SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
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 )

Joined: 2005/2/21
Posts: 417
Edmonton Alberta Cda.

 Re: Smokey

I have no doubt that God can and does save many people who are staunch supporters of the "modern translations". God is loving and gracious and he saves people. He saved me when I was living and preaching, and teaching the New Age. However, that does not mean that there was much truth in what I was reading, teaching, and preaching. God had determined to save me, and He did.
Just to set the record straight, I am not a King James only person. Many of my close friends use "modern translations", and have a close walk with God.
I believe that the King James Bible is the BEST representation of Gods written Word that is now available in the English language.
The issues with the "modern translations" have been documented in post after post on this site, by men and women whose only agenda is to help brothers and sisters have a better understanding of the issues involved. The internet has thousands of web sites run by people who have dedicated their life to accurately representing scripture, that document problems with the "modern translations". For their efforts, for the most part, supporters of the KJV have been maligned, vilified, and ridiculed. I have yet to see a single shred of "proof" from the "modern translation" group, that supports their claim that they champion the true Word of God. Will someone over there please please please identify the "modern translation" that represents the best translation of the Alexandrian Text.

Bartle, I have no problem imagining you bringing the wood and matches to the town square when the defenders of the faith burned William Tyndale at the stake. That being said, I am willing to take your insults if only one person says," Wait a minute, maybe they have a point", and at least considers that there is a better way.

Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; But he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel.

Blessings Greg


 2007/1/20 12:54Profile

Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991


so we have now agreed on that KJV is the word of God?

anyway whatever version people "feel" comfortable whit is the one they should use, but they should have the information stever is trying to share, that some doctrines "is missing" "faded away" in the "newer translations" , when people know this, and still "feel" comfortable whit whatever version one uses. thats fine,

i just feel we should have one "offical" word of God, so one could know for sure.... what it says... if the lord dosent come for some years we will probably have 100 more translations then we just can ask eachothers what does your word of God say? becuse mine says something else, and the other fellow over there his bible says something different, its becuse of this we get things like this

and i know this rick warren does not use the KJV,
im just pointing out what can go wrong whit thease newer versions

can we atleast agree on that one should be careful whit the "new versions"?


 2007/1/20 14:29Profile

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

 Re: Incredible it is ...

Have spent the better part of the morning giving this even more contemplation and even research. A different sort of research...

There are reams and reams of material here discussing the background of text manuscripts and the like. A great deal of it is copying from other scholars and their opinions. I am having just a tremendous difficulty not in the particular argument but with the [i]arguers[/i]. Almost all of you with few exceptions.

There is just such a glaring obstacle being exposed right before all our eyes that it is amazing, truly amazing the amount of pride and accusation by way of taking this to character assassination and motivation ... "Heretic's" and "Pharisees" these pronouncements of ill will and ill thought ... it is childish. There is far more concern over a defended and offended opinion than what is of the Lords concern. The ease at which we will pit one against another? The lack of any real concern to get at the very bottom of all this?

Krispy and Stever

I do not own a "modern" translation, so could one of you comment as to whether the old testament in the newer translations contains the same questionable translation problems as the new testament does.
In the past, I have encouraged you both privately for your stand in defense of the King James Bible. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank you both for your conviction and sound, reasonable defense of the (KJV) once again.
I have spent quite a bit of time reviewing this, and other threads concerning this issue, and I have not been able to find a single "proof" posted that would prove any modern translation is the Inspired Word of God. I think the issue can be summed up with the following scripture.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;

Blessings Greg

Do we fully understand what [i]sound doctrine[/i] is? Easily quantified by way of word translation? We surely need to back up the guilt truck here and recognize that this is not pertaining to transcription issues but to teaching .... Sigh, this is going to be difficult being that there is
so little consideration for each other here, shoot first ask questions later. Stever almost expressed it rightly in reply to what was being expressed by that passage ... Yet ...

If you are following this thread, and these posts convict you through the power of the Holy Ghost to read another version of the Bible, so be it. However this poster (Stever) is not trying to convict anyone.

That is just not so, that is just dishonest. You have constantly been at this ever since your tenure here. You refuse to answer the hard questions put before you in all these threads, have heard nothing of a reconsideration whatsoever, to deny you have an agenda ... How long-suffering we have been with you in all this? Am I "offended?" Hardly! I am not even really angry just ... amazed, amazed at the glaring inconsistencies and the overlooked aspects of what all the [i]scriptures say[/i] and [i]mean[/i]. We could fill this thread with untold scriptures from any version imaginable and it would be all chucked aside to continue to deal with the husk rather than the kernel of heart truth's. There is our [i]sound doctrine[/i].

What are we to do with;

Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

No thought to it!

This idea that we will allow a separation into camps here? Oh I do not think so. I will disrupt this as I ought to. Smokey, you are wrong as can be to be attempting this and I hate to break this to you but ... [i]"I have not been able to find a single "proof" posted that would prove any modern translation is the Inspired Word of God."[/i] Neither is the KJV. What is 'inspired' is what has been [i]said[/i] not how it is translated or mis-translated ... There is just far too much missing from all these discussions of perspective and that which is conjecture is given too much creedance. Rather than taking the words of some here or even just those of a few, go and study this out on your own, beyond the manuscript issues ... I will come back to this.

Stever you are just being dishonest again. If you have no agenda then why the constant appealing back to your pet peeve of NIV\KJV at every opportunity, even when the question doesn't beg that answer? Even in response to Smokey's usage of Timothy you reply by bringing up the subject of 'hell' and yet another discourse on comparing the two versions ... This is not unlike a recent post not asking anything resembling this sort of response and yet you must turn it that way, always back on to this. It is old, tired and weary. Just stop. If you yet again refuse to give place to others and cannot find anything else than a constant reference back to this then go some where else to beat this subject to death, there is no considerations but for your agenda, you have well worn out your stay with this, more than enough patience given.

thats it. I pronounce you "pharisee dujour" for having the gall, and gracelessness to equate those who read versions other than the KJV, with this verse of Scripture:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;

you are way way off base, out of line, and pharisaical, and it just underlines what I said before, that you gaggle of "KJV only" adherents make the implication that those who read a NIV, or ESV, or an NASB are a "less-than" in the Faith.

shame on you.

You do? That is not any more helpful than all the rest of the things going on here. Insinuations and assumptions, this is just as bad by way of dividing others into camps, stereotypes and accusations. People! What is going on in our hearts?

Jam 3:14 But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth.

Yes, the "ASV". Done for provocation? No and ... yes! For crying out loud, words are descriptive! Meaning is [b]the[/b] issue. Yes, yes, yes a thousand times yes do your comparing amongst the versions, there is absolutely [b]NO[/b] lack of that being done in all this commotion. I pray I get straightened out here if I am guilty of the same accusations that I am leveling at the deeper recess' of the heart here ... It is this something elusive that I just cannot express as well as I wish to.

You know it's a fact that most all of the folks that use the KJV are like this and develop a zero tolerance for any other versions, come on let God out of that box, funny that we don't feel the same.

Almost hate to include you here to MrBill, but I do not think this is very helpful either, it just lends more support to a dividing of camps and levels too much of an accusation by way of generalities ... I am surely guilty of having done so here in the past, don't get the wrong idea, may well be doing it here right now, indicting practically everybody ...

Where is the sheer consideration and real desire to get to a point of understanding on these things? I have far more questions than answers and perhaps that is why I keep bringing this challenge to [i]all [u]sides[/u][/i] being that you must have it so and I am finding that very, very difficult to reconcile with scripture period as it pertains to the [i][b]Brethren[/b][/i] if that is what we profess to be while our very conduct betrays us ...........

This not likely to get any shorter, hope their is some patience here, the concern is great while the articulation is poor. Somewhere buried in all this was a link to a book of sorts that just fostered more of the same thing ... [i]considerations[/i]. What struck me was actually two things. Maybe a week or so ago I happened to barely overhear my own boss talking with someone about of all things ...[i]the bible[/i]. I was at the time buried in my work in pretty much full concentration and my ears must have picked up "King James" and drew my attention. They were a bit far from me so I had to listen very attentively. Let me interject it will be of a great interest to discuss the matters of the faith when the opportunity arises after all this eavesdropping ... At any rate what I did catch was his thoughts that the 'KJV was politically motivated' (Not too surprising I thought, knowing a bit of his particular politics, party affiliations ... criticisms, etc.) in essence that it was crafted with these intentions, to further the kings agenda and so forth. My initial, gut reaction was one of "He doesn't know what he is talking about" (Think I am not privy to such notions as I am levying here?) and "That's just not so." But as those same thoughts swirled around in the mind, days later happened upon the remembrance that this same book was making or raising some of these very same issues. Quite a bit to consider regarding church hierarchy, the use of "church" rather than "congregation" (actually looked into this and the King did state that as one of his rules to the translators, it was taken from source material, the King's words not an interpretation of them) ... Perhaps there [i]was[/i] some political motivations after all, the questions circiling...

And then yet again another posting on this very subject. "Dismissive" the great all encompassing word here, that abridged with division. "Shouldn't talk about because ..." "Should discuss it because ..."

Interesting. There are different approaches to everything and I cannot help but wonder how much trouble we cause and how much we pass by all because of our presuppositions, our colored glasses focused before hand. We go in looking for support of what we already believe or think we might know and cut ourselves off at the pass. Redundantly, the great lesson I have learned is applicable across many lines; Credit to Zac Poonen for stating the thought of coming to the scriptures everyday "[i][b]As if for the very first time[/b][/i]". It has broadened out into all aspects of this life, finding great support throughout the scriptures;

Not leaning on one's own understanding.
Taking heed.
Denying presumption in practically all of it's forms and mannerisms.

Not going beyond what is written ...

That one alone has so much to say beyond even the scriptures themselves. As example, what or how much do we do just this with each others responses here? "Know your 'type'?" Pre and post judgments? Not of what is typed into readable material but the manner of the man, of the Brethren ...

So I could have gone about doing a bit of research in a couple of ways. 1) [i]Looking[/i] for support of the argument or accusation if one must, of the King's purposeful, intentional adjusting of certain words in church hierarchy to control or further his agenda, dismissing everything else that might raise an objection or 2) Try and find out one way or the other if it was so. The long point here is what I suspect far more often than not is that we can fool ourselves by dishonesty of what our real motives are. Frankly, I wasn't on any particular mission nor did it have some great bother even if it was so, I don't think I would all of a sudden come to a conclusion that the KJV is now deemed worthless because of these possibilities.

But I wanted [i]his own[/i] words if they were to be found. An interesting journey because it began to slowly dawn on me more and more, what about the man [i]King James[/i]? What made him tick? What did [i]he[/i] say? Where is all this in the mix of this whole controversy? Not what theologians with one bent or another towards manuscripts and translation process and all of that. The [i]man[/i].

Well, to be truthful. Fascinating! Unfortunately of all the links I had saved up, the computer froze and lost them, a simple Google search and a bit of delving further into the returns would find quite a bit available out there. Much of it difficult to read in that particular English. Still, very, very interesting. As was mentioned came across something that was a 4 point outline as to how he wanted the translation process to be preformed and the mention of "church' to be used in place of "congregation". A point taken to task in the other ... here, for those interested; [url=]The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy[/url]

Sorry to say or happy(?) that I didn't quite find whatever might be true of all this as it is laid-out in the link above. But that is partially because it is incomplete as well as a bit of disinterest strangely ... The man became a bit more interesting, his character, his theology.

The vast problem with all of this is the subjective nature of those who are bringing forth considerations, for it is not always considerations that are at hand but agendas. There is a bent and a leaning that leaves out the "let the reader decide" and is often biased. I am always chagrined reading something that seems fair and honest and all of a sudden a pragmatism comes in to lend support ... and it just takes the wind right out of everything stated before hand. Suddenly, it is no longer believable but tainted. The KJV is preferable but not at the expense of dishonesty or stretching things to the point of credulity.

I want to ask, what has happened to integrity? Does it not matter while we berate those using a poorer version in our eyes that many of the same arguments for are just bypassing this? Their 'compromise' is just as well ours and yet the compromise is justified [i]because[/i] ...?

Who is 'right' on this issue? Is that [i]the[/i] issue really? There is a great exposure here of [i]ourselves[/i] by this. I am just cannot wonder if the Lord Himself has not orchestrated the whole bit just to see if we might take notice of it. Waring over translations and exposing our nastiness and division (yes, division), pride, assumptions, lack of consideration, our penchant to basically come unglued and accusatory of each others [i]hearts[/i] and apparently far too concerned with our poor little psyche's by the childish ways the ensuing injuries to them are taken. Who is the Pharisee? Them? Or is it [i]us[/i]?

Folks, a lot this has very little to do with translation if we were more honest about it.

Amongst ourselves, who is getting this right? While even those I am taking to heart task (self included) just as well right in spelling out issues and problems that need not be dismissed outright ... Let me give my worthless opinion for all the supposed ... suppositions overlooked. I do not personally [i]like[/i] the NIV nor The Message nor the vast array of 'modern versions' but frankly ... who cares? It is really not the point.

Who has got it right amongst ourselves? Shall I be guilty of duplicity by naming names here and fostering another 'camp' mindset? Pardon the embarrassment but Paul West, Philologos, RobertW, Compton (MC), come instantly to mind not at the expense of others nor even of those here who I am taking to task. And why them as examples? Because all of them are preferred KJV for a variety of reasons but they are also men of integrity and honesty not afraid to admit where things lack, where questions are raised, where even other versions are still yet to be considered giving all of it fair treatment and that without coming apart at the seams. Just as redundantly is the mention again about the featured preachers and teachers here, Tozer of all people had far less concern over this whole matter and yet hardly a denomination out there that wouldn't lay some claim to him. By his own admission he was a Bible 'junkie' and just as admittedly he found most of the newer versions of his time somewhat deflating even though he always had a hopeful excitement upon their initial release. Still, seem to recall that he had far less superstition and paranoia ... will have to dig some of these up. Chambers and others ... ah, this is just redundant, as redundant as all of this is.

Something rather bizarre about all this when it comes right down to it, even those that would support this as a preferred translation don't quite measure up because everything isn't in line with a strict opinion of some. "Poor babies"! I mentioned earlier, go right ahead and return volley I think it would just fall to the ground from a sheer lack of concern ...

Am not trying to be sarcastic, something is truly amiss here, here of all places. How is it that one could read through some of the heart penetrating articles on everything from pride and humility, sin, namely our own sin, the admonishens on unbelief and eternity, revival, suffering, temptations and trials, hypocrisy, shame, repentance. There is whole clouds of witness bearing down and indicting us from every conceivable angle and yet we cannot but be stuck on something that shouldn't be really all that difficult to work through without it turning ugly, nasty, accusatory.

Note just one more all encompassing aspect missing from all this.

Where is the Lord?

This is far too long. I don't know what it will take to break this whole cemented thinking as Paul so well put it. I just don't know.

Well, on second thought ... Just as I pondered going to post this long ramble along comes more ... What shall we call it now?

Bartle, I have no problem imagining you bringing the wood and matches to the town square when the defenders of the faith burned William Tyndale at the stake. That being said, I am willing to take your insults if only one person says," Wait a minute, maybe they have a point", and at least considers that there is a better way.

That's just outlandish! The Lord rebuke you, such insinuations ...! Ah, this is quite pathetic people ...

Stever. It is enough, enough repetition. Enough cut and paste of the same things over and over again, enough loud PRINT and that goes for all, sparingly people ... What does the raising of voices speak here Brethren?

To bad really, how shallow it is that once again the optimism is dashed, another post on this issue relegated to obscurity it seems. Happenstance that this longwinded ... whatever you want to call it just happens to fall at the same time as even more unecessary division comes in. Ignore it, ignore me, search your own wretched hearts. It's not the last word and practically it is useless anyway. Some of you just couldn't care less about anybody else here.

So sad, really.
This thread will be locked, blame yourselves. It has gone too far.

Mike Balog

 2007/1/20 14:40Profile

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California


I noticed in an earlier post there was talk of the removal of the Doctrine of Hell. Now while it is important to warn people about hell, that is not where they will spend eternity if they are unsaved.
Here is what I mean
" And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Revelation 20:14
Of course this does not change the eternal torment as the Bible says in verse 10 of the same chapter
" And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
So it would be safe to say that those within the lake of fire along with the devil and the false prophet will suffer the same, as we are told
"Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
Those that worship the beast are obviously not saved, and thus are cast into the lake of fire.
So I understand that we do not wish for people to go to hell, but let us be a bit more understanding as to what the word "hades" means.
It means "grave", and in 1 Corinthians 15:55 it is the word Paul uses when he says, "oh grave where is thy sting"
Here is the Strongs Definition
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

patrick heaviside

 2007/1/20 14:45Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy