|
Post by biblethumper on May 26, 2006 18:51:00 GMT -5
Are ALL (ALL!) versions other than the King James "of satan"?
|
|
|
Post by av1611 on May 26, 2006 18:55:13 GMT -5
Amen they are ..straight from the pit of Hell..from Satan's mouth Preacher Robert Hulewicz
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on May 26, 2006 21:57:04 GMT -5
Well since they are not from God... who are they from??
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 26, 2006 23:49:19 GMT -5
Biblethumper,
Are ALL (ALL!) versions other than the King James "of satan"?
Too right they are. All new versions are of Satan. They are all counterfeit.
Satan attacked God's word in Gen 3:1 when he said Yea, hath God said? All the new versions have been doing exactly the same eversince. Taking out verses, changing doctrine, placing footnotes which cast doubt on what God says etc.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 27, 2006 0:38:48 GMT -5
I suppose KJVO advocates would say nobody was saved before 1611 then?
And again I'll ask, since nobody answered me in the other thread... Since the KJV wasn't the original text but a translation from other translations and copies? Why wouldn't the second and third century Latin, Greek and German translations be considered more from GOD than KJV?
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 27, 2006 0:49:59 GMT -5
Grant,
I suppose KJVO advocates would say nobody was saved before 1611 then?
Not at all, I have never said and never will say that a person can only get saved from reading the KJV 1611. Please do not lump me with the 'all' KJVO advocates.
Since the KJV wasn't the original text but a translation from other translations and copies? Why wouldn't the second and third century Latin, Greek and German translations be considered more from GOD than KJV?
I have answered this question previously. Please refer to my previous posts. God has chosen the English langauge to preserve his word today (or should I say from 1611). Not Latin, not Greek, not Japanese, not Mandarin but ENGLISH. Grant, you will simply have to look at my previous posts for a deeper explanation.
Thanks for the question.
|
|
|
Post by av1611 on May 27, 2006 5:39:59 GMT -5
I personally believe, as do all KJO people, that all other versions are not only BAD but are of the enemy; hence I read ONLY the KJ
My arguments are not against the av.... they are meant to prompt responses; nothing more.
All other versions, in my opinion, are not of God in ANY way.[/i] From the mouth of the great thumper of the Bible himself. I wonder what you voted for thumpy...I think I saw you vote for no? hmm Preacher Robert Hulewicz
|
|
|
Post by newsong on May 27, 2006 7:01:04 GMT -5
Brief History of KJV www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.htmlAlso found this info: If you believe that the Pope is the vicar of Christ, the rightful successor of the apostles, then you will like the New International Version of the Bible. Currently, the NIV outsells all other English Bibles, including the venerable Authorized King James Version. It has been a struggle for centuries, but, finally, we have a dominant English Bible that supports Catholic doctrines. How did this happen? What are modern translations based on? Origen (A.D. 184-254), one of the most famous "Church fathers," was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, and all modern versions, are based. He tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy. Adam Clarke says Origen was the first "Christian" teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible's historical basis. "The Scriptures," Origen maintained, " are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced fifty copies of a Latin version, at the behest of Emperor Constantine. Although Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the Catholic Church as the state religion, his action in choosing Eusebius' rendition of Origen's Bible was perhaps more important. Modern versions are based on the Vaticanus Manuscript (Codex B), and the Sinaiticus Manuscript (Codex Aleph), which are of the Eusebio-Origen type. Many authorities believe they were actually two of the fifty Constantine Bibles. I use KJV personally.
|
|
|
Post by av1611 on May 27, 2006 8:32:56 GMT -5
That's fine...stick with the AV, you can't go wrong.
Preacher Robert Hulewicz
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 28, 2006 1:22:51 GMT -5
newsong,
Excellent post.
I understand a Roman Catholic cardinal was on the translation committee of the NIV or had some input into its publication. I have seen some Roman catholics use the NIV but NEVER the KJ Bible. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 28, 2006 8:22:21 GMT -5
I was forced to vote NO. I do like the original Greek, however, Hebrew is a problem. But the Authroized is and always will be my choice above all but the originals.
Oh, salvation is a person, not a Bible translation...Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 28, 2006 22:06:24 GMT -5
evanschaible,
I do like the original Greek
But that's the point, we no longer have the ORIGINAL Greek!
But the Authroized is and always will be my choice above all but the originals.
We don't have the ORIGINALS! If you disagree then please produce the ORIGINALS I would love to see them.
Oh, salvation is a person, not a Bible translation...Just a thought.
Finally we agree on something. But remember "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD"....just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 29, 2006 13:28:18 GMT -5
QUOTE: "Oh, salvation is a person, not a Bible translation...Just a thought"
QUOTE: "Finally we agree on something. But remember "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD"....just a thought."
Is this inferring that you don't think or believe that the newer versions are any good? As if to say the KJ is IT? On whose authority?
Do you realize that the KJ is part of a line of versions and translations? I'm sure you do because it is common knowledge. For example the KJ was made by 47 "scholars" under the "authorization" of King James I of England. (this is where the authorization comes from, so no one thinks it was "authorized by God") The Bishop's Bible was the basis of this version, but the Hebrew and Greek texts were studied and other English translations consulted in order to obtain the "best renderings." Satan has a hold of you people that believe that the KJ has some special anointing on it that separates it from ALL others. As if to say that ALL the other English versions that are the foundation of the KJ are "less" and all of a sudden from that we have IT.
Everyone's making to big of a deal of this. The attention should be on those versions that are paraphrases or renderings and not true word for word. I hear some of you getting hung up on so called missing words or verses. What's to say the KJ didn't add them? The point is this; no doctrine essential to salvation or understanding the Trinity or any other of the important doctrines essential to the believer is changed or "missing" something in the newer versions such as the NIV, NASB, RV or ASV, RSV.
Let's turn that around and say the same thing about the KJV. If I were someone living back then could I try to be dupped into thinking I could say the same thing about the KJV because it is a "newer version" of the Geneva Bible, which is a "newer version" of the Great Bible which is a "newer version" of the Matthew's, Coverdale and Tyndale , which is a "newer version" of the Wycliffe and so on? Afterall, these were and are still very good English versions that brought salvation to many, many souls before the KJV ever came along.
Now please STOP this foolishness and stay focused on matters that really matter. Such as preaching the Word, studying the Word to make yourself approved and being a faithful witness to the world, etc..
"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Tim 4:16 (NIV)
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." 1 Tim 4:16 (KJV)
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 29, 2006 13:36:28 GMT -5
evanschaible, I do like the original GreekBut that's the point, we no longer have the ORIGINAL Greek! But the Authroized is and always will be my choice above all but the originals.
We don't have the ORIGINALS! If you disagree then please produce the ORIGINALS I would love to see them. Oh, salvation is a person, not a Bible translation...Just a thought.
Finally we agree on something. But remember "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD"....just a thought. Then, DocH, how do you know the KJ was faithful to "the originals" if we no longer have them?
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 29, 2006 18:07:44 GMT -5
darcfollowingjesus,
Hang on now sonny. The KJVO brethren did not cast the first stone. Old grandma was quite content studying her belowed well worn King James Bible until the high and mighty 'Professor' of Theology with his superior knowledge of the 'ORIGINAL' (please show me professor where it is) Greek and Hebrew came along and started shoving all of these new perversions down people's throats,into the churches and so called Christian bookshops.
You go ahead and use whatever perversion you wish, that's between you and God. But when you start attacking me personally and my beloved infallible and preserved King James Bible, you had better be ready for a battle.
I hear some of you getting hung up on so called missing words or verses. What's to say the KJ didn't add them? The point is this; no doctrine essential to salvation or understanding the Trinity or any other of the important doctrines essential to the believer is changed or "missing" something in the newer versions such as the NIV, NASB, RV or ASV, RSV.
That just shows your ignorance. "Man shall not live by bread alone , but by EVERY WORD OF GOD" (Luke 4:4). Go check that verse out in your non inspired versions.
How's about showing Acts 8:37 when witnessing to a Catholic.
'Dark' jesus I suggest you go away and do some in depth study before you start attacking me and my KJ Bible.
"Study to shew thyself approved..." You won't find that in your NIV either.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 29, 2006 18:12:51 GMT -5
Biblethumper, Then, DocH, how do you know the KJ was faithful to "the originals" if we no longer have them?So then God must be a liar (Ps 12:6-7) because according to your logic the perfect Bible doesn't exist, otherwise someone would have translated it by now. Why don't you have a go at translating the 'ORIGINAL' Greek and Hebrew. I look forward to reading your attempt.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 29, 2006 18:32:03 GMT -5
DocH, as stated in my former post (which I actually JUST wrote)...i am a KJO also.
My Q's are meant to spark intelligent discussion; not debate.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on May 30, 2006 7:48:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on May 30, 2006 19:45:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 30, 2006 19:55:28 GMT -5
Ejuliot; check your private Pm
|
|
|
Post by newsong on May 31, 2006 5:00:16 GMT -5
Jonathan I love that .. as Ejuliot said "Nifty!"
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 31, 2006 9:28:37 GMT -5
The King James version is my choice, the Greek is the best (whether original documents or not). But I dont think it is legitemate to judge whether or not someone is saved, strong in the scriptures, or learned by the translation they read. My mother read the NIV and wont listen to me about the ommitted verses. But she recently bought a parallel Bible with NIV, KJV, AMP, RV and it is good. I read a KJV and Greek/English Interlinear.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 31, 2006 10:50:55 GMT -5
The KJV is also my only choice ....
However, I have seen some NIV readers Born Again while some KJ readers as non Born Again *such as Mormons*
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on May 31, 2006 18:42:52 GMT -5
But I dont think it is legitemate to judge whether or not someone is saved,
Agree with you there.
However, I have seen some NIV readers Born Again while some KJ readers as non Born Again *such as Mormons*
Agree with you as well.
Listen Biblethumper we are beginning to agree on too many topics. People are going to start getting suspicious. ;D
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 31, 2006 19:10:15 GMT -5
I think people may begin to think we're nice; we better stop!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 31, 2006 19:10:35 GMT -5
PS: Are you the dad of the two brothers? Rob and Jon?
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Jun 1, 2006 10:17:42 GMT -5
Personally, I prefer the KJV and Holman's Christian Standard Bible. I trust no other, especially the NIV.
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Jun 1, 2006 11:00:50 GMT -5
I have to say, in my rookie opinion, that the KJV is the be-all end-all. But, I like to read the NLT because I understand the text really well. I can't really say it's of Satan though, It's clear the Christian folks got together and tried to make an honest translation. We all have to start somewhere, would you tell a 6 year old reading the "My first picture bible" that he's not reading the REAL word of God, and that his picture bible is OF SATAN!!! Nah.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Jun 1, 2006 11:13:08 GMT -5
I have to say, in my rookie opinion, that the KJV is the be-all end-all. But, I like to read the NLT because I understand the text really well. I can't really say it's of Satan though, It's clear the Christian folks got together and tried to make an honest translation. We all have to start somewhere, would you tell a 6 year old reading the "My first picture bible" that he's not reading the REAL word of God, and that his picture bible is OF SATAN!!! Nah. If you like "modern english" as a read, try the Holman's Christian Standard Bible. There's no missing passages, or other controversies. I've compared passages with the KJV (not the entire Scriptures), and I feel comfortable it meets the intent of KJV.
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Jun 1, 2006 12:04:01 GMT -5
I have to say, in my rookie opinion, that the KJV is the be-all end-all. But, I like to read the NLT because I understand the text really well. I can't really say it's of Satan though, It's clear the Christian folks got together and tried to make an honest translation. We all have to start somewhere, would you tell a 6 year old reading the "My first picture bible" that he's not reading the REAL word of God, and that his picture bible is OF SATAN!!! Nah. If you like "modern english" as a read, try the Holman's Christian Standard Bible. There's no missing passages, or other controversies. I've compared passages with the KJV (not the entire Scriptures), and I feel comfortable it meets the intent of KJV. I'll check it out.
|
|