It's not "cart before the horse" if you've established the KJV as your standard, but even if you don't, the Holy Ghost will teach you. But if you do, there's no prohibition to comparing scripture with scripture and there's no fear of personal "corruption" because you've already established a standard.

Maybe its me or my English or something but my KJV doesn't have the word David either, so I really don't see this as any valid argument.You brethren are giving me the 'so called' missing links, and so far I've not seen one valid example. I've got my Logos, QuickVerse and SwordSearcher standing buy so give me some real examples please.

Deal Breaker Definition: any issue or factor that is significant enough to terminate a negotiation, so why can you be so literal in some of your arguments, and generic in others.

For Example: here you point out but that does not answer the literal claim of missing verses, and here you point out a literal comparison between he and God. To me you change the argument to change your need, but I detect where the real problem may lay that may show why I haven't grasped this yet... you really need to relax, that is just a figure of expression by me about this issue, and you take it soooo literal. I take the Gospel literal as that is what the Holy Spirit has imparted upon my heart, through the words I read out of a Good News Bible to accept my salvation, according my take on what the KJV-only argument is, that should never happen as I didn't read perfectly preserved words from a KJV bible.

I am going to try and spend more time in study on this topic rather then continue this (to me) never ending redundant argument. I'm wasting time here where I should be arming myself with truth. I thank everyone for there input, it has opened my eyes to a very real topic for study, thank you all who contributed to causing me to think.

I was recently laid off work, so my blessings now are on the basics, I will when I get back to work, thank you.

I am aware of all the nuances of the disparate versions... I studied them years ago. I don't use the NIV or ESV.Actually, 2 Sam 21:19 ("Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim") does contradict 1 Chron 20:5 ("Elhanan the son of Jair"). I'll let Clarke's commentary do the talking:

Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Ch_20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.” This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.
(end of Clarke commentary)

There is a lengthier treatise on the subject expounding the same thing. This contradiction is of little import; it has no affect on biblical doctrine.

The ref for David's killing of Goliath is 1 Sam 17:49.

I dunno how this thumbs-down icon appeared in the above post; it was not intended. It was likely clicked on by accident during composing.

All: Yes, man, relax. You don't feed a babe with meat instead of milk.

Context is always important. Paul is not saying he does not care how God's Word is changed or how someone says something (ie. whether it is true or not) - what he said was that it does not matter what someone's motives were in preaching about Christ, as long as they preached the truth about Christ. And the more mvs are watering down and changing the Word of God, the less truth about Him you are getting.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You would be better off comparing things within the Bible itself, precept upon precept - rather than running to other corrupted versions to try to help you understand the KJV (or whatever other version someone prefers).

Doing Bible study out of multiple modern versions is never going to give you a greater understanding of the Bible, but will in fact give you a lowest common denominator approach to the Bible (ie. eventually you will start throwing out specifics and stick with generalities - whatever they all have in common; however, where they differ will be discarded).

a reminder of the topic
 

Just a quick reminder or the topic:

http://www.communitybaptistchurch.co...amentalist.htm

Thanks

In that last ref you quoted, that's very revealing. Whose god are you referring to... God himself, or Bible versions? (Selah) :D

Remember the Philippians ref I mentioned.

I agree partially in that the chief error is not so much through error of doctrine but that of motive, but there will always be corruption of God's word. Basically, two streams of Bibles, one corrupt, one not. But God is greater than the corruption; the Holy Ghost is able to lead and teach even through a corrupt text, particularly for someone new to the scriptures. In other words, the corruption of versions are not deep enough to affect the basics of the Gospel. Line upon line, precept upon precept. First clean the inside of the cup and platter, then the outside will be clean, too.

Touche, you're correct regarding comparing versions versus internal comparing (I used that to throw him off) :D

But actually... this verse is commonly understood to mean comparing the spiritual things under the Old Testament with the spiritual things under the New (which is perfectly valid): but this does not appear to be the apostle’s meaning. The word συγκρινοντες, which we translate "comparing," rather signifies conferring, discussing, or explaining; and the word πνευματικοις should be rendered to spiritual men, and not be referred to spiritual things. The passage therefore should be thus translated: Explaining spiritual things to spiritual persons. And this sense the following verse absolutely requires.

Simply that our pure and perfect God has given us His pure and perfect word. And those who grossly refuse to even notice the huge issue of two very different contenders for his pure word should at least notice the issue and not pretend that they can straddle a fence between truth and falsehood. If they actually believed the modern versions are true, the only proper path would be to stop reading the King James Bible. If the Received Text and King James Bible are true, then the only proper path is to stop reading the modern versions based on the alexandrian mss.

In my own life I came to that realization and understood that with the pure Bible I had to come to the point of:

..choose you this day whom ye will serve..Joshua 24:15

At first, when I made that choice, I began to read the New King James Version as my daily Bible. Later I learned more and put that version aside for the pure and perfect King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

Bad link, Gord.

I see the problem, but my edit for that post is gone... job for super moderator !

There is a big difference between having enough of the Bible unchanged to bring someone to salvation, and having enough changed that they will not be able to learn God's will for them each day. There is more at stake than just getting saved - we are also to live daily by the Word of God. If it is corrupted, it will affect my daily walk.

I have no idea why you keep quoting this verse in reference to modern Bible versions - unless you are trying to imply that those who take a stand solely on the KJV are hypocrites (which I believe is an unjust accusation - there certainly will be some hypocrites in whatever side someone takes on the issue, but that doesn't make all on one side hypocrites).

Explaining is different than comparing. I believe two primary applications are:

1) Comparing things within the Bible itself.
2) Comparing what someone says/teaches with the Word of God itself.

That is a rigid path Steve. That is the path the Lord has given us. Amen! I will just say that I believe folks are missing out on good typology teaching to learn of the attributes of God. He is a Holy God. He wants us to know the difference between the holy and the unholy.

"And that ye may put a difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." Lev 10:10

That takes a willingness to come under the authority of God's words. Truth is not subjective. Folks want to pick and choose what they want to hear. Dr. Fuller admonished folks to have a conviction, not a preference. Anything other than a conviction for the rigid path becomes subjective. Choosing the unholy Alexandrian false text translations is a wayward path, no matter the intentions of the reader.
The false text and its progeny is "strange fire" indeed. Lev 10:1

Which is why we have the Holy Ghost. The Lord will direct your steps. The Comforter will teach you all things. There's a war going on, but textual purity is small compare to it.Well, guess I will just leave you alone. If you want to take another stab it, re-read the posts where I'd mentioned the plates and cups. Enough explanation is in there. Insult was not intended. I don't have the time anymore.

Which brings us as to what is your final authority. It is not God's words. You cannot have good doctrine without accurate words no matter how you try to reconcile the dichotomy ("The Lord will direct your steps" -"but textual purity is small compare to it").

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

The battle IS for the words, ever since he declared "Yea, hath God said"!
.

The Holy Spirit leads and directs according to the Word of God - that is what He brings back to remembrance, not just some general ideas or generic spiritual principles.

Sorry if my asking for your clarification is bothersome to you. I did not know what you were referring to - and the context of Matthew 23 does not fit this discussion as far as I can see. I was not insulted, just not sure what you were stating directly or indirectly.

Thanks Steve for pointing me in this direction, and Thanks Brandon for compiling the info in an easy to SEE and UNDERSTAND format. I have truly been blessed with a new understanding of how I personally was NOT giving the written word of God the same reverent respect and awe that I was giving God himself. The two are same. I still have a lot to learn but thanks to all for the blessing of this insight. It is beginning to make sense.

Gord,
If you want to watch some video instruction to help you out:

Dr. D.A. Waite
www.biblefortoday.org/idx_videos_wayside_bc.htm

maybe start with number 6, then work your way from the top down.

Also a good basic walk through in 4 - 45min. sessions is Paul Freeman on 1 dvd.

send $6.00 to:

Paul Freeman
3040 S. 6th Street
Terre haute, IN 47802
(812)-238-1830

Both these men have excellent articles on Brandon's site (under articles)

Thank you, I was just reading Dr. Waite on another site.

Most welcome, Gord. It is a blessing to share information with a brother who is actually listening, thinking, seeking.

And Brandon really did an incredible job with the Magic Marker page. Not only is it accurate and true, he took the extra effort to make it comprehensible and clear and attractive.

Brandon, I did a study on the Peshitta confluence to the KJB/TR vs the alex texts simply using your Magic Marker page along with our English KJB and the Peshtta English translation, and I posted the results on the Textualcriticism forum. Quite interesting. That is how I know you have about 180 references there, and I may have a suggested addition or two.

Shalom,
Steven

Aloha brother,

The following "letter" is a short overview of the "Which Bible?" issue. I have tried to include all of the areas of concern without going into each individual issue in depth. If you take the time to read this "letter" you will see that this issue is far more complex than we have time or space to address here on this Forum. I encourage you to do your own study and prayerfully ask God to reveal the truth to you.

I am writing this letter to you in the hope that you are the kind of person who, before making up your mind on an important issue, tries to make an honest effort to carefully examine all sides of that issue.

For Christians the issue of "Which Bible" is the Word of God should be very important to you. You should want to know if the Bible you are reading and studying can be trusted as the TRUE Revelation of God and if you can rely on It to be free from all error. I would think that a truly sincere person would want to know if any Bible can be trusted to be the TRUE WORD OF GOD.

The issue of "Which Bible", if any, constitutes the Word of God is a very controversial subject. Personal Bias and Prejudice are very difficult to set aside, especially when a person’s religion or personal belief is involved. However, I believe that the TRUTH can always stand an open inquiry and that no one should be afraid to have their beliefs examined unless they are unsure of what they believe.

I first became acquainted with this controversial subject (Which Bible?) in 1968, and from 1968 up to the present day I have spent thousands of hours in study and research through more than 60 books and many booklets and pamphlets; plus hundreds of audio tapes. This issue is not only very controversial it is also extremely confusing since the subject of the History of the Transmission of the Text of the Bible cannot be taught in the “Public” i.e. Government Schools, and is not taught in most of the churches in the United States today. Ignorance may be ‘bliss’ for some people, but I would think that any thinking, reasonable person who is honest and sincere would want to know if there is in existence, and present in the world today, a physical copy (a Book you can hold in your hands) of God’s Revelation to man. I would also think that it would be good to know if that Book (the Bible) is Pure, Holy and without any admixture of error.

God expects Christians to examine issues and to judge them according to His words recorded in the Scriptures {John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.} For a Christian, ALL the issues of life are to be judged in the light of God's word! In examining the issue of "Which Bible", Christians cannot abandon God’s word and base their decision only on Humanistic “science”, “theories”, “scholarship”, or other Christians' “opinions” - {including mine}. Whatever claims are made and whatever hypotheses are put forth, it is the Christian’s duty and responsibility to carefully weigh all the evidence and to make a determination that honors God and His word.

If you are unfamiliar with the Bible; If you do not know much about Church History; If you have never studied the History of the Transmission of the Text of the Bible; If you are not familiar with the so‑called “science” of Textual Criticism; If you have never examined, weighed and carefully investigated New Testament Manuscript evidence; and If you have never made a comparative study of Bible Translations, you may be a target for misinformation, propaganda, deception and lies. Be extra Careful about what you accept as TRUTH! Take the time to “Check Out” every thing you hear or read. And make sure of the PEOPLE (teachers, professors, friends, relatives and loved ones) and the INSTITUTIONS (schools, colleges, universities “Christian” or not, churches, fellowships etc.) that you put your trust in.


Let’s clear the air of any misconceptions that may cloud this issue. The following FACTS are significant and irrefutable:

1. ALL of the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS to the Bible are LOST!
2. The Major Battle over which WORDS “belong” in the Bible has taken place in the New Testament Text. (As opposed to the Old Testament)
3. The Major Battle over which MANUSCRIPTS are to be “trusted” has taken place over the known New Testament Manuscripts. (As opposed to the known Old Testament Manuscripts)
4. From 100 A.D. to 1611 A.D. There were fewer than ten (10) Bible Translations in English. (Partial or complete)
5. From A.D. 1611 ‑ first printing of the AUTHORIZED VERSION [A.V.] (Now known as The King James Bible) - until 1881 a few new translations were made, usually by individuals unhappy with the A.V. 1611, and without any success.
6.From 1881 to the present day ‑ NEARLY ONE (1) NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION PER YEAR has come off the presses, again without much lasting success.
7.Nearly all the “new” Translations are based on just a FEW, A VERY FEW, MANUSCRIPTS: (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus ‑ Primary “Authorities”)
8. The many GREEK TEXTS for the “new” Translations are different from the GREEK TEXT of the A.V. 1611 in over 5000 places!
9. ALL the GREEK TEXTS for the “new” Translations are derived from and modeled after the Westcott and Hort GREEK TEXT.
10. The vast majority of the “Textual Critics” and “Biblical Scholars” subscribe, at least in part, to the complex Westcott and Hort Textual “THEORY”.
11. Most of the “critics” and “scholars” embrace Griesbach’s elaborate Manuscript FAMILIES “HYPOTHESIS”.
12. Most of the “new” Translations DIFFER from the A.V. 1611 in as many as 5000 places in the New Testament alone!
13. ALL The “new” Translations are ALIKE, that is they RESEMBLE EACH OTHER in contrast to the A.V. 1611, King James Bible.
14. ALL the “new” Translations have been made in a period of time marked by DISBELIEF, DISOBEDIENCE and APOSTASY.
15. ALL the “new” Translations have a COPYRIGHT.


Please note that up to this point I have not made any claims of any sort. Neither have I presented any charges or made any accusations against anyone. So far I have presented some of the known “FACTS” having to do with this issue. (“Facts” that can easily be verified through a little bit of research and study.)

Here are some FACTS about the King James Bible (A.V. 1611) you may not have known:

1.The A.V. (King James Bible) was translated near the beginning of the Reformation.

2. The A.V. (King James Bible) was the 7th complete translation of the Bible to be made in English from the beginning of the Reformation.

3.The A.V. (King James Bible) was translated by over 50 men divided into three groups: The Westminster Group; The Oxford Group; and The Cambridge Group.

4. Many of the translators, their families and friends had personally endured hardship and persecution for their personal beliefs.

5. The high caliber and qualifications of these truly scholarly men has NEVER been matched by ANY group of translators since.

6. The A.V. (King James Bible) was translated after nearly 1000 YEARS of Spiritual DARKNESS, and at the dawning of a Spiritual AWAKENING.

7. Except for the PRIVATE “Reference” and “Study” materials found in some King James Bibles. There is NO Copyright on a King James Bible (A.V.).

8. The A.V. (King James Bible) has been called, by believers and non‑believers, the most beautiful piece of English literature in the entire world.

9. The A.V. (King James Bible) has reigned supreme over ALL the other Bibles ever printed for over 395 years.

10. The A.V. (KING JAMES BIBLE) IS THE MOST POPULAR BOOK IN THE WORLD. THERE HAVE BEEN MORE A.V.’S (KING JAMES BIBLES) PRINTED THAN ANY OTHER Book or Bible in existence.


A careful review of the Bible on the subject of It’s Own Authority reveals that the Bible should be the Sole Source of AUTHORITY on all matters of faith and practice for the Christian. With the exception of God Himself, a Christian should place nothing above the Bible nor should the Bible be put in subjection to the Christian’s own culture, prejudices and biases. No church; no group; no “fellowship”; no ecclesiastical organization; no government; no school or university; no man or movement should be placed above the Bible.

When approaching the subject of which Bible constitutes God’s Word it is very important that we do not allow our own prejudices to “color” the issue. We should not be asking: Which Bible do we “prefer”? or which Bible is “EASIER” for me to read?, or which Bible do my friends like?, or which Bible does my Bible School or Church recommend?. Instead we should be asking: Which Bible does God Prefer? Or Which Bible has God obviously blessed the use of? Or Which Bible does God witness to? Or Which Bible does God want us to use? Or Which Bible did God PRESERVE? Choosing the Bible that you are going to use should not be based on anyone’s personal taste, likes, preferences etc., the choosing should be done after a thorough study of the facts.

In choosing “Which Bible” be careful of assumptions and suppositions. The Bible, by Its own claim, is no ordinary book and anyone studying any of the various subjects involved in this issue must keep in mind that there is a Spiritual Dimension, [the Devil does exist], to this issue that must be taken into account in every area of study.

In Psalms 12:6&7 (In the A.V.) God says; “His WORDS are PURE WORDS.” and that He, that is God, is going to “PRESERVE HIS WORDS FOREVER!”
The Lord Jesus Christ said; that the “SAME WORDS” that He spoke nearly 2000 years ago are going to be used to JUDGE the world and mankind. (John. 12:48) The Lord also said that Heaven and Earth will pass away but, His "WORDS shall not pass away.” There are many more verses showing that God’s Word has been preserved, but I don’t have the space to repeat them here. However, we have to ask ourselves: Is God a man that He should lie? (Numbers 23:19)

It should be noted that “The Bible” was known as the Authorized Version from 1611 A.D. until the early 1900’s when the Publishers of the “new” bibles changed the name of “The Bible” from The Authorized Version to The King James Version .......... trying to make it look like the King of England was responsible for It’s creation. About the same time, 1901 (ASV), these Publishers (they are in the business of SELLING “NEW” BOOKS $$$$$$$$) dropped the “Forward to the Reader” from the Translators of the A.V., and yet they print page after page of the forwards to the “new” bibles. (Does this mean anything to you? Does it make you wonder at all?)

In your study of which Bible constitutes God’s Word you should seek the answers to many questions some of which are:

Do we have God’s WORDS today? ‑ Just exactly as He would want us to have them?

Where does one find the WORDS of God today?

Does God require all Christians to be “experts” in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin?

Can today’s Christian TRUST modern “Christian scholarship” to provide us with a Holy Bible? Or even honest answers to questions about the History, the Manuscripts, the Text or the Transmission of the Bible?

Did God go to all the trouble of Inspiring “All Scripture” (II Timothy 3:16) and then just leave His Words alone to the luckless winds and shifting sands of time?

Are the WORDS in the King James Bible "Inspired" - or is "Inspiration" of God's WORDS limited to the "Original Autographs"?


In order to cover the subject of “Which Bible” more completely certain Warnings, Claims and Charges must be made (All of which can be substantiated and demonstrated) ‑ I would encourage the reader to carefully check out any and all of the following:

ALL the “new’ Translations low‑rate, play‑down or omit references to the DIETY of the Lord Jesus Christ.

ALL the “new” Translations slander, omit, or change the WORDS of God.

ALL the “new” Translations are much harder to MEMORIZE.

ALL the “new” Translations attack the GODHEAD i.e. THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT AS BEING ONE, by omitting and changing references to IT.

ALL the “new” Translations attack the VIRGIN BIRTH by omitting or changing references to it.

ALL the “new” Translations are the result of modern, unbelieving, humanistic so‑called “scientific” scholarship.

WHY do the Translators and Scholars avoid identifying the “older”, “better”, or “more ancient” manuscripts that they cite when they change the WORDS of God?

HOW can the “new” Translations be God’s HOLY WORD when they differ with the A.V. (King James Bible) in up to 5000 places (In the New Testament alone? If the “new” Translations are God’s HOLY WORD what does that make the A.V. (King James Bible)?

WHY do ALL the “new’ Translations compare themselves to the A.V. (King James Bible), instead of each other?

WHY do most of the “textual critics” and “bible scholars” continually attack and downgrade the A.V. (King James Bible) in their classrooms? In their schools?, In their papers?, and in their books?

WHY have ALL the major Bible publishers stopped printing the forward (not the dedicatory) to the A.V. King James Bible?

As you can see this issue is complex, controversial and confusing. To help you get at the “FACTS” you will find a list of books enclosed with this letter. The “FACTS” are very hard to find unless you read some of the not so well‑known “unpopular” Authors:

IN THE PAST:
John W. Burgon, Edward Miller, F. H. Scrivener, Herman Hoskier, Bishop Wordsworth, Canon Cook, Sir Robert Anderson, Philip Mauro, Joseph C. Philpot, George Sayles Bishop, Benjamin C. Wilkinson, Robert Dick Wilson and Edward F. Hills.

PRESENT DAY:
J.J Ray, Terence H. Brown, Henry Coray, Zane C. Hodges, Alfred Martin, David Otis Fuller, Peter S. Ruckman, David Fountain, Gordon P. Gardiner, Wilbur N. Pickering, Donald T. Clarke, Bruce Cummins, Dick Cimino, Barry Burton, Perry F. Rockwood, , Billy Bartlett, Larry Bartlett Herbert Noe, William P. Grady, Thomas Holland, Floyd Nolan Jones, Lawrence M. Vance, Kent Brandenburg, Douglas T. Stauffer, and Michael Maynard. {I personally recommend "Forever Settled" by Dr. Jack Moorman as an excellent "first book" - if you have never studied this issue in depth.}

Every one of the men cited above (and there are more) have defended the Word of God (Mostly in English - Some in Hebrew & Greek) or are still defending It starting from the 1880’s up to the present day.

You can’t find these books in bookstores, major publishers will not print these men’s works, and “Christian” newspapers, magazines etc. won’t advertise these books - But you can find most of them on the "net". “Christian” radio and T.V. programs won’t have these men on the air. Most modern Bible “scholars” and “critics” either haven’t heard of these men or their books, or they just choose to ignore what they have to say.

In this world the truth is sometimes difficult to find, especially when you are dealing with the WORDS of God. I hope this letter will challenge you to dig deeper into this controversial subject. The books in the following list cover the following subjects:

1. The Question: Which Bible?
2. The Internal Evidence: What Does God Say?
3. Old Testament History of the Text.
4. New Testament History of the Text.
5. The History of the Transmission of the Text of the Bible in the Church Age.
6.The Manuscript Evidence.
7.A Comparison of Versions.

If you don’t have the time to read all of the books on the list, I hope that you will try to read a broad representative sampling of them. Don’t be deceived; don’t be complacent; and whatever you do don’t take anyone’s opinion, including any that you may find in this letter, for granted. Examine the issues, search out the truth, and sift the facts. Read the “other side” also. There are numerous books on the market that are on the opposite side of this issue ‑ check them out.

Should you need any other information or if you have any questions I would be happy to assist you in your search for the Truth. In these evil days God is looking for men who will be “Valiant for the Truth” - not like God’s people in Jeremiah. 9:1‑5.


Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Word,

George Anderson

Romans 3:4 . . . . .yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written . . . . .

Steven could you provide a link please.

To George Anderson post #69
 

George I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that response. I have printed it off for my binder of study material I have begun to collect. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and experience you have shared with us all on this.

Blessings and Sincere thanks

Gord

George, you have given an excellent foundation for study for those who are truly seeking an answer from God about which Bible is ordained by Him.

This video series posted by Debau (#66) is very interesting.

www.biblefortoday.org/idx_videos_wayside_bc.htm

Dr. Waite is quite criticial of Dr. Ruckman about his treating the English translation as inspired in the same way the original texts are. What do people here think of Dr. Waite?

I've also saved the post by George (#69) for further reference.

To the thread question:---I'm new to the Forums( though I've had the site on my favorites list for sometime now) and I don't know who is legit and who is here to cause trouble-... I'll post a simple answer from what I've heard/read over the years.

Probably, Yes. Possibly, No. The term is from the late 1800's/early 1900's when several solid christians noticed that many churches/groups/colleges were drifting towards ecumenical fuzziness, and doctrinal deviations . Some concerned laymen put up the money to put into print some messages which explained "The Fundamentals" of Christianity. One of the names often used in relation with those volumes {4 Volumes-now published by Baker Books} is R.A. Torrey and The Bible Institute of Los Angeles, on South Hope Street.

I've read many of Reuben Archer Torrey's sermons and a couple of his books over the years, and they are very good/Christ beholding/liberal-ecumenical thumping messages. But I'm pretty/semi? sure that Torrey was a user of the 1901 American Version, which was a younger brother of the 1881 English version, spawned by Westcott and Hort.

Try this website and you can see the volumes and the articles mentioned in each one.

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis

Yes, Torrey used the American Standard Version. Though there certainly were fundamentalists around before someone coined the phrase in regards to Christians.

I think that it is important to note that we cannot place the exact same terminology or even standards of behavior or belief on those of past generations as we do contemporaries.

There was a time, shudder the thought, that many (white) Christians saw no problem with owning slaves. There was a time that the destruction of those of opposing beliefs was seen as a service to God. It was during the reign of King James himself that Baptists were still persecuted. Great men like Calvin persecuted those who disagreed with them. These people were not evil; they were not enlightened to the full truth. We still have Baptist churches that have segregationist attitudes today. Their eyes are still blind.

I believe that many if not most of the "fundamentalists" who used different texts during the period of the early 1900's as well as those who lived during the first 300 years of the KJB who did not take a strong position on the text would very likely be right in the middle of the KJBO camp today, considering the overflow of corrupted versions and the emphasis that is being placed on the issue today.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but the Bible does not teach that slavery is wrong - in fact, it was God Himself that put certain nations into slavery. What the Bible does teach is that abuse of slaves is wrong, and that slaves are not to do wrong to their masters either.

Being enlightened on this issue would imply that someone had a wrong Biblical understanding of slavery, and then got it corrected by getting the right understanding and applying that. I am glad slavery is abolished - but Biblically speaking, there is no way to say that slavery in itself is a moral evil (or else that would make God evil when He allowed the Israelites to be enslaved and caused other nations to be enslaved as a punishment of their sins and rebellion against Him.

Brother, you are opening a VERY BIG can o' worms with this argument.

God has allowed many evil things to take place throughout history.

There is a contextual difference in the word "servant" as used in the KJB and the word "slave" as used in the last few centuries.

The fact that the Israelites and other nations have been slaves, as you said, "as a punishment of their sins and rebellion against [God]," is not evil in purpose if it is God's method of operation, but it is evil in its condition (i.e. the suffering of the slave).

Can of worms or not, let's deal with what the Bible actually says. God is the one who brought Israel down into Egypt, knowing they would be made slaves. He freed them because of their oppression. He stated that the nation of Israel could make slaves of the nations they were conquering (except for the Canaanites), and the Gibeonites are an example of that (though they lied as to how far away they were from). God is the one who directly brought the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities on the nation of Israel. Yes, He also judged those nations for what they did wrong in their treatment of Israel - but the Bible nowhere teaches that the slavery in itself was wrong.

Genesis is pretty clear that God is the one who brought slavery on Ham's descendants, due to Ham's and Canaan's sin.

Genesis 9:24-27 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

This is what the New Testament says about Christian slaves and masters - it is not speaking against slavery, but against misuse of slaves (oppression), and against mistreatment of their masters.

Ephesians 6:5-9 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

And before I get accused on anything, I am not for slavery - but I want to make sure any discussion we have is based on a Biblical view of the issue, not some politically correct view or social gospel view. I am glad that in most cases slavery is abolished, though we know there are places in the world where it still happens, and Revelation refers to slavery yet to come by the endtime Babylonian government and religion.

Revelation 18:10-13 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

Jerry, we are getting off thread on the topic. It may be a good topic for another thread, based on others responses. HOWEVER, my (attempted) point was that we view those in the past through the glasses of today, and sometimes it just doesn't fit.

Let me try a little different approach on the idea of slavery. Many of our early political leaders had slaves or supported slavery to some degree. When their names are used (particularly in reference to their faith influencing their politics) there are those who discount these men's credibility because they were involved in or they condoned slavery. I believe many of these men under today's conditions and understanding of freedom would be very strong in their opposition to any type of racial prejudice or oppression.

In the same light, I believe that many of those fundamental preachers and writers of the past who did not have any known firm position on preservation as it relates to translation, if alive today, would have a very similar view as most KJBO's. Many good men got caught up in the "scholarship" of the new translations, not knowing the heritage of those versions and the corruptions that were introduced. Case in point: Frank Logsdon, who was involved in bringing the NAS into existence, later recanted his support after learning of the gross errors it produced. (Since you are the resident Cloudist or is it Cloudian :), you can find his story on wayoflife.org. - spoken as a fellow Cloud-aide drinker :p )