THE church faces a "crisis" as the number of people bothering to read the Bible plummets, research has found.
Daily readership of the biggest-selling book in history has dropped to about 10 per cent for both the Christian and total population as the ancient text competes with modern technology and changing modes of communication.
The Bible Society, which undertook the research, is now working on a raft of "creative strategies" - including websites, podcasts, audio broadcasts and text messaging - to get the younger generation hooked....
Mike wrote: the men who promoted use of the proper manuscripts
His point about contrast of character could be supported when,earlier in this thread one post mistakenly placed the New Age as AFTER the men who promoted the VATICanus(B) & SinaitiCUSS (Aleph). In context of my NewAge B.C. background I pointed out roots of New Age bible versions as coincindent with other NewAge spiritism. [7/29/08 8:43 PM]
When he says "read the history of the men who promote the manuscripts that underlie the modern versions" [URL=http://www.historicist.com/necromancers/necromancers.htm]]]They were Necromancers[/URL] [URL=http://www.historicist.com/necromancers/nabv30gguild.htm]]]Channelers! ---[/URL] [URL=http://www.scionofzion.com/haw.htm]]]What Hort and Westcott Believed[/URL] [URL=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-heretics.htm]]] summary of their heresy[/URL] And their opinions showed in the way they translated their corrupted texts. e.g. 2 Tim 3:16 ASV "Every scripture inspired of God is useful..." (so YOU get to pick which scriptures you think are inspired?).
The Godly men who delivered the [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/barnett92.htm]]]PERPETUATED TRADITIONAL RECEIVED TEXT WORDS[/URL] in English, were used by God.
hidemi williges wrote: Is it a coincidence that with the proliferation of so-called new versions of the bible; that the spiritual wellness of the world is declining rapidly. It seems to me that it is those who are tainted by worldliness and modernism that claim the KJV to be in error. If you read the history of the men who promote the manuscripts that underlie the modern versions, would you still condone their sin and ignorance? Concerning Bible versions, if the KJV is error prone and archaic, and examining the newer versions which all contradict one another in numerous places, then why should I have confidence in any Bible? No wonder the generation of today don't read the Bible.
So the men who promoted use of the proper manuscripts were free of sin and ignorance. That's good to know.
hidemi williges wrote: Is it a coincidence that with the proliferation of so-called new versions of the bible; that the spiritual wellness of the world is declining rapidly. It seems to me that it is those who are tainted by worldliness and modernism that claim the KJV to be in error. If you read the history of the men who promote the manuscripts that underlie the modern versions, would you still condone their sin and ignorance? Concerning Bible versions, if the KJV is error prone and archaic, and examining the newer versions which all contradict one another in numerous places, then why should I have confidence in any Bible? No wonder the generation of today don't read the Bible.
Is it a coincidence that with the proliferation of so-called new versions of the bible; that the spiritual wellness of the world is declining rapidly. It seems to me that it is those who are tainted by worldliness and modernism that claim the KJV to be in error. If you read the history of the men who promote the manuscripts that underlie the modern versions, would you still condone their sin and ignorance? Concerning Bible versions, if the KJV is error prone and archaic, and examining the newer versions which all contradict one another in numerous places, then why should I have confidence in any Bible? No wonder the generation of today don't read the Bible.
If they want to get the younger generation "hooked on the Bible they need to be preaching the gospel to them so that they will be born of the Spirit-- then they will have love for the Word of God, and will read it because they want to.
Jim Lincoln wrote "Engineer, all I really need to point out, that the KJV is wrong in at least 5,000 places"
"The WORDS of the LORD are PURE WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. THOU SHALT KEEP THEM, O LORD, THOU SHALT PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever."
Now you tell me, if these verses are true, and they are, do you think God would have any errors in His Word? Can God do anything wrong or false? NO. THere is not one millioneth of a shred of any error in Him. Neither is there in His written Word that He preserved for every language and generation. If God is responsible for the preservation, then this means that He did not leave it up to erring men to correctly translate His Word for every generation, and we have as perfect of a translation of the Bible in every language today as the original manuscripts.
Now with that said, since NONE of the modern versions say the same thing, which one is the divinely preserved Word of God?
Jim Lincoln wrote: 7 the word "Jehovah" "Jehovah" isn't God's name!
polite company(1833).
You say "the KJV ..is .understandable ","correct"" with the aid of being part of such study bibles as the Ryrie." I got no problem with you demanding a an Authorised Bible Ryrie for a Church that you'd run. and: Come on, you really think that in 'secular' classrooms, the Bible that ascribes all life to a Creator, calls for stoning to death of felons, supports executing rebellious kids, 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 offend with the same language the kids use with their teachers every day? "Teach I was late 'cause I took a ..." uRN8? your latinate word is MORE obscure, with NO benefit except for schoolmarms who (gotta rip this off) 'get the vapors' from AngloSaxon terms. And you told me after this [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=25926]]]Jim's last comment to Engineer says use ASV[/URL] "ASV ... since ...so much more accurate translation.." BUT The Tetragrammaton is ALWAYS rendered Jehovah in the ASV rather than LORD as the Authorised. YOU RECOMMEND `ERRORS' of 7000+ over 7? !!!
Engineer, all I really need to point out, that the KJV is wrong in at least 5,000 places, for example, 7 of them where it uses the word "Jehovah" "Yahweh" may not be the perfect rendering of God's name, but one thing is for certain, "Jehovah" isn't God's name!
I have to suggest that everyone read Dr. Wallace's [URL=http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=117]]]Series Title: The History of the English Bible[/URL]. The KJV is a very imperfect version of the Bible, and the translators would have welcomed the improvements that are found in the NASB. The KJV translators worked towards a Bible that the common man can understand, it is now neither understandable or correct (not nearly so) without the aid of being part of such study bibles as the Ryrie. There are passages in it that are not fit for reading out loud in polite company, as Noah Webster pointed out, [URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/webster.html]]]Webster's Revision of the KJV (1833)[/URL].
FUNNY! And, as Wesley said "In order to assist these in such a measure as I am able, I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general, (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen."
As the article we're commenting on ends "People belong to a church out of choice, and not from habit.
"Choice indicates a greater commitment." so People choose a Bible out of choice, and not from habit, even in Wesley's day.
He could have pushed to bring back the Geneva, or the Bishop's or Tyndale's or the Great: [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html]]]Where was the word of God before 1611?[/URL]
His choice not to make his own version the base of his message tells us something.
"Choice indicates a greater commitment."
But, as most preachers do now Wesley went on to 'twique' the passages as he went to 'improve' them: "to give the sense"
Too bad he didn't have Peterson's Mess-age... then we'd REALLY have revival!
Maybe the Todd Bently version will be out soon, illustrated with tattoed Big Time Wrestlers for the book of Ephesians: "We wrestle, knot, against flesh and blood"
Daniel Lee Ford wrote: Looks like the FOUNDATION of Wesley's work, and continued `blessed preaching' was from the Authorised Bible. Others on this site note Billy Graham's early use of the 1611 and blessing, and then the decline when he slipped into new versions.
On Wesley: I daresay his preaching was from the KJV: it was the only version available in his time! This argument proves nothing. It's like arguing that the girl is undoubtedly pretty: she won a beauty contest. Yeah, but she was the only one in it!
On Billy Graham: one could likewise "prove" that because the incidence of mental illness increases every full moon, therefore full moon causes that increase; or that because the the thunder stops whenever the tribesman offers sacrifice therefore offering sacrifice will make the thunder cease. IOW, this argument is nothing more than the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", and proves nothing.
I'm sorry, you might know several languages, but when you offer me this sort of nonsense in the name of argument, you only demean your learning.
Wesley used the King James version of the Bible for his sermons: For example: [URL=http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/91/]]]Using 'charity' ( 1611) not his version: 'love"[/URL] [URL=http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/scripture/]]]Index of Wesley's Sermons[/URL]
God blessed Wesley based on his preaching and his sermons are what people remember.
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible [URL=http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/]]]Wesley's Notes after Chapters of the 1611[/URL] where at times he DID change the 1611. But this was not the thing Wesley was noted for: it was preaching: and that from the 1611 Authorised Bible.
Wesley's bible: [URL=http://www.olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=17143]]]read Wesley's version here[/URL] Which you can't buy at your local bookstore: It died out: not the sign of a blessing on THAT aspect of his life.
[URL=http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/scripture/]]]Index of Wesley's Sermons[/URL]
Looks like the FOUNDATION of Wesley's work, and continued `blessed preaching' was from the Authorised Bible.
Others on this site note Billy Graham's early use of the 1611 and blessing, and then the decline when he slipped into new versions.
Having read the posts on the "John Wesley corrected the KJV" issue, it is astonishing to me how nearly all of you can so miss the point. The only one to get close was JD, but the rest of you went off on to tangents.
The issue was the argument for the KJV along the line of "God used it in revivals of the past, therefore that somehow vindicates it."
In response I pointed out that an acknowledged revival leader, John Wesley, made an extensive series of corrections to the KJV, along with his "Notes on the New Testament", for the benefit of his converts. Is he therefore a corrupter of the Word of God; and, Did God use him for the revival of Christianity in the C18th? (My answers are "no" and "yes" respectively)
The issue is not how great or otherwise Wesley was, or whether his views are relevant today. It is simply this, to stick to the point: Is this line of argument (above) valid or not? Although I have seen it from KJVO folks many times, it would appear from the various responses to my question that, when faced with the Wesley evidence, your answer is, "NO, it is not valid."
If that is so, THEN STOP USING THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT!! It has been a familiar line, but if I am reading you correctly you acknowledge its fallacy, and therefore it should be dropped.
Postscript: Jim Lincoln / Nebraska --- Sorry, but I just don't trust all these new translations ------- TOO WATERED DOWN -- just the way most men like it... --- For example the NIV ....... ...
Jim Lincoln wrote: The latest NASB is good one[/URL].
"Latest", I'm sure, because you know that modern bible versions such as the NASB, NKJV, NIV are constantly and deliberately changing their own English texts in literally hundreds and even thousands of places. As you know,the NASB made some 8000 changes in their own text from the 1977 to the 1995 editions. Likewise the NKJV 1982 edition has changed thousands of words from that of their 1979 edition, and the NIV continues to do the same from one edition to the next. These are not minor printing errors in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV, but deliberate alterations of both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts as well as the English translation.
I cited before, too, Laurence M. Vance's book [URL=http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance3.html]]]Double Jeopardy:corrupt readings[/URL] that documents word for word the changes made in the 1995 NASB as compared to the previous 1977 NASB. And the 1995 NASB now has almost 7000 fewer words in it than did the previous 1977 edition.
Please use the year of the version you recommend, to help clarify. Are you recommending NASB 1995?
Which older versions do you use to correct the NASB 95 when you think it is wrong? The ASV? Will future NASB's be better?
KK, The KJV, is an unreadable text for most people of 20 & 21st Century, as I pointed out, it is unfit to be read except by adults, who understand that it is antiquated, and not a dirty book. The New King James Version of the Bible, is very readable, and if they have the John MacArthur Study Bible that has it, that would be very good. However, it still depends on the Textus Receptus, which has quite a few errors in it. So, for the Word of God to have power it has to be in modern English, and not have obvious mistakes in it. The latest NASB is good one since they worked at removing some of the "antiquities" in it also.
[URL=http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/thesis.htm]]]The Translators to the Readers--Preface to the King James Version 1611[/URL].
From the article: Society spokesman Stephen Opie said though the Bible was readily available, with 60,000 copies sold last year, it was "tending to sit on the shelf" in homes.
"That is a very scary prospect for the future of the church. The Bible is fundamental to Christianity," he said.
"People aren't understanding it, they don't know it and they don't know the over-arching story. It is a crisis - especially for the church."
...
The findings were part of a report entitled Bible Engagement in New Zealand: Survey of Attitudes and Behaviour.
They show that while 68 per cent of all New Zealanders owned a bible, just 23 per cent read it at least once a month.
A mere seven per cent read the book daily and nine per cent read it every week. ________
Having GOD'S WORD collecting dust on a table or shelved in a bookcase isn't enough -- IT must be laid up in the hearts of men that they might ponder the path of their feet HAVING TRUE SIGHT "IN" Christ !!!
Many "New Translations" have come out that do nothing more than "Water Down" GOD'S TRUTH !!! -- It's all about getting market share of the $$$ !!!
I've found The Amplified Bible to be a good translation, but I look to the KJV as the #1 text !!!
Should we go back to the KJV and GET IT "RIGHT" ??? - Hmmm
DJC49 wrote: "enemies of the word of God" (?) "warning against fellowship with them." hubris! vanity! psychotic delusion of grandeur.
Well 1. IF the words of God reside in the Authorised Bible, those who print something 64,000 words shorter would be enemies of THOSE words. TNIV, NIV , etc.
But if they're right, they are proud to be enemies of what they think are FALSE words.
Assuming the position of the Authorised being God's words, we think many cause discord among brethren because they are WRONG, even with good intentions. thus 2. "warning against fellowship with them." which is what the other side issues forth "warning against fellowship with them (Authorised Bible adherents)" Which, as both sides say, can lead to peace. 3. While, in retrospect, I can see how YOU took JD, the way I read JD is JD meant only that Wesley's 'version' was moot, and NOW we need to decide where the words of God are. Wesley is ancient history, but the words of God are still alive
We'll have to see his response, if he wants.
Is it a "delusion of grandeur" to think God preserved His words intact in English, or that it was lost, and that anyone was smart enought to restore what God lost? & we need to keep to James 3 limits of words
JD I know you aren't perfect and that you take a lot of grief from posters here on SermonAudio
but a while ago you referenced a message your pastor gave (not the most recent one) so I checked it out.
It was a very good message. I certainly would not even begin to imagine that your pastor is an enemy of the Word of God and if I was ever in your community would love to meet him and I believe I could enjoy fellowship with him.
Hang in there with the Lord, we all have a lot of learning and growing and yes even being corrected by the Lord to do and go through. But He is more than worth it.
I was just trying to list options of responses to the little fact that Wesley had his own private take on translation. thinking as I was reading y'all posting. sorry for my fuzziness.
I pick point 5 from the list I gave. Which agrees with you, I think.
I don't "fellowship with them" either, which might be mixing point 2. from my list. Dr. Waite says that he'd rather have an honest NASB only church where that's all they use, and cut down the confusion. Then each side can fellowship with believers who agree with each other. And the FRUITS will be borne out.
Same thing with Genesis: a denomination should decide to believe in recent creation, or come out for millions of years of suffering, death and disease before Adam and then one can decide whether to fellowship with them.And the FRUITS will be borne out.
I think one can still be `orthodox' and make bad mistakes that can come back to be destructive. In the area of which Bible, and recent creation, and others.
I agree that the Authorised Bible is the ONLY words of God in the English, and should be the only one used.
Brian Edwards | 7/17/2008
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
... 
