# King James or NIV?



## Phoelix (Aug 13, 2009)

Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

If he told you that, he's got some major pride issues to deal with.

Choose a version that you can read well.  Lots of folks have issues with the NIV....I wouldn't worry about it man.  There are THOUSANDS of churches and pastors who use it and, yes....they are saved.

If you want a good middle ground, I would suggest trying the ESV.  It's closer to the KJV than NIV, but it is still very easy to read.

Tell your little brother I said get over himself.  None of them are the original text as fully intended.  Unless you can read greek and hebrew, you're never going to get the original.

I know he's your brother.  So I'm sorry if this comes across too harsh.  But it's pastors like that who are causing people to leave the church in DROVES.

I've read your story around here and, brother, I commend you for standing up and returning to what you know is right.  That takes unbelievable courage and strength.  Most men would simply run...and you didn't....and you're stronger for it.  You know in your heart where you are with God.  Don't let anybody tell you that you aren't his simply because of which translation of the Bible you're reading.  How silly!


----------



## SGADawg (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> If he told you that, he's got some major pride issues to deal with.
> 
> Choose a version that you can read well.  Lots of folks have issues with the NIV....I wouldn't worry about it man.  There are THOUSANDS of churches and pastors who use it and, yes....they are saved.
> 
> ...




X2

My Southern Baptist Church and any other that I am familiar with doesn't have an "official" translation.  I personally use the KJV.  Our pastor often uses the NIV for his sermons.  I have never found any noteworthy differences between these 2 translations.  The New King James Version (NKJV) is a good intermediate translation.

As said above, the KJV is not the original Bible, that goes back to the Hebrew and Greek.  I think the KJV, NKJV, NIV and other mainstream translations are true to the original and are inspired of God.


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 13, 2009)

Your brother is being ridiculous. But you are going to get ALOT of OPINION on this thread. Do what you will with. But know this, if God has drawn you into a relationship with Him, you are now a part of the family of God. Your responsibility is to love Him, to grow in your faith, to serve The Body with your gifts, and most of all to glorify God. 

Do this and read whatever translation you are most comfortable with. You'll be just fine!!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> If he told you that, he's got some major pride issues to deal with.
> 
> Choose a version that you can read well.  Lots of folks have issues with the NIV....I wouldn't worry about it man.  There are THOUSANDS of churches and pastors who use it and, yes....they are saved.
> 
> ...




Agree for the most part.  The NIV is a bit of a weaker translation, but not inherently evil as your brother states.  It was translated with ease of reading as the main goal rather than accurate translation...therefore, you've got a couple of places where the thought gets across, but not exactly as intended by the author.

Personally, I like the New American Standard version.

Read this thread here and you'll get a lot of ideas about the KJV and other translations.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=300528


Funny thing about the KJV is that archeologists have uncovered transcripts and writings that are older than those used to translate the KJV in more recent years. Yet still, you have this band of traditionalists who will touch nothing else.  Sad to see how human tradition and preference have somehow become spiritual and Godly Principle.

Glad to see you're on the path of knowledge and desiring to study God's Word.  Kudos to you for choosing to research and know (when it brings about conflict) rather than being ignorant and happy.


----------



## Lowjack (Aug 13, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?



Do you believe that Jesus The Christ atoned for your sins once and for all with his blood ? Then You are Saved despite what some nut job calling himself a pastor might think.
Don't let anyone ever put your faith in doubt, that is Satan's job, if you know what I mean.


----------



## wholenotem (Aug 13, 2009)

I believe the KJV is the closest that we'll ever have to the orignals,if it is a direct reflection of the originals then it is the word of God. Then we have to say which manuscripts have our bibles been translated from? the alexandrian or the byzantine text. the alexandrian says we're the oldest, the byzantine ( majority ) says hold on, everyone of our texts agree down to the jot or tiddle and we have the most agreeing with each other. Also the alexandrian text has been proven to be a corupt text. The KJV was translated from the textus receptus, out of the majority text. I would say nearly everyone of the new versions are translated from the Netles greek text which was translated by Wescott and Hort. If our personal lives should be a reflection of our Christian character, men would be greatly decieved by their greek translation. As to a mans salvation, to say you can't be saved unless you use a KJV Is sillyness. The Holy Ghost of God convicts men of sin. If I was somewhere without my bible and someone asked me how to be saved and I didn't quote one of the scriptures right, does my poor memory negate that persons salvation? I don't think so. God is the only one who knows mens hearts.


----------



## 20ReevesCC (Aug 13, 2009)

i have a king james bible mostly because thats what i grew up with and am used to, but the thing to remember is that god is ALL POWERFUL so i tend to believe that i could get what i needed out of any version of the bible. jm2c


----------



## Lowjack (Aug 13, 2009)

I got some news for you, Noone of them Including the KJV are translations, they are transliterations, Hebrew and Aramaic cannot be translated straight to say English, so what you have are transliterations, remember that, the NIV is a transliteration and so is the KJV.
To say they are the best translations when you don't speak Hebrew or Arameic or Greek is ridiculous,IMO.

Look at what We discussed in Isaiah 14;12 how the KJV says Lucifer instead of shiny morning star so people think is talking about the devil being named Lucifer and Christians carry that myth, that's just one example.

So read The NIv The Nab And THe KJV and let the Holy Spirit Teach you.


----------



## HoytGirl07 (Aug 13, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Your brother is being ridiculous. But you are going to get ALOT of OPINION on this thread. Do what you will with. But know this, if God has drawn you into a relationship with Him, you are now a part of the family of God. Your responsibility is to love Him, to grow in your faith, to serve The Body with your gifts, and most of all to glorify God.
> 
> Do this and read whatever translation you are most comfortable with. You'll be just fine!!



I so agree, I have used both versions and I am comfortable with the NIV. I understand it better and I am more into church from it cause I am not sitting there scratching my head wondering what something ment. As long as you give your life to God and love and obey him then you will be on his side. I have been to churches where you have to dress really nice and all that kind of stuff, now I go to church where we wear what we want, we are not there to impress anyone we are there for GOD. As long as you are there for him it shouldnt matter what bible you use or what you wear. BE there for the right reason.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?





Congratulations My Friend on being a follower of Christ!

As you can see already, the debate will go several different directions when people are asked what Their opinion are on translations.
I am not a scholar or anything so I can't tell you what versions is the "Best" or most "Accurate" but I can tell you I own several and use ALL of them. KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV.

But I can tell you this, *Let NO man get in the way of you dilligently seeking and following the Lord daily*. I will keep you in my prayers Brother..


P.S. Take a look at a program on the net called 

E-Sword

I downloaded it to my laptop and it has multiple versions of the Word available on it and a really cool feature that lets you bring up an individual verse and Hit "Compare" and you can see the verse in mulitple versions together all on 1 screen.
Also commentaries are available on a tab to the right of the screen.

Alot of it is free, with some nominal charges for copyrighted material.
I am not real familiar with it yet, but so far it looks really good.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?



I'll start a little argument here.

The KJV was not the Bible this country was founded upon nor the Presbyterian, Baptist or other evangelical bible believing denominations. They used the Geneva Bible which was translated from the Greek in Geneva Switzerland about 70yrs prior to the KJV. Plus the KJV was the authorized version of a pervert and Tyrant who is the reason the Puritans and the Scots Irish left there to settle here.

So with that being said this isn't an argument. The NIV is just as valid as the KJV but there are far better translations. Such as the ESV and the NASB (which is the one I use).


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

This is where all the in-fighting really aggravates me (kjv vs everyone else). Why is it so hard for Christians to support each other? Pick a good translation, grow in your relationship with God, and welcome to the brotherhood...


----------



## christianhunter (Aug 13, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?



My Brother,as Lowjack said above.If you accepted THE LORD JESUS CHRIST as your LORD,and Believe, you are saved!
I personally read The KJV,and I'm comfortable with it.The only 2 Translations I have questions about,rarely surface anymore,The Living Bible,and The Readers Digest "Condensed Bible".Otherwise I don't believe any man walking the face of The Earth right now, can make the call,on which is THE WORD Of GOD.I take it you were Saved through The NIV,theres your proof.Sounds to me,as if, you may be a Teacher for your younger Brother.Don't get confused,THE LORD assures us HE is not The Author of Confusion.Read,Pray,and Study.As jmharris said, you'll be fine.


----------



## Inthegarge (Aug 13, 2009)

*NEW related question*

Do you not think GOD is big enough to keep any man from subverting His Word ???? Every translation I've seen still says "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son that whosoever belives in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".... My God's big enough to use any and all translations. And He is still in the Saving business

RW  aka PsychPastor


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> This is where all the in-fighting really aggravates me (kjv vs everyone else). Why is it so hard for Christians to support each other? Pick a good translation, grow in your relationship with God, and welcome to the brotherhood...



History matters. Know it or be bound by the consequences of it.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> History matters. Know it or be bound by the consequences of it.



I was addressing the OP...


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Inthegarge said:


> Do you not think GOD is big enough to keep any man from subverting His Word ???? Every translation I've seen still says "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son that whosoever belives in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".... My God's big enough to use any and all translations. And He is still in the Saving business
> 
> RW  aka PsychPastor



 Wrong.....  The Niv says one and only Son. The NIV turns John 3:16 into a lie. Jesus is not the one and only Son of God... Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, but God has many other sons. The KJV has it correct.John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
KJV


John 1:12

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God , even to them that believe on his name:
KJV

Rom 8:14

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of GodKJV

Phil 2:15

15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God , without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
KJV

1 John 3:1-2
3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God : therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God , and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
KJV


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I was addressing the OP...



Point is still the same.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> I'll start a little argument here.
> 
> The KJV was not the Bible this country was founded upon nor the Presbyterian, Baptist or other evangelical bible believing denominations. They used the Geneva Bible which was translated from the Greek in Geneva Switzerland about 70yrs prior to the KJV. Plus the KJV was the authorized version of a pervert and Tyrant who is the reason the Puritans and the Scots Irish left there to settle here.
> 
> So with that being said this isn't an argument. The NIV is just as valid as the KJV but there are far better translations. Such as the ESV and the NASB (which is the one I use).



Argument taken...Your NASB has the blood of Christ removed in Colossians 1:14 and also has two people listed that killed Goliath  read 2 Samuel 21:19 in your nasb.

 As for King James being a pervert and tyrant. I have never read where King James Translated a single word himself, he just gave gov't protection to the translators so they wouldn't be burnt at the stake like William Tyndale and John Rogers were. 

 I have read biographies of some of the Translators that were used and they in no doubt were well chosen.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Argument taken...Your NASB has the blood of Christ removed in Colossians 1:14 and also has two people listed that killed Goliath  read 2 Samuel 21:19 in your nasb.
> 
> As for King James being a pervert and tyrant. I have never read where King James Translated a single word himself, he just gave gov't protection to the translators so they wouldn't be burnt at the stake like William Tyndale and John Rogers were.
> 
> I have read biographies of some of the Translators that were used and they in no doubt were well chosen.



King James had so many burnt at the stake it ain't funny and the whole purpose behind his translation is to circumvent the Puritan and Covenanter teachings of the day. Which were of tremendous threat to him. 

No Tudor or Stewart King ever did anything of good will. They were tyrants and King James was an open homosexual. While God can and did work thru him and use him to accomplish His Soverign and Divine will that doesn't mean we should support or swallow the junk on him being the protector of the translation. James did it for political reasons to control the church.

As for him translating it. I never said he did. What I said was those people WOULD not have used his authorized version because of who he was. The Anglicans would have but not many others. And certainly not the Pilgrims or the Scots Irish. 

Plus over half of his translation was stolen from William Tyndale. 

The arguments over this and that changing stuff are not the true issue. If you want to know where Puritan thought came from read the Geneva. If you want to follow tyranny and the anglican (Catholic mostly) church follow the KJV.

The true point is the KJV is not THE translation. It is plagerism. The English translation history starts in 360 AD and moves continually forward. The NASB is just as valid as the KJV, the NKJV, and the ESV.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> King James had so many burnt at the stake it ain't funny and the whole purpose behind his translation is to circumvent the Puritan and Covenanter teachings of the day. Which were of tremendous threat to him.
> 
> No Tudor or Stewart King ever did anything of good will. They were tyrants and King James was an open homosexual. While God can and did work thru him and use him to accomplish His Soverign and Divine will that doesn't mean we should support or swallow the junk on him being the protector of the translation. James did it for political reasons to control the church.
> 
> ...



 I have a copy of the Geneva Bible the 1599 edition.. It says through his Blood in Colossians 1:14 just like the KJV, your NASB does not....so the one you are saying is better than the KJV doesn't line up with the one you are holding in high authority.....maybe you should read the Geneva Bible and compare.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Argument taken...Your NASB has the blood of Christ removed in Colossians 1:14 and also has two people listed that killed Goliath  read 2 Samuel 21:19 in your nasb.
> 
> As for King James being a pervert and tyrant. I have never read where King James Translated a single word himself, he just gave gov't protection to the translators so they wouldn't be burnt at the stake like William Tyndale and John Rogers were.
> 
> I have read biographies of some of the Translators that were used and they in no doubt were well chosen.



So there are a handful of instances in which you percieve the NIV (and all other versions apparently) to mis-translate (or transliterate as LJ pointed out)....and that makes it a horrible misrepresentation of the scriptures?

It does not make John 3:16 a lie.  It just makes it read differently in your mind.  I read "one and only son" and I totally know what it's talking about and can actually figure out that it does not mean that I am not also God's son.

Like others have said, if you don't like it, don't read it.  KJV is just as good as any other out there.  Nothing wrong with it.  For me, it's just terribly difficult to read and follow.  That's why I like ESV (and NIV as well).  Both are the written word of God....BOTH have translation errors in them.  

BTW....do some research on the Goliath thing.  I'll leave it at that.  It may be interesting for another thread.


Bottom line is that your brother is just straight up wrong and arrogant in this matter.  If he grew up in the same house as you, then you already know the deep down issues he's dealt with and still does.  I can only assume you've been in counseling and understand some of the anger, respect and authority stuff he's probably dealing with.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I have a copy of the Geneva Bible the 1599 edition.. It says through his Blood in Colossians 1:14 just like the KJV, your NASB does not....so the one you are saying is better than the KJV doesn't line up with the one you are holding in high authority.....maybe you should read the Geneva Bible and compare.



Pigpen you are reading into what I am saying what you want to. 

I elevated neither. Only stated the KJV argument is bogus. Huntinfool just said a great thing on your statements. You are reading more into those "instances" than others have. And I agree with what he says. Your problem does not make a problem for me.

The KJV is jsut not going to be used in my house.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> So there are a handful of instances in which you percieve the NIV (and all other versions apparently) to mis-translate (or transliterate as LJ pointed out)....and that makes it a horrible misrepresentation of the scriptures?
> 
> 
> BTW....do some research on the Goliath thing.  I'll leave it at that.  It may be interesting for another thread.



 I have and I know that it is supposed to be Lahmi the brother of Goliath.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> King James was an open homosexual.



 I have read arguments for and against what you claim here, but fact is Virgina Mollenkott and Martin Woudstra were both part of the translating committee of the NIV and both are professing homosexuals.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I have read arguments for and against what you claim here, but fact is Virgina Mollenkott and Martin Woudstra were both part of the translating committee of the NIV and both are professing homosexuals.



Your point?

King James openly claimed it in his court. And had male lovers his whole reign. There isn't a debate here. 

Also I could care less about the NIV people. They didn't persecute the church.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Your point?
> 
> King James openly claimed it in his court. And had male lovers his whole reign. There isn't a debate here.
> 
> Also I could care less about the NIV people. They didn't persecute the church.



 Well what about the Blood of Christ, do you care about that? your bible of choice removed it, your Bible of authority Has it. The Bible that you will not allow used in your house has it correct?


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Well what about the Blood of Christ, do you care about that? your bible of choice removed it, your Bible of authority Has it. The Bible that you will not allow used in your house has it correct?



Pig- You have an issue here. So let me put it to you like this.

Who is the head of the Church?


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> So there are a handful of instances in which you percieve the NIV (and all other versions apparently) to mis-translate (or transliterate as LJ pointed out)....and that makes it a horrible misrepresentation of the scriptures?



 Handful huh?????????

 More like over a 147 partial verses removed  [Luke 4:4 etc]

 17 complete verses removed

 H E L L completely removed from the old testament

 Lucifer given one of Jesus titles

 Sodomite removed [changed to male prostitute]

 Blood of Christ removed [Col. 1:14]

 2 people that killed Goliath

 Belief and confession removed [Acts 8:37]

 this is just a handful....


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Pig- You have an issue here. So let me put it to you like this.
> 
> Who is the head of the Church?




 Why do you keep steering away from Col 1:14?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I have and I know that it is supposed to be Lahmi the brother of Goliath.



That's one of MANY possibilities.  But, yes, that's one that is popular.

It's not clear what was meant there.  My point is that even just a little bit of research helps to clear up the text.  NIV is not the devil's work, nor is KJV.  They are both simply just interpretations from the original.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> That's one of MANY possibilities.  But, yes, that's one that is popular.
> 
> It's not clear what was meant there.  My point is that even just a little bit of research helps to clear up the text.  NIV is not the devil's work, nor is KJV.  They are both simply just interpretations from the original.



 It is real clear if you read the text of that whole chapter, Goliath had 4 brothers that fell at the hands of Davids men. 

 Let scripture interpret scripture, read 1 Chronicles 20:5


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Why do you keep steering away from Col 1:14?



Didn't I said I didn't have the issues you were bringing up.

I also said you have an issue here and asked you who was the head of the Church.

Got an answer pigpen? Means a lot in this discussion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Handful huh?????????
> 
> More like over a 147 partial verses removed  [Luke 4:4 etc]
> 
> ...



Removed from the KJV....yes.  Removed from the ORIGINAL TEXTS?  That's an entirely different question.

The are not removed from the original text PigPen.  That's my point.  Those verses are simply interpreted differently in one version than they are in the other.

You seem to believe that the KJV is the singular and definitive written word of God.  I don't imagine I'd ever convince you differently.  But, the verses that you say are "removed" by the NIV are ONLY removed as in the sense they are not the same as the KJV.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Let scripture interpret scripture, read 1 Chronicles 20:5



Which transliteration shall I use to do that? 


b717doc.....rock on with your NIV brother. 

You're good to go.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Which transliteration shall I use to do that?



 Any, the NIV and NASB have it wrong in 2 Samuel 21:19, but they have it right in 1 Chronicles 20:5.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

...according to the folks who translated the KJV.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Removed from the KJV....yes.  Removed from the ORIGINAL TEXTS?  That's an entirely different question.
> 
> The are not removed from the original text PigPen.  That's my point.  Those verses are simply interpreted differently in one version than they are in the other.
> 
> You seem to believe that the KJV is the singular and definitive written word of God.  I don't imagine I'd ever convince you differently.  But, the verses that you say are "removed" by the NIV are ONLY removed as in the sense they are not the same as the KJV.



 What are you considering the Original Texts??? Have you saw them with your own eyes, do you know how many are even in existence?

 Are you talking about the Alexandrian Manuscripts?

 How about backing it up with proof not just a footnote in your bible.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> ...according to the folks who translated the KJV.



Have you ever read out of any of the translations prior to the KJV?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

You said they were removed.  I just clarified what you said.  They are removed from the KJV.  I did not argue whether or not they are found in the original manuscripts.

Nice jab about the footnote though.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> .
> 
> You seem to believe that the KJV is the singular and definitive written word of God.



 Wrong again.......


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Have you ever read out of any of the translations prior to the KJV?



Does that make a difference?



Let me ask you this....Do you think scholarly understanding of how best to interpret the manuscripts that we have available is currently better or worse than the understanding of "scholars" 400 years ago?


But yes, I've read pieces of older versions.  They look like the Bible to me as well.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You said they were removed.  I just clarified what you said.  They are removed from the KJV.  I did not argue whether or not they are found in the original manuscripts.
> 
> Nice jab about the footnote though.


 

 NO I said they were removed from the NIV. Your not even making sence now.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Wrong.....  The Niv says one and only Son. The NIV turns John 3:16 into a lie. Jesus is not the one and only Son of God... Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, but God has many other sons. The KJV has it correct.John 3:16
> 
> 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> KJV




Only Son...only begotten Son.

What's the difference?

What does begotten mean anyways...is it even a word that is used today?


----------



## Lowjack (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Handful huh?????????
> 
> More like over a 147 partial verses removed  [Luke 4:4 etc]
> 
> ...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Only Son...only begotten Son.
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> What does begotten mean anyways...is it even a word that is used today?


 


*beâ‹…get*â€‚<SCRIPT language=javascript>AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FB02%2FB0207100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=3f531802&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</SCRIPT><OBJECT id=speaker codeBase="codebase=" classid=clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=17 align=textTop height=15 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
























</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>â€‚/bÉªËˆgÉ›t/ 

 Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-*get*] 

 Show IPA </P>*–verb (used with object), beâ‹…got *or (_Archaic
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_) *beâ‹…gat; beâ‹…gotâ‹…ten *or *beâ‹…got; beâ‹…getâ‹…ting.* <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex width=35>1.</TD><TD>(esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



*be·got·ten<SCRIPT language=javascript>AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FB%2FB0162300.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=3f531802&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</SCRIPT><OBJECT id=speaker codeBase="codebase=" classid=clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=17 align=textTop height=15 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
























</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>*  (bÄ­-gÅ�t'n)  

 
<!--BOF_HEAD-->v.  <!--EOF_HEAD--><!--BOF_DEF-->A past participle of beget.</P> 
<!--//
//--><!--EOF_DEF-->


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

Sense....


Go back and read your post man.  I think you're confusing yourself.



> H E L L completely removed from the old testament
> 
> Lucifer given one of Jesus titles
> 
> ...



Those are all things that are in the KJV....that are removed by the NIV, correct?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> *beâ‹…get*â€‚<SCRIPT language=javascript>AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FB02%2FB0207100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=3f531802&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</SCRIPT><OBJECT id=speaker codeBase="codebase=" classid=clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=17 align=textTop height=15 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
> 
> 
> 
> ...




DBBB...

Thanks....I know what beget and begotten means.  I was being a bit facetious.


Guys...it took Pig 147 posts before he gave up the last time.  Why are we feeding this one again?


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

Oh boy...


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Sense....
> 
> 
> Go back and read your post man.  I think you're confusing yourself.
> ...



 Did you read your Quote in that post? You  said this..



			
				Huntinfool; said:
			
		

> So there are a handful of instances in which you percieve the NIV (and all other versions apparently) to mis-translate (or transliterate as LJ pointed out)....and that makes it a horrible misrepresentation of the scriptures??



 look what you said....

 I was showing you the "Handful" When I said this...

[QUOTE/] Originally Posted by pigpen1  
Handful huh?????????

More like over a 147 partial verses removed [Luke 4:4 etc]

17 complete verses removed

H E L L completely removed from the old testament

Lucifer given one of Jesus titles

Sodomite removed [changed to male prostitute]

Blood of Christ removed [Col. 1:14]

2 people that killed Goliath

Belief and confession removed [Acts 8:37]

this is just a handful..[/QUOTE]

 You must read these post like you do your bible..


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

You do realize male prostitute is far more accurate. Especially since they wouldn't have used the term bi back then.

This is a bit like Don Quixote chasing wind mills.

Your logic is flawed here and you are choosing items that YOU interpret. 

Want to go back further? You never answered the questions about who is the head of the Church.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> DBBB...
> 
> Thanks....I know what beget and begotten means.  I was being a bit facetious.
> 
> ...



 I didn't give up, I almost got banned...


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> You do realize male prostitute is far more accurate. Especially since they wouldn't have used the term bi back then.
> 
> This is a bit like Don Quixote chasing wind mills.
> 
> ...



 There are male prostitutes that sell themselves to women only, thus they would not be homosexuals.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I didn't give up, I almost got banned...



Okay....will we go 147 posts until Pigpen almost gets banned again?



pigpen1 said:


> There are male prostitutes that sell themselves to women only, thus they would not be homosexuals.



Really?  There are?  I thought they were called gigilo's. 

Male Prostitutes are the one's you find in the ATL airport in the men's bathroom.


Oh...btw, Pig...are you the brother of b717doc?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Guys...it took Pig 147 posts before he gave up the last time.  Why are we feeding this one again?



'Cause it's so much dang fun!  Why else???




I keep telling you people....I'm right about everything.  If you would just listen, this whole thing would go SO much smoother!


----------



## christianhunter (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> King James had so many burnt at the stake it ain't funny and the whole purpose behind his translation is to circumvent the Puritan and Covenanter teachings of the day. Which were of tremendous threat to him.
> 
> No Tudor or Stewart King ever did anything of good will. They were tyrants and King James was an open homosexual. While God can and did work thru him and use him to accomplish His Soverign and Divine will that doesn't mean we should support or swallow the junk on him being the protector of the translation. James did it for political reasons to control the church.
> 
> ...



The point is well taken.We have a New Believer here,who is at the milk of THE WORD,and you are giving him much more than meat.A debate on this Thread by anyone is way out of line.Are you trying to confuse him even further?
I pray that THE LORD JESUS comforts and protects him,and guides him away from some of this foolishness.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> you never answered the questions about who is the head of the church.



      Christ.

     Now you answer about the Blood, being removed from Col 1:14 in most all modern versions, but being in the Geneva Bible, KJV and those before them?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

> You must read these post like you do your bible



Did you take your meds today?  I think maybe that's the problem here.

I agree with Christianhunter on this though.  It's not important for the OP.  He asked if his brother was correct in questioning his salvation for reading the NIV....the answer is NO and I think even pig would agree with that.  


You are not being decieved by the NIV and the majority of the churches that use the NIV are not wrong or bad or anything else other than followers of Christ.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> christ



blasphemy.

It is Christ.  You must be going to he11 because you didn't capitalize Christ.



This thread was good for about 5 posts.  Thanks pigpen


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> christ



Well I hate to tell you the whole purpose of the KJV is to bring the Church under the headship of the crown. The headship of King James.

So you keep flayling away at the windmills and worrying about what you see as differences and then when you one day realize what happened you will stop worrying about that.

How you think the KJV has the only correct answers is beyond me. The Geneva was straight from the Greek. Lots of others are as well. King James just authorized stealing one.

Might want to check who you have the most faith in Pigpen.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> DBBB...
> 
> Thanks....I know what beget and begotten means. I was being a bit facetious.
> 
> ...


 

Just wanted to make sure you were informed brother!!!


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay....will we go 147 posts until Pigpen almost gets banned again?
> 
> Really?  There are?  I thought they were called gigilo's.







rjcruiser said:


> Male Prostitutes are the one's you find in the ATL airport in the men's bathroom.



 I'll take your word for it. It sounds like you know what you are talking about..............




rjcruiser said:


> Oh...btw, Pig...are you the brother of b717doc?



No, only in Christ.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

Oh....and you never answered this.  I'm curious what you think.



> Let me ask you this....Do you think scholarly understanding of how best to interpret the manuscripts that we have available is currently better or worse than the understanding of "scholars" 400 years ago?


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Well I hate to tell you the whole purpose of the KJV is to bring the Church under the headship of the crown. The headship of King James.
> 
> So you keep flayling away at the windmills and worrying about what you see as differences and then when you one day realize what happened you will stop worrying about that.
> 
> ...



 You Still havent answered about Col 1:14......


----------



## PWalls (Aug 13, 2009)

Woohooo!!! 

Another KJVO thread.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

WooHoo!!!

It was so boring for a while!  You know you love it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> You Still havent answered about Col 1:14......



I'll answer.

What difference does it make?  Why does it have to say "Jesus' Blood?"

Are we forgiven by Christ Jesus?  or are we forgiven by His Blood?


----------



## christianhunter (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Well I hate to tell you the whole purpose of the KJV is to bring the Church under the headship of the crown. The headship of King James.
> 
> So you keep flayling away at the windmills and worrying about what you see as differences and then when you one day realize what happened you will stop worrying about that.
> 
> ...



Brother,I would suggest you and a few others start your own Thread.We are trying, I thought,to help a new Brother,to not become confused.I don't see a new post from him.I wonder if he knows what he got himself into.If he gets this far,I want him to know.I prayed for him,and asked that THE LORD give him wisdom.I don't believe he is going to get it on his own Thread.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Oh....and you never answered this.  I'm curious what you think.



 I think the further you go back the closer you can get. Today's scholars are influenced by to much with nothing to detour them.

 People like William Tyndale, John Rogers  and many others gave their life for the translating of the scriptures. They feared God more than Man. 

Today people have nothing to hold them back from Blaspheming Gods word. They have no fear of God, and they have a society that condones it. They can call it Art or Free speech.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> Brother,I would suggest you and a few others start your own Thread.We are trying, I thought,to help a new Brother,to not become confused.I don't see a new post from him.I wonder if he knows what he got himself into.If he gets this far,I want him to know.I prayed for him,and asked that THE LORD give him wisdom.I don't believe he is going to get it on his own Thread.



I would say he should learn a lot from this. The translations matter historically. But not salvifically.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 13, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Woohooo!!!
> 
> Another KJVO thread.


 

I am trying my best to keep things lively around here without doing the whole KJVO thread....



DB BB


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2009)

Hey someone get a OSAS thread goin, That ought to stir the puddin a bit..


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I think the further you go back the closer you can get. Today's scholars are influenced by to much with nothing to detour them.
> 
> Today people have nothing to hold them back from Blaspheming Gods word. They have no fear of God, and they have a society that condones it. They can call it Art or Free speech.



That answers everything I need to know....

Clearly those who translate the NIV, ESV, NASB and others were intent on blaspheming God's word and they definitely had no fear of God.  That's why they undertook the effort.....you're right.

Ok RJ....I give up.  You were right.  You can't fix something like that.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Aug 13, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> Hey someone get a OSAS thread goin, That ought to stir the puddin a bit..


 

wouldn't be quicker to just find the last one we had and bump it to the top???  

DB BB


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I'll answer.
> 
> What difference does it make?  Why does it have to say "Jesus' Blood?"
> 
> Are we forgiven by Christ Jesus?  or are we forgiven by His Blood?



 If it didn't take His Blood then why did He have to shed it???

Rom 5:9

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood , we shall be saved from wrath through him.
KJV

Heb 9:22

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
KJV


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> If it didn't take His Blood then why did He have to shed it???
> 
> Rom 5:9
> 
> ...



Don't both versions imply that it is Through Jesus Christ?  Through His work on the cross?

What is the matter that one says  through Jesus Christ and one says through the blood of Jesus Christ.  

They both mean the same thing.  And yes, God could have forgiven us all without Christ's death on the cross.  If He'd wanted to, He could've said forgiven, and it be done.  But that wasn't His plan.  His plan of Salvation is perfect.  I don't question that.

However, by saying the verse has to have "blood" in it is arguing semantics.


Oh..btw, the NAS is based off of earlier known texts than the KJV....so then by your own admittance of the earlier the better, the NAS is a stronger translation


----------



## christianhunter (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm going to say this,and I'm through with this one.I thought if a relatively New Believer,and relatively new member.Came on here for reassurance,and this is all you loving Brothers can come up with is jokes,and debate.I believe some of you may not be too different from his Brother in the OP.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

CH,

His question was address thoroughly early on in the thread.  Many folks answered his OP very clearly.  We've just moved into a deeper discussion of the issue at this point.

I see your point.  But we're just discussing it in a more in depth manner at this point (or dogpiling on pigpen....however you want to view it ).


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> That answers everything I need to know....
> 
> Clearly those who translate the NIV, ESV, NASB and others were intent on blaspheming God's word and they definitely had no fear of God.  That's why they undertook the effort.....you're right.
> 
> Ok RJ....I give up.  You were right.  You can't fix something like that.



 Do you know who owns the exclusive publishing right to the NIV?????? Rupert Murdoch. Do you know who he is??? He is a Billionaire that is better know for his other business's, like FOX Networks, Sun and Star tabloids, and Bart Simpson. I guess you could say money might reward effort.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

Do you seriously think that Rupert Murdoch had ANYTHING to do with the translation of the NIV version?  

He has the publishing rights....he bought them.  Why?  Because it's an INCREDIBLY popular and best selling version of the Bible.  It was a very good business decision from his standpoint.  It has nothing to do with whether the NIV is a well translated version of the Bible.  But you already knew that, didn't you....



> _Q: Who translated the NIV and TNIV texts?_
> 
> A: The Committee on Bible Translation, or CBT, —a group of leading evangelical scholars from around the world—translated the NIV and the TNIV. CBT members come from some of the most-renowned evangelical Christian colleges and seminaries in the world, including Wheaton Graduate School and Westmont College. The CBT is completely independent and its members represent a wide array of evangelical denominations.



I don't see Mr. Murdoch mentioned there.


Make sure you take ALL of those pills every day...it'll help...I promise.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Do you know who owns the exclusive publishing right to the NIV?????? Rupert Murdoch. Do you know who he is??? He is a Billionaire that is better know for his other business's, like FOX Networks, Sun and Star tabloids, and Bart Simpson. I guess you could say money might reward effort.



Let me get this straight... You have a problem with the NIV because of Murdoch??? BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No issue with the KJV even though Murdoch never killed anyone or burnt a Christian or tortured anyone to death? But that Silly vassell King James (Using good ol Andrew Melville's description of KJ here) sure toasted a many fine Reformer...

I got it... 

NIV and the rest just don't fit your agenda...

OK...


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 13, 2009)

> Dr.Ronald Youngblood
> 
> Dr.Ronald Youngblood ** became an NIV translator in 1970 and a member of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) 10 years later. His translation experience during the past 30 years has included extensive work on all parts of the NIV as well as more limited tasks related to the recently launched Spanish and Portuguese NVIs. He is also the executive editor of the NIrV, the simplified Bible so popular with children as well as with people for whom English is a second language. As an associate editor of the NIV Study Bible, Youngblood has been contacted by countless readers who have been helped and blessed by its text and notes.
> 
> ...





Just two of the chief evildoers who translated the NIV.  MAN these guys are B-A-D!  Y'all stay clear of these two troublemakers!


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Just two of the chief evildoers who translated the NIV.  MAN these guys are B-A-D!  Y'all stay clear of these two troublemakers!



 Here's another one and a link to her page..

http://www.geocities.com/vrmollenkott/

here is a cut and paste from her site...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott taught college literature and writing for 44 years and is now Professor EMeritus at the William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey. With Letha Dawson Scanzoni, she co-authored "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Postive Christisan Response" (1978) and now available in a vastly expanded and updated edition.(1994) 
Her other books include "The Divine Femine: Biblical Imagery of God As Female"; "Godding: Human Responsibility and the Bible"; and "Sensuous Spirituality: Out From Fundamentalism". 

Dr. Mollenkott served as stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible and was a member of the National Council of Churches' Inclusive Language Lectionary Committee. Her Milton Scholoarship is discussed in "A Milton Encyclopedia"; her earlier writings are described in "American Women Writers" and her career is profiled in the Millenium Edition of "Who's Who In America". 

In 1992 she received an Achievement Award from New Jersey's Lesbian and Gay Coalition, and in 1999 a Lifetime Achievement Award from SAGE (Senior Action in a Gay Environment). 

Mollenkott's twelfth book, "Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach", has been warmly welcomed by pastoral counsellors, theologians, psychologists, and GLBT people of various religious backgrounds as well as by people working for sexual and gender justice. 

Annually, on the weekend after Labor Day, Mollenkott facilitates an event called "Sisterly Conversations: Current Concerns Among Lesbians of Faith", held at Kirkridge Retreat and Study Center in Bangor, PA, in the beautiful Pocano Mountains. 

She is also a featured speaker at Kirkridge's annual "Christian People of the Rainbow" event, held on the second weekend of June. The event is very popular and draws a large number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians along with their supporters and friends each year


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Here is some more...

One of the primary English "stylists" of the NIV was Virginia Mollenkott. Virginia Molenkott has been a known lesbian since 1962. Virginia Mollenkott was sent, in her own words, "swatches" of texts, often whole books at a time, so that she could approve and finalize word choices. She was a lesbian. 

   When Zondervan and the United Bible Society, the publishers and copyright holders of the New International Version were questioned about why Virginia Mollenkott, a known lesbian, was on the the translation team they said that they did not know she was a lesbian until after they had already printed the NIV. Well, that is not exactly true because in 1962 she officially came out of the closet. She was teaching at a state university on the east coast in 1962 and started a group for lesbian students on the campus.She served as a faculty sponsor for the group and was actively involved in it. She had publicly declared herself to be a lesbian. 
   But just in case the folks at Zondervan and the United Bible Society didn't know about that, it is a matter of record that in 1978 the late Dr. Bob Jones Jr., then president of Bob Jones University in Greensville, South Carolina, sent a letter to Zondervan and the United Bible Society in which he informed them that Virginia Mollenkott had taught language at Bob Jones University in the 1950's and was dismissed for attempting to seduce their female students into lesbian affairs. So they received a letter from the president of a large Christian university telling them that she was a lesbian and they ignored that letter. Then, they tell us these years later that they did not know she was a lesbian until after they had already printed the NIV. 
   Information exists from Mr. Michael Penfold in the UK which gives detailed documentation regarding Dr. Martin H. Woudstra who was the chairman of the NIV's Old Testament Committee. It has now come to light that Dr. Woudstra was also a homosexual. For the sake of fairness, this information has surfaced after Dr. Woudstra's death, so it is possible that the UBS and Zondervan did not know that he was a homosexual.


----------



## earl (Aug 13, 2009)

Isn't this kind of like a book burning pregame barbeque ?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

How many KJV people here read the book of Judith? 
How bout the rest of the Apocrypha?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> The point is well taken.We have a New Believer here,who is at the milk of THE WORD,and you are giving him much more than meat.A debate on this Thread by anyone is way out of line.Are you trying to confuse him even further?
> I pray that THE LORD JESUS comforts and protects him,and guides him away from some of this foolishness.



x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!!!

To the OP: Ignore all the fighting-we just have a few "disputes" about things because we all have so much pride we forget why the question was asked, and if you don't read "our" translation, or go to "our" church, we get offended and believe we must show you the only way...

Must be the same disease as my truck is better than yours, and my bow is WAY better than your bow...


----------



## Jedi Pastor Ken (Aug 13, 2009)

I don't know what to say about this but I can't tell you how grieved I am but what has been said here.  Like so many others have said this was about a young man asking a simple question about salvation.  I'm sorry his brother feels the way he does about the KJV versus NIV issue.  However, it has no bearing on ones salvation if they have repented of their sin and asked Jesus into their heart.

On the side...
Pigpen1, I'm thankful you are passionate about your faith but I'm sorry you've taken this so far.  Do you actually know any of the translation team personally?  I do.  John Oswalt was one of my professors at Asbury Theological Seminary and one of the most godly men I have ever known.  He has been in service to God's Kingdom and the training of ministers for decades.  He has lead thousands of young people to Jesus Christ through his years of ministry.  I have prayed with him and heard his prayers and seen his ministry first hand and his handling of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is recognized around the world.  You're welcome to your opinion, we'll all agree to that - but to attack the character of people you don't even know is wrong.  Psalm 37:37


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

I wonder if chinese folks can get saved without the KJV bible?


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Jedi Pastor Ken said:


> Pigpen1, I'm thankful you are passionate about your faith but I'm sorry you've taken this so far.  Do you actually know any of the translation team personally?  I do.  John Oswalt was one of my professors at Asbury Theological Seminary and one of the most godly men I have ever known.  He has been in service to God's Kingdom and the training of ministers for decades.  He has lead thousands of young people to Jesus Christ through his years of ministry.  I have prayed with him and heard his prayers and seen his ministry first hand and his handling of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is recognized around the world.  You're welcome to your opinion, we'll all agree to that - but to attack the character of people you don't even know is wrong.  Psalm 37:37



 I haven't attacked the character, I have just provided fact about 2 people that were involved with the NIV translating process. If you will go back to post #84 and take the time to go to the link provided, it is Virgina Mollenkott's Personal web site. She is a self proclaimed Homosexual, that's not my judgement, that's her own proclamation.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 13, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> How many KJV people here read the book of Judith?
> How bout the rest of the Apocrypha?


 
Excellent points.


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 13, 2009)

Why would we read those books as a part of the bible? Not sure what that has to do with this.

And yes I have read a good many of them.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

earl said:


> Isn't this kind of like a book burning pregame barbeque ?



Acts 19:19-20

19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
KJV


----------



## Tugboat1 (Aug 13, 2009)

To those who consider themselves among the " chosen few".

Good Lord!! What kind of fish swallowed Jonah? You folks take yourselves WAY to seriously and while I admire earnestness, conversations such as this create a dogma that inspires me to be, Buddhist or anything else for that matter. The bible has been written more than once in case you didn't know. In more than one language than English, in case you didn't know. If you have found "your" truth then be Christian enough to allow others to find theirs. It's no sweat off your back and does not influence your salvation.


----------



## Jedi Pastor Ken (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I think the further you go back the closer you can get. Today's scholars are influenced by to much with nothing to detour them.
> 
> People like William Tyndale, John Rogers  and many others gave their life for the translating of the scriptures. They feared God more than Man.
> 
> Today people have nothing to hold them back from Blaspheming Gods word. They have no fear of God, and they have a society that condones it. They can call it Art or Free speech.



Pigpen, sorry if I read this wrong.  It seems to me you're implying that modern scholars are blaspheming.  To say that IS attacking the character.

Now, I can see where you might say in the third paragraph the word "people" is different than "scholar."  However, in the context of your writings it doesn't fit.  Still, if this isn't what you were intending to say, my apologies.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 13, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?



yes, the KJ is the true Word of God. I have studied and compared the KJ versus the others and the KJ is the closest that you can get to the originals in the English language. your brother is right on. There is 1 God so why would 1 God want numerous different versions of His word....? He doesnt. There is only 1 true Church... Once you study the authorized 1611 KJ version... you will understand why it is the Word of God.  

i'll give you one of many examples... the av 1611 KJ Bible is not copyrighted... all of the others are...  hmmm, i wonder why...?  the NIV is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is one of the biggest pornographers in the world.  do you want a Bible written by the Holy Spirit or by a pornographer?

all of the newer versions were put together by Westcott and Hort who were evil occultists. one of the newest versions was put together by a lesbian...  hmmm...  

here's a few websites that may help you...  and listen to your brother and not anyone who tells you that any other version compares to the av KJ Bible... because it doesn't. God said He would preserve His words and His church... there is one true church and there is one true Bible...

satan is trying to get people to get away from the KJ. all the other versions compare themselves to??? the KJ !!! you never see the NIV (not inspired version) saying that it is better than the NASB or vice versa... because satan wants Christians to turn away from the KJ and to the others...  so the NIV people say that the NIV is better than the KJ...  that is how satan works...  please take the time to study these sites below and the sermons below... this guy is good... much better than the folks on here...  

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5290833760

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4260118547

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31201115936


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Jedi Pastor Ken said:


> Pigpen, sorry if I read this wrong.  It seems to me you're implying that modern scholars are blaspheming.  To say that IS attacking the character.
> 
> Now, I can see where you might say in the third paragraph the word "people" is different than "scholar."  However, in the context of your writings it doesn't fit.  Still, if this isn't what you were intending to say, my apologies.



 So are you trying to say that people like Virgina Mollenkott or Martin Woudstra would have been allowed as translators in the 15 or 1600's???


----------



## earl (Aug 13, 2009)

In the lesbian and pornographers bible do they have a different version of heaven and how do you get there ? I want the illustrated version !!!


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Why would we read those books as a part of the bible? Not sure what that has to do with this.
> 
> And yes I have read a good many of them.



Because the Apocrypha were part of the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES TRANSLATION. 

It was accepted, along with the new translation, as being the TRUE word of God, and the "most accurate scholars and translators" accepted it as such at the time.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> yes, the KJ is the true Word of God.



Empasis added by me...

Is the Truth not the Truth in any translation? 

If the KJV is the "true" word of God, do we have to educate Chinese in middle English? 

If the KJV is the "true" word of God, what of the millions who cannot comprehend English?

If the KJV is the "true" word of God, how are the blind going to find the Truth?

If the KJV is the "true" word of God, why weren't the Gospels and the NT letters and the OT written in Middle English?

Or, perhaps God's word is Truth in any language, translation, dialect, morse code, sign language.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 13, 2009)

The best translation.......


Choose whatever version that allows you to read as much scripture as possible, and pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth in what you read.

*<SUP>12</SUP>* “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear _them_ now. <SUP id=en-NKJV-26735 class=versenum>*13*</SUP> However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own _authority,_ but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. <SUP id=en-NKJV-26736 class=versenum>*14*</SUP> He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare _it_ to you. <SUP id=en-NKJV-26737 class=versenum>*15*</SUP> All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare _it_ to you. (John 16)

You cannot go wrong with that formula, ever!


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> ... Once you study the authorized 1611 KJ version... you will understand why it is the Word of God.



Once again, I ask, does your Bible contain the book of Judith? 

How about 1st Macabees?

If not, it is NOT the 1611 VERSION!!


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 13, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Woohooo!!!
> 
> Another KJVO thread.



...yeah, but this one is FUNNY


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 13, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> How many KJV people here read the book of Judith?
> How bout the rest of the Apocrypha?


They only would have read that IF they read the ORIGINAL KJV that had those books in it initially...to be removed later for convenience....


Quote:
The 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the "Apocrypha" is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture.  Clearly, the original translators of the 1611 King James Version held the Deuterocanonical books as authoritative or Scriptural, and worthy of public prayer and worship. It is also important to note the occasions of the use of these "Apocrypha" books in the calendars....

And last, we know for a fact, that the translators held these books as sacred and wish them to be part of their Bible, by the measures they took to keep part of the KJV. In 1615, the Anglican Archbishop [George] Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translator of the King James Version, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). 

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/cloud_Apocrypha_2.htm


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> So are you trying to say that people like Virgina Mollenkott or Martin Woudstra would have been allowed as translators in the 15 or 1600's???






pigpen1 said:


> Here is some more...
> 
> One of the primary English "stylists" of the NIV was Virginia Mollenkott. Virginia Molenkott has been a known lesbian since 1962. Virginia Mollenkott was sent, in her own words, "swatches" of texts, often whole books at a time, so that she could approve and finalize word choices. She was a lesbian.



So one of the crazy english person's brought in to help with the writing style turned out to be a lesbian.    It isn't like she was translating the actual words.  She was brought in to help with the grammatical accuracy.  Not that I think it was the best choice, but c'mon, she wasn't changing the meaning of Rom 3:23.



BeenHuntn said:


> the NIV is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is one of the biggest pornographers in the world.  do you want a Bible written by the Holy Spirit or by a pornographer?



Wow...that is a stretch.  Since when did Rupert Murdoch write the NIV.  

I'm kinda glad though that you got this out early in your Gonforum days...kinda helps me put your reasoning skills in perspective for any future posts you might have




Pigpen...you still haven't responded to post #77


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> ...yeah, but this one is FUNNY



You know...we haven't had a good one like this in a while.

It was starting to get a little dull in here.  Glad to see everyone is coming back to the spiritual forum fire


----------



## Jedi Pastor Ken (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> So are you trying to say that people like Virgina Mollenkott or Martin Woudstra would have been allowed as translators in the 15 or 1600's???



I'm sorry, I must be really missing something with this thread.  I was trying to discover some clarification and apologized if I'd read anything wrong.  

But I will answer your question that no, I do not think such people would have been allowed because such people would never have been allowed to write what the liberties of this country provide.  As such, I don't know that we have insight into the lives of those people who translated the KJV.  

Are you trying to say that all the scholars, not just 2 but all of those who took part in the NIV, were/are blasphemers?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Argument taken...Your NASB has the blood of Christ removed in Colossians 1:14 and also has two people listed that killed Goliath  read 2 Samuel 21:19 in your nasb.


and this is why I stay with KJV only.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> They only would have read that IF they read the ORIGINAL KJV that had those books in it initially...to be removed later for convenience....
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...





Do Tell...


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 13, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Empasis added by me...
> 
> Is the Truth not the Truth in any translation?
> 
> ...



_you are correct... the av 1611 KJ is truth in any language, etc etc..._


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 13, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> They only would have read that IF they read the ORIGINAL KJV that had those books in it initially...to be removed later for convenience....
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


go back to your holeyour long post will take up space when you get started


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 13, 2009)

kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Well I hate to tell you the whole purpose of the KJV is to bring the Church under the headship of the crown. The headship of King James.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> So one of the crazy english person's brought in to help with the writing style turned out to be a lesbian.    It isn't like she was translating the actual words.  She was brought in to help with the grammatical accuracy.  Not that I think it was the best choice, but c'mon, she wasn't changing the meaning of Rom 3:23.
> 
> Wow...that is a stretch.  Since when did Rupert Murdoch write the NIV.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Argument taken...Your NASB has the blood of Christ removed in Colossians 1:14 and also has two people listed that killed Goliath  read 2 Samuel 21:19 in your nasb.
> .



The reason you find that in the NASB is because that's the way the most reliable early text reads.
The kjv might sound better, but the NASB tried to stick to the original text.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I'll answer.
> 
> What difference does it make?  Why does it have to say "Jesus' Blood?"
> 
> Are we forgiven by Christ Jesus?  or are we forgiven by His Blood?


Are you serious??? The blood is what covers our sins The whole purpose for Jesus was the shedding of his blood for us.


Ronnie T said:


> The reason you find that in the NASB is because that's the way the most reliable early text reads.
> The kjv might sound better, but the NASB tried to stick to the original text.


Do the "original text" leave the blood of Jesus out?

to you both........regardless of what sounds better


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 13, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Im a relatively new born again Christian, and had the opportunity to meet with my little brother, who is a devout KJV pastor, and basically openly doubted my salvation...He told me that the NIV Bible, that my Church counselor gave me, was trash, and that if my Church was based on the NIV, that we were all basically being deceived, as it is NOT the word of God. He wanted my Pastor's phone number, just to have a "discussion" about the Bible with him...Well, needless to say, I am thoroughly confused, and don't know what to think...I have read numerous articles on the internet, and am compelled, to say the least. I don't know who to believe, and can see their point, as there are indeed a great amount of scripture "left out", or "omitted". I guess my question this morning is, Is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible the word of God?, Or are we all, a vast majority of todays congregations being deceived, as some "KJV vs. NIV" articles on the internet suggest?



Many people, like your brother have very strong opinions about their Bible.
*The KJV*, the NIV, and the NASB are the most widely read in America and it's been that way for several years.
There was a time when Bible scholars considered the KJV to be the most accurate Bible available.  As a matter of fact, many Christians consider it to be the only version that's authorized by God.
*The NIV *is not intended to be a word-for-word translation.  It's primary purpose was to be a Bible that could be read and understood very easily.
*The NASB *makes every effort to be a word-for-word translation.  It is now widely regarded by Bible scholars to be the most accurate english translation available.

Either of those Bibles will serve you well in your Christian life as long as you remember their method of translation.

I suggest using all three in your studies.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 13, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Many people, like your brother have very strong opinions about their Bible.
> *The KJV*, the NIV, and the NASB are the most widely read in America and it's been that way for several years.
> There was a time when Bible scholars considered the KJV to be the most accurate Bible available.  As a matter of fact, many Christians consider it to be the only version that's authorized by God.
> *The NIV *is not intended to be a word-for-word translation.  It's primary purpose was to be a Bible that could be read and understood very easily.
> ...



X2


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 13, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Many people, like your brother have very strong opinions about their Bible.
> *The KJV*, the NIV, and the NASB are the most widely read in America and it's been that way for several years.
> There was a time when Bible scholars considered the KJV to be the most accurate Bible available.  As a matter of fact, many Christians consider it to be the only version that's authorized by God.
> *The NIV *is not intended to be a word-for-word translation.  It's primary purpose was to be a Bible that could be read and understood very easily.
> ...



blah blah blah...

who cares what bible scholars say...?  all that matters is what God says.

stick with the av 1611 KJ...  see below.

http://www.baptistpillar.com/Index Directory.htm#King James


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 13, 2009)

I grew up on KJV and am familar and comfortable with it. My pastor teaches from it most of the time, and I prefer it. 
However I too believe that our inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit, along with our convictions. It's mostly the wording that's different not the meaning between the two anyway.  How is thine and thou that much different than you and yours, we know they mean the same thing.

Blessings to you and yours.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

"i said the KJ was the english version. translate the KJ to chinese and you have a true Bible. translate the NIV to chinese and you have garbage..."

Do you really think you can translate the KJV to Chinese? 
Do you think there are actual words from Middle English that are in Chinese? We don't even have them in this language today!!

Why wouldn't you want them to go to the original manuscripts and go from there instead of going from Greek to Latin to English to Chinese? 

Once again-please answer if "your" Bible has the book of Macabees in it. 

The AUTHORIZED KING JAMES 1611 Bible has these books as well:

Wisdom of Solomon  
Ecclesiasticus  
Tobit 
I Esdras  
I Maccabees   
II Maccabees  
Judith  
Baruch 
Letter of Jeremiah  
II Esdras  
Additions to Esther  
Prayer of Azariah*  
Suzanna (Daniel 13)  
Bel & the Dragon (Daniel 14)  
Prayer of Manasseh 

Unless your Bible has these, YOU have perverted the 'true' word of God and have been mislead by the world.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

If the KJV is the "true" word of God, why weren't the Gospels and the NT letters and the OT written in Middle English?

they were... its called the av 1611 KJV...

Dude, do you really think Paul wrote his letters using Middle English? 
Moses must have been taught by Chaucer I guess....


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 14, 2009)

Well if we get this, we're good to go...that's all I gotta say about it.


John 3:16 (New International Version)

 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 (King James Version)

 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 14, 2009)

The direction this thread is going seems to be,"If you didn't hear Jesus Christ preach the sermon on the mount with your own ears, you've got the wrong version!"

I like the KJV. I like the way the old English sounds. But, I have several different Bibles and I look at them all when I'm having Bible study. If it takes 3 versions to have a closer relationship and understanding with our Lord Jesus Christ, so be it.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 14, 2009)

Just for completeness, here are documented problems with the KJV. I have no problem with the KJV, but you KJVO folks are a trip!

*Genesis 1:2* should read "And the earth* became *without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is _hayah_, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in *Genesis 19:26*.
*Genesis 10:9* should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter *in place of* [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
*Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26* in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is _Azazel_, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
*Deuteronomy 24:1*, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
*2 Kings 2:23*, should be "young men", not "little children." 
*Isaiah 65:17* should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."
*Ezekiel 20:25* should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws. 
*Daniel 8:14* is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this. 
*Malachi 4:6* should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in *Zechariah 14:11*. 
*Matthew 5:48* should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit. 
*Matthew 24:22* needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved* alive*." 
*Matthew 27:49* omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7. 
*Matthew 28:1*, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. 
*Luke 2:14* should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts. 
*Luke 14:26* has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word _miseo_, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family! 
*John 1:31, 33* should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not *with* water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water. 
*John 1:17* is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. 
*John 13:2* should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).
*Acts 12:4* has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is _pascha _which is translated correctly as* Passover* in Matthew 26:2, etc.
*1 Corinthians 1:18* should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that *are perishing *foolishness; but unto us which *are being saved* it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, *2 Thessalonians 2:10* should be "are perishing" rather than "perish." 
*1 Corinthians 15:29* should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for *the hope of* the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for* the hope of* the dead?" 
*2 Corinthians 6:2* should be "*a* day of salvation", instead of "*the *day of salvation." This is a quote from *Isaiah 49:8*, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection. 
*1 Timothy 4:8* should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth *for a little time*: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ." 
*1 Timothy 6:10* should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ." 
*Hebrews 4:8* should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents. 
*Hebrews 4:9* should read, "There remaineth therefore a *keeping of a sabbath* to the people of God." 
*Hebrews 9:28* is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation." 
*1 John 5:7-8* contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in _heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth_, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. 
*Revelation 14:4* should be "*a* firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits. 
*Revelation 20:4-5* in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four. 
*Revelation 20:10*, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the *same* lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously. 
Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."
*Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong *​No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding _italicized_ clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead. 
In *Psalms 81:4*, "_was_" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God. 
We have shown how in *Revelation 20:10* that the italicized "_are_" is incorrect and that "_were cast_" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is *John 8:28* where Jesus said (KJV), "I am _he_." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "*I AM*" of the Old Testament, *John 8:58* and *Exodus 3:14*. 
In* Luke 3:23-38*, the italicized words "_the son_" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph. 
*Matthew 24:24* should not have the italicized words "_it were_". It *IS* possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard! 
*Romans 1:7* incorrectly has the italicized words "_to be_." The fact is, Christians are now saints. 
*1 Corinthians 7:19* needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "_*Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God*_." 
*Colossians 2:16-17* can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "_is_" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: *don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging*.
*1 Timothy 3:11* has "_their_" in italics, which is not implied in the original. 
*2 Peter 2:5* should not have "_person, a_." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness. 
*1 John 2:23* has "_[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also_" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek. 
*Punctuation Problems *​*Luke 23:43* has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "*thee*", but "*day*." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future. 
*Mark 16:9* does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "*risen*" and "*early*" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. . ."


more listed here
http://www.servantsnews.com/docs/kjverrors.htm


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

In all fairness, I love my KJV as well... 
Myself, I also like the way the Middle English sounds as well, and there is some tradition behind it for me personally. I also have two other versions as well. 

Looking into getting a NASB because of the recommendations on this thread...


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 14, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> In all fairness, I love my KJV as well...
> Myself, I also like the way the Middle English sounds as well, and there is some tradition behind it for me personally. I also have two other versions as well.
> 
> Looking into getting a NASB because of the recommendations on this thread...



I use the KJV a lot.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I use the KJV a lot.



Its definitely the one I use most...but, most of my friends use other translations, as not many people carry a college degree, with several classes in English...


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 14, 2009)

b717doc-- The landscape looks a bit like this:

King James Version; Greek New Testament; English Revised Version; New American Standard Bible; New King James Version; Jehovah's Witnesses Bible; New International Version; New World Translation; American Standard Version; New Living Translation; Douay-Rheims Bible; Septuagint Bible; Vulgate Bible (closest to the actual original writings); Revised Standard Version; Jerusalem Bible; New Revised Standard Version; New American Bible with revised New Testament and Psalms; Good News translation; Reader's Digest Bible; New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Language Version; The Living Bible; Amplified Bible; New Century Version; 21st Century King James Version; Young's Literal Translation; Holman Christian Standard Bible; New International Reader's Version; Wycliffe New Testament; Reina-Valera 1960; Nueva Version Internacional; Louis Segond Version; La Bible Du Semeur Version; Croatian Bible; Icelandic bible; La Nuova Diodati Version; Korean Bible; Maori Bible Version; Macedonian New Testament; Nahuatl de Guerrero Version; Ukranian Bible; Swahili New Testament; Chinese Union Version . . . 

Boy Howdy . . . I share your confusion . . . One would think that something called the Bible would actually be accepted as authoritative, or informative, or at least reliable . . . But that hardly seems to be the case, so the best I can say is to keep your own counsel, and beware of the many pretenders who would dare to claim your thoughts under only their own flag . . .


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 14, 2009)

A scriptural blood bath,,,,,,,,,,,,just great..


----------



## Phoelix (Aug 14, 2009)

Good Gravy, Sorry I opened a can....All of this certainly clears it up for me!!! Now Im REALLY confused....All I know is what my family went through in 2007, when my life was taken by Satan, nearly ending my marriage.  I fell to my knees, with all my heart, and asked God to take me, take my life, and to be my savior and redeemer. At that exact second, I felt as if 500 pounds of weight come off my shoulders, and an overwhelming feeling of "everything is gonna be alright", and I slept for the first time in 4 days....I truly felt God touch my heart, and have been following his directions every since.  My marriage of 17 years was saved (after 2 affairs), and in now fluorishing more than ever now that God is with us. We were "re-married" in April, Baptised on Easter Sunday, and have joined our Church.......Then, day before yesterday, my little brother jumped on my back, relentlessly, and has not let up since, doubting my salvation, my Church, and the direction I have decided to take with God...I don't know whether to be hurt, disappointed in him, believe him, or what....All I know is what's in my heart.  I told him that my Church invited me to become a "Stephen Minister", which entails 3 or so months of class room, which I was looking forward to, and kind of proud of, but he scorned and started quoting scripture, saying that I did'nt need ANYONE to teach me ANYTHING, and that they're ALL deceived...Just gonna follow my heart at this point, and carry on....Contemplating visiting my little brothers Church this Sunday....When I told him that...he freaked (wonder why?)....


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Don't both versions imply that it is Through Jesus Christ?  Through His work on the cross?
> 
> What is the matter that one says  through Jesus Christ and one says through the blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...



 OK RJ, you wanted a response to post #77, so here it is. You say the NASB was from earlier text. That can be and has been refuted. If the text you are referring to are the Alexandrian group of manuscripts, they have been challenged and even there authority have been questioned. They are very few in number and contradict themselves many times. Many errors and omissions throughout them. My question to you is why would God choose for His word to come out of Egypt? That is where these came from. God told the Israelites to stay away from Egypt.  Egypt is a type of the World and bondage of sin.

 Here is a little about these "reliable manuscripts".....

What is the "Septuagint"?

by David Daniels

If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here's how the legend goes: 

The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text. 

The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint. 

Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint. 

Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?



The verifiable facts: 

The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity. 

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!

The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. 



New Testament Evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said, 

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms": 

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!



Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find "original readings" that were supposedly "lost from the Hebrew"?.

Roman Catholics Need It
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!

Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That's right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!

In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome. 


We Don't Need It
But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.

So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. 





And by the way RJ, as I stated before even in the Geneva Bible Col 1:14 had the Blood of Christ in it. I have a copy...


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 14, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Good Gravy, Sorry I opened a can....All of this certainly clears it up for me!!! Now Im REALLY confused....All I know is what my family went through in 2007, when my life was taken by Satan, nearly ending my marriage.  I fell to my knees, with all my heart, and asked God to take me, take my life, and to be my savior and redeemer. At that exact second, I felt as if 500 pounds of weight come off my shoulders, and an overwhelming feeling of "everything is gonna be alright", and I slept for the first time in 4 days....I truly felt God touch my heart, and have been following his directions every since.  My marriage of 17 years was saved (after 2 affairs), and in now fluorishing more than ever now that God is with us. We were "re-married" in April, Baptised on Easter Sunday, and have joined our Church.......Then, day before yesterday, my little brother jumped on my back, relentlessly, and has not let up since, doubting my salvation, my Church, and the direction I have decided to take with God...I don't know whether to be hurt, disappointed in him, believe him, or what....All I know is what's in my heart.  I told him that my Church invited me to become a "Stephen Minister", which entails 3 or so months of class room, which I was looking forward to, and kind of proud of, but he scorned and started quoting scripture, saying that I did'nt need ANYONE to teach me ANYTHING, and that they're ALL deceived...Just gonna follow my heart at this point, and carry on....Contemplating visiting my little brothers Church this Sunday....When I told him that...he freaked (wonder why?)....



 I am proud for you brother, Don't let all this info confuse you. Follow your heart and grow in the Grace and knowledge of God. All this stuff we are debating you can look into later, don't let it bog you down.

I was just like you. I was using a differant version when I got saved. I then began to study and found out that I prefer the KJV. You follow your heart in prayer to God and let Him guide you. 

 God Bless you


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 14, 2009)

Jedi Pastor Ken said:


> I'm sorry, I must be really missing something with this thread.  I was trying to discover some clarification and apologized if I'd read anything wrong.
> 
> But I will answer your question that no, I do not think such people would have been allowed because such people would never have been allowed to write what the liberties of this country provide.  As such, I don't know that we have insight into the lives of those people who translated the KJV.
> 
> Are you trying to say that all the scholars, not just 2 but all of those who took part in the NIV, were/are blasphemers?



 When you say "Such People", do you know them personally? Are you saying something about the character of a person of whom you do not know? 

 What are you referencing "Such" to?




 I have got to go to work now.......y'all have fun....


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 14, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> I got some news for you, Noone of them Including the KJV are translations, they are transliterations, Hebrew and Aramaic cannot be translated straight to say English, so what you have are transliterations, remember that, the NIV is a transliteration and so is the KJV.
> To say they are the best translations when you don't speak Hebrew or Arameic or Greek is ridiculous,IMO.



Sorry, Lowjack, you're wrong.  Translation is "the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text, likewise called a 'translation,' that communicates the same message in another language" (Wikipedia).   On the other hand, transliteration is "a mapping from one system of writing into another, word by word, or ideally letter by letter" (Wikipedia).  A transliteration of Greek or Hebrew into Roman lettering would still make no sense in English.  E.g., every time Paul calls himself the δοῦλος of Christ, an English transliteration would read "doulos."  That would still not make any sense in English.  We'd need to _translate_ the word δοῦλος into English as "slave" or "bondservant" in order to accurately render it into English.

Sorry to correct you in front of everyone, but words have meanings and I like them to be used well.  



kiltedpresbyterian said:


> Let me get this straight... You have a problem with the NIV because of Murdoch?



No, he doesn't, at least not primarily.  He's just moving the goalpost.  This entire thread is an exercise in moving the goalpost.  If y'all had held him to his original objection, instead of letting him drag y'all all over the map, this thread would have been over on the second page.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> if you would have actually taken the time to read what i wrote... you would have noticed that i said that porno king Murdoch...... *owns* the NIV... i did not say that he wrote the NIV....



Yes you did.  You need to slow down your typing or read what you are copying/pasting before you hit post.  See below.



BeenHuntn said:


> the NIV is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is one of the biggest pornographers in the world.  do you want a Bible written by a pornographer?





pigpen1 said:


> OK RJ, you wanted a response to post #77, so here it is.
> 
> And by the way RJ, as I stated before even in the Geneva Bible Col 1:14 had the Blood of Christ in it. I have a copy...



I was hoping you respond to the first half of post #77, but oh well.  Spotlite did.



			
				Spotlite said:
			
		

> Are you serious??? The blood is what covers our sins The whole purpose for Jesus was the shedding of his blood for us.
> 
> Do the "original text" leave the blood of Jesus out?
> 
> to you both........regardless of what sounds better



Christ's death cover's our sin and his resurrection conquers death.  It is a two part deal.  Seems as if the Baptist KJV only folks just want to focus on the "blood" and nothing else....but I digress.

To answer your question of what "sounds" better, it brings out the basis of the argument....."PREFERENCE"  So let's keep it that way....and not make your PERSONAL PREFERENCE a PRINCIPAL that all must live by.



b717doc said:


> Good Gravy, Sorry I opened a can....All of this certainly clears it up for me!!! Now Im REALLY confused....All I know is what my family went through in 2007, when my life was taken by Satan, nearly ending my marriage.  I fell to my knees, with all my heart, and asked God to take me, take my life, and to be my savior and redeemer. At that exact second, I felt as if 500 pounds of weight come off my shoulders, and an overwhelming feeling of "everything is gonna be alright", and I slept for the first time in 4 days....I truly felt God touch my heart, and have been following his directions every since.  My marriage of 17 years was saved (after 2 affairs), and in now fluorishing more than ever now that God is with us. We were "re-married" in April, Baptised on Easter Sunday, and have joined our Church.......Then, day before yesterday, my little brother jumped on my back, relentlessly, and has not let up since, doubting my salvation, my Church, and the direction I have decided to take with God...I don't know whether to be hurt, disappointed in him, believe him, or what....All I know is what's in my heart.  I told him that my Church invited me to become a "Stephen Minister", which entails 3 or so months of class room, which I was looking forward to, and kind of proud of, but he scorned and started quoting scripture, saying that I did'nt need ANYONE to teach me ANYTHING, and that they're ALL deceived...Just gonna follow my heart at this point, and carry on....Contemplating visiting my little brothers Church this Sunday....When I told him that...he freaked (wonder why?)....



b717doc,
Study your Bible...pray that the Lord would make His will known to you.  Make sure your heart lines up with His Word and you will be good to go.

Praise God that He has snatched you out of Satan's grasp and planted you firmly upon the Rock of Salvation!


----------



## kiltedpresbyterian (Aug 14, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The reason you find that in the NASB is because that's the way the most reliable early text reads.
> The kjv might sound better, but the NASB tried to stick to the original text.



Well said!

And Pigpen- Go back and read what I said. I have answered your question 2 times. 

However you seem to blast right by the contradiction you are willing to accept with your stance. You have no issue with KJ and his open homosexuality and his takeover of the church and his persecution of the Church but Murdoch bothers you???

And beenhuntin- The very idea that the KJV IS the Word of God and no other... YOu obviously have so little historical perspective or study here that you cannot be thought serious. Of all the arguments made that is the most ridiculous statement in 3 pages of this thread.

You just tossed everyone who does not or cannot read the KJV (chinese, africa, Germans) to H E L L. Kind of like the muslims. Cause if you can't read the Quran in Arabic you can't really attain Paradise. 

Oh and what about all those theologians who lived before the KJV... So Calvin didn't have the word of God? Luther? Augustine? Wycliffe? 

Ridiculous statement.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> yes, the KJ is the true Word of God. I have studied and compared the KJ versus the others and the KJ is the closest that you can get to the originals in the English language. your brother is right on. There is 1 God so why would 1 God want numerous different versions of His word....? He doesnt. There is only 1 true Church... Once you study the authorized 1611 KJ version... you will understand why it is the Word of God.
> 
> i'll give you one of many examples... the av 1611 KJ Bible is not copyrighted... all of the others are...  hmmm, i wonder why...?  the NIV is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is one of the biggest pornographers in the world.  do you want a Bible written by the Holy Spirit or by a pornographer?
> 
> ...



Oh boy!  This guy is gonna be a whole lot of fun!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Oh boy!  This guy is gonna be a whole lot of fun!



You should've read what he posted about a church having a horseshoe throwing tourney on a Saturday.  I can tell he doesn't go to your church


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 14, 2009)

b717doc said:


> Good Gravy, Sorry I opened a can....All of this certainly clears it up for me!!! Now Im REALLY confused....All I know is what my family went through in 2007, when my life was taken by Satan, nearly ending my marriage.  I fell to my knees, with all my heart, and asked God to take me, take my life, and to be my savior and redeemer. At that exact second, I felt as if 500 pounds of weight come off my shoulders, and an overwhelming feeling of "everything is gonna be alright", and I slept for the first time in 4 days....I truly felt God touch my heart, and have been following his directions every since.  My marriage of 17 years was saved (after 2 affairs), and in now fluorishing more than ever now that God is with us. We were "re-married" in April, Baptised on Easter Sunday, and have joined our Church.......Then, day before yesterday, my little brother jumped on my back, relentlessly, and has not let up since, doubting my salvation, my Church, and the direction I have decided to take with God...I don't know whether to be hurt, disappointed in him, believe him, or what....All I know is what's in my heart.  I told him that my Church invited me to become a "Stephen Minister", which entails 3 or so months of class room, which I was looking forward to, and kind of proud of, but he scorned and started quoting scripture, saying that I did'nt need ANYONE to teach me ANYTHING, and that they're ALL deceived...Just gonna follow my heart at this point, and carry on....Contemplating visiting my little brothers Church this Sunday....When I told him that...he freaked (wonder why?)....




Buddy, as I said early in the thread....I've read your story (or the parts that you've posted here in the forums).  It is a magnificent one.

I can share parts of it and understand the feeling of what SHOULD have been the worst day of your life actually turning out to be the BEST!  I celebrate that with you and am unbelievably proud of and for you for where you are now.

I want to just implore you...PLEASE!  I know he's your brother and it's hard to seperate family from feelings.  He is wrong in this case...not just about KJV (or whatever his issue is).  He is wrong for pretending that he can tell you whether or not your salvation is real.

Listen man.  You KNOW what happened.  You KNOW where your heart is now and you KNOW who you belong to.  Does the God you know care which version of the Bible you read?  Ask yourself that.  I think you've already answered it and you're just torn because you love your brother.

To suggest that you don't need anybody else is just silly and is unbiblical.  We DO need other people.  God designed us that way.  We DO need good counselors, whether trained or just friends to listen.  But we DO need others and he is being ridiculous to suggest otherwise. 

It sounds like you have a great church family surrounding you that is walking with you through this crisis and recovery.  Please please please don't let your brother sow seeds of doubt about whether that is godly or necessary.  IT IS!!!!

I can list instance after instance in the Bible (whichever version you or he choose) where God clearly shows us that we need others.  He could have chosen to design us differently....but he didn't.

It starts in Genesis chapter 2 with the very first human crisis...."aloneness".  The ONLY thing about the original creation that God said was "not good" was the fact that Adam was alone.  

If I've added to your confusion in any of my posts, I ask your forgiveness.  But, please, take some advice fromm someone you've never met but whose heart breaks for your situation....tell your brother you love him....and to go jump in a lake!


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Christ's death cover's our sin and his resurrection conquers death.  It is a two part deal.  Seems as if the Baptist KJV only folks just want to focus on the "blood" and nothing else....but I digress.
> 
> To answer your question of what "sounds" better, it brings out the basis of the argument....."PREFERENCE"  So let's keep it that way....and not make your PERSONAL PREFERENCE a PRINCIPAL that all must live by.



On the first one, the whole thing is based on blood, new and old covenants. Of course his death was the sacrifice, but it had to be pure blood.

On the second one, I agree! Totally.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

Spotlite said:


> On the first one, the whole thing is based on blood, new and old covenants. Of course his death was the sacrifice, but it had to be pure blood.
> 
> On the second one, I agree! Totally.



Well...at least we can agree on the second one

But on the blood thing, yes it had to be pure blood.  But does the ommission of "blood" in the NIV change the meaning of the verse?  To me, it doesn't change anything.  Christ died.  

If we focus just on the "blood" could He have just pricked His finger?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Well...at least we can agree on the second one
> 
> But on the blood thing, yes it had to be pure blood.  But does the ommission of "blood" in the NIV change the meaning of the verse?  To me, it doesn't change anything.  Christ died.
> 
> If we focus just on the "blood" could He have just pricked His finger?



I just understand why one would want to leave it out??? jmo is all.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You should've read what he posted about a church having a horseshoe throwing tourney on a Saturday.  I can tell he doesn't go to your church



if you're on a ship that is sinking and there is thousands of drowning people all around you... are you gonna go throw horseshoes or have a donut sale?  or are you gonna help save the lives of the people around you that are dying? and sinking to the bottom of the ocean?

none of you people understand that people all around you are dying and going to helll.  and you dont care. you want to go off and play games...


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> if you're on a ship that is sinking and there is thousands of drowning people all around you... are you gonna go throw horseshoes or have a donut sale? or are you gonna help save the lives of the people around you that are dying? and sinking to the bottom of the ocean?



This is a joke, right?  How could someone on a sinking ship help anyone that's drowning?



BeenHuntn said:


> none of you people understand that people all around you are dying and going to helll.  and you dont care. you want to go off and play games...



Do you ever go off and hunt game?


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 14, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Just for completeness, here are documented problems with the KJV. I have no problem with the KJV, but you KJVO folks are a trip!
> 
> God said in His Bible that His words (written and in the Scriptures) will be forever and perfect.  So there has to be at least 1 Bible out there that is perfect.  The same way that Jesus said My Church will last forever. Jesus has only 1Church. this evil world has many religions but there is only 1church and there is only 1 Bible.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> if you're on a ship that is sinking and there is thousands of drowning people all around you... are you gonna go throw horseshoes or have a donut sale?  or are you gonna help save the lives of the people around you that are dying? and sinking to the bottom of the ocean?
> 
> none of you people understand that people all around you are dying and going to helll.  and you dont care. you want to go off and play games...



Oh....you are gonna be SO much fun!  PLEASE hang around for a while!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> if you're on a ship that is sinking and there is thousands of drowning people all around you... are you gonna go throw horseshoes or have a donut sale?  or are you gonna help save the lives of the people around you that are dying? and sinking to the bottom of the ocean?
> 
> none of you people understand that people all around you are dying and going to helll.  and you dont care. you want to go off and play games...



What if that horseshoe has a line attached to it that is tied to a life preserver?  That horseshoe's weight will allow you to throw the life preserver further and reach more people than by just throwing a life preserver by itself.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> Jesus has only 1Church. this evil world has many religions but there is only 1church and there is only 1 Bible.
> ...



Wow...you're sounding Catholic now.




Huntinfool said:


> Oh....you are gonna be SO much fun!  PLEASE hang around for a while!



kinda reminds you of bpique huh?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 14, 2009)

rj.....did you know that people around you are dieing and going to He||?  I had no idea!!!

I just thought church was for covered dishes, horshoes....and of course, tax write-offs.  We're supposed to be doing something else?

MAN!  I've had it all wrong this whole time!  Can you believe it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> kinda reminds you of bpique huh?



SO much fun!  Where has he been my whole life!  I just hope we don't shut the place down again.


Where's earl and pnome at?  They're gonna have a field day!  If my bow doesn't get here soon, I'm gonna be forced to hang out in here more.  I can't bear reading posts in there not having a bow!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> rj.....did you know that people around you are dieing and going to He||?  I had no idea!!!
> 
> I just thought church was for covered dishes, horshoes....and of course, tax write-offs.  We're supposed to be doing something else?
> 
> MAN!  I've had it all wrong this whole time!  Can you believe it?



Oh boy...don't get the whole 501c3 debate going again


----------



## earl (Aug 14, 2009)

His profile says he is a business owner. Hope it ain't a money changing bidness.


----------



## earl (Aug 14, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> farmasis said:
> 
> 
> > Just for completeness, here are documented problems with the KJV. I have no problem with the KJV, but you KJVO folks are a trip!
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

earl said:


> I don't suppose you could get off your pedestal for a minute and tell us which bible we should be using and which church we should be going to. I hope it ain;t the UMC cause I don't do effeminate too good. And I hope it's an e3nglish language bible cause my Hebrew skills are nonexistent.



earl...you really nead to take a short webex on how to master quote's within Woody's.  Farmasis is likely to get upset when you quote gonhuntin and then attribute it to himself.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...you're sounding Catholic now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this this the 2nd or 3rd reincarnation?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> Is this this the 2nd or 3rd reincarnation?



Well...first was bpique...then second was something I can't remember...third was gohoggin....fourth is gonhuntin

funny thing is, there are many who change their usernames...or add a second username to "start over."  It is only a matter of time before they say or post the same thing and the truth is revealed.

I understand though...sometimes we all just need a fresh start....and in the online world, we can do it as people only know us by our username and location.  In the real world, once you've said something/done something, it is out there and you have no recourse other than to say..."Please Forgive Me"....a sign of true humility.


----------



## earl (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> earl...you really nead to take a short webex on how to master quote's within Woody's.  Farmasis is likely to get upset when you quote gonhuntin and then attribute it to himself.





MY APOLOGIES !!!!!! You are absolutely correct. I did say I was slow 24/7 .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Once again-please answer if "your" Bible has the book of Macabees in it.
> 
> The AUTHORIZED KING JAMES 1611 Bible has these books as well:
> 
> ...



still waiting to hear about this one....


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 14, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> still waiting to hear about this one....



My Bible does


----------



## farmasis (Aug 14, 2009)

earl said:


> I don't suppose you could get off your pedestal for a minute and tell us which bible we should be using and which church we should be going to. I hope it ain;t the UMC cause I don't do effeminate too good. And I hope it's an e3nglish language bible cause my Hebrew skills are nonexistent.


 
Me? I am not requiring any specific text.

Maybe I should requote myself......

The best translation.......




			
				farmasis said:
			
		

> Choose whatever version that allows you to read as much scripture as possible, and pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth in what you read.
> 
> *<SUP>12</SUP>* “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear _them_ now. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-26735>*13*</SUP> However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own _authority,_ but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-26736>*14*</SUP> He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare _it_ to you. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-26737>*15*</SUP> All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare _it_ to you. (John 16)
> 
> You cannot go wrong with that formula, ever!


 
Does that sound like a person on a pedestal?
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3893329&postcount=102


----------



## farmasis (Aug 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> earl...you really nead to take a short webex on how to master quote's within Woody's. Farmasis is likely to get upset when you quote gonhuntin and then attribute it to himself.


 
Oh--ok Got it...

Not upset, but I was confused....


----------



## earl (Aug 14, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Oh--ok Got it...
> 
> Not upset, but I was confused....




Again ,my apologies.
The state of confusion is usually my domain.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 14, 2009)

I am back.......but only for a few minutes. What happened to the kiltedpresbyterian. I came home and I noticed under his name it said he is banned. Did he drop his skirt or something. 



rjcruiser said:


> Okay....will we go 147 posts until Pigpen almost gets banned again?



 Looks like we have a record with this KJV thread.


----------



## earl (Aug 14, 2009)

I missed that . I bet that set a record too.


----------



## pigpen1 (Aug 14, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> still waiting to hear about this one....



 I have a couple that do, would you like one???????


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 14, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I am back.......but only for a few minutes. What happened to the kiltedpresbyterian. I came home and I noticed under his name it said he is banned. Did he drop his skirt or something.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like we have a record with this KJV thread.



Where did he go


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 14, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> Where did he go



The world wonders. I don't know if it was one particular post or a series of posts that got him booted.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 14, 2009)

I'd have to say that it doesn't matter which bible you use,,,,,,,,,,I mean REALLY !!!!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ANnm8DUbpMU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ANnm8DUbpMU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 14, 2009)

b717doc, I hope you're still looking at this thread. I didn't post in it to start with and then it ran seriously off the rails! What should have been an opportunity to give a new believer some good advice turned into a food fight.

I'm still a pretty new believer myself and I prefer the KJV, but I have an NKJV and an NASB(what my pastor uses), and I use all three. I'm not familiar with the ESV and I don't really care for NIV myself, but I would say first of all PRAY and ask for God's guidance. Get several translations  and read them all. Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you.

God bless you brother.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 14, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> I'd have to say that it doesn't matter which bible you use,,,,,,,,,,I mean REALLY !!!!
> 
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ANnm8DUbpMU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ANnm8DUbpMU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



Scooter,
You been hangin' around six million dollar lately


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 14, 2009)

I never read in any Bible, that says: "The King James Version is the only authorized Bible."  Ridiculous.   Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 15, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> I never read in any Bible, that says: "The King James Version is the only authorized Bible." Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.


 
Absolutely, and if you'll take time to listen to the video I posted, that man speaks the truth about what will save you, and I can assure you it ain't the KJV or any other singular version of a translation of the Bible. So, who cares!!??


----------



## pnome (Aug 15, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Where's earl and pnome at?



We're here.  Sorry if we're late...

We've just been having a heated argument over which comic publisher has the greater superheros.  Marvel or DC.

Earl says Marvel.  He says that because there are more movies about Marvel comic superheros they must be better.  But this is basically just an argument from popularity.

I side with DC in this one because it's clear that Superman _alone_ could defeat all of the Marvel superheros combined.


----------



## earl (Aug 15, 2009)

No he can't and you know it in your heart !!!!!!!!!You know I am right ,you ,you... ,you .....[banned]


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 15, 2009)

I think it's clear that DC is better--Superman, Batman, Watchmen, Green Lantern--all of whom are clearly KJV-only.


----------



## earl (Aug 15, 2009)

Just like a new guy to side with the atheist ,you, you.. you.... [banned again]

Man I had a rough night !!


----------



## Big7 (Aug 15, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> b717doc-- The landscape looks a bit like this:
> 
> *Vulgate Bible* (*closest to the actual original writings*); . . .



Funny.....

It took a newbe to the forum to splain to ya'll what I been tryin' to splain all these years. 

Now... I'm off to search my posts.
Will edit later with some show threads/posts.

Here's the edit.
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3543593&postcount=14
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3048907&postcount=27
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3048909&postcount=28
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3051484&postcount=39


Sure would be easy for ya'll to just come on back home.
If everyone was on the same page... sure would be easy to help out the OP.


----------



## Jedi Pastor Ken (Aug 15, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Funny.....
> 
> It took a newbe to the forum to splain to ya'll what I been tryin' to splain all these years.
> 
> ...



Nice.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 15, 2009)

Big7 said:


> .....Sure would be easy for ya'll to just come on back home.
> If everyone was on the same page... sure would be easy to help out the OP.



Man, that would be nice.  Everybody on the same page again


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 15, 2009)

Big7:  You will notice that I said, and I believe accurately, “closest to the actual original writings.”   Please do not take this statement to constitute an endorsement, but merely a scholarly observation.  You can clearly see from the alacrity of the various sects to rally behind their own particular version that religion takes a back seat to partisanship in these matters, and history is well lost in the fog . . .   

The truth, as history well documents, is that the Vulgate was the original expansion of the Torah, and the collections of stories and parables and mythologies that constitute the ‘New’ testament, expanding and expounding on the collection of same which constituted the ‘Old’ testament, is best studied in the closest form available in the Vulgate.  

The Protestant Reformation began, perhaps officially, in the writings and preachings of John Wycliffe in about 1374, and was born out of colossal envy and covetousness.  It was felt that the Roman church was too wealthy, too powerful, and too dictatorial.  Obviously, the secular monarchs of the day agreed, since any limits on their own power were intolerable as well, and to bow to the Church of Rome was insulting.  Granted, the abuses in the all-powerful ecclesiastical community of the day were rife, and invited a revolt, but it still took a couple more hundred years before this revolt became a full-fledged movement (around 1517, when Martin Luther led the charge).  Then came John Calvin, Geneva, the Peasant’s Revolt, the Zwinglians, and the modern paradox of “constitutional revolution.”  Suddenly everyone and his maiden aunt, from Kings to kooks were re-writing this ‘Bible’ to include parts they liked and to leave out parts they didn’t like.  

The results of this ‘Reformation’ by those who protested, (literally, ‘Protestants’), is plain to see – hundreds of different sects, from Quakers to Shakers to Witnesses to Latter Day Saints – all believing that the version their sect wrote is the one True Word.  You can’t blame them for that – it is all they were taught from the day they could speak, and they were told in no uncertain terms that they should not question their ‘Faith’ as handed down to them.  And while I look at the whole of it from a bemused distance, personally, I’ll still be the first to say that anything that guides a life into proper behavior - however inaccurate, wrong-headed, ill-thought, and utterly fanciful it may be – is certainly not a bad thing.  If one wishes to believe that an alien being from Cygnus X-9 that was half Frog and half Butterfly visited them in a dream and told them to be a good person, well, okay.  Go with it.  I mean, folks like that probably don’t get invited to your better sorts of social gatherings, but it seems harmless enough to me . . . 

Problems only arise, as one can clearly see above, when the sects decide to go head-to-head about it, and decide that studying their thoughts and beliefs takes a back seat to enforcing them.  Right at that point the reasonable folks in the community had better stand . . .


----------



## gms1911 (Aug 27, 2009)

The Apostle James said it beautifully: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.


----------



## earl (Aug 27, 2009)

gms1911 said:


> The Apostle James said it beautifully: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.






Or you could just ask BeenHuntin.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

earl said:


> Or you could just ask BeenHuntin.



thats is correct. anyone can ask me for wisdom and i will send them to the Bible... but dont ask earl, because his advice will send you to the lake of fire...


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 28, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> thats is correct. anyone can ask me for wisdom and i will send them to the Bible... but dont ask earl, because his advice will send you to the lake of fire...



Apparently BeenHuntn missed the "without finding fault" part of that James passage.


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> thats is correct. anyone can ask me for wisdom and i will send them to the Bible... but dont ask earl, because his advice will send you to the lake of fire...





You know me so well.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

Chemical_Jacket said:


> Apparently BeenHuntn missed the "without finding fault" part of that James passage.



James was written to Christians and for Christians... earl does not claim to be a Christian...


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 28, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> James was written to Christians and for Christians... earl does not claim to be a Christian...



Nonetheless, I believe God honors a sincere prayer for spiritual wisdom, even from one who does not yet know Christ.  A prayer for wisdom is a prayer for more of God, and He loves to give Himself.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

Chemical_Jacket said:


> Nonetheless, I believe God honors a sincere prayer for spiritual wisdom, even from one who does not yet know Christ.  A prayer for wisdom is a prayer for more of God, and He loves to give Himself.



God does not answer the prayers of the unsaved... unless He wants to of course... but the Bible says that most prayers will not be answered unless they are prayers for righteousness, to be saved, repentance, etc...

if a unbeliever prays for health, money, etc...  i dont think so... but if they seek God, i think their prayers have a chance...


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> God does not answer the prayers of the unsaved... unless He wants to of course... but the Bible says that most prayers will not be answered unless they are prayers for righteousness, to be saved, repentance, etc...
> 
> if a unbeliever prays for health, money, etc...  i dont think so... but if they seek God, i think their prayers have a chance...





Does that imply that  a Christian's prayer for health and money will be answered ,or does he have roughly the same chance as a sinner ?

An unbeliever's prayer has ''a chance'' of being heard if they are seeking God ?

You have a unique and unusual understanding of the bible and the route to salvation. How do you feel about 5 solas ?

My typing finger is dripping with sarcasm.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

earl said:


> Does that imply that  a Christian's prayer for health and money will be answered ,or does he have roughly the same chance as a sinner ?
> 
> An unbeliever's prayer has ''a chance'' of being heard if they are seeking God ?
> 
> ...




my understanding of the Bible about prayers is this, whether right or wrong:

Believer:  he's repented and been born-again...  he is seeking God with all his heart.  he hates his sin and wants to please God and live for Jesus with everything he has...  he carrys his cross daily and has removed himself from the world (Biblically)... i believe his prayers, no matter what they are for, will have a great chance of being answered by God.  he is one of God's elect and has his name written in the Book of Life...  his prayers are heard and answered on higher % than others...

Unbeliever:  he is still in his wicked ways, rejects the Word of God, lives for himself and is totally worldly. his god is himself or his car or his job or whatever else that can satisfy his flesh.  typical worldly unsaved sinner... if this guy hits a snag and asks God for something in prayer, i think his chances of getting that prayerd answered are slim to none...  God says that He will not answer the prayers of the wicked (assuming those prayers are for the persons, health, wealth, job, etc...)... now if this unbeliever repents, seeks God, accepts Jesus as his savior and wants to truly seek God with all of his heart, than yes, God will hear that prayer and will respond favorably. then once justification has taken place for this unbeliever... than he has the same chance of his other prayers as anyo ther Believer...

make sense?


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2009)

No . If that were the case ,believers prayers being answered more often, Than medical records and researchers would be showing a disproportionate number of unbelievers in need of medical attention. 
Financial institutions ditto. 
As far as an unbeliever seeking God,  I have been told by almost all Christians asked , That God well indeed answer his prayers . If he didn't Christians would die out with the current crop of believers. 
Justification is not mentioned in John 3 : 16. I only see one requirement there.
Make sense ?


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

earl said:


> No . If that were the case ,believers prayers being answered more often, Than medical records and researchers would be showing a disproportionate number of unbelievers in need of medical attention.
> Financial institutions ditto.
> As far as an unbeliever seeking God,  I have been told by almost all Christians asked , That God well indeed answer his prayers . If he didn't Christians would die out with the current crop of believers.
> Justification is not mentioned in John 3 : 16. I only see one requirement there.
> Make sense ?



first of all, God is not great big genie up in the sky that only exists to answer prayers. most Christians prayers are not perfectly answered because that Christian is still in sin... here's an example.

James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. _*The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.*_

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, _*so that nothing will hinder your prayers.*_

1 Peter 3:12
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

earl, prayer is to be made in a sense that brings glory to God... if you have a man praying for wealth (whether he is saved or not...) that prayer is likely to go unheard.  unless he is some kind of massive saint, like solomon was in his early days...

if an athiest prays for healing or wealth... no way dude, it aint happening.  why should God reward the wicked.  but if that wicked man repents, gets humble and seeks Jesus,..,.., that is a different story...

you are looking at worldy carnal things... merryl lynch and bank of america... bbb. God does not give a dam about the wealth of a man.  He is looking at their hearts and to see if this person can be saved and become a servant of Christ...  ex.... below

John 4:22-25 
22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." 

 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

God can answer the prayer of anyone... but the Bible (using the entire Book) shows that those who are seeking God with all of their hearts and are looking to worship God in spirit and in truth are much more likely to get their prayer answered than some heathan who just wants to get rid of his std that came from sin the first place...

i have learned that when i pray, mo matter what i am praying for... that my prayer is to bring glory to God and to be His will... not for me.

i'll make up an example... if one of my youngans got deathly sick. my prayers would be for that trial to bring glory and praise to God.  If my child was required in heaven and that was the will of the Lord, i am all for it, no natter how much pain i would go thru...  ex., below...

John 9:2-4 (KJV)

 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 

 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 


earl, all that matters is the glory of God and His amazing will. I would not want my child to go to heaven and 7 years old. it would crush me BUT, if it would be the will of the Lord that would make it the best thing.

God may have some wonderful plan for my child in heaven that cannot be fulfilled from the earth...

my goal is to bring glory to the Lord, at all costs....  the Bible says that that is the chief aim of man... to bring Glory to God.

please walk outside your home right now and count stars until you cannot count any more...  which should be about 3...



sorry... couldnt resist....  no matter how many stars you counted. whether 3 or 3000... all of them were created by God. what can you create? can you create a grain of sand? i didnt think so but neither can i...

God is so awesome that our worship falls very short of what He deserves.  He thinks the words and it happens.  He breathes life into people as if it were nothing.  He loves the wicked man even tho he is filled with sin that cannot be in His presence...

people just dont understand how great God is.  He keeps our hearts beating. He keeps satan from killing us.  He answers our prayers.  He keeps us from death.  He makes the sun shine and then He makes the Son shine...  God is so awesome and its a shame that most people will reject Him and all of His glory...  terrible shame.

earl we live close by... we should grab a cup of coffee one day... you never know... you may not hate me nearly as much as you act like on here...


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2009)

No hate my good man. You make some unique [ to me ] comments that I try to follow and follow up on. You brought up the prayers for health and wealth and I was trying to follow that to a conclusion.
 It sound s like you are now saying that whoever prays for health and wealth is likely to be disappointed since they aren't praying for the glory of God. 
 I am going to have to bail for a while and get a little shut eye . Might just try counting stars . LOL


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Man, that would be nice.  Everybody on the same page again



i guess that it would just not matter that we would all be on the same page again... but , we alll be totally wrong in all of our doctrines....

thanks guys, but i am gonna choose to be correct and in the truth of the Bible instead of the manmade doctrines of your dress wearing men...


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

earl said:


> No hate my good man. You make some unique [ to me ] comments that I try to follow and follow up on. You brought up the prayers for health and wealth and I was trying to follow that to a conclusion.
> It sound s like you are now saying that whoever prays for health and wealth is likely to be disappointed since they aren't praying for the glory of God.
> I am going to have to bail for a while and get a little shut eye . Might just try counting stars . LOL



yeh, count some stars,,, you 'll be out before you get to ten,,, assuming you can get there.,.,  

im just kidding with yuou man.  your posts are screaming, I AM AN UNBELIEVER!!!;;;;   and that is cool.  we were all there at one time.

but yes, if you walk into QT tomorrow and buy 100 lottos for  the mega millions,,,, you are going to be sorryy because you want win... its a prayer based on the greed of men, which brings no glory to God.

God is looking for your heart. He wants you to seek Him.  He wants you to knock on His door, in fact, beat it down...  you cannot have too much zeal for the Lord... God Rocks and people suck... I may get a crown in heaven for that one...

GN earl


----------



## earl (Aug 29, 2009)

''thanks guys, but i am gonna choose to be correct and in the truth of the Bible instead of the manmade doctrines of your dress wearing men... ''


TWO......


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 29, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> thanks guys, but i am gonna choose to be correct and in the truth of the Bible instead of the manmade doctrines of your dress wearing men...


 
Interesting.


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 29, 2009)

For the record, I am not currently wearing, nor have I ever worn, a dress.  Just thought I'd get that out there.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 29, 2009)

Chemical_Jacket said:


> For the record, I am not currently wearing, nor have I ever worn, a dress. Just thought I'd get that out there.


 
The mere fact that you had to publicly state that brings your man card into question..

Besides, what would be traditional biblical garments would be considered dresses by some self righteous types now a day..


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 29, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> The mere fact that you had to publicly state that brings your man card into question..



Okay, how about this:


```
me + NIV != me + dress
```

(For you non-computer science types, "!=" means "does not equal.")



scooter1 said:


> Besides, what would be traditional biblical garments would be considered dresses by some self righteous types now a day..


----------



## Lorri (Aug 29, 2009)

HoytGirl07 said:


> As long as you give your life to God and love and obey him then you will be on his side. I have been to churches where you have to dress really nice and all that kind of stuff, now I go to church where we wear what we want, we are not there to impress anyone we are there for GOD. As long as you are there for him it shouldnt matter what bible you use or what you wear. BE there for the right reason.



I use the NKJV version or whatever version is put up on the church screen  - I agree with you about giving your life to GOD.  I have been to churches as well that wanted woman to wear dresses and skirts all the times - did not permit women to wear pants.  I go to FBCW now and they don't care what you wear to church as long as you GO and are there for GOD. It is about reaching people to know God and not turning people away because of what they wear. That is true about the bible God doesn't care what bible you use as long as you are in his word.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 29, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> James 5:16
> Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. _*The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.*_
> 
> 1 Peter 3:7
> ...



BeenHuntn-You DO realize you quoted scripture that is not KJV don't you? 
In the VERY SAME thread where you doubted both the sexuality and sincerity of those who use any other version! 

Classic. Totally classic.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 30, 2009)

...Crickets...


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 30, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> BeenHuntn-You DO realize you quoted scripture that is not KJV don't you?
> In the VERY SAME thread where you doubted both the sexuality and sincerity of those who use any other version!
> 
> Classic. Totally classic.



ddd, i have studied the Bibles and where they came from and from who. i am sure you have studied things and gained an understanding of those things to much higher degree than other folks. so have i.

i know that if a porno king prints a (so-called) bible... than that aint a true Bible. if you want to read an niv... thats fine. i 'll do it if i have to. if theres no KJ around. if i go to a dr's office and sit there and wait and  theres a niv sitting on the table, i may read from it. its better than reading from the people mag sitting next to it,... but i aint gonna study from it.

and i do not recall questioning anyones sincerity or sexuality. i know some people who are truly born again saved people who like the niv. i disagree with them but i aint gonna start a ruckus.  if they are saved and true Christians... reading the niv is not gonna send them to hades.


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 31, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> i disagree with them but i aint gonna start a ruckus.  if they are saved and true Christians... reading the niv is not gonna send them to hades.



A very reasonable way to disagree.


----------



## redneckcamo (Aug 31, 2009)

I have in my home a  nkjv,  kjv  , amplified  , nasb , open bible , niv , and several others ..... if I was raised on something other than the kjv that is probably what I would read the most ..... 

I have heard this discussion in many churches and it always causes division .


----------



## earl (Aug 31, 2009)

Some of the posts would make a slick politician envious .
Jiminy Cricket !!!!!!!


----------



## 1john4:4 (Sep 23, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> If he told you that, he's got some major pride issues to deal with.
> 
> Choose a version that you can read well.  Lots of folks have issues with the NIV....I wouldn't worry about it man.  There are THOUSANDS of churches and pastors who use it and, yes....they are saved.
> 
> ...






YOU SAID IT BROTHER!!!!!! This is nothing more than a stumbling block for new believers!!!!!! You get what ever version you can understand the best. Look at John 3:16 in all versions and you see that God gave his only Boy to die in our place... The KJV is just a version. Always remember it is not about religion it is ALL about the relationship. The pharisees were religious. BUT Mary with tears in her eyes at the foot of the cross (She had a relationship)!!!! Pray that your brother throws away his religious views and builds on his relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ... In my opinion this is no different than someone who professes to be a Christian BUT he will not give up his seat to a lost man who God intends on saving at the invitation!!!!!!


----------



## sfretwell (Sep 23, 2009)

If more Americans, or Christians, rather, would spend the time and effort studying Hebrew and Greek we would have a much better understanding of Biblical texts.  A great deal of Biblical meaning has been lost in translation - even in the KJV.


----------



## CRT (Sep 23, 2009)

Sorry if this has already been posted. I couldn't make myself wade through all 200+ posts. 

_Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. _(John 3:36)


----------

