse in SS in which the NIV didn't have the words, "by his blood."

So whether you go this way or that, let's just be honest and agree that there are differences. Most of us on this site never had a problem bringing differences forward. I still get the feeling the many make comments who have not taken the time to compare version against version with effort and patience, as well as these things put in the light of historical events. I respect all Christians, regardless of version preference, but comments from a surface study tend to just attack the opposing side versus debating the evidence.

BTW-These comments are not aimed at anyone as I haven't read the posts except for about the last two and the original. I just thought it interesting that I saw the 1 John 5:7 difference in action during a study of respectable, intelligent Christians who had both versions present, and neither persons comments were prepared or knowledgable of the textual difference, but all agreed the difference was significant.

 2005/12/22 1:41









 Re:

To answer an earlier remark by ccchhhrrriiisss,

Quote:
Likewise, this article that you reprinted still does not clarify the argument of the KJV-only crowd. Why do some suppose that the "Received Text" is superior to all other manuscripts and texts?



Here is an article you may all find extremely helpful to read, which presents I believe - correct me if I am wrong, Stever - the main argument for the modern use of the Received Text and KJV with abundant detail.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-1.html

Here is an excerpt from the article, but please examine it throughout with prayer and supplication:

Quote:
How should Protestants who believe in the divine inspiration and preservation of Scripture evaluate this committee's work (The Revised Standard Version Committee)? I answer without hesitation: With grave suspicion! JEHOVAH the Holy One of Israel, who initially gave us the Scriptures through His prophets and apostles of old, who carefully selected the King James Version translators on the basis of their faith and linguistic ability and has since blessed His Word for some 400 years, would certainly never, never change His methods and use translators who reject basic Bible doctrines such as the creation account in Genesis. Would the Almighty, who claims never to change (Malachi 3:6), now use UNBELIEVERS to re-translate the Bible? The very idea is preposterous, if not blasphemous. I am still aghast that it took me so long to learn these facts. I am even more astounded when Christians, who are given this information, continue to hold to their modern Bibles.



Let God lead you in His mighty ways,
S. Stefanov

 2005/12/25 12:20









 Re:

As for where our argument went, Stever:

Quote:
If I quoted it, I surely didn't mean it. I don't personally think that----""the Faith of Christ in us"



I believe this was a petty misunderstanding, and I just wanted to make sure you didn't mean it.

God bless--

 2005/12/25 12:22









 Re: New Age Versions

The following is written by the late David B. Loughran (he passed away in 2000) from Stewarton, Scotland.

Quote:
The NIV, like many other modern translations, contains many doubt-laden footnotes such as:

'Many mss.(manuscripts) do not contain this verse.'
'The best manuscripts read.'
'The earliest mss read.'
'Some ancient mss add.'
'Some mss insert.'
'Many ancient authorities read.'
'Not found in most of the old mss.'
'Some late manuscripts.'
'Some manuscripts and certain Jews.'
'Some manuscripts do not have…'

These footnotes clearly show that the NIV translators, whilst putting on a show of apparent fairness, are really unsure of their product; they doubt whether the NIV is God's Word for today. The editors obviously don't know or don't believe it is, else they would not insert so many conflicting footnotes; which not only cast doubt on the King James Bible, but also on their own version. These dubious footnotes all imply that since there are so many disagreeing manuscripts, no one can be absolutely certain as to which is the real Word of God. In effect they say: 'Take your pick, decide for yourself which manuscript or version you want to believe; for the fact is, no one can be certain what God actually inspired His prophets and apostles to write.'

'Yea hath God said?' (Gen.3:1) was, and still is, Satan's main weapon against truth. He deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden by planting doubt concerning God's Word in her mind. Satan is doing the very same thing with the modern translations of the Bible. They all cast doubt on the real Word of God (the KJV); and those insinuating footnotes are the latest Satanic way of saying: 'Hath God said? Is it any wonder there are so few Christians who really believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God!



What does your conscience say?

In Christ,
Slav Stefanov

 2005/12/26 12:57









 Re:

"Not me" quoted:
"As for where our argument went, Stever:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I quoted it, I surely didn't mean it. I don't personally think that----""the Faith of Christ in us"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe this was a petty misunderstanding, and I just wanted to make sure you didn't mean it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response to "Not Me":

What I was responding to is that I can't remembeer posting what you quoted in the first place---that I can ascertain from all of my posts. This was your original post to me in this regards:
xxxxxxxxxx
P.S. You mention "the Faith of Christ in us" as opposed to simply "our faith in Christ." Jesus never mentioned or clarified anyone's faith to be indeed "the Faith of Christ in them." Never did he say, "the Faith of Abraham in you has healed you," or "My Faith in you has healed you." This would have confused the people! And if it is indeed true, then does it matter what one believes in, if it is NOT your faith, but the Faith of Christ in you? Does such an approach invalidate our reason? Does it, more importantly, give Him all the responsibility for our lack of faith (at times)? Why would Christ so often criticize their "little faith," if it was His Faith in them to begin with? Was He criticizing Himself? Read John 3:16 again - it says, "whoever believes in him," and not "whoever has the Faith of Christ in him." As simple as that!"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please, point out to me where I said this, and then I can respond properly.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/12/26 15:01









 Re:

My apologies, Stever. The actual quote was by Christinyou, and not yours. Here it is:

Quote:
The greatest lie and deception of most of the new translations is to take away the faith of Christ and change it into our faith in Jesus Christ. Paul makes it clear that our faith is of and by Christ in us. Heavenly faith not earthly faith.


I have wrongly accused you of posting this.

In Christ,
S.S.

 2005/12/26 20:09
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710
Ca.

 Re:

Quote: """Why would Christ so often criticize their "little faith," if it was His Faith in them to begin with? Was He criticizing Himself? Read John 3:16 again - it says, "whoever believes in him," and not "whoever has the Faith of Christ in him." As simple as that!""""

It was not His faith in them if it were they could move mountains. His Faith had not yet come to believers.

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the Father of us all,:

This is not Abraham's faith, this is the Fathers Faith in Abraham and it was made righteousness and justification reckoned to him not because of him but because of God.

It is not Abraham but to that also which is of the faith which is the Father of us all. Connect Faith and Father not Abraham and father.


The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; i.e. faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; God is the author of this faith but Christ is the object of faith, is meant, as Ga 2:20; 3:22; Php 3:9.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 3:22-24 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

When did faith come? This faith was shut up until after He was made our Justification, then this faith would be recealed in them that believe and are saved.

Philippians 3:9-15 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Man in himself does not even have the faith of a mustard seed, if he did he could move mountains.

The Life I know live I live by the faith of the Son of God which is now revealed in the son's of God. Just like it was reckoned to Abraham it is now come and revealed in us.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2005/12/27 3:35Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Christinyou's  2005/12/27 8:35

Quote:
Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the Father of us all,:??This is not Abraham's faith, this is the Fathers Faith in Abraham and it was made righteousness and justification reckoned to him not because of him but because of God.??It is not Abraham but to that also which is of the faith which is the Father of us all. Connect Faith and Father not Abraham and father.

I am having difficulty following your reasoning here. This is very plainly 'Abraham's Faith'. This whole chapter begins with the question that the chapter is answering.“What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:1-3, KJVS) and the chapter goes on to describe 'Abraham's kind of faith' the absolute dependence upon the character of God as expressed in his word to Abraham. Are you saying that "this is the Fathers Faith in Abraham" to imply that this was God's faith in the person of Abraham ie God trusted Abraham, or the 'Fathers' in the sense of the OT patriarchs? This chapter is about the 'Faith of Father Abraham' not the Father's faith in Abraham. The word 'father' is used 6 times in this chapter and each time it refers to the man Abraham. (Rom. 4:1,11-12,16-18)

If you are wanting to distinguish between the Abrahamic Faith and Christian Faith I am with you, but I'm not sure that this is what you are trying to convey.

In his sermon (Sermon 110 "Faith is the substance of things seen" Wesley says But still let it be carefully observed, (for it is a point of no small importance) that this faith is only the faith of a servant, and not the faith of a son. Because this is a point which many do not clearly understand, I will endeavour to make it a little plainer. The faith of a servant implies a divine evidence of the invisible and the eternal world; yea, and an evidence of the spiritual world, so far as it can exist without living experience. Whoever has attained this, the faith of a servant, "feareth God and escheweth evil;" or, as it is expressed by St. Peter, "feareth God and worketh righteousness." In consequence of which he is in a degree, as the Apostle observes, "accepted with Him." Elsewhere he is described in those words: "He that feareth God, and keepeth his commandments." Even one who has gone thus far in religion, who obeys God out of fear, is not in any wise to be despised; seeing "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Nevertheless he should be exhorted not to stop there; not to rest till he attains the adoption of sons; till he obeys out of love, which is the privilege of all the children of God. This differentiation of servile and filial faith was a regular theme in Wesley's teaching.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/12/27 10:59Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
"He that feareth God, and keepeth his commandments." Even one who has gone thus far in religion, who obeys God out of fear, is not in any wise to be despised; seeing "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Nevertheless he should be exhorted not to stop there; not to rest till he attains the adoption of sons; till he obeys out of love, which is the privilege of all the children of God.



What an outstanding quote. Have wondered why there is not more of Wesley's expressions ... expressed. Thanks Ron.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/12/27 11:09Profile





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