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:

1 Peter 3:15-16,

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you [u]with meekness and fear[/u]:
Having a [u]good conscience[/u]; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your [u]good conversation[/u] in Christ.

Speaking the truth is [u]no excuse[/u] for disobedience. Praise God for His mercy!

 2005/12/29 17:37
Christinyou
Member



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

 Re:

Galatians 5:22-26 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. >>>>>>Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. To myself most of all, Father I beg on bended knees That You Keep me from from the affections and lusts of the flesh, but fill me with the Glory of Your Christ, Your Son, that is in me.

Colossians 1:28-29 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. In us all. Amen


_________________
Phillip

 2005/12/29 20:00Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Yes, let us reason together. I am openly a KJV guy, but if you are for Jesus Christ and the Bible I'm with you. I will tell you if you are interested why I choose the KJV. Let's continue to discuss with fear and trembling, knowing that we will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ.

I think Steve, you are a man of character, and are calling the shots as you see them. Let's show people the truth out of love. And those of us who disagree with Steve should realize that he is passionate about truth-seeking.

Even Gail Riplinger, who wrote the book "New Age Bible Verions" that stirred up the controvery so much, said she believed the modern version translators were not conspiracy driven necessarily (my comment: though some involved may have been), but rather were like Adam and Eve in the garden; trying to add something to God's plan. Trying to steady an ark that is not to be touched except by those appointed by God.

Riplinger also commented that she thought the version debate was laughable when she first heard about it. This same woman, years later, did a 6 year exhaustive study to defend the superiority of the King James. Kent Hovind came to the KJV stance reluctantly over many years, but now defends the AV during his evangelism efforts.

The subject was very offensive to me, thinking that my church is full of inferior Bibles in the pews, but I let the evidence prove itself. My mind was sore for weeks thinking of all that was to be dealt with in this subject. The result was hours of study of: English Bible history, Greek manuscript evidence, version comparisan, Christian doctrine explored, etc.

I don't get upset at you guys that take a stand for modern versions, though I do get very frustrated at remarks made from surface study to just attack the 'KJV-only' crowd. I'm no more a 'KJV-only' guy than I am a 'protestant.' Simply because neither is my condition in the sight of God, and neither helps me walk rightly in the Spirit. I am merely His child because of the covering of the precious blood of Christ.

While I think the AV is stronger in doctrine, the words on the page do me no good if I don't obey them. So I take my stand on AV, knowing I will be judged for how I take my stand on the AV.

So for us pro-AV guys, we must speak out of love to defend our position, regardless of what the comments of others are. I do get a little wound up when searching for truth, why shouldn't we? Let's just make sure we are honoring Christ along the way.

John 15:12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/12/29 21:35Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Back to the issue:

----------

Statement: "The KJV does nothing for the majority of people living in the world today."

Reply: I disagree. English is the world trade language of today just as Greek was the trade language of the New Testament.

----------

Statement: "I have no problem with the King James Version. There are only a few passages that are obviously poorly translated (such as the infamous "Easter" reference in Acts 12)."

Reply: Check out these comments on Acts 12 concerning "Easter." All comments below are from Kent Hovind available at:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=88

----------

The word 'Easter' is the correct word and the KJV is the only version I have seen that gets it right. Read Ex. 12 and Num. 28:16-17 and it will be clear that the Passover came before the days of unleavened bread.

In fact, by translating "pascha" as "passover" in Acts 12:4 modern bibles have inserted an ERROR that displays not only their lack of knowledge of Greek in context, but even more their lack of knowledge of ENGLISH!

You see, the man who INVENTS a particular word is the world's foremost authority on that word. In this case, the word "passover" was INVENTED by William Tyndale. Thus, William Tyndale knew the CORRECT definition of "passover" since he INVENTED the word "passover" in the first place.

Singular to relate, William Tyndale did NOT use the word HE INVENTED - "passover" - in Acts 12:4. Why? Why did William Tyndale not use the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4? Because, as Dr. Thomas Holland demonstrated, the days of unleavened bread come AFTER Passover. That's ONE reason Tyndale did not employ the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4.

The second reason, of course, is because Herod was looking forward to the pagan feast of Ishtar, from which the word "Easter" is derived, and so Tyndale, who INVENTED the word "passover" did NOT use the word "passover" in Acts 12:4 in HIS OWN TRANSLATION.

In summary, had modern translators bothered to learn ENGLISH etymology, they would have discovered that the INVENTOR of the word "passover" declined to use the word HE INVENTED in this verse, because the INVENTOR of the word "passover" did not want to MISTRANSLATE the passage, as modern bibles have done.

Some points to ponder about Easter:

1-The Passover was at night on the 14th day of April.
2-The seven days of unleavened bread always followed the Passover.
3-The pagan festival of Astart or Ishtar (Easter) was always held late in April to celebrate the earth regenerating itself after winter. That is why rabbits (Playboy) and eggs, symbols of fertility are used.
4-The feast days are never called the Passover anywhere in scripture.
5-Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread after Passover.
6-Herod wanted to kill him during his own pagan festival of Easter coming up in a few days.

KJV is the only version to get it right.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/12/29 23:19Profile









 Re: Version not a translation

Grafted Branc wrote:

Quote:
The KJV is an excellent translation. But it is only a translation



The KJV is not a translation, it's a Version.

The KJV was compiled together using the various translaton of the day. William Tyndale's work was used greatly in putting the New Testement together.

The King James Version was not the only bible floating around at that time, there were several in their respective languages.

The original King James Version had alot more books in it than what we have today, but in the revision they were removed.

Another revision came which is called the Revised Standard Version which mutilated the King James Version it took many versus out sometimes whole paragraphs.

But many clung to the King James and rightly so.

Karl

 2005/12/29 23:33









 Re:

Stever posted to ccchhhrrriiisss:

If you read them, and I think you have, then perhaps a new television show should be in the works. You will be the host, and the title of the show is "THE SPIN STARTS HERE".

Why not be honest and level with us. That no matter what information is posted here, your mind has already been made up.

Instead of trying to come across as a seeker of truth and reason, come across as who you are- the marketing manager for the NIV and all of the newer versions.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Chris, I made this post to you in tongue and cheek.

I really believe that if each of us would identify his position, and then defend his/her position with Scripture and other sources of documentation on this issue of Bible Translations, then we could really make some headway.

We have discussed this subject before on Sermonindex, and it always seems to go in circles. We have the conservatives, and then we have the liberals. Neither one of us should be ashamed of our position. Each of us should lay that position out with Scripture and history, and other documentation avaiable. Instead of a he said- she said approach, just let it stand on the merits.

As I look at all of the posts on this subject I can find two specific sides-- One side that supports the King James because they feel it is more reliable than all of the other versions. Also, in this same group that support it, there are those that beleive the KJV (Received Text) is "Spirit breathed" and the very word of God.

The second group also has two positions- one that believes the newer translations are just as good as the KJV or better than the KJV. There is also in this second group those that use the KJV, as well as other Bible Versions, and find really no substantial difference between them.

This is a detailed study. I believe when we discussed this subject before I sent you several books in zip files that address all of the issues that have been presented here from my side of the aisle.

So, we continue to disagree on an issue that to me as a mature Christian of 63 years old is very, very critical to a growing apostate Church.

You, on the other hand are a young Christian man, still in College, probably at least 40 years younger than me, with his future before him.

So, again, please realize I was NOT really serious in my post above. I was just jokingly making the point that we are on two opposite sides of an issue, and things of critical importance to one are not of equal or any importance to another. And so it continues, on the current subject.

I truly hope that if my words have offended you that you will forgive me. I know that we will someday be in heaven together, where all things will be known to us. All of us look through the glass darkly, and none of us have Christ's 20/20 vision.

In Christ Jesus,

Stever

 2005/12/30 0:44
crsschk
Member



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

 Re: Appreciative

Thank you Stever for addressing this here.

My apologies here as well, upon some reflection felt I reacted a bit too hastily with the warning there, that was going a bit too far.

Having said that, the difficulty is and will always likely be in determining things from this standpoint;

Quote:
Chris, I made this post to you in tongue and cheek.


It can practically be almost impossible to tell sometimes and really if you were to re-read what was written I.E.;
Quote:
come across as who you are-

doesn't sound very tounge in cheek but more presumptuous, perhaps this and the other comments are what come across more as accusatory than in jest. Motivations aside, that can be how they sound. Basically, whatever the intent they seem rather unnecessary.

Indeed it is true there is a lot of history and discussion on all this here. It can be rather heated and I could only add the observation of how telling the whole issue can be in a paradoxical kind of way. It is really just this, that the core principles and sentiments expressed even in the worst of translations, the very penetrating questions of motive and manner of heart are often exposed from both 'sides' of the debate. We can miss the trees for the forest if we are not more careful.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/12/30 9:57Profile









 Re:

Ccchhhrrriiisss said:


"I have no problem with the King James Version. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PASSAGES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY POORLY TRANSLATED (SUCH AS THE INFAMOUS "EASTER" REFERENCE IN ACTS 12).


Letsgetbusy responded as follows:"


Reply: Check out these comments on Acts 12 concerning "Easter." All comments below are from Kent Hovind available at:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=88

----------

The word 'Easter' is the correct word and the KJV is the only version I have seen that gets it right. Read Ex. 12 and Num. 28:16-17 and it will be clear that the Passover came before the days of unleavened bread.

In fact, by translating "pascha" as "passover" in Acts 12:4 modern bibles have inserted an ERROR that displays not only their lack of knowledge of Greek in context, but even more their lack of knowledge of ENGLISH!

You see, the man who INVENTS a particular word is the world's foremost authority on that word. In this case, the word "passover" was INVENTED by William Tyndale. Thus, William Tyndale knew the CORRECT definition of "passover" since he INVENTED the word "passover" in the first place.

Singular to relate, William Tyndale did NOT use the word HE INVENTED - "passover" - in Acts 12:4. Why? Why did William Tyndale not use the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4? Because, as Dr. Thomas Holland demonstrated, the days of unleavened bread come AFTER Passover. That's ONE reason Tyndale did not employ the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4.

The second reason, of course, is because Herod was looking forward to the pagan feast of Ishtar, from which the word "Easter" is derived, and so Tyndale, who INVENTED the word "passover" did NOT use the word "passover" in Acts 12:4 in HIS OWN TRANSLATION.

In summary, had modern translators bothered to learn ENGLISH etymology, they would have discovered that the INVENTOR of the word "passover" declined to use the word HE INVENTED in this verse, because the INVENTOR of the word "passover" did not want to MISTRANSLATE the passage, as modern bibles have done.

Some points to ponder about Easter:

1-The Passover was at night on the 14th day of April.
2-The seven days of unleavened bread always followed the Passover.
3-The pagan festival of Astart or Ishtar (Easter) was always held late in April to celebrate the earth regenerating itself after winter. That is why rabbits (Playboy) and eggs, symbols of fertility are used.
4-The feast days are never called the Passover anywhere in scripture.
5-Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread after Passover.
6-Herod wanted to kill him during his own pagan festival of Easter coming up in a few days.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My question to you , ccchhhrrriiisss, is

---what is your response to the above? It would be nice to have a dialogue here.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/12/31 11:54
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Stever writes

Quote:
You see, the man who INVENTS a particular word is the world's foremost authority on that word. In this case, the word "passover" was INVENTED by William Tyndale. Thus, William Tyndale knew the CORRECT definition of "passover" since he INVENTED the word "passover" in the first place.

Singular to relate, William Tyndale did NOT use the word HE INVENTED - "passover" - in Acts 12:4. Why? Why did William Tyndale not use the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4? Because, as Dr. Thomas Holland demonstrated, the days of unleavened bread come AFTER Passover. That's ONE reason Tyndale did not employ the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4.

This is very peculiar reasoning.

First, no man can control a word he invents. Words have lives of their own and ultimately meaninig is determined by usage.
Secondly, although your comments regarding Tyndale sound very authoratitive they are sheer speculation.

I love the KJV and use it constantly but this kind of reasonings is liable to make it another Nehushtan.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/12/31 12:05Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Phil,

I would assume that you would say that God did not assure His Words were preserved from the originals to anything we have access to today. I am assuming that your stance is that the Bible we have today 'contains' the Word of God, rather than 'being' the Word of God. Would this be correct? I am just trying figure out where you are coming from.

Your statement: "Words have lives of their own and ultimately meaninig is determined by usage."

I would reply that I agree with the first half of you statement that words change meaning over time, yet disagree with your latter statement. Because I can open up a Bible a read the account of Acts 12 and understand what it is saying. In other words, the fact that a word changes meaning does not discount the usage of the word in history. For example, because we say 'cool' as meaning hip, etc, this does not mean that the word no longer means 'not hot.' It has mulitple meanings, both of which are easily understood.

So that fact that English has corrupted does not dissolve the definition of the word 'Passover' and 'Easter,' as used in the book of Acts.

I am still with Stever on this, in that I would like to hear a disputing response to the accuracy of the AV using 'Easter' instead of 'Passover,' in light of the fact that Passover never occured after the 'days of unleavened bread.'


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/12/31 12:56Profile





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