I participate in another forum that deal mostly with Bible editions, bindings, etc. Recently the moderator raised the issue of "why even bother with the KJV" and responded to his own question by saying it's the version with the most classic styles and bindings, historically.

I, of course, jumped in and said "You know, it's really more than that--it's an issue of textual preservation, versus reliance on a 'corrected' text from the late 19th century." (In a nutshell--I said more than that).

But good grief--all the responses are "there is no difference in any of the Bibles out there", "here we go again, another 'KVJ only' argument", "are you saying one group of translators was divinely inspired and another wasn't", etc. etc. etc. One person even said "If the KJV is the text God wants us to have, why did he wait so long for it to be available?" -- which I promptly turned around and asked "If the critical text that is the basis for EVERY modern translation is the right text, why did God make us wait until 19th centruy British scholars did the 'correcting'?"

But the whole tone is dismissive and mocking in the discussion. These are smart people, and people who I think really do believe the Bible . . . why is it so hard to get the discussion of the textual basis of the translation "on the table", so to speak? Why is everyone so bought in to the textual criticism approach? Why do all these Christian people think men have the ability and the prerogative to determine God's words?

It's amazing. Just amazing.

Lee

[Gord]

As an uneducated in matters of the source and history of the various bible versions, a few months ago I would have given you the same grief.
Many good people on this forum were patient with me and gave me the tools to answer that question.

Prayer, and patience to allow the holy spirit to give discernment.

[Here Am I]

But people have to be open to the truth, and not just react by "parroting" whatever they were told by some 'scholar' or what they read on a website.

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13)

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I believe that even King James Bible defenders sometimes lack the big picture of the battle of the Bible, or at least do not express it fully. How the pure Reformation Bible defeated the corrupted RCC Vulgate. How this was built upon solid labors (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Tyndale, Geneva, King James Bible) - precept upon precept, line upon line. How the modern ultra-corrupt alexandrian text is far worse than the Vulgate, the modern versions are today the counter-Reformation text. They are far, far more corrupt and inconsistent and error-laden than the Vulgate.

The goal of the cornfusenik is to obscure the big picture. The King James Bible is the apex of the Reformation Bible, brought to full purity and majesty and perfection. The opponents are in a stupified unbelief where they would prefer to constantly remake the Bible in their own image, to them the concept of the Bible being tangible and real and having full authority is discomfiting.

All of the cornfusenik clap-trap about the King James Bible this and that is meant to avoid knowing and understanding the big picture.

They use many tricks to hide the issues. Their versions are not faithful to their own texts and beliefs (e.g. they sort of include the ending of Mark, the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus, even though their theories call the section the tampering of man and Mark really ended with the woman afraid). They are numb to the contradiction of having sections in their "Bibles" that are supposed to be the tampering of man.

And they are not involved in solid and true apologetics and exegesis, so they don't really see the errors in their versions. (True apologetics with the skeptics brings this to the fore.)

And they live by the modern version motto.

"Use the modern versions, you won't know what you are missing".

Thus to hide the poverty and inconsistency of their position, they lemming-repeat any claptrap from their false priesthood of pseudo-scholars.

Thus there are a number of spiritual principalities involved.

For the Bible believer it is such a peace and grace to know that God's word is pure and perfect. In our hands. And readable by every single ploughman.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Billie]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[COLOR="Navy"
Hi Folks,
For the Bible believer it is such a peace and grace to know that God's word is pure and perfect. In our hands. And readable by every single ploughman.
Shalom,
Steven Avery [/COLOR]

Hi Steven

Excellent.

Blessings and shalom,
Billie

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I believe that even King James Bible defenders sometimes lack the big picture of the battle of the Bible, or at least do not express it fully. How the pure Reformation Bible defeated the corrupted RCC Vulgate. How this was built upon solid labors (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Tyndale, Geneva, King James Bible) - precept upon precept, line upon line. How the modern ultra-corrupt alexandrian text is far worse than the Vulgate, the modern versions are today the counter-Reformation text. They are far, far more corrupt and inconsistent and error-laden than the Vulgate.

The goal of the cornfusenik is to obscure the big picture. The King James Bible is the apex of the Reformation Bible, brought to full purity and majesty and perfection. The opponents are in a stupified unbelief where they would prefer to constantly remake the Bible in their own image, to them the concept of the Bible being tangible and real and having full authority is discomfiting.

All of the cornfusenik clap-trap about the King James Bible this and that is meant to avoid knowing and understanding the big picture.

They use many tricks to hide the issues. Their versions are not faithful to their own texts and beliefs (e.g. they sort of include the ending of Mark, the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus, even though their theories call the section the tampering of man and Mark really ended with the woman afraid). They are numb to the contradiction of having sections in their "Bibles" that are supposed to be the tampering of man.

And they are not involved in solid and true apologetics and exegesis, so they don't really see the errors in their versions. (True apologetics with the skeptics brings this to the fore.)

And they live by the modern version motto.

"Use the modern versions, you won't know what you are missing".

Thus to hide the poverty and inconsistency of their position, they lemming-repeat any claptrap from their false priesthood of pseudo-scholars.

Thus there are a number of spiritual principalities involved.

For the Bible believer it is such a peace and grace to know that God's word is pure and perfect. In our hands. And readable by every single ploughman.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Yeah, I to agree that the issue of why folks remain ignorant is more complex than most people would assume. For some folks the only reason they don't want to believe the Bible is because they think they won't have to be accountable to it if they don't know the full truth (they would never admit to this. The evidence of this is when you hear something along the lines of "There are some pretty smart people out there that deal with this issue, and I will trust that these scholars are giving me a good Bible, not to mention its a golfers edition, it has to be good!). This is ultimately the reason a lot of folks don't want to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. They have been lead into a lie (by the Devil I might add) that if they can keep their heads in the sand (doubting God's Word even exists in an inerrant form), then they won't be held accountable to the truth (Romans 5:13). If we can show these folks some truly alarming facts about the Critical Text and it's unfaithful translations (not to mention the wicked men behind a lot of these texts/translations) then we will get their heads out of the sand long enough to at least hear us make the case for the KJB. The evidence for the KJB being God's Word is OVERWHELMING! Ok, I need to hit a rabbit trail for a moment. One of the root causes I believe people refuse to believe in the KJB is because modern day false teachers have turned Christianity into a religion. They have buried the truth under so much ritual and tradition that everything starts to look like an unorganized mess. After a while, it becomes very difficult for someone truly looking for truth to believe that there IS INDEED something definitive in all the confusion one finds in the denominations of the world (and the false belief that the Catholic pagans are Christians) and the masses of unbelieving Christians who practice "to each his own". The ultimate evidence I find of this is in the argument I get online ALL THE TIME. "God has preserved His Word in heaven." I think this is the clearest example of unbelief out there. When someone says this to me, they are saying "I don't believe what the Word of God says" and at the end of the day, the thing that will get someone to believe in the King James Bible is whether or not they believe that God indeed left us His Words to follow. You see, the Bible is a miracle, and when you believe in the KJB you are a witness to this miracle. People have stopped believing in miracles (except all the false ones caused by devils disquised as angels of light), and if you come to them with this message of "The King James Bible is the Word of God, without error, preserved by God Himself" then they are going to look at you like a blindman that claims to be able to finally see! So my final point is that we must not be alarmed at the state of things. We cannot force people to believe something, but we can sow seeds of doubt, and then lead them to the truth. People love to feel like they've discovered the truth on their own.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

OK, let me ask you this: what, in your opinion, is the single best example of the deviation of modern translations from the KJV? What passage, laid side by side, is going to give the clearest indication of both a significant change in the text, and a significant impact on Christian doctrine and belief?

I'm not looking for a proof text, just looking for something that can clearly and directly point to the differences, without referring people to a long list of references that they're probably not going to look up to compare.

In the other forum discussion that's going on, one person finally did say "Thank you, Lee, you've given me something to think about." Everyone else has pooh-poohed me . . . one person even said "Don't talk about textual criticism if you don't know the field." Some pseudo-scholar saying "let the experts take care of this--you don't know what you're talking about."

Sigh.

Lee

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by LeeM1023

OK, let me ask you this: what, in your opinion, is the single best example of the deviation of modern translations from the KJV? What passage, laid side by side, is going to give the clearest indication of both a significant change in the text, and a significant impact on Christian doctrine and belief?

I'm not looking for a proof text, just looking for something that can clearly and directly point to the differences, without referring people to a long list of references that they're probably not going to look up to compare.

In the other forum discussion that's going on, one person finally did say "Thank you, Lee, you've given me something to think about." Everyone else has pooh-poohed me . . . one person even said "Don't talk about textual criticism if you don't know the field." Some pseudo-scholar saying "let the experts take care of this--you don't know what you're talking about."

Sigh.

Lee

Hello Brother Lee. I don't know if you've seen this resource, but I thought it may help. It's on the av1611 site at:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts.html

Hope this helps.

[MC1171611]

Yeah, typical "Scholarship Only-ism."

Ask them if Acts 8:37 either exists in their "Bibles" or if the translators' notes throw doubt upon its validity. If so, then their "Bibles" question Biblical salvation and teach Baptismal Regeneration.

That's a good place to start.

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by LeeM1023

I participate in another forum that deal mostly with Bible editions, bindings, etc. Recently the moderator raised the issue of "why even bother with the KJV" and responded to his own question by saying it's the version with the most classic styles and bindings, historically.

I, of course, jumped in and said "You know, it's really more than that--it's an issue of textual preservation, versus reliance on a 'corrected' text from the late 19th century." (In a nutshell--I said more than that).

But good grief--all the responses are "there is no difference in any of the Bibles out there", "here we go again, another 'KVJ only' argument", "are you saying one group of translators was divinely inspired and another wasn't", etc. etc. etc. One person even said "If the KJV is the text God wants us to have, why did he wait so long for it to be available?" -- which I promptly turned around and asked "If the critical text that is the basis for EVERY modern translation is the right text, why did God make us wait until 19th centruy British scholars did the 'correcting'?"

But the whole tone is dismissive and mocking in the discussion. These are smart people, and people who I think really do believe the Bible . . . why is it so hard to get the discussion of the textual basis of the translation "on the table", so to speak? Why is everyone so bought in to the textual criticism approach? Why do all these Christian people think men have the ability and the prerogative to determine God's words?

It's amazing. Just amazing.

Lee

Not all non-KJVs are this way. I am not KJVO'ist and I make fun of no one here or on any other forum. I was raised JV for many years and believed it myself until I studied the issue. I am certainly not against the KJV'ist so I do not feel that it wrong to only read the KJV. How can I be against those who only read it. My only real problem is the attitude that many KJVO's give people like myself. Most people on this forum do not seem to have this attitude. They do not talk to me with their nose stuck up in the air and so I appreciate their kind attitude. If they were rude I would just move to another forum. I think the reason most KJVO'ist are disliked and mocked are because of the attitude they give others. This does not make it right for people like me to mock them though. Either side should have a Christ-like attitude NO MATTER THEIR OPINION OR FACTS! I get tired of hearing."I have shown you a hundred times and you still refuse to believe it. You otherwise purposely are avoiding to see the truth or you're and idiot!" This is the attitude that shows that Kev's and non-KJVO'ist pride has swelled up inside them and they are not trying to have Christ's attitude.

All that to say I think this is why you are being mocked. Many Kev's have a bad attitude and even if you do not I think you are being lumped in with them. Do not get me wrong, no matter the attitude of many of the KJVO'ist the way the non-KJVO'ist are treating you is WRONG! Try to show them a good attitude and hopefully you can help change the mind set of what they think of KJVO'ist.

God Bless!!!