PILUT wrote: Hold the phone Jim...the Texas school board had better make some changes to Shakespeare's works so these kids can understand the outdated words!! So how were English speaking Christians led before the AV? And the couple hundred years or so after the AV until a new version came along, how did believers manage to serve God with a book that has over 7000 errors? You all who love your other versions really need to thank the addition of copyrights to the constitution. If there wasn't the protection to make millions on these books, you might not have had as many of these to swoon over. And you that live outside of the US need to thank capitalism for your new versions. Money, money, money...
Now that's funny! You mean you don't have to BUY the KJV?
PILUT wrote: school board had better make some changes to Shakespeare's works so these kids can understand the outdated words!!
ACTUALLY Jim IS saying they should, because he's afraid the little darlings might swoon 'pon hearing:
Monster, I do smell all horse-****; at which my nose is in great indignation. â€” Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 4, Scene1 Jim might update this to "skinky"
O Jove, a beastly fault! And then another fault in the semblance of a fowl; think on â€™t, Jove; a foul fault! When gods have hot backs, what shall poor men do? For me, I am here a Windsor stag; and the fattest, I think, iâ€™ the forest. Send me a cool rut-time, Jove, or who can blame me to **** my tallow? Who comes here? my doe? â€” Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 5, Scene 5.
Prudish Jim wouldn't want to swoon along with Miss Grundy, so maybe "who can blame me to URN8" improves the Bard. BUT WAIT! Jim first says (wrongly) that the Bible reads like Shakespeare (it doesn't) and then says it uses CONTEMPORARY words that he understands all too well, so these common words should be replaced with Latinate euphemisms.
Which is it? Old and obscure? or Just too direct ? Or as Jim says, the Bible is " dirty ". But fine to use with Ryrie's notes.
Hold the phone Jim...the Texas school board had better make some changes to Shakespeare's works so these kids can understand the outdated words!!
So how were English speaking Christians led before the AV?
And the couple hundred years or so after the AV until a new version came along, how did believers manage to serve God with a book that has over 7000 errors?
You all who love your other versions really need to thank the addition of copyrights to the constitution. If there wasn't the protection to make millions on these books, you might not have had as many of these to swoon over.
And you that live outside of the US need to thank capitalism for your new versions.
Is it be heios (Son) or theos (God)? The oldest known Greek manuscripts, P66 and P75, read only begotten God. However, these manuscripts all come from the Alexandrian line and smack of ancient Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught that Christ was a begotten god, created by God the Father, whom they called the Unbegotten God.
When those who had been tainted with Gnosticism cite John 1:18, they cite it as only begotten God. Such is true of Tatian (second century), Valentinus (second century), Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), and Arius (336 AD). On the other hand, we find many of the orthodox fathers who opposed Gnosticism quoting John 1:18 as only begotten Son (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, and Chrysostom).
The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses also uses the phrase `only begotten god.' This is, of course, in line with their teaching that Christ is a created god.
the ASV so much more accurate translation, FROM YOUR POST ELSEWHERE A BIT LATER: " one thing is for certain, "Jehovah" isn't God's name!"
JIM, all I really need to point out, that the ASV is wrong in at least 7,000 places, BY YOUR OWN WORDS where it uses the word "Jehovah" YOUR CLAIM IS THAT " one thing is for certain, "Jehovah" isn't God's name!"
The Tetragrammaton is ALWAYS rendered Jehovah in the ASV rather than LORD as the Authorised. sO YOU RECOMMEND "ERRORS" of 7000 over 7? !!!
You are really patient with what you claim are errors in the ASV!
(and I still never got your reaction to the Unicorm photo). After you claimed unicorns was an error in the Authorised. Maybe you are in error here, too? 7/25/08 3:16 PM [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365629,00.html]]]UNICORN IN ITALY: FOX NEWS PHOTO[/URL] Which is the kind of thing that Pastor Slattery is speaking of in [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111071041450]]]Unicorns and Things Bible rejectors Deny[/URL]
[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=25927]]]After this, Jim recommends KJB Ryrie[/URL] a 'dirty book'? nahhh, You wouldn't recommend a dirty book!
Engineer, the KJV of 1679, is still a "dirty" book, and as,
Noah Webster wrote: Language which cannot be uttered in company without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding, exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy religion.
--from, [URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/webster.html]]]Webster's Revision of the KJV (1833)[/URL].
In fact the Texas schools would have to use something like Noah Webster's revision, to be an acceptable, "text book" or still better the KJV as part of the Ryrie Study Bible, though that wouldn't remove the problems that Noah Webster mentioned.
The King James translators wouldn't use the KJV except as above and of course would have preferred the ASV or NASB, since they are so much more accurate translations, [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf]]] The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only Position[/URL] because they wanted an accurate Bible in the language of the day.
Jim Lincoln wrote: 7/26/08 3:26 PM "used in secular classrooms it makes Scriptures look inaccurate "
The King James translators
I had been meaning to come back and add a couple things here: posts length being a bit limited and me being not terse enough (James 3) anyhow, Jim, come on, do you really think that in 'secular' classrooms, the Bible that ascribes all life to a Creator, condemns sodomy, relegates roles to men and women, shows a God of wrath, depicts hell as the end of those who don't believe, etc, etc. is going to have some big damage from speaking of unicorns? (and I never got your reaction to the photo). 7/25/08 3:16 PM
I don't read the preface the way you do: and as you've been bringing this up pretty often, I've re-read the preface: and listened to Dr. Waite here on SA. [URL=http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didkjvtranslators-say.html]]]DID KJ TRANSLATORS SAY ALL VERSIONS ARE GOOD?[/URL] Basic Theology A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth Charles C. Ryrie "...the inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event..." looks like a Unicorn
Thanks for noticing my comments to you Dr. Phil, who knows what Obama may do, [URL=http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544]]]Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood[/URL]. I think it is rather meaningless as far as personal relationship to the true God is concerned, what Obama does.
What Daniel! You're a Gnostic! You mean that you don't believe that Christ wasn't a physical being! He was just pure spirit? I would suggest you read the article by John MacArthur, [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-1.htm]]]How did Christ, who was the second person of the trinity, with no beginning, also be begotten of God?[/URL]. I am also amazed that some KJVonlyers claim for it that the translators, themselves rejected, q.v.,"These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings)" from [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL]. I see the Texas Schools are going to have to use the RSV, with the Apocrypha, or the Catholic Bible to stem the heated disagreements between Protestants.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Dr. Phil, Obama said,"...I am confident that we are going to be able to find a church we feel comfortable with and that will reflect our concerns and values." --from [URL=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811069,00.html]]]Obama's Church Moves On After Exit[/URL]. You can relax, Dr. Phil, he won't be contaminating any Christian Church.
But I was more concerned with the thought that a President of the US may be joining a Muslim "mosque". Haven't read the URL yet but, did he say anything about that as someone had said he did before?
Thanks again for the response. I will read the URL now and get back to you later.
a KJV-B lover wrote: CORRECTION "jim lincoln": the MOST Understandable, Accurate Translation Available: DEFINITELY better reading than "jim lincoln" !
funny! Unicorns charge was easily shot down below: when you can see the photo of one [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365629,00.html]]]UNICORN IN ITALY: FOX NEWS PHOTO[/URL] But, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111071041450]]]Unicorns are Things Bible rejectors Deny[/URL] Even when they can see them. [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/barnett92.htm]]] The Eternal Bible [/URL] is easy to read if you know the [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/sense.htm]]]PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE[/URL] [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/multiversions.htm]]]Multiversions Onlyism's "puerile criticisms" [/URL] aside. Jim's link claims "I havenâ€™t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology." Oh? the NASB(75) says Jesus is a "begotten God" in Jn 1:18. [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html]]]at Authorised Bible= God's Word![/URL] [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jn1-18.html]]]Jn 1v18[/URL] specifically rebuts NASB here.
Well, you have been thinking WRONG (or "Right" as The Satanic-Vaticanist "Jesuits" would have you think--regarding The Historic Authorized English Holy Bible [1611-AD thru 2011-AD]: THE KJV); as We ALREADY HAVE the MOST Understandable, Accurate Translation Available: and IT'S THE KJV ! Has BEEN WITHIN The Last 400 YEARS !
When used in secular classrooms it Makes HOLY SCRIPTURE Better Reading Than Shakespeare: when the words "dragon", "unicorn", "arrowsnake", "trafficking" (as in Today's 'drug trafficking') are found.
I know for A FACT that THE KJV is DEFINITELY better reading than "jim lincoln" !
Even some Satanic-Vaticanist "Jesuitic" posts on this sermonaudio website are better reading than "jim lincoln"--especially those that ADMIT that The Authorized English Version (aka KJV) is THE BEST English Translation in EXISTENCE (at least within the LAST 400 YEARS of Human History) !
To use 'Bible' Commentaries by APOSTATES (ala JOHN "Jesus' Blood on The Cross isn't as Necessary as His Death on The Cross" MacARTHUR) is as Much a FALLACY & LIE as Perpetuating "jim lincoln's" FALLACY & LIE that The (Satanic-Vaticanist & Roman "Catholic" Cultic Collaborated/Conspired) ASV, NASB, NKJV is more accurate Than The HISTORIC PROTESTANT (400 YR-OLD) KJV !
A composite picture, Engineer? A short, excellent commentary on, [URL=http://www.raptureme.com/rr-kjvo.html]]]King James Onlyism[/URL]. I would think all Christians would want the most understandable, accurate translation available, and the KJV isn't it. When used in secular classrooms it makes Scriptures look inaccurate and in places foolish, when the words, "unicorn" and "arrowsnake" are found. I would at least hope schools that use the KJV as a textbook for 17th century English styles, are forced to use the Ryrie Study Bible of the KJV, so they see that Bible scholars know that the meanings of words do change, etc. I couldn't even argue with people who use the KJV which is part of the Ryrie Study Bible, or perhaps, though I don't think it would work as well, [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_desc&item_id=0sWg678z05ngfRBZ8dHZekTsj]]]MacArthur Bible Commentary[/URL].
Dr. Phil, Obama said,"...I am confident that we are going to be able to find a church we feel comfortable with and that will reflect our concerns and values." --from [URL=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811069,00.html]]]Obama's Church Moves On After Exit[/URL]. You can relax, Dr. Phil, he won't be contaminating any Christian Church.
a KJV-B lover wrote: rob wrote: is the KJB the only Bible God can use ? A. #1.Translation TRUEST To The GOD-Preserved 'Original' Tongues/Languages #2.KJV-B CLEAREST, Most HISTORICALLY CORRECT Interpretation #3.BEST Version for a person to FIRST Learn about the Grace of Christ.
1. Truest is TRUE: [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/barnett92.htm]]]PERPETUATED TRADITIONAL RECEIVED TEXT WORDS [/URL] has a 12 point list that supplements your list of why it is truest.
2. [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/sense.htm]]]PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE[/URL] â€˜We want a Bible version in our own idiom,â€™ they clamor. ...We want an informal God, no better educated than ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang.â€™ So Rick Warren writes using 23 versions. 3. Third point is still true: [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/multiversions.htm]]]Multiversions Onlyism: puerile criticisms rebuked[/URL]
CAN God use other versions? Lev.11:37 "And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean." I take to mean EVEN THE MEANEST TRANSLATION carries the life of God to mankind,STILL , the choice to sow a crop in a GRAVEYARD is HARDLY the MOST PRUDENT CHOICE.
I read somewhere in this forum that Barak Obama said in answer to a media question that he was going to join a church or "mosque" after he is elected President. He was asked why he hasn't joined a church since leaving "Rev. Wright's" church. Do you know if this is true, and if so, can you tell me where this information can be found? Thanks,
Jim Lincoln wrote: sources of material that explain, that unicorns do ... exist.
[URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365629,00.html]]]UNICORN IN ITALY: FOX NEWS PHOTO[/URL] Which is the kind of thing that Pastor Slattery is speaking of in [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111071041450]]]Unicorns and Things Bible rejectors Deny[/URL] Some comments at this SA page are interesting too. & Laurence M. Vance book [URL=http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance3.html]]]Double Jeopardy:corrupt readings[/URL] documents word for word the changes made in the 1995 NASB as compared to the previous 1977 NASB. The 1995 NASB now has almost 7000 fewer words in it than did the previous 1977 edition. you cite a link re : 1 Tim.3:16 "no doctrine..affected" re: linking to a paper that tells us that cutting out the word God from "God was manifest in the flesh" doesn't matter. "no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences"
[URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html]]]Why the Authorised Bible is God's Word.[/URL] I guess "if you have other sources of material that explains, that unicorns NEVER existED" ABOVE THE BIBLE, is `science' your final authority? then,Did resurrection exist?
Correction, you have an antiquated, somewhat error filled, Word of God, in your hand. I have also pointed out in earlier threads, if you have a Ryrie Study Bible of the K. J. V. -- fine. What James White was saying to Henry Morris, q.v., [URL=http://vintage.aomin.org/A%20Response%20to%20a%20Brother%20in%20Christ.html]]]A Response to a Brother in Christ--Dr. Morris' "Defense" of the King James Bible Reviewed[/URL], and another comments that he has had on the KJV, I would think would boil down to this:
Some Protestants' views on the KJV amount to nothing more or I could say too much like Catholic traditionalism. [URL=http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC1W0801.pdf]]]Revelation and the Church[/URL]. If a person says that the KJV is the only true translation, then the above article accurately describes them also. So, if you have other sources of material that explains, that unicorns do not exist. You have the definitions of the 300 plus words that have changed their meaning. The best solution is to have the above study Bible for then I would have no problem with you using the KJV. I just have a problem, when people say that this obviously inferior translation is the ONLY translation.
[URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the [/URL]was already replied to below: [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/reply.htm]]]Reply to Why I DO not Think[/URL] THOSE rebuttals were ignored. [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=76082057568]]]Did God Preserve His wordS or only Thoughts[/URL] By Dr. Waite, who is the one who went through each of those 10000 words and showed this to be a FALSE allegation, is a good recent message.
Waite talks often about his reading the ENTIRE Bible out loud to refute that silly "10,000 charge.
He did it during a summer Bible Camp long ago, in the afternoons. It isn't as if the assertions in Jim's "why I don't think" have weight, when they are rebutted point by point. [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/reply.htm]]]The Bible is trustworthy[/URL] Also, worth seeing the slam on Henry Morris by someone who 'pooh-pooh's the evolutionary background of one New Version founder, and the Nazi background of another. [URL=http://www.icr.org/article/803/http://]]]Henry M. Morris:the most reliable is KJB[/URL]
If the cites Jim gives are the best he can do, great! I have God's wordS in my hand!
The problem with the newer translations is in the underlying texts. Could I drew your attention to two very good sermons on Sermon Audio by Rev Ian Brown titled "Is Every Translation God's Word?" Also the teachings of Donald Waite, David Cloud, Jack Moorman and the Trinitarian Bible Society have been very helpful to me on this important issue. The language of the KJV is not necessarily that of the 1600's, but unique and accurate translation of the original texts. It is true that a few words in the KJV have changed meaning over the years, but these can be easily studied and understood. A list of these is available from the Trinitarian Bible Society.
Engineer, the KJV changed many times also. Again, this is why I pointed out the article, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL]. I would at least think that people should use the ASV or NKJV.
The King James translators themselves, expected later translators to them improve upon their work. As I pointed out, the KJV makes a very good study book for 16th century English. Unfortunately, this is also how secular teachers will treat the KJV--not as the Word of God. There is a good article on how to select a version of the Bible, [URL=http://www.propadeutic.com/faith/questions.html]]]Comparing Bible Translations[/URL] and I would point out that a Reformed believer who is very well-known had this commentary, [URL=http://vintage.aomin.org/A%20Response%20to%20a%20Brother%20in%20Christ.html]]]A Response to a Brother in Christ--Dr. Morris' "Defense" of the King James Bible Reviewed[/URL]. I think it is time that 400 years of errors (albeit, none of them dire theological disastera ) should be corrected by this time.
rob wrote: KJLover Is theKJV, which I love using, the only Bible God can use to draw sinners unto Himself?
#1.The KJV-B has been, for about the last 400 Years (1611 AD thru 2011 AD), the ONLY popular/populist-grassroots ENGLISH Translation of The ORIGINAL HOLY BIBLE that Almighty GOD has used to draw English speaking sinners unto Himself--not so much due to its/the grammarical/language value--but because it has been The MOST WIDELY Promulgated/Propagated English Translation of THE HOLY BIBLE: which is TRUEST To The GOD-Preserved 'Original' Tongues/Languages of The First, Second, Etc. COPIES of The ORIGINAL Prophets/Apostolic Penned Writings of HOLY SCRIPTURE ('Original' Copied Tongues/Languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) !
#2.99% of The Time The KJV-B ALWAYS has The CLEAREST, Most HISTORICALLY CORRECT Interpretation of The 'Original' Languages compared to ANY Widely Distributed ACCURATE ENGLISH Translation of The ORIGINAL HOLY BIBLE (Read The Historic Textual-Critical Writings of Professor/Dr. John Dean Burgeon).
#3.It is ALWAYS the BEST Version for a person to FIRST Learn about the Grace of Christ.
NO OTHER ENGLISH 'Bible' can EVER hold a candle, or a MATCH, to The KJV-B as to its ACCURACY & Grassroots Distribution & Availability !