Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
God inspires humans beings to learn Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek as well as their mother tongues; God inspires folk by the Holy Spirit to dedicate their lives to translating the scriptures ; God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected. The KJV is not, it is neither infallible nor perfect.
______________________________________________________________
God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected-you

Prove that anyone consulted God, in assessing whether "the originals" were perfect.


Since you consult God, obviously, give us this perfect bible, this pure, sure, sound, true....scripture, so that we can all go home. You've had how many years to do this? What's the problem, toots? Use God as the standard, and give us a pure, sure, sound, true....scripture. Do, be a dear.

Watch....This bible corrector does not believe we have this pure, sure, sound, true....scripture=all we have is a buncha "un inspired" fake bibles. That is the "doctrine" of bible correctors/agnostics-highly "unscriptural"...wait...what's "scripture?"
_______________________________________________________________
Prove that "the originals" were perfect.


Name that infallible/perfect source authority by which you correct any alleged "bible."



Let me guess: God


Deception.





Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."
 

kiwimacahau

Well-known member
Ah, KJV-onlyism; a heresy which equates what bible you use with whether or not you are an heir to salvation. You attack translators, you attack those who use other bibles. You ignore what I have said and prefer your own interpretation of my words. You are a dog in the manger, you will not yourself eat and you prevent others from eating as well.


Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."

For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?
 

kayaker

New member
Ah, KJV-onlyism; a heresy which equates what bible you use with whether or not you are an heir to salvation. You attack translators, you attack those who use other bibles. You ignore what I have said and prefer your own interpretation of my words. You are a dog in the manger, you will not yourself eat and you prevent others from eating as well.

For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?

I appreciate your post to Jay Dubya, your assessment and analogy are quite keen, btw. Your message was clear the FIRST TIME, also. Have you ever previously tried to have an intelligent conversation with a drunkard? With respect to your analogy of the 'situation', I find Jesus' mention of end-time scenarios appropriate, with particular emphasis on "meat in due season" in v.45, and "eating and drinking with the drunken" in v.49, I suggest Matthew 24:43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51.

Jay Dubya undoubtedly "believes every single word" of the KJB. That's easily said by one who is more than a few rungs short of the truth found in those words, that he avoids like the plague. I suspect Simon Birch may have a different perspective of arrogance at this stage of the game, but I do forgive him for the two neg reps I got from him on this thread, two of five in my over two years on TOL. Two I got from a 'drunken' Cathoholic dude, which is no surprise in that case. I return favor in those cases. 'Drunkeness' is remarkably non-denominational, btw. I just got hit by friendly fire, but I do prefer to be openly debated before getting a negative rep.

Globally, I accept your statement, "every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God". On the finer distinction of "truth" within those translations, I do have some dry bones of Ezekiel 37 to pick over. I would like to imagine you've come to the conclusion Genesis 4:23 KJV, and Genesis 4:24 KJV are quite pivotal verses. If not previously so, then I am indeed honored.

Translation diction vastly impacts the renderings of readers who trust those authors. I pray their divine inspiration in both cases. Context is analogous to the theme of a message. Is it asking too much of you to grasp the translational differences in one sentence from those two verses? Please ask yourself: Did Lamech kill two people, or one? Was Lamech physically injured during this event?

NIV: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.

ASV: I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me:

NKJV: I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me.

Catholic Bible: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me.

The Complete Jewish Bible: I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him).

Does it not stand to reason that knowing specifically whom Lamech killed impacts the translators’ diction? Who did Lamech kill, Kiwi? How many people did he kill? Why did Lamech kill anyone in the first place? Was Lamech physically injured in the process? Did Lamech experience any remorse?

KJV: I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

So, Kiwi… I appreciate the global point you made about translators, sincerely I do. Yet, I have to ask you, Kiwi… Are your new ‘converts’ getting any closer to the truth with those “better translations” you offer to them? You possess enormous responsibility suggesting “better translations” to new converts entrusting their spiritual welfare to you. Trust me… I entirely imagine the weight of this burden. People only physically die when I make mistakes, and I’m only innocent of malice and forethought. Know that my prayers are for your sobriety in pursuit of truth, this moment.

kayaker
 

Dialogos

Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (WLC-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is, to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in reverent esteem as if both versions are the word of God.

AMR,

I understand where you are coming from. Moreso, I have always appreciated your stalwart stand for the truth, your irenic tone toward those who aren’t picking a fight and your undying commitment to the doctrines of grace. I also hold the Holy Scriptures in highest esteem. I have also studied the differences between the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text and the Critical Texts and I have come to a different conclusion than you have. Largely for historical reasons.

First, the KJV Translators themselves pointed out there is value in consulting differing translations.

Preface to the 1611 King James Bible said:
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
The question I had to wrestle with in my own evaluation of this issue is, “why would the variety of translations stop being profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures just because the KJV translators had finished the first edition of the KJV?

Furthermore, why would the consultation of Greek and Hebrew texts be discouraged when the KJV translation committee used textual criticism in arriving at the KJV. They compared other translations, they compared and contrasted the versions of Erasmus that they had with the texts from Stephanus and Beza. They even put alternate readings in the margins of the 1611 version of the KJV.

And here is the rational for why they did just that.

Preface to the 1611 KJV said:
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine.
(Underline added)

Here are a few examples of those notes:
1 Cor 2:4 “Or persuasible”
1 Cor 2:15 “Or discerneth
1 Cor 3:9 “Or, tillage”
1 Cor 3:17, “Or destroy”

Now, I think it is helpful for us to consider why these men sought to provide alternative readings in the first place. I am not faulting the KJV translators for doing so, quite to the contrary, I think it is quite helpful to be given the freedom to do the hard work of bible study rather than be told that “this” or “that” reading is the right reading because it is the King James Bible and to question the decisions of the translation committee is heresy.

I believe it was Spurgeon who said, “the best of men, are men at best.”

Should we not presume this to be true of the faithful men laboring over Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in order to present to the King a translation the whole English empire could get behind?

Interestingly, I have an edition of the 1611 KJV on my bookshelf and it has those notes. I also have a 1762 Cambridge edition that doesn’t.

Which one is the “real” King James Bible?

It is my understanding that the 1762 isn’t even the last edition, I believe the last revision of the KJV was in 1679.


AMR said:
For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Amen!

Do you think that King James himself shared that sentiment?
Scotland’s King James the 6th (England’s King James the 1st), was not exactly a great friend to the puritans. When Prebyterian delegates urged James to consider revising the ecclesiastical structure of the Church of England James’ famous reply was, “No Bishop, No King!”

Thus the episcopal structure was retained in order to keep the monarchy strong and the Presbyterian structure was rejected. King James was happy to accede to the request for a new translation as the Geneva bible had far too many marginal notes that could be construed to be critical of the monarchical structure of 16th-17th centuries and encouraging reforms that James found uncomfortable.

Ergo, the puritans that landed on the shores of the New Colonies favored the Geneva Bible not the KJV.

I have heard that King James gave instructions to the committee on what words could and could not be used in the translation process and kind of marginal notes could and could not be used in explanation of the text.

I have also heard some say that this is myth, revisionist history.

Either way, I think it is reasonable to assume that political considerations were not absent the minds of the translators.
King James was, after all, King James. And in a monarchy (even the kind following the Magna Carta) a scholar’s honest assessment of a text must be at least marginally tempered by the desire to keep oneself out of the tower of London and in the good graces of the king.

One is justified in asking the historical question, “to what extend was the oversight of the translation of the KJV influenced by King James’ thoughts and desires on monarchy?”

One of the modern luxuries enjoyed by the scholars who sit down to work together in the endeavor of translating the ancient texts is that they are free from the pressures associated with a monarch overseeing the process.
AMR said:
When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for I believe, as it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version
I think that it is only fair to point out that the KJV has indeed been mightily used in the hands of godly men in bringing the Word of God on the mission field and in the pulpit.

My favorite historical preacher, C.H. Spurgeon, used the KJV almost exclusively even though the Revised Version was gaining some prominence. Yet he was not slavishly tied to it and on occasion made use of the Revised Version.

As the following excerpts articulate:
C.H. Spurgeon said:
Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.
http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/c&cl2.htm
C.H. Spurgeon said:
Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have no other sacred Book. We have no Prayer Book or binding creed, or authoritative minutes of conferences. We have nothing but the Bible and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found, we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, addition of human ignorance or human knowledge so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand. I confess that it looks a grievous thing to part with words which we thought were part and parcel of Luke, but as they are not in the oldest copies and must be given up, we will make capital out of their omission by seeing in that fact the wisdom of the great Preacher who did not speak upon cheering Truths of God when they were not needed and might have overlaid His seasonable rebuke. Although we have not the sentence in Luke, we do have it in Isaiah, and that is quite enough for me.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols25-27/chs1604.pdf
Spurgeon here speaking, of course, of the Lord’s prayer.

AMR said:
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
While I appreciate your wisdom on a great many matters I do not agree that this is true.

I think that they made good use of the very limited manuscript testimony at their disposal and did a commendable job of textual criticism with the manuscripts they had. Erasmus had a number of challenges with his work, not the least of which were limited number of manuscripts at his disposal (between 10 and 12 very late manuscripts, probably no earlier than the 10th century), and the haste that he employed in translation to get the work done before someone else stole his thunder. Unfortunately Erasmus’ errors made in haste bled into the KJV and some of those errors are still reflected in the text today.

I won’t belabor all of them but, as I am sure you are aware, Erasmus was forced to back translate a portion of Revelation (specifically Rev 22:15-21) from the Vulgate as the transcript he had was incomplete. That resulted in Erasmus making a number of errors inadvertently and creating over 15 instances where his Greek manuscript is unsubstantiated by any older Greek texts, Alexandrian, Byzantine, or otherwise. For example, at Rev 22:19 the KJV has “book of life” instead of "tree of life." "Book" is unsubstantiated by any Greek text we have today. It literally has no Greek manuscript support.

To be honest, why anyone would refuse to consult another translation other than the KJV when studying Rev 22:15-21 is beyond me.

AMR said:
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
Most certainly so. Although, again, translating for a monarch comes with its own political challenges.
AMR said:
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
I think there are some inconsistencies in translation that might be noted. For example, in Acts 3:19 ὅπως is translated “when.” A clear mistake, and one that was probably an error from relying on the Geneva Bible for this verse. All other translations of ὅπως are correctly translated as “that,” “so that,” “in order that” or “how.”
Now, we have to have a just balance, don’t we? No bible is perfectly translated because there are no perfect translators. So I don’t think that the modern versions avoid translation errors either. There are times when I read my ESV compared to the KJV and side with the KJV when all research has been exhausted. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to put the KJV on a pedestal and claim that it has immunity from honest, scholarly scrutiny. There is a sense in which any criticism of the choices of the KJV translators are viewed as criticism of the very word of God. The problem with that viewpoint is obvious from a reformed perspective.

We don’t believe in the inerrancy of the magisterium. The pope doesn’t speak infallibly Ex Cathedra and in the same way the translators of the KJV don’t get the presumption that they translated infallibly from their chairs either. Erasmus’ work is not covered by the umbrella of some “sacred tradition.”

Good textual criticism does not seek to criticize God’s Holy Word, it seeks to reveal it. Good textual criticism calls into question some of the decisions of godly men made in an attempt to translate God’s Holy Word because “the best of men, are men at best.”

In my opinion, when that reticence to take a second look at some of the curious passages in the KJV dissipates the KJV becomes a much more useful tool in the hands of a faithful servant of the Lord.

Spurgeon had it right, I think. “.Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.”

The rest of your listed points go undisputed in my way of thinking.

AMR said:
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
It certainly sounds like it today, I think that in 1611 it was meant to be in common vernacular so that it could be read aloud, and understood in public which accords with your 5th point.
AMR said:
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.
Now you introduce the thought of Turretin:
AMR said:
Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired.

Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here.

If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation, if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort.
I will have to defer to your expertise when it comes to Turretin. I have wanted to be able to study his works for some time now but have not found the occasion. I am in the process now of reading “The Atonement of Christ” though I think it is an edited edition of his.

Nevertheless, I wonder to what extent the following quotes I found from secondary sources lend some help to our discussion.

Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin said:
The question does not concern the irregular writing of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter. Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as a rule of faith and practice.
The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former.
The reasons are: (1) The Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). The word of God cannot lie (Ps 19:8-9; Heb 6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mat 5:18); shall endure forever (1 Pet 1:25); and is truth itself (John 17:17). For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory, or incurable blemishes to creep into it?

(Marlowe quoting Turretin)
I agree with Turretin here. I agree that there are no “incurable blemishes” in the text and I also agree that God did not suffer the sacred writers to err. But the question that must be asked is where does one start?

Do we start with the assumption that the KJV is the standard?
Why the KJV?
Why not the Geneva Bible, or the Tyndale or the the Wycliffe text? Why English?
Why not start with the Luther’s translation?

These were all godly men who transformed the world with their fidelity to Christ’s kingdom. And yet we saw fit to improve upon their work. Why should we not do the same with the KJV?

Should we not honor the work of the men whose labor changed the world, and yet endeavor to improve upon their work?

AMR said:
Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the very word of God, supra WLC-Q.157.
I agree entirely that we cannot improve upon the Word of God, but even Turretin was willing to question the English text of his day.

For example:
Textual Criticism in the Writings of Turretin said:
This [i.e. that Cainan in Luke 3:36 is spurious] is plainly proved: (1) by the authority of Moses and of the books of Chronicles which, in the genealogical records formed in three places (Gen. 10:24; 11:13; 1 Chron. 1:18), make no mention of him; (2) the Chaldee paraphrases which uniformly omit Cainan in the book of Genesis and Chronicles; (3) Josephus does not mention him, nor Berosus guided by him, nor Africanus whose words Eusebius quotes in his Chronicorum (cf. 1.16.13 [PG 19.153-54]); (4) the sacred chronology would thus be disturbed and brought into doubt in the history of Moses, if the years of Cainan are inserted between Arphaxad and Sala. Abraham would not be the tenth from Noah as Moses asserts, but the eleventh. (5) It does not exist in any of the Codices. Our Beza testifies that it is not found in his most ancient manuscript (Annotationes maiores in Novum ... Testamentum, Pars prior [1594], p. 262 on Luke 3:36). Ussher ("De Cainano Arphaxadi filio" in Chronologia Sacra 6; cf. Whole Works [1847-64], 11:558) asserts that he saw the book of Luke written in Greek-Latin on the most ancient vellum, in characters somewhat large without breathings and accents (which having been brought from Greece to France was laid up in the monastery of St. Irenaeus in the suburbs of Lyons; and being discovered in the year 1562 was afterward carried to England and presented to the University of Cambridge), and in it he could not find Cainan. Scaliger in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius ("Prolegomena," Thesaurus temporum Eusebii .. chronicorum canonum [1606/1968], 1:ii) affirms that Cainan is lacking in the most ancient copies of Luke. Whatever the case may be, even if this passage proves to be a mistake, the authenticity of Luke's gospel cannot be called in question on that account: (a) because the corruption is not universal; (b) this error is of little consequence and a ready means of correcting it is furnished by Moses, so that there was no necessity for that learned man Vossius to throw doubts upon the purity of the Hebrew manuscript in order to establish the authenticity of the Septuagint. 3
(Marlow Quoting Turretin)

So, yes, Turretin appeared to argue, quite ardently, that the Word of God cannot be improved upon. But it also appears that Turretin did not think that the translators were infallible and that there was cause to question the choices of the translators when evidence presents itself. It appears that here Turretin thinks that there is still work to be done by the servants of God in uncovering the Word of God.
Here Turretin exemplifies that he is willing to look for wisdom as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure.

Now, I happen to think that Turretin turned out to be wrong here. Codex D is the only manuscript that omits “Cainan” and so the KJV is right. But it does well illustrate that Turretin's passion for the Word of God did not preclude him from asking questions about the choices of translators.

I wonder, AMR, if you might agree with Marlowe's assesment of Turretin's view of textual criticism.

Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin

Nevertheless, the thing to be noticed here is that Turretin's concept of providential preservation in no way prevented him from calling the commonly received text "corrupt" in some details, and he points to the oldest available manuscripts as a superior authority. In addition to these, he also refers to the evidence afforded by ancient versions (the "Chaldee paraphrases" or Aramaic Targums) and to patristic quotations (Eusebius). In short, the question is to be resolved by referring to ancient copies, versions, and fathers, the same sources favored by textual critics today. Turretin supposes that by the preservation of these oldest witnesses, from which the more recent copies may be corrected, God has provided the means for the restoration of the text — and in this indirect way he has preserved every detail of the true text. Presumably, Turretin would say that God then makes use of text-critical scholarship to bring about the necessary corrections in due time.
(Marlowe, 2003)

In any event, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread.
 

everready

New member
The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!

The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!

Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"!

And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3???

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

everready
 

Mocking You

New member
everready said:
The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!
Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Perhaps the KJV has added 60,000 words. It's the Bible based on the TR, the most copied, recopied, recopied, and recopied manuscript ever.

Can I play too?

If you want to make comparisons between translations, how about these verses? NIV vs. KJV....

Jude 25
25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. [NIV]

25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


John 14:14
14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. [NIV]

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. [KJV]

KJV OMITS "me", removing Jesus from the verse


Romans 1:4
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. [NIV]

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


Mark 3:20
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. [NIV]

20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus and he and his disciples


Romans 8:16
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. [NIV]

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: [KJV]

KJV changes the Holy Spirit from a person of the Trinity into an impersonal "it".


Acts 4:25
25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain? [NIV]

25Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? [KJV]

KJV OMITS Holy Spirit, denying inspiration



Colossians 2:9
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [NIV]

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [KJV]

KJV changes "Christ" to "him", uses archaic "Godhead" instead of "Deity"


Acts 10:48; KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus Christ

Luke 20:20, Acts 3;16, Acts 13:24 KJV: his; NIV: Jesus

Matt. 17:24, Matt. 20:29, Luke 10:38 KJV: they; NIV: Jesus and his disciples

Acts 18:25 KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus

Mark 16:19, 2 Thess. 2:8 KJV: Lord; NIV: Spirit of Jesus

Acts 13:38,Heb. 3:3 KJV: this man; NIV: Jesus

Mark 3:20, Mark 7:19, John 10:40 KJV [nothing]; NIV: Jesus



KJV removes God as “Holy One“, instead uses generic term “holy”

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NIV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NKJV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. [KJV]


KJV is soft on homosexuality, changes homosexual offenses to ambiguous "abusers of themselves with mankind".

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. [NIV]

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV]



KJV denies Deity of Christ

Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. [NIV]

Rom. 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [KJV]


Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, [NIV]

Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [KJV]


KJV revised itself, adds words

KJV 1611 edition, 1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life.

KJV, newer edition (adds words):
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.



Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; [KJV]

while we wait for the blessed hope— the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, [NIV]

KJV: …glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…are they two different entities?


Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and your dominion endures through all generations.
The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises
and faithful in all he does.
Psalm 145:13 NIV

Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
Psalm 145:13 KJV

KJV removes second half of the verse.
 

everready

New member
The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .

LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)

LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."

everready
 

Mocking You

New member
The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .

LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

When compared to the NIV, the KJV denies deity of Christ, is soft on homosexuality, and removes Jesus' and Christ's name many times.


LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)

Let's take a look...

Ezekiel 41:7 And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers: for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst. [KJV] (Huh?)

Ezekiel 41: 7 The side rooms all around the temple were wider at each successive level. The structure surrounding the temple was built in ascending stages, so that the rooms widened as one went upward. A stairway went up from the lowest floor to the top floor through the middle floor. [NIV]
------

2 Corinthians 6:11-13
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. 12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. [KJV]

2 Cor. 6:11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also. [NIV]
------
Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. [KJV]

Luke 14:10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. [KJV]


LOL! You know if you appeal to Gil Riplinger for "knowledge" you are in a heap of trouble.


LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

This is a fact, not a lie. Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV.


LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."

This is very subjective. A translation ought to say what the original manuscript was trying to convey. Sometimes a literal word-for-word translation is inaccurate, esp. when translating idioms and colloquialisms.
 

Mocking You

New member
You attack Gods word with a vengeance, why?

everready

I'm not attacking God's word. I am trying to educate people that the KJV is not a specially inspired translation. It is not God's perfectly preserved word for the English language. People that use other Bible translations besides the KJV are not rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible.

I reject the idea that:
The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone.
 

everready

New member
Westcott & Hort

Westcott & Hort

I'll leave you with this, its about a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing that were allowed to doctor the scriptures.

People are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready
 

Simon Baker

BANNED
Banned
Perhaps the KJV has added 60,000 words. It's the Bible based on the TR, the most copied, recopied, recopied, and recopied manuscript ever.

Can I play too?

If you want to make comparisons between translations, how about these verses? NIV vs. KJV....

Jude 25
25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. [NIV]

25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


John 14:14
14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. [NIV]

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. [KJV]

KJV OMITS "me", removing Jesus from the verse


Romans 1:4
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. [NIV]

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


Mark 3:20
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. [NIV]

20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus and he and his disciples


Romans 8:16
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. [NIV]

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: [KJV]

KJV changes the Holy Spirit from a person of the Trinity into an impersonal "it".


Acts 4:25
25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain? [NIV]

25Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? [KJV]

KJV OMITS Holy Spirit, denying inspiration



Colossians 2:9
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [NIV]

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [KJV]

KJV changes "Christ" to "him", uses archaic "Godhead" instead of "Deity"


Acts 10:48; KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus Christ

Luke 20:20, Acts 3;16, Acts 13:24 KJV: his; NIV: Jesus

Matt. 17:24, Matt. 20:29, Luke 10:38 KJV: they; NIV: Jesus and his disciples

Acts 18:25 KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus

Mark 16:19, 2 Thess. 2:8 KJV: Lord; NIV: Spirit of Jesus

Acts 13:38,Heb. 3:3 KJV: this man; NIV: Jesus

Mark 3:20, Mark 7:19, John 10:40 KJV [nothing]; NIV: Jesus



KJV removes God as “Holy One“, instead uses generic term “holy”

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NIV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NKJV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. [KJV]


KJV is soft on homosexuality, changes homosexual offenses to ambiguous "abusers of themselves with mankind".

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. [NIV]

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV]



KJV denies Deity of Christ

Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. [NIV]

Rom. 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [KJV]


Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, [NIV]

Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [KJV]


KJV revised itself, adds words

KJV 1611 edition, 1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life.

KJV, newer edition (adds words):
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.



Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; [KJV]

while we wait for the blessed hope— the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, [NIV]

KJV: …glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…are they two different entities?


Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and your dominion endures through all generations.
The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises
and faithful in all he does.
Psalm 145:13 NIV

Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
Psalm 145:13 KJV

KJV removes second half of the verse.

Good Post, Informative. I Achieve The Same Understanding From KJV And Prefer It, Therefore I Do Not Waste Time Comparing Translations Or Languages, And Applaud Those That Do It For Me, Like You.

It Affirms My Personal Interpretations And May Offer New Perspective To Some. I Notice NIV Stressing More, The Deity Of Jesus Christ, Among Other "Small" Differences. Rightly Dividing Is Not A Term That Simply 'Sounds Good", It's A Serious Problem For A Few Here.

I Asked A Spirit Filled Vibrant Man (Pastor) His Opinion On The Most Accurate Translation, I Was Surprised When He Said NIV. I Suppose The Conclusions We Come To, Reading The Word, Is The Important Part. MY, You Are A Good Debater.
 

Mocking You

New member
I'll leave you with this, its about a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing that were allowed to doctor the scriptures.

People are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

No one is saying the King James Bible is "wrong". Who is saying that?


Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks.

These men were heretics, according to Gail Riplinger.

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

You mean let us examine what detractors say about Westcott and Hort's beliefs.

Anyway, going after Westcott and Hort is attacking the messenger, not the message.
 

everready

New member
Like i said wolves in sheep's clothing

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

Did not believe in the miracles of the Bible - Westcott in 1847: "1 never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

Did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures. - Westcott to Hort in 1860: "1 reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Hort to Lightfoot in 1860: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N. T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

Did not believe in the supernatural creation - Hort to Westcott in 1860: "... Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book. " Hort to Ellerton in 1860 "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

Did not believe in the efficacy (power) of the atonement - Hort: "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfies without every man 's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."

Westcott and Hort were clearly Anti-protestant (pro-Catholic sympathizers) Hort: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he know nothing except Protestant theology."

Believed in the necessity of purgatory - Hort to Ellerton: "But the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements..."

Believed in the communist system - Westcott: "I suppose I am a communist by nature." Hort: "I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred for democracy in all its forms." Hort: "I cannot at present see any objection to a limit being placed by the State upon the amount of property which any one person may possess ... I would say that the co-operative principle is a better and a mightier than the competitive principle."

Believed in prayers for the dead - Westcott: "We agreed unanimously that we are, as things are now, forbidden to pray for the dead apart from the whole church in our public services. No restriction is placed upon private devotions (to pray for the dead)."
The Roman Catholic system has greatly profited from the money paid for saying Mass for loved ones that have died.
Believed in the worship of Mary - Hort: "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolatry. ...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Westcott compelled his wife Sarah Louisa to take the name Mary in addition to her given name.)

Believed in the sacraments (sacrifices) Hort: "Still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us."

Believed in baptismal regeneration - Westcott: "By birth he may, if he will, truly live here; by baptism he may if he will, truly live forever. ... I do think we have no right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of a spiritual life, conditionally from Baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth." Hort: "We maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration ' as the most important of doctrines ...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

Acknowledged their heretical positions - Hort to Ellerton: "Possibly you have not heard that I have become Harold Browne's Examining Chaplain. I have only seen him two or three times in my life, not at all intimately, and was amazed when he made the proposal, in the kindest terms. I wrote to warn him that I was not safe or traditional in my theology, and that I could not give up association with heretics and such like. Westcott to Lightfoot: "It is strange, but all the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it (a particular book lacking the fundamentals)."

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html

everready
 
Top