Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -34 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

Breaking News All | United Prayer | SA Center | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  12/4/2021
WEDNESDAY, JUL 28, 2010  |  419 comments
Royal Mail to celebrate King James Bible’s anniversary
The Royal Mail is planning to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible with a series of special stamps.

The commemorative stamps, which are due to be produced next year, have been prompted by numerous requests from members of the general public.

The move has been welcomed by Mervyn Storey, MLA for North Antrim, who was one of those who petitioned.

CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article

Scripture's Sufficiency
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Christ's Prayer, Our Holiness • Bill Welzien | 12/29/2019
•  Scripture's SufficiencyRev. Geoff Thomas | 8/21/2015
•  Alleged Discrepancies - 3 • David Nelms | 3/4/1992
•  Why You Can Believe The BibleVoddie Baucham | 9/4/2014
COMMENTS  locked  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 419 user comment(s)
News ItemSystem Notice
This forum thread has been closed by SermonAudio.
No further comments are permitted for this news item.

News Item12/20/10 9:27 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Ah, gentlemen, as far as [URL=]]]The Preservation of Scripture[/URL] is concerned this excellent article covered that, and of course, [URL=]]]Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions[/URL] explains why the AV shouldn't and isn't used by knowledgeable people.

However, what I'm leaving a comment about which has no effect on the English users of SermonAudio is that PBS t.v., at least in Nebraska is going to put on the "Battle for The Bible" (no not about the [URL=]]]New American Standard Bible[/URL]), but in part about the ancestry of the AV, I plan to watch it!

[URL=]]]Battle for the Bible[/URL], it should be very interesting--see if it is going to be on in your part of the country!


News Item11/28/10 5:03 PM
TS  Find all comments by TS
Jim Lincoln wrote:
A) There are today many false translations and paraphrases of the Scripture which those who love the Bible must oppose,

B) Moreover, it is a heresy because it implies that God did not completely inspire the original manuscripts and therefore in 1611 He had to add inspiration.

A) Aye Jim Lad there is for example...
(1) NIV.
(2) NASB.
(3) modern versions.
(4) Nestle-Aland Greek text.
(5) The Westcott and Hort Greek text which gave life to the Nestle-Aland.

B) The heresy which concerns me is that abject heresy which started as a leaven in Westcott and Hort and has leavened the whole lump of modern versions production in recent times.

As for the KING JAMES VERSION which has been wonderfully and effectually used of God to teach and build the churches of the elect for four centuries.

God would not have produced a Bible which could not be inerrantly applied to His Word and Preaching for His people, these last 400 years and more to come. Your friend Jones doubts God simply to support heretics Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland and their modern version substandard books which are proven to weaken doctrines and omit parts of God's Holy Writ.


News Item11/28/10 4:03 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
Jim Lincoln wrote:
Moreover, it is a heresy because it implies that God did not completely inspire the original manuscripts...
And why, might I ask, is it important for you to propagate the truth that God inspired the original mss?

Is it not true that your pathetic little god was incapable of preserving his inspired word intact throughout time? Of what value is having inspiration in the original, which was lost soon after?

And what about my question?

You claim that not even the hebrew and greek texts are inerrant, so how is it you can also claim to know of any so-called mistakes in translations?

You also claim that sola scriptura is one sign of a genuine believer. Would you like to explain what you mean by the "scriptura" bit?


News Item11/28/10 3:28 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
I to sum up, the AV is undoubtedly important to English literature, and being honored as such, I have no problem with that, [URL=]]]Part II: The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance[/URL].
Besides the terrible compromise and apostasy which we see around us, there are a number of movements which pose a threat to Bible believing Christianity in our day. They are tangents which will carry a man away from serving the Lord as he ought.

Religiously, I think perhaps the silliest idea abroad—and one which is calculated to divide the people of God—is the idea that there is some sort of special inspiration attached to the Authorized Version of Scripture commonly called in America "The King James Version."...

There are today many false translations and paraphrases of the Scripture which those who love the Bible must oppose, but to say that this one translation has about it inspiration which is not found anywhere else is just plain silly. Moreover, it is a heresy because it implies that God did not completely inspire the original manuscripts and therefore in 1611 He had to add inspiration.[/QUOTE]from, [URL=]]]Bob Jones, Jr. on KJVonlyism[/URL]


News Item10/15/10 2:06 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Alan H., well the old standby URL=]]]King James Onlyism[/URL] rather refutes that notion,
Doug Kutilek wrote:
...let me say first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV does at [URL=]]]Titus 2:13[/URL] and [URL=]]]2 Peter 1:1[/URL]) and virtual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it" are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil. To enslave English readers to a single translation which is often archaic and obscure, occasionally wholly unintelligible and sometimes plainly inaccurate when other versions that remedy these defects are easily accessible is a monument to mere human tradition and is, as it were, to spit in the face of the very purpose of Bible translation,...
excerpt from, [URL=]]]Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations[/URL]

News Item10/15/10 1:45 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
Thots wrote:

[URL=]]]Doctines affected by Modern Versions[/URL]

Great link! Here's part two:

[URL=]]]Doctines affected by Modern Versions Part 2[/URL]


News Item10/15/10 11:15 AM
Thots  Find all comments by Thots
Jim Lincoln wrote:
from a better and more accurate Bible,
Don't forget to post and proclaim the 19th century LIBERAL ANGLICAN influence in the NASB.

And you musn't forget the Roman Catholic influence of the VATICANUS TEXT which is incorporated into the NASB too.

After all Jim, you should tell the truth, and these are part of the reasons why the doctrines of Scripture have been so adversely affected by the NASB and other modern versions.

[URL=]]]Doctines affected by Modern Versions[/URL]


News Item10/14/10 2:19 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Yes, we at our church has certainly gotten rid of a lot of division by cleaning the KJV off our bookstore shelves!

from a better and more accurate Bible,

Acts 12
4 And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.---[URL=]]]NASB[/URL]

Albert Barnes in the 19th Century wrote:
Intending after Easter. There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover, µetat?pas?a. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honour of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that; nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written....The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of love,...
A commentary much too kind to AV's [URL=]]]Acts 12:4[/URL],in my opinion, [URL=]]]Acts 12:4 - Passover and Easter[/URL]

News Item9/24/10 4:15 PM
Scotart | from Psalms Only  Find all comments by Scotart
"A fragmented Church becomes more fragmented by unsettling what is good and established.

Since the Revised Version of the Bible appeared in 1885, we now have, apparently, over 100 versions of the New Testament in circulation. In other words, once the craze for revision starts, it does not stop. It would be an interesting study on its own as to why that is the case. But it may have something to do with the fact that when the Church is low, a certain kind of desperation can set in and novelty is sought. Nevertheless, when the Church is already weak and fragmented, the innovations produced by some fail to satisfy others, who want different, perhaps more radical measures. Even with Bible translation this is the case. Only where absolutely necessary should settled things be unsettled."
(Rev David Silversides)

The Psalms of God used in Praise and worship...
A sermon here on S.A.
[URL=]]]Why We Should use the Scottish Psalter.[/URL]


News Item9/24/10 2:34 PM
info  Find all comments by info
"Why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?"

"Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind."


News Item9/23/10 5:16 PM
Tyrannosaurus Rex | Jurassic Park you car  Find all comments by Tyrannosaurus Rex
Oh please wrote:
Fuller has been shown to be a liar!
Oh no! Now what am I going to do with all those brushes?

News Item9/23/10 5:02 PM
Oh please  Find all comments by Oh please
info wrote:
"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church......blah blah blah...
Fuller has been shown to be a liar!

The preponderence of evidence is that the early "church fathers" did not use the TR! Go figure!


News Item9/23/10 3:33 PM
info  Find all comments by info
"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." (D.O.Fuller)

News Item9/23/10 2:30 PM
zxcv  Find all comments by zxcv
Jim Lincoln wrote:
(Dr Dan Wallace wrote)...There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

= God's "Word is tried" - HE is not going to allow it to be any less for HIS Church in future generations.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

= God's Word is right, indeed it couldn't be any less because of GOD Himself. HE will maintain His promise to His people.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

= God's Word created the heavens indeed created all that is. To suggest that this power is less in our generation Jim, AND cannot write a Book, is pure blasphemy!!

If your friend Dan cannot read this and eg Psalm 119, and see the promise of God ON his word, - Then buy him a decent Bible; - KING JAMES VERSION.


News Item9/23/10 2:06 PM
He Also Said  Find all comments by He Also Said
"First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life."
(Dr.Dan Wallace)

Inerrant= free from errors.

I don't need a theological degree to figure that one out,Jim. Unless he's saying the KJV is NOT the word of God, he's just talking in circles.

To make it simple,either it's inerrant,or it's not.


News Item9/23/10 1:46 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
zxcv, I'm sure your answer is in here,

Dr. Dan Wallace wrote:
...nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne....
...those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV...
etc., from, [URL=]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL]

News Item9/23/10 1:25 PM
zxcv  Find all comments by zxcv
Laugh out loud wrote:
What was the Lord using the previous 1600 years before the arrival of the "TR"? Or are you saying that he was not building his church before the TR arrived?
God has been using the Word of God to build His church and teach His disciples since the beginning.

The Textus Receptus and the KING JAMES VERSION is the Word of God!

I'm sure the question you really want to ask is in there somewhere.


News Item9/23/10 12:21 PM
info  Find all comments by info
Textus Receptus.

"It is not true either that these Reformers did not know of the existence of this rival text. We are told that they used the "Received Text" because it was all they had. That is not true. While they did not have the thousands of manuscripts that we have today, they did know of this corrupt text as it was represented in some of the manuscripts that were available to them. They, however, rejected that text for the "Received Text"—the text which is supported by 80 to 90 percent of all the manuscripts we have today. That is the text of the King James Version. For that reason alone, we must reject all modern versions."
(The Standard Bearer)


News Item9/23/10 12:07 PM
Laugh out loud  Find all comments by Laugh out loud
zxcv wrote:
Please try not to mock the Lord.
Now rather than avoid the question.
Did God use the Textus Receptus to convert and teach the Word of God and build His Church?
What was the Lord using the previous 1600 years before the arrival of the "TR"? Or are you saying that he was not building his church before the TR arrived?

News Item9/23/10 10:54 AM
info  Find all comments by info
The favorite Greek Texts of the heretics Westcott and Hort, which are used by todays modern versions eg NIV, NASB etc, are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

"The two main manuscripts of the Minority Texts are Vaticanus (or B), and the Sinaiticus (Aleph). Vaticanus was produced in the 4th century, It was found over a thousand years later (1481) in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held.
This manuscript omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1: 1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation, and everything in Hebrews after verse 9:14.

It is interesting that a manuscript possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless (Hebrews 10:10-12). It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), and the great whore of Revelation chapter 17"

There are a total of 419 user comments displayedSubscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more | last

Barrett Holloway
Come And Let Us Reason..

Isaiah 1:18
Sunday Service
Cherith Baptist Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS

Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Shane Kastler
Our Sabbath Rest in Christ - 2

An Exposition of Hebrews
Heritage Baptist Church
Transcript!Play! | MP3

Kevin Swanson
SCOTUS Reconsiders Roe v. Wade

Most Historic Supreme Hearing
Generations Radio
Play! | MP3

Event: Dec 10-12, 2021
NonConformist Conference

A Line in the Sand
Providence Baptist Church NYC

Event: Dec 10-12, 2021
NonConformist Conference

A Line in the Sand
Providence Baptist Church NYC

Sermon: Doctrinal Problems in Churches
Dr. James M. Phillips


SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up

Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader

Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos

Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Billboards | Biz Cards
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
Embed Codes
Logos | e-Sword | BLB

Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Privacy Policy

Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06
Copyright © 2021 SermonAudio.