The I went to Hammond Indiana and there was a man that had been healed of Capslockism; he was in his right mind and able to talk to people without paranioa,and abusive language.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
[A]nglican

Jim Lincoln wrote:
A) As a literary treasure, I would think the English would want to do something to point out something that has been influential as Shakespeare,

B) The [A]nglican [V]ersion while an excellent political tool of keeping English Catholics and Protestants united

Modern versions have input by the Anglican heretics Westcott and Hort, not to mention eclectic texts, [URL=http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html]]]AND the words they CROSSED out[/URL]

Eph 6:17 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"

Jimmy-n-Gilbert wrote:
I re-read Romans 13 in God's authorized NASB and couldn't even find Caesar in the passages, though it's much easier to read into Romans 13 and assume that God is speaking about Caesar (past, present, future) in the correctly translated NASB, because God's uninspired KJV isn't so clear on the matter.

The unBiblical alternative of some people around here is that God cannot control some of the authorities some of the time, and cannot protect HIS people???

B Newman wrote:
The NASB is way more true to the original greek than the KJV!

[URL=http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/flanders-whykjv.html]]]Why We use the King James Version of the Bible[/URL]

[URL=http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/hall-whykjv.html]]]Why We use the King James Version[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
'J. Randall Price (Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies) currently working on a forthcoming apologetic text on biblical archaeology writes, “Those who expect the [Dead Sea] scrolls to produce a radical revision of the Bible have been disappointed, for these texts have only verified the reliability and stability of the Old Testament as it appears in our modern translations.”'

Jim Lincoln wrote:
No, JK, it is a moot question no matter what if a Bible isn't in contemporary English, throw it out for church use. The article at Canada says "NO!" to KJV only. Does an adequate job, to show how one should be using the NASB, NIV, or ESV. Even the NKJV or Amer. KJV would be preferable because they are in contemporary English.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
JK, I use the spelling that Americans prefer just like it is of course anti-American to use the [A]nglican [V]ersion of the Bible.

The AV was written to have an attitude in supporting Anglicanism not Christianity

"King James and His Translators as Anglicans

Another foolish charge made by unlearned critics is, "Why be hard on Westcott and Hort? Were not they Anglicans like King James and his translators?" However, to compare the Anglican Church at the end of the sixteenth century with the Anglican Church at the end of the nine-teenth century is no equation. Though the Church of England in 1600 may have been unscriptural in its episcopal form of church polity, views on baptism, and an incipient lack of evangelistic fervor, it was solid on the fundamentals of the faith. Its ministers in that day were Bible be-lievers and preached the gospel."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
just at least take a look at Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions. It doesn't matter if the [A]nglican [V]ersion used formal equivalence, because they used formal equivalence on an inferior source, Textus Receptus.

You really need to read these facts Jim, - [URL=http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html]]]Bible Doctrines Affected by Modern Versions.[/URL]

Don't let your nasbiness blind you Jim.

PS I notice you are still having trouble spelling "Authorised" Jim!! Is this a side effect from your plight???

Jim Lincoln wrote:
looked at a combined concordance for the AV and ASV, you'll see quite a bit of dynamic equivalence in the AV.

the NIV has no doubt more dynamic equivalence than the AV, but still overall it is much more accurate than the AV,

For you to say that the NIV has more Dynamic Equivalence - AND - that the NIV is more accurate in the same breath, only goes to illustrate how far you've moved from the truth Jim. Your nasbiness is becoming unhealthy and endemic.

"Examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single reading of the NIV.
Rom 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?"

Mike wrote:
Nothing, since the decline in the church began before them. Thinkest thou liberalism began in the 20th century? Nay, Jim King.

What is the reason behind producing modern versions?
Because the KJV is "diagnosed" by the people producing them to be inadequate to the task of serving the Holy Spirit and teaching "modern" Christians.

What was the reason for this reason?
Numerical Decline? No! It was doctrinal decline! - Not as a response to, but as a continuity to that very decline.

For example, we can tie that back to dear old Westcott and Hort. They demonstrated the decline in doctrine which leads to modern Liberalism. And there were many other heretics which lead to the "modern" versions and the "modern" churches. Both are part and partial of the same errors we observe in the doctrinal vacuity in many churches.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
you use the NIV to pick out the errors in the AV which are many!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
from error by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
"KJV only" advocates say yes!
The Facts say NO!
King James Version (KJV)
ONLY???
Irrefutable proof the translators were not inspired Introductory notes

BUT the KING JAMES VERSION has a centuries long track record of being used by the Holy Spirit AND building a solid Church with HIS chosen sword.
Whereas the NASB and the myriad of other modern versions can never and will never achieve the same end.

Your doubts are levelled at the Holy Spirit and His chosen Sword of the Spirit translated into english. Four centuries of success and that achieved by God the Holy Spirit and the King James Version, WHY then does *HE* change the Sword??? Indeed where do you find the command of the Holy Spirit that his chosen Bible "needs" to be changed???

A myriad of versions are available today - But the church is in DECLINE!!! What does this say about modern versions in use today???

Jim Lincoln wrote:
James King, that statement that God wrote in English is really amusing! But even more amusing is that the translators wouldn't have agreed with you!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
James King, then why don't you use the Vulgate Bible it ruled supreme for a 1,000 years, as my first reference in the first paragraph pointed out? Also why aren't you a Catholic, if you're so bound to tradition? I would suggest you fellows read the series of articles by James White found

God translated the Bible into english and produced and used the KING JAMES BIBLE. History proves that fact.

Man recently used two 19th century Anglican heretics to translate the Greek, and a bunch of dodgy Greek texts found in the dustbin of history and ultimately produced the modern versions, eg "NASB"

Now using common sense Jim which one would you choose?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
A good article and is valid today even though it was written in the 19th Century.

John UK wrote:
Don't expect people to read such devilish stuff, Jim. Already you are beginning to doubt the scriptures yourself, and I wouldn't recommend dragging others down with you

His dismissal of previous centuries is much like the fanatical folks we sometimes experience on the board, who will only accept modern theories of theology; - Then they call themseves "Biblicist" - to "Prove" that they are correct.

But as the true believer knows God used the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible for centuries as THE translation into english which HE used to change the world. This is the four hundred year old "English" Sword of the Spirit, undoubtedly, irrefutable and inerrant. As the Holy Spirit has proven.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
For all I know