GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Authorized Version  (Read 4142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Authorized Version
« on: Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 04:18:47 »
Ok I am new to this forum here. But I have noticed something interesting. The more threads I read the more I realize that fewer and fewer English speaking Christians seem to be using the Authorized Version of the Bible(this is more commonly known as the KJV). I am deeply saddened by this dilemma. So I want to know what people here think about that.

First of all I myself use the Authorized Version because in the past 400 years it has stood as the best translation in the English language. Not only that all of the revised texts(NIV, RV, RSV, NLB, Ect...) are translated out of corrupt texts. The new translations all down play the Godhood of Jesus Christ.

So any thoughts on this topic?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Authorized Version
« on: Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 04:18:47 »

Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #1 on: Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 06:14:53 »
Most bible versions are perverted and many christians mock those who use the KJV.
The last bible version I've seen was the message version, which is totally new age and evil - yet this version is being read from the pulpits of churches.

The excuse not to use the KJV is often "I find it hard to understand" ....well if a person finds it hard to understand perhaps they should re-learn English.

If you flip through the other versions it won't take long before you find whole passages left out and distorted.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #1 on: Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 06:14:53 »

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #2 on: Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 17:47:17 »
The reason why all of the newer English translations are so distorted, and I would even go so far as to say satanic in origin, is because they used perverted Greek manuscripts. Wescot and Hort, perhaps two of the most wicked men to ever live, despised the Textus Receptus(received text)that the Authorized Version was translated from. Hort even went so far as to call the TR(textus receptus)a vile and filthy thing.
    The majority of the Greek manuscripts follow the TR very closely, if not exactly. The TR can be traced back to the original authors. The OT is taken from the Rabbis and the scribes that preserved the blessed and Holy Scriptures, word for word, from the original authors. They used what is called the Masoretic text. The Old Latin follows very closely with the TR on almost every point.
    However, the Latin Vulgate follows the manuscripts that Origin(the old heretic from the 2nd century)polluted. Origin invented the doctrine of Purgatory, in the Christian mind. He was the influence behind Augustine's doctrine of infant baptism. If you were to trace many of the Roman Catholic doctrines very closely you would find their roots lie in Origin and Augustine two centuries after him. The reason we see the Greek manuscripts, from which the Latin Vulgate is translated, in such good condition for so many centuries is because the the early Christians barely touched them. Why read something that is obviously polluted?
    I warn my brothers and sister in the Lord to get rid of these perversions you rely on for your daily bread, and go back to the Authorized version of the Bible. If you are going to a church where the pastor uses one of these pollutions from the pulpit, I advise you to question him about it. If he can not use the Word of God then I would advise finding a preacher who will. 
 

Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #3 on: Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 01:05:12 »
This is so true...many dont realize that only the KJV is from the Textus Receptis.

Also each new Bible version that is produced has to have a 20% difference to the ones in existance....this can only happen if people are changing the Bible.

God warns strongly against this.

The latest bible 'the message' is the worst. It is written by a man who i believe to be New Age and this 'bible' is not surprisingly is embraced by leaders in the New Age.


I believe He is pushing a cosmic Christ.

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #4 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 02:00:35 »
The NIV and the RV that came from Wescot and Hort's translations are very Gnostic in their reading. This is a religion that the Apostles were combating even while the NT was still being written. I would love to see Insight pull out the so-called errors in the AV and prove to me how they are errors. Of course that is only if he is up to the challenge.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #4 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 02:00:35 »



Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #5 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 14:43:28 »
Rob---

I had replied on the Trinity thread then realized you had this thread going. I will re-post what I had over there to this one:

Rob--

I totally agree with you regarding the Trinity.  But the King James version (as beautiful as it is---I love it for it's poetic cadence) does have "added" words----and even in one instance an added verse (1 John 5:7 KJV does not appear in any original manuscripts before the 1400's).  Wherever italics appear words have been added to "help" with the translation.

God did indeed PRESERVE His word--but that doesn't mean that someone can't come along and add to it.   Revelation gives a warning to those who might add or subtract from that book alone---let alone the whole Bible.  So, when some scribe added 1 John 5:7, (most likely to "prove" the trinity doctrine which really needs no defense as it is an obvious teaching of the Bible) he "added" to the Bible a verse that shouldn't be there.  There are plenty of other verses that prove the Trinity---God doesn't need help from a scribe.

The KJV is not a perfect translation by any means.  It is beautiful---contains God's Word for sure,  but it does have additions,  italics, etc. that are not part of God's Word--God's word is perfect----but translations aren't perfect.  God bless!   ::smile::

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #6 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 15:54:13 »
Sadly

Both of you, Rob and Sinead are misinformed and do not have any clue of what you're talking about on this topic


Because of the difficulty in understanding the Kings English of the KJV ....
Many people have a really hard time actually understanding what the Bible says and also find it very hard to read it for longer than a few minutes.

Not because they do not desire to understand it but because in many cases it is VERY HARD TO READ!

Some of the KJ only people don't even understand some of what they read simply because the language used in many of the verses of the KJ does not make it clear

However when one uses parallel translations reading the verse side by side, we begin to understand The Bible better as we learn the meaning of words used according to The Kings English.

In doing so we begin to "wax exceeding strong" in our understanding of God's Holy Word   ::pondering::

 

 

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #7 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 22:56:45 »
Sadly

Both of you, Rob and Sinead are misinformed and do not have any clue of what you're talking about on this topic


Because of the difficulty in understanding the Kings English of the KJV ....
Many people have a really hard time actually understanding what the Bible says and also find it very hard to read it for longer than a few minutes.

Not because they do not desire to understand it but because in many cases it is VERY HARD TO READ!

Some of the KJ only people don't even understand some of what they read simply because the language used in many of the verses of the KJ does not make it clear

However when one uses parallel translations reading the verse side by side, we begin to understand The Bible better as we learn the meaning of words used according to The Kings English.

In doing so we begin to "wax exceeding strong" in our understanding of God's Holy Word   ::pondering::
 

Gospel

It's rarely we agree on a matter, but here it seems we find common ground.

The NET is my prefered reading and reference Bible, while I still physically mark up my AV.  The AV has its strenght in the many works such as Strongs etc have thier basis in the Kings Version.

Insight

Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #8 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 23:43:32 »
@ gospel I speak for myself in saying I am not misinformed and I do know what I'm talking about on this issue.

The KJV isn't hard to read. That is why we have concordances to look words and their meaning up.


Offline Sinead

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Manna: 46
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #9 on: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 23:45:02 »
@ Fish - what's wrong with the KJV? I have never found any errors in it.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #10 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 00:35:23 »
Let’s not go into the textual errors of the AV we would be here for a very long time.  Needless to say great care is required when studying the Scriptures to better understand the original text, needless to say the message is not lost even though as Rob suggest some versions have a particular bias toward wrong doctrine.

Imagine how I feel about the bias toward the Trinity, especially the Non Inspired Version (NIV for short)  ::nodding:: 

We would be best to ulilise our energies living the Word than looking for textual errors.

Insight

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #11 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 00:47:44 »
Quote
when some scribe added 1 John 5:7, (most likely to "prove" the trinity doctrine which really needs no defense as it is an obvious teaching of the Bible) he "added" to the Bible a verse that shouldn't be there.  There are plenty of other verses that prove the Trinity---God doesn't need help from a scribe.

So you bring up the supposed interpolation of 1st John 5:7. As far as can be seen it does not seem to appear before the 1300s actually. The reason this is not an interpolation is because without verse 7 verse 8 makes absolutely no sense. The priest who first compiled the TR originally left it out. When he was asked why he left it out his answer was "show me one Greek MSS that has it and I will put it in." A few years later he was shown an older text that had it and so true to his word he put it back in.

the reason why we can see that this was in the original autograph is because,  6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

take out verse 7 and the whole statement is here left wanting. Not to mention that the Spirit, water, and blood are gender neuter terms. Yet they are not used as such in verse 8. They make clear reference to verse 7.

So it was not the translators of the AV that "added" this it was found in an older Greek MSS and then placed in the TR after having been shown to the priest(I will get his name for you as soon as I can remember it)who first compiled the TR.

Quote
Not because they do not desire to understand it but because in many cases it is VERY HARD TO READ!

I was a High School drop out and I had an AV that I could understand perfectly, this is why I hated reading it, because it convicted me of my sin. If you are reading a book, any book, and you do not understand a word, you look it up in the dictionary. You want to talk about dropping things out of the scriptures look at every single one of the Revised Perversions. They all drop the deity of Christ, they all take out the last half of Mark 16. why do they do that, do you suppose? Every last one of them takes away the last half of Romans 8:1
There is therefore now, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
They all drop the stipulation for what being in Christ Jesus is.

And just to help you out a little bit here "thee" means you, "thou" means you, and "ye" is plural for you.

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #12 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 13:12:01 »
Let’s not go into the textual errors of the AV we would be here for a very long time.  Needless to say great care is required when studying the Scriptures to better understand the original text, needless to say the message is not lost even though as Rob suggest some versions have a particular bias toward wrong doctrine.

Imagine how I feel about the bias toward the Trinity, especially the Non Inspired Version (NIV for short)  ::nodding::  

We would be best to ulilise our energies living the Word than looking for textual errors.

Insight

You are a very hard person to reason with Insight  ::smile::--you interpret things in a completely different way than they were presented---just as you do when you read the Bible.

I am not "looking" for textual errors. I love the King James version of the Bible and read it more than any other version.  What I was pointing out is that it is wrong to point to the KJV as THE version of the Bible, or the "perfect" version as some do.

All translations have some errors in them.  I pointed out that the King James also has italics and additions, and even an extra verse.  But I am in now way attempting to discredit it usage.  Again, I read the KJV more than any other version.  It is definitely the easiest to memorize due to it's poetic nature.  ::smile::

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #13 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 13:14:20 »
@ Fish - what's wrong with the KJV? I have never found any errors in it.

Sinead---

There is nothing wrong with the KJV.  I am just stating it is not perfect. 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is not found in any other translation--because it doesn't belong in the text. i was just pointing out that no translation is "perfect"--they all have their faults. I love the King James version and use it all the time.

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #14 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 14:46:32 »
Let’s not go into the textual errors of the AV we would be here for a very long time.  Needless to say great care is required when studying the Scriptures to better understand the original text, needless to say the message is not lost even though as Rob suggest some versions have a particular bias toward wrong doctrine.

Imagine how I feel about the bias toward the Trinity, especially the Non Inspired Version (NIV for short)  ::nodding::  

We would be best to ulilise our energies living the Word than looking for textual errors.

Insight

You are a very hard person to reason with Insight  ::smile::--you interpret things in a completely different way than they were presented---just as you do when you read the Bible.

I am not "looking" for textual errors. I love the King James version of the Bible and read it more than any other version.  What I was pointing out is that it is wrong to point to the KJV as THE version of the Bible, or the "perfect" version as some do.

All translations have some errors in them.  I pointed out that the King James also has italics and additions, and even an extra verse.  But I am in now way attempting to discredit it usage.  Again, I read the KJV more than any other version.  It is definitely the easiest to memorize due to it's poetic nature.  ::smile::

And I totally agree with Fish on this however....

I do believe some people find it hard and difficult to study and read the Word because of the difficulty in understanding the Kings English

It is in fact "another" language, certainly a different form of English the average person has difficulty understanding in the same way they have difficulty understanding Shakespeare

That said ....I thoroughly enjoy reading the NLT, I find it very readable and quite easy to understand and because that is the case, I find I spend less time trying to understand the language usage and therefore able to read more in a shorter period of time and less likely to become fatigued through effort of reading the Kings English

THAT SAID

I like Fish love my King James even more than I love my NKJ,

Whatever else I read or cite I always to defer to my KJ and I definitely prefer to memorize most scripture according to the King James and some scriptures I prefer to memorize according to The NIV

The best thing is knowing the scripture, as many shadows and nuances of it as possible, the more the better

For honestly if I depended on the KJ only

There would be some scriptures that I would never have a complete understanding of or at least not without a measured degree of difficulty

Jeremiah 29:11

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. NIV

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
KJV

This verse is a good example why it does not always matter

To me both are saying the same thing in different ways mind you but the same thing

Offline Loner

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Manna: 71
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #15 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 14:54:20 »
Sadly

Both of you, Rob and Sinead are misinformed and do not have any clue of what you're talking about on this topic


Because of the difficulty in understanding the Kings English of the KJV ....
Many people have a really hard time actually understanding what the Bible says and also find it very hard to read it for longer than a few minutes.

Not because they do not desire to understand it but because in many cases it is VERY HARD TO READ!

Some of the KJ only people don't even understand some of what they read simply because the language used in many of the verses of the KJ does not make it clear

However when one uses parallel translations reading the verse side by side, we begin to understand The Bible better as we learn the meaning of words used according to The Kings English.

In doing so we begin to "wax exceeding strong" in our understanding of God's Holy Word   ::pondering::

 

 
Gospel one does'nt need other translations in order to understand what scripture means...one only needs to get down on your knees and ask for the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us..after all He is the one who leads us into all truth.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #16 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 15:21:20 »
Ok I am new to this forum here. But I have noticed something interesting. The more threads I read the more I realize that fewer and fewer English speaking Christians seem to be using the Authorized Version of the Bible(this is more commonly known as the KJV). I am deeply saddened by this dilemma. So I want to know what people here think about that.

First of all I myself use the Authorized Version because in the past 400 years it has stood as the best translation in the English language. Not only that all of the revised texts(NIV, RV, RSV, NLB, Ect...) are translated out of corrupt texts. The new translations all down play the Godhood of Jesus Christ.

So any thoughts on this topic?

Care to list any examples from the NRSV?


Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #17 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 15:35:52 »
Sadly

Both of you, Rob and Sinead are misinformed and do not have any clue of what you're talking about on this topic


Because of the difficulty in understanding the Kings English of the KJV ....
Many people have a really hard time actually understanding what the Bible says and also find it very hard to read it for longer than a few minutes.

Not because they do not desire to understand it but because in many cases it is VERY HARD TO READ!

Some of the KJ only people don't even understand some of what they read simply because the language used in many of the verses of the KJ does not make it clear

However when one uses parallel translations reading the verse side by side, we begin to understand The Bible better as we learn the meaning of words used according to The Kings English.

In doing so we begin to "wax exceeding strong" in our understanding of God's Holy Word   ::pondering::

  

 
Gospel one does'nt need other translations in order to understand what scripture means...one only needs to get down on your knees and ask for the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us..after all He is the one who leads us into all truth.

While I know that to be true,

 in any case God works through people

So the Holy Spirit guides us through what some people transcribed as the King James

In the same way

The Holy Spirit guides us through what some people transcribed in other versions

Deifying the King James in itself is not scriptural and how could it be.... as if to say those scribes were supernaturally anointed beyond other men, given divine capacity not available to scribes of later eras of different versions

I .....speaking on my own behalf, know for a fact that in reading various translations I have been edified in my understanding of scripture moreso than if I depended solely on the KJ

Yet I do defer to my KJ

and for further clarity my NKJ

As well as the NASB, The NLT and the Amplified

In some instances I also like the NIV

And I find that for many new converts, the best way for them to get drawn into a love of the Word is to 1st give them a version of the Bible that is easy to understand and easy to read while in group Bible Study we can elaborate on it from the KJ.

The best way to discourage young people from reading literature is to insist that they read only Shakespeare

The best way to discourage young people from studying the Word of God is insisting on them to read only the Kings English version of the Bible

My question is this

Is this the same problem in Chinese, Arabic, German or  Russian

In other words is there a way to write the Kings English in another language or is it only possible with English ::headscratch::



Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #18 on: Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 18:52:54 »
Sadly

Both of you, Rob and Sinead are misinformed and do not have any clue of what you're talking about on this topic


Because of the difficulty in understanding the Kings English of the KJV ....
Many people have a really hard time actually understanding what the Bible says and also find it very hard to read it for longer than a few minutes.

Not because they do not desire to understand it but because in many cases it is VERY HARD TO READ!

Some of the KJ only people don't even understand some of what they read simply because the language used in many of the verses of the KJ does not make it clear

However when one uses parallel translations reading the verse side by side, we begin to understand The Bible better as we learn the meaning of words used according to The Kings English.

In doing so we begin to "wax exceeding strong" in our understanding of God's Holy Word   ::pondering::

  

 
Gospel one does'nt need other translations in order to understand what scripture means...one only needs to get down on your knees and ask for the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us..after all He is the one who leads us into all truth.

Imagine if someone had told the King and the people back in 1611 "You don't need a translation in the King's English--just get down on your knees and ask for leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us...."  We'd never have a King James Version.  ::smile::

The reason we have so many other translations is because God wants EVERYONE to understand the scriptures--He is very merciful---and as gospel pointed out--some have a very hard time understanding the KJV.  I love the KJV, but I was saved reading a Living New Testament Translation of the Gospel of John---it was what I needed, and that is what God provided.  Amen and amen.   ::smile::

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #19 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 03:19:49 »
NASB The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ""BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

NIV The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"

Hmmm this is strange. Isaiah did not prophesy that.

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me" Malachi 3:1

And the AV says..."As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, wich shall prepare thy way before thee."

I can give you so much more errors in all of the other ones if you really want me to.

God said that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" I know that "king's" English is sooo hard to grasp. It just makes my poor little head spin. Why if there's th instead of an s I cannot figure it all out. These really big words like God have got to be replaced with He because He is only two words. besides who really wants to read the last half of Mark 16 anyways. These signs shall follow then that believe...no all that tongue speakin stuff, and miracles, and treading on serpants, that's all for back in the NT times...oh wait we are still in the NT times now aren't we. Oh who cares we don't need that stuff anymore. take it out preacher, preach to me out of a book that will itch my ears.

 
Quote
  I love the KJV, but I was saved reading a Living New Testament Translation of the Gospel of John-

So whats your point? I'm glad you got saved don't get me wrong. I am glad. I shout for joy because of that. But there is a preacher in my church organization that got saved at a Led Zeplin concert because the singer said at the opening "not even God can save you here." He fell on his knees and God saved him right on the spot. So we should all listen to Led Zeplin to grow closer to God because God used them to save a man? Hmmm I think God will use whatever it takes to save a man. I also think the devil will do whatever he can to destroy an already saved man a bring him back into the realm of Satan.

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #20 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 13:44:35 »
NASB The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ""BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

NIV The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"

Hmmm this is strange. Isaiah did not prophesy that.

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me" Malachi 3:1

And the AV says..."As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, wich shall prepare thy way before thee."

I can give you so much more errors in all of the other ones if you really want me to.

God said that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" I know that "king's" English is sooo hard to grasp. It just makes my poor little head spin. Why if there's th instead of an s I cannot figure it all out. These really big words like God have got to be replaced with He because He is only two words. besides who really wants to read the last half of Mark 16 anyways. These signs shall follow then that believe...no all that tongue speakin stuff, and miracles, and treading on serpants, that's all for back in the NT times...oh wait we are still in the NT times now aren't we. Oh who cares we don't need that stuff anymore. take it out preacher, preach to me out of a book that will itch my ears.

 
Quote
 I love the KJV, but I was saved reading a Living New Testament Translation of the Gospel of John-

So whats your point? I'm glad you got saved don't get me wrong. I am glad. I shout for joy because of that. But there is a preacher in my church organization that got saved at a Led Zeplin concert because the singer said at the opening "not even God can save you here." He fell on his knees and God saved him right on the spot. So we should all listen to Led Zeplin to grow closer to God because God used them to save a man? Hmmm I think God will use whatever it takes to save a man. I also think the devil will do whatever he can to destroy an already saved man a bring him back into the realm of Satan.


Rob---

That is really a poor illustration.  How many people have been saved at Led Zeppelin concerts compared to those saved reading different translations of the Bible?  True--God will save men any way He possibly can.  Ands that's the point.  There are many people who can be reached with a far more modern and easier version of the Bible to read.  It's just that simple.  God has provided numerous translations to reach as many as possible.

Just an example----here is Matthew 11:28 in both the NKJV and the NLT.  They both say the same thing.  But if you had less education and did not know what the word "labor" used in this context meant to be weary, you might think it meant "to work"----and the word "laden" is not used either much at all.  By replacing with the word "weary", and stating "heavy burdens" it makes it far much easier for the common man to understand.

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest". (NKJV)

New Living Translation
Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.

Why one would think that God allows men to read all other books in common English, but only wants men to read and understand His Word in 1611 English is beyond me.  The KJV is beautiful---and if you are familiar, through study, with many old English meanings it is a wonderful translation.

For example, due to study I understand that the word "let" in the verse below means to "restrain" or "hold back" in 1611 English. But if you hadn't studied or learned that you might come to a totaly different conclusion of what "let" means in the verse.

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2: 7) (KJV)

The NIV makes it clearer, using modern English, and says the same thing--it is a help rather than any hindrance:

"For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way".(2 Thess. 2:7 NIV)

Again, the KJV is a beautiful version---but God has chosen to give men many versions to reach as many as possible.  ::smile::

Just an example:
If I say to my wife: "Thine eyes flame the fires of my heart and methinks perchance I shall love thee forever", she might appreciate the poetic imagery, but if I said: "When I look into your beautiful eyes, they remind me just how much I love you, and always will" I thnk that translation would mean much more to her.  Just my opinion of course.   ::smile::
« Last Edit: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:02:44 by fish153 »

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #21 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:27:25 »
Just to share a bit of humor here.  Many years ago I was in a very legalistic church (I have shared about my experiences there before).  Though they were not "King James Only" in their legalistic practices, they did discourage the use of other translations when compared with King James.  What I always found humorous was that the members talked to one another in modern English, but addressed God as though they were living in 1611. I started doing it myself, and had to "untrain" myself later. lol. Let me give you an example.

Me:  "Oh, Hi Hank".
Hank: "Oh, hello brother".
Me:  "What's up?"
Hank: "Not much, just pluggin' along.
Me: "How's work?"
Hank: "Not bad. The Lord is providing. God is good."
Me: "Yeah, he sure is".

Elder Smith:  "Hank, would you lead us in prayer brother"?
Hank: "Yes"

Hank: "Oh Our Bless-ed and Gracious Heavenly Father. We praise thy holy
name. We thank thee for all things, and for this assembly of these, thy blessed
people. Oh Lord, exalted on high, please help us in this prayer meeting to ask for
thy direction, and thy hand in all that we do. We exalt thee, we praise thee, and magnify thee in Jesus' holy name.  Amen"
.

Me: "Nice prayer Hank"
Hank:  "Thanks bro"

Now, there is nothing wrong with honoring God.  But what makes us think that God wants us to address Him in 1611 English?  Again, God SHOULD be honored and praised---but is he MORE greatly praised and exalted when I pray in 1611 English than if I pray in the English I use every day? Of course not.  

But I think that is the mindset the "King James only" crowd falls into.  They somehow believe that 1611 English honors God more---when read, or in prayers, or whatever. They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.  ::smile::  They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

I thank thee for listening.
« Last Edit: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:35:39 by fish153 »

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #22 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:27:54 »
NASB The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ""BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

NIV The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"

Hmmm this is strange. Isaiah did not prophesy that.

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me" Malachi 3:1

And the AV says..."As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, wich shall prepare thy way before thee."

I can give you so much more errors in all of the other ones if you really want me to.

God said that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" I know that "king's" English is sooo hard to grasp. It just makes my poor little head spin. Why if there's th instead of an s I cannot figure it all out. These really big words like God have got to be replaced with He because He is only two words. besides who really wants to read the last half of Mark 16 anyways. These signs shall follow then that believe...no all that tongue speakin stuff, and miracles, and treading on serpants, that's all for back in the NT times...oh wait we are still in the NT times now aren't we. Oh who cares we don't need that stuff anymore. take it out preacher, preach to me out of a book that will itch my ears.

 
Quote
 I love the KJV, but I was saved reading a Living New Testament Translation of the Gospel of John-

So whats your point? I'm glad you got saved don't get me wrong. I am glad. I shout for joy because of that. But there is a preacher in my church organization that got saved at a Led Zeplin concert because the singer said at the opening "not even God can save you here." He fell on his knees and God saved him right on the spot. So we should all listen to Led Zeplin to grow closer to God because God used them to save a man? Hmmm I think God will use whatever it takes to save a man. I also think the devil will do whatever he can to destroy an already saved man a bring him back into the realm of Satan.


Rob---

That is really a poor illustration.  How many people have been saved at Led Zeppelin concerts compared to those saved reading different translations of the Bible?  True--God will save men any way He possibly can.  Ands that's the point.  There are many people who can be reached with a far more modern and easier version of the Bible to read.  It's just that simple.  God has provided numerous translations to reach as many as possible.

Just an example----here is Matthew 11:28 in both the NKJV and the NLT.  They both say the same thing.  But if you had less education and did not know what the word "labor" used in this context meant to be weary, you might think it meant "to work"----and the word "laden" is not used either much at all.  By replacing with the word "weary", and stating "heavy burdens" it makes it far much easier for the common man to understand.

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest". (NKJV)

New Living Translation
Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.

Why one would think that God allows men to read all other books in common English, but only wants men to read and understand His Word in 1611 English is beyond me.  The KJV is beautiful---and if you are familiar, through study, with many old English meanings it is a wonderful translation.

For example, due to study I understand that the word "let" in the verse below means to "restrain" or "hold back" in 1611 English. But if you hadn't studied or learned that you might come to a totaly different conclusion of what "let" means in the verse.

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2: 7) (KJV)

The NIV makes it clearer, using modern English, and says the same thing--it is a help rather than any hindrance:

"For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way".(2 Thess. 2:7 NIV)

Again, the KJV is a beautiful version---but God has chosen to give men many versions to reach as many as possible.  ::smile::

Just an example:
If I say to my wife: "Thine eyes flame the fires of my heart and methinks perchance I shall love thee forever", she might appreciate the poetic imagery, but if I said: "When I look into your beautiful eyes, they remind me just how much I love you, and always will" I thnk that translation would mean much more to her.  Just my opinion of course.   ::smile::

Manna Fish!

Very well stated indeed!

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #23 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:33:47 »
Just to share a bit of humor here.  Many years ago I was in a very legalistic church (I have shared about my experiences there before).  Though they were not "King James Only" in their legalistic practices, they did discourage the use of other translations when compared with King James.  What I always found humorous was that the members talked to one another in modern English, but addressed God as though they were living in 1611. I started doing it myself, and had to "untrain" myself later. lol. Let me give you an example.

Me:  "Oh, Hi Hank".
Hank: "Oh, hello brother".
Me:  "What's up?"
Hank: "Not much, just pluggin' along.
Me: "How's work?"
Hank: "Not bad. The Lord is providing. God is good."
Me: "Yeah, he sure is".

Elder Smith:  Hank, would you lead us in prayer brother?
Hank: "Yes"

Hank: "Oh Our Bless-ed and Gracious Heavenly Father. We praise thy holy
name. We thank thee for all things, and for this assembly of these, thy blessed
people. Oh Lord, exalted on high, please help us in this prayer meeting to ask for
thy direction, and thy hand in all that we do. We exlat thee, we praise thee, and magnify thee in Jesus' holy name.  Amen"
.

Me: "Nice prayer Hank"
Hank:  "Thanks bro"

Now, there is nothing wrong with honoring God.  But what makes us think that God wants us to address Him in 1611 English?  Again, God SHOULD be honored and praised---but is he MORE greatly praised and exalted when I pray in 1611 English than if I pray in the English I use every day? Of course not.  

But I think that is the mindset the "King James only" crowd falls into.  They somehow believe that 1611 English honors God more---when read, or in prayers, or whatever. They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.  ::smile::  They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

I thank thee for listening.

I thanketh thee my brethern for verily doth thou waxeth strong and understandeth what thou speaketh unto boldness and bringeth all we unto edification that we might knoweth most assuredly what sayeth the word of the Lord unto the Great Day of His coming  ::preachit::

 

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #24 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:46:51 »
Just to share a bit of humor here.  Many years ago I was in a very legalistic church (I have shared about my experiences there before).  Though they were not "King James Only" in their legalistic practices, they did discourage the use of other translations when compared with King James.  What I always found humorous was that the members talked to one another in modern English, but addressed God as though they were living in 1611. I started doing it myself, and had to "untrain" myself later. lol. Let me give you an example.

Me:  "Oh, Hi Hank".
Hank: "Oh, hello brother".
Me:  "What's up?"
Hank: "Not much, just pluggin' along.
Me: "How's work?"
Hank: "Not bad. The Lord is providing. God is good."
Me: "Yeah, he sure is".

Elder Smith:  Hank, would you lead us in prayer brother?
Hank: "Yes"

Hank: "Oh Our Bless-ed and Gracious Heavenly Father. We praise thy holy
name. We thank thee for all things, and for this assembly of these, thy blessed
people. Oh Lord, exalted on high, please help us in this prayer meeting to ask for
thy direction, and thy hand in all that we do. We exlat thee, we praise thee, and magnify thee in Jesus' holy name.  Amen"
.

Me: "Nice prayer Hank"
Hank:  "Thanks bro"

Now, there is nothing wrong with honoring God.  But what makes us think that God wants us to address Him in 1611 English?  Again, God SHOULD be honored and praised---but is he MORE greatly praised and exalted when I pray in 1611 English than if I pray in the English I use every day? Of course not.  

But I think that is the mindset the "King James only" crowd falls into.  They somehow believe that 1611 English honors God more---when read, or in prayers, or whatever. They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.  ::smile::  They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

I thank thee for listening.

I thanketh thee my brethern for verily doth thou waxeth strong and understandeth what thou speaketh unto boldness and bringeth all we unto edification that we might knoweth most assuredly what sayeth the word of the Lord unto the Great Day of His coming  ::preachit:: 

Verily thou posteth well my good brother.  Blessings be to thee for this thy word of wisdom, which is a helpmeet to all those brethren who yearn after more of the same.  Godspeed!  ::smile::

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #25 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 16:34:15 »
Just to share a bit of humor here.  Many years ago I was in a very legalistic church (I have shared about my experiences there before).  Though they were not "King James Only" in their legalistic practices, they did discourage the use of other translations when compared with King James.  What I always found humorous was that the members talked to one another in modern English, but addressed God as though they were living in 1611. I started doing it myself, and had to "untrain" myself later. lol. Let me give you an example.

Me:  "Oh, Hi Hank".
Hank: "Oh, hello brother".
Me:  "What's up?"
Hank: "Not much, just pluggin' along.
Me: "How's work?"
Hank: "Not bad. The Lord is providing. God is good."
Me: "Yeah, he sure is".

Elder Smith:  Hank, would you lead us in prayer brother?
Hank: "Yes"

Hank: "Oh Our Bless-ed and Gracious Heavenly Father. We praise thy holy
name. We thank thee for all things, and for this assembly of these, thy blessed
people. Oh Lord, exalted on high, please help us in this prayer meeting to ask for
thy direction, and thy hand in all that we do. We exlat thee, we praise thee, and magnify thee in Jesus' holy name.  Amen"
.

Me: "Nice prayer Hank"
Hank:  "Thanks bro"

Now, there is nothing wrong with honoring God.  But what makes us think that God wants us to address Him in 1611 English?  Again, God SHOULD be honored and praised---but is he MORE greatly praised and exalted when I pray in 1611 English than if I pray in the English I use every day? Of course not.  

But I think that is the mindset the "King James only" crowd falls into.  They somehow believe that 1611 English honors God more---when read, or in prayers, or whatever. They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.  ::smile::  They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

I thank thee for listening.

I thanketh thee my brethern for verily doth thou waxeth strong and understandeth what thou speaketh unto boldness and bringeth all we unto edification that we might knoweth most assuredly what sayeth the word of the Lord unto the Great Day of His coming  ::preachit:: 

Verily thou posteth well my good brother.  Blessings be to thee for this thy word of wisdom, which is a helpmeet to all those brethren who yearn after more of the same.  Godspeed!  ::smile::

Straightway I bid you exceeding blessedness according to thy share as partaker in the inheritance of the saints which be sealeth up for you unto the heavenly realms in Christ

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #26 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 20:04:34 »
Quote
They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.    They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

Actually yes it is a more pure form of the English language. The King James English is not a form of English ever spoken. If you were to read the Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyon(written in the 1611 English)you would see a vast world of difference in that and the King James Bible. The reason for this is quite simple. The translators of the AV took the Word of God to be of higher value of majesty than any other book ever written by man. This was their attitude in the matter. The men that translated the AV suffered a lot of backlash for their labors. They write
  "Thus not only as oft as we speak, as one saith, but also as oft as we do any thing of note or consequence, we subject ourselves         
 to every ones censure, and happy is he who is least tossed upon tongues; for utterly to escape the snatch of them is   impossible."
They of course had the nay sayers back then who slandered them and despised the work that they did. Can the same be said of the modern translators? The translators of the AV took every word out of the TR and translated it to English. If there was a fragment sentence in the Greek or the Hebrew they completed the sentence and put the extra words in italics so the reader would know it was added for clarification.

Now in reference to your mockery of how a man prays to God. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You think you ought to pray to the Most High King in the same buddy, buddy language you use to speak to your peers? That man had a respect for the Lord to speak to him in a manner that he felt in his heart was respectful. And for you gentlemen to mock these things you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The language of the Bible is one that is of a respectful and proper form. When a man prays in that manner he is giving his respect unto God. When you mock that man then God does indeed sees the wickedness of your judgmental heart.

As far as the legalistic church is concerned. Did you call them legalistic because they followed the Bible and you didn't like the Bible telling you how to live? I have found this to be the case more often than not. The entire Bible from cover to cover is a set mandated legal code that God expects us to follow perfectly.

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #27 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 22:16:14 »
Quote
They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.    They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

Actually yes it is a more pure form of the English language. The King James English is not a form of English ever spoken. If you were to read the Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyon(written in the 1611 English)you would see a vast world of difference in that and the King James Bible. The reason for this is quite simple. The translators of the AV took the Word of God to be of higher value of majesty than any other book ever written by man. This was their attitude in the matter. The men that translated the AV suffered a lot of backlash for their labors. They write
  "Thus not only as oft as we speak, as one saith, but also as oft as we do any thing of note or consequence, we subject ourselves          
 to every ones censure, and happy is he who is least tossed upon tongues; for utterly to escape the snatch of them is   impossible."
They of course had the nay sayers back then who slandered them and despised the work that they did. Can the same be said of the modern translators? The translators of the AV took every word out of the TR and translated it to English. If there was a fragment sentence in the Greek or the Hebrew they completed the sentence and put the extra words in italics so the reader would know it was added for clarification.

Now in reference to your mockery of how a man prays to God. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You think you ought to pray to the Most High King in the same buddy, buddy language you use to speak to your peers? That man had a respect for the Lord to speak to him in a manner that he felt in his heart was respectful. And for you gentlemen to mock these things you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The language of the Bible is one that is of a respectful and proper form. When a man prays in that manner he is giving his respect unto God. When you mock that man then God does indeed sees the wickedness of your judgmental heart.

As far as the legalistic church is concerned. Did you call them legalistic because they followed the Bible and you didn't like the Bible telling you how to live? I have found this to be the case more often than not. The entire Bible from cover to cover is a set mandated legal code that God expects us to follow perfectly.

Rob--

Come now my friend.  If I pray "Dear Father, Thank you for everything.  Thank you so much for saving me, and for watching over me day by day. Thank you for the blessings you give me every day, and for watching over my family, in the name of Jesus amen".
Am I being "buddy buddy" with the Lord praying in normal English?  I don't think so.

But if I pray "Dearest Father, I thank thee for thy bountiful blessings. With gratitude I thank thee for saving me, and how thou watchest over my family in the holy name of Jesus amen"  does that make the prayer more respectful?  Or am I praying in such a way that really doesn't represent me at all? I am adding thee's and thou's but why? And many in that church prayed these prayers like this in front of others. I swear sometimes I thought I was in some sort of a prayer competition rather than true, humble prayers offered to the Lord.

I am not ashamed of myself for relating this past experience-- because it was literally humorous to behold.  A person would come to the church---sincerely believing, offering their simple prayers of gratitude to God----and then within a month be praying like they were living in the 1600's. They were offering no more respect to God than they did before----they just "sounded" more poetic when they prayed.  ::smile::  It was formula prayer and they had learned it well.  lol

Rob---the church was legalistic in many ways.  No television,  no cards, no "rock" music, no dating (you had to ask an elder if you could go out with a girl), no Christmas (birthdays were ok though lol)---and the list goes on.  They were guilty of doing what the Pharisees did----they added many things to the Law that weren't even there---creating their own "rules and regulations" so heavy, men could not bear them.  And Jesus was very angry with them.  These Christians loaded down souls with rules and regulations----and took an "elite" status, often reminding us of how little other churches did compared to their commitment and loyalty to God---they after all were following "God's pattern" while other churches were not.  I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.  I learned to value the Grace of God through that experience, and learned what bondage certain Christians are in who mix Law and Grace---Galatianism it's called---and Paul hated it.

I must now bid thee a fond farewell, for perchance my dinner awaits me. Yonder my wife prepareth a fresh portion of cod fish, but if she has not I will be much saddened. For if she has not prepared it by now of a surety it stinketh, for it has been sitting outside for a very long time now. Our conversation, though brief, has been enlightening.  I bid thee Godspeed!

« Last Edit: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 22:46:17 by fish153 »

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #28 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 02:06:56 »
Quote
But if I pray "Dearest Father, I thank thee for thy bountiful blessings. With gratitude I thank thee for saving me, and how thou watchest over my family in the holy name of Jesus amen"  does that make the prayer more respectful?

Perhaps in that person's heart it does. Who are you to judge? "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God?" I'll go ahead and let you pull out a dictionary and figure out what that means.

Quote
the church was legalistic in many ways.  No television,  no cards, no "rock" music, no dating (you had to ask an elder if you could go out with a girl), no Christmas (birthdays were ok though lol)---and the list goes on.

Hmm that sounds like my kinda church. TV is a great time waster. Have you seen the filth that is shoveled out by the air waves? It is absolutely disgusting. Fornication, cursing, lying, cheating, stealing, drunkenness, and rebel rousing is the normal on those shows. No cards, sounds like a good deal to me. Playing cards are after all associated with drinking and gambling. No rock music is a great awesome rule to have. Rock and roll is after all a very demonic and sensual form of music. No dating, well maybe your elders were trying to look out for your welfare. Did you ever think about that? I wouldn't go as far as to say no Christmas, but really who's gonna stop you from giving gifts to people on Christmas day?

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #29 on: Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 00:23:44 »
Quote
But if I pray "Dearest Father, I thank thee for thy bountiful blessings. With gratitude I thank thee for saving me, and how thou watchest over my family in the holy name of Jesus amen"  does that make the prayer more respectful?

Perhaps in that person's heart it does. Who are you to judge? "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God?" I'll go ahead and let you pull out a dictionary and figure out what that means.

Quote
the church was legalistic in many ways.  No television,  no cards, no "rock" music, no dating (you had to ask an elder if you could go out with a girl), no Christmas (birthdays were ok though lol)---and the list goes on.

Hmm that sounds like my kinda church. TV is a great time waster. Have you seen the filth that is shoveled out by the air waves? It is absolutely disgusting. Fornication, cursing, lying, cheating, stealing, drunkenness, and rebel rousing is the normal on those shows. No cards, sounds like a good deal to me. Playing cards are after all associated with drinking and gambling. No rock music is a great awesome rule to have. Rock and roll is after all a very demonic and sensual form of music. No dating, well maybe your elders were trying to look out for your welfare. Did you ever think about that? I wouldn't go as far as to say no Christmas, but really who's gonna stop you from giving gifts to people on Christmas day?

Rob---

I think you are missing the whole point concerning legalism.  True---there is an awful lot of garbage on television, and if one chooses not to watch it, then they don't watch it.  But when a church makes it a "rule" that watching television is evil, and calls things evil in themselves, it is outright legalism, and that is sin.  If one points to a pack of cards and says "those are evil" they are calling printed paper evil, rather than the evil that can come if the cards are misused through gambling and it destroys a family.  But calling 52 pieces of printed paper that little kids use to play "crazy eights" EVIL is just plain legalistic and wrong.  No Rob, they weren't looking out for anyone's welfare.  Most legalistic churches have elders who speak for God, and they use that "authority" to wield power over the congregation.  

By the way, I failed to mention that the group I was involved with almost completely disbanded (there are maybe two small gatherings now) because of the leader's improprieties.  Often legalistic churches APPEAR very holy because of all the rules that are placed on members---but many times, hidden corruption runs rampant, and it only takes time before these corruptions erupt to the surface to the utter surprise and dismay of those who thought these men were so HOLY.

Jesus described this, when he spoke of the Pharisees as "whitened sepulchers full of dead men's bones".  They APPEAR very holy on the outside---but inside there is unbridled corruption and a legal spirit.  I lived through it.

As for prayer----you are correct Rob---I'm not saying that a person cannot pray in King James English and be totally sincere. of course they can.  I believe the majority of those praying in the church I mentioned were sincere.  The point I was making is that the prayers became a type of ritual--so that if you DIDN'T pray in King James form English the prayer was considered disrespectful or somehow unholy---or not "meeting the standard".  And that was wrong----and also very humorous when I look back on it in retrospect.  That was my point.  

Oh, and by the way Rob, I don't need a dictionary. I already explained that I understand the terms used in the King James due to study.  I love the King James version for it's poetic cadence---the psalms are beautiful in the King James English.  My argument the whole time is that God has provided many translations for those who are not as well versed in the King James so that all have an opportunity to read and understand the message.

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #30 on: Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 16:04:10 »
Quote
Often legalistic churches APPEAR very holy because of all the rules that are placed on members---but many times, hidden corruption runs rampant, and it only takes time before these corruptions erupt to the surface to the utter surprise and dismay of those who thought these men were so HOLY.
Therein in lies the problem sir. You do not look to men you look unto God. I am very cautious when I hear people throw legalism out. Legalism is not a sin. Legalism is right. The Bible is very legalistic. There are more does and don'ts in the Bible than in any church you will ever go to. So don't call legalism a sin. Hypocrisy is a sin. If the preacher says TV is a bad idea, and he himself owns a TV then that is sin. If the preacher says that as a Christian man you ought to stay away from the ladies and focus on God, and he is chasing skirt himself(though a lot of women for some reason stopped wearing skirts, but that's a whole nuther topic), he is committing sin.

I am a holiness preacher. I have been to say some of these kinds of things. When asked why I don't own a TV I tell people it's a waste of my time I have better things to do. You see when I witness people accusing the men of God who preach holiness of improprieties and other sins, it sickens me. Because the majority of the claims are false. I have seen it happen time and time again. That is why I am leery when someone attacks a so-called legalistic church.

Now back to the topic at hand. The AV is the only English translation of the Bible that uses the Textus Receptus(received text)in its translation. All of the others use the corrupted Codex Siniaticus and the Vaticanus.  Both of these MSS have been shown to contain numerous corruptions. They down play the deity of Christ, and they take away passages that pertain to holiness, righteousness, Jesus being God, and even the fact that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. If you were to trace the history of the MSS you would find that the other versions are indeed corrupt. This is a fact not to be taken very lightly.

As far as the common man understanding the AV(or King James); that is an absolute lie. It is written at a 6th grade reading level. My girlfriend had never read the Bible a lot. I led her to Christ and I bought her a King James Bible. She reads it all the time. Whne she doesn't understand something she goes back and reads it again, until she gets it right. She does this because she wants to know the Word of God. You said you studied the AV sir. Well, the Bible does say "study to shew thyself approved, a workmen that needeth not be ashamed." You are without excuse.

Offline justthefacts

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
  • Manna: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #31 on: Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 16:22:56 »
 ::smile:: Personally, I adhere to the KJV because I find it more direct to the original manuscripts, but we all have different appetites and different tastes, so as long as your are studying, then use the version of the sacred text that helps you the most.

God, who is mightier than all, knows our strengths and limitations, and it is His desire that "all" come unto the knowledge of His truth, so I am convinced that if it is truly our desire to learn and know of Him, He will meet with us and fellowship with us in His wonderful word.


God Bless


JTF

Offline fish153

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Manna: 454
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #32 on: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 12:15:38 »
Quote
Often legalistic churches APPEAR very holy because of all the rules that are placed on members---but many times, hidden corruption runs rampant, and it only takes time before these corruptions erupt to the surface to the utter surprise and dismay of those who thought these men were so HOLY.
Therein in lies the problem sir. You do not look to men you look unto God. I am very cautious when I hear people throw legalism out. Legalism is not a sin. Legalism is right. The Bible is very legalistic. There are more does and don'ts in the Bible than in any church you will ever go to. So don't call legalism a sin. Hypocrisy is a sin. If the preacher says TV is a bad idea, and he himself owns a TV then that is sin. If the preacher says that as a Christian man you ought to stay away from the ladies and focus on God, and he is chasing skirt himself(though a lot of women for some reason stopped wearing skirts, but that's a whole nuther topic), he is committing sin.

I am a holiness preacher. I have been to say some of these kinds of things. When asked why I don't own a TV I tell people it's a waste of my time I have better things to do. You see when I witness people accusing the men of God who preach holiness of improprieties and other sins, it sickens me. Because the majority of the claims are false. I have seen it happen time and time again. That is why I am leery when someone attacks a so-called legalistic church.

Now back to the topic at hand. The AV is the only English translation of the Bible that uses the Textus Receptus(received text)in its translation. All of the others use the corrupted Codex Siniaticus and the Vaticanus.  Both of these MSS have been shown to contain numerous corruptions. They down play the deity of Christ, and they take away passages that pertain to holiness, righteousness, Jesus being God, and even the fact that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. If you were to trace the history of the MSS you would find that the other versions are indeed corrupt. This is a fact not to be taken very lightly.

As far as the common man understanding the AV(or King James); that is an absolute lie. It is written at a 6th grade reading level. My girlfriend had never read the Bible a lot. I led her to Christ and I bought her a King James Bible. She reads it all the time. Whne she doesn't understand something she goes back and reads it again, until she gets it right. She does this because she wants to know the Word of God. You said you studied the AV sir. Well, the Bible does say "study to shew thyself approved, a workmen that needeth not be ashamed." You are without excuse.

I'm not sure what you mean "You are without excuse".  I have stated frequently that I read the KJV more than all the other translations.  My whole argument has been that God Himself has given, through His servants, numerous translations, so that He can reach as many men/women as possible.  The King James version is beautiful, but it is not perfect---neither are any of the other translations for that matter.  If you want to hold that one translation is superior to all the others be my guest.  You seem to be misinterpreting what I am actually saying.  I think we have exhausted this discussion anyway though.  God bless you.  ::smile::

Offline RobWLarson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #33 on: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 18:06:06 »
Quote
The King James version is beautiful, but it is not perfect---neither are any of the other translations for that matter.  If you want to hold that one translation is superior to all the others be my guest.  You seem to be misinterpreting what I am actually saying.  I think we have exhausted this discussion anyway though.  God bless you.

The King James is not perfect? Wow that is surprising to hear from someone you claims to believe in the Bible. Did not God say over and over again in the scriptures that his word is preserved in heaven forever, that forever oh Lord thy word is settled." You mean to tell me that it is impossible to get an accurate and correct translation of the Bible in our own language? If this is the case we had better get a good old fashioned book burning started. Because they are all wrong, we can't trust a single word.

I guess that means that all of the men who were burnt at the stake were burnt justly, for corrupting the scriptures...right?

Either God preserves his word for his people, as he has promised, or he does not. You have to decide that for yourself. Again I recommend an excellent book about this matter "Forever Settled" by Jack Moorman. You can find it on Amazon, if you are interested in reading up on this topic that is. 

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Authorized Version
« Reply #34 on: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 18:58:09 »
Quote
They believe 1611 English is more pure and holy.    They somehow forget that God looks not on the outward appearance, He looks at the heart.  Imagine if we all addressed one another in 1611 English?

Actually yes it is a more pure form of the English language. The King James English is not a form of English ever spoken. If you were to read the Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyon(written in the 1611 English)you would see a vast world of difference in that and the King James Bible. The reason for this is quite simple. The translators of the AV took the Word of God to be of higher value of majesty than any other book ever written by man. This was their attitude in the matter. The men that translated the AV suffered a lot of backlash for their labors. They write
  "Thus not only as oft as we speak, as one saith, but also as oft as we do any thing of note or consequence, we subject ourselves          
 to every ones censure, and happy is he who is least tossed upon tongues; for utterly to escape the snatch of them is   impossible."
They of course had the nay sayers back then who slandered them and despised the work that they did. Can the same be said of the modern translators? The translators of the AV took every word out of the TR and translated it to English. If there was a fragment sentence in the Greek or the Hebrew they completed the sentence and put the extra words in italics so the reader would know it was added for clarification.

Now in reference to your mockery of how a man prays to God. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You think you ought to pray to the Most High King in the same buddy, buddy language you use to speak to your peers? That man had a respect for the Lord to speak to him in a manner that he felt in his heart was respectful. And for you gentlemen to mock these things you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The language of the Bible is one that is of a respectful and proper form. When a man prays in that manner he is giving his respect unto God. When you mock that man then God does indeed sees the wickedness of your judgmental heart.

As far as the legalistic church is concerned. Did you call them legalistic because they followed the Bible and you didn't like the Bible telling you how to live? I have found this to be the case more often than not. The entire Bible from cover to cover is a set mandated legal code that God expects us to follow perfectly.

Rob--

Come now my friend.  If I pray "Dear Father, Thank you for everything.  Thank you so much for saving me, and for watching over me day by day. Thank you for the blessings you give me every day, and for watching over my family, in the name of Jesus amen".
Am I being "buddy buddy" with the Lord praying in normal English?  I don't think so.

But if I pray "Dearest Father, I thank thee for thy bountiful blessings. With gratitude I thank thee for saving me, and how thou watchest over my family in the holy name of Jesus amen"  does that make the prayer more respectful?  Or am I praying in such a way that really doesn't represent me at all? I am adding thee's and thou's but why? And many in that church prayed these prayers like this in front of others. I swear sometimes I thought I was in some sort of a prayer competition rather than true, humble prayers offered to the Lord.

I am not ashamed of myself for relating this past experience-- because it was literally humorous to behold.  A person would come to the church---sincerely believing, offering their simple prayers of gratitude to God----and then within a month be praying like they were living in the 1600's. They were offering no more respect to God than they did before----they just "sounded" more poetic when they prayed.  ::smile::  It was formula prayer and they had learned it well.  lol

Rob---the church was legalistic in many ways.  No television,  no cards, no "rock" music, no dating (you had to ask an elder if you could go out with a girl), no Christmas (birthdays were ok though lol)---and the list goes on.  They were guilty of doing what the Pharisees did----they added many things to the Law that weren't even there---creating their own "rules and regulations" so heavy, men could not bear them.  And Jesus was very angry with them.  These Christians loaded down souls with rules and regulations----and took an "elite" status, often reminding us of how little other churches did compared to their commitment and loyalty to God---they after all were following "God's pattern" while other churches were not.  I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.  I learned to value the Grace of God through that experience, and learned what bondage certain Christians are in who mix Law and Grace---Galatianism it's called---and Paul hated it.

I must now bid thee a fond farewell, for perchance my dinner awaits me. Yonder my wife prepareth a fresh portion of cod fish, but if she has not I will be much saddened. For if she has not prepared it by now of a surety it stinketh, for it has been sitting outside for a very long time now. Our conversation, though brief, has been enlightening.  I bid thee Godspeed!


Verily hast thou maketh my hunger to waxeth gross...straightway, withal I must make haste to my abode ::yummy::

 

     
anything