Baptist 1611

[Cody2]

Hey to all the Baptists. How is everyone doing?

I was wondering if there are any people here that believe the King James Version is the perfect word of God?

Love in Christ and God Bless

[Vambram]

Hey to all the Baptists. How is everyone doing?

I was wondering if there are any people here that believe the King James Version is the perfect word of God?

Love in Christ and God Bless
There are more than a few excellent English translations of the Hebrew & Greek manuscripts copies of the Original writings of the Scriptures. My personal favorite among all of the English translations is the New King James Version.

[Cody2]

Information about the NKJV:
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp?FROM=biblecenter

People say that God's word can only be found in the "originals." What's wrong with this? The originals are gone. God did not preserve them. And alas, there are only copies of 100's of Greek texts, many of them varying from text to text. If the "words" of God were only to be found in the originals, they are gone forever. If they are found only in these varying Greek texts, one scholar's guess is good as another. However there is an alternative: God actually fulfilled the promise of Psalms 12:6,7.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

According to this text, we should have the very Words of God. Which would show, Jesus Christ really did mean what He said in Matthew 24:35.

Matthew 24:35
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." KJV

Don't be fooled by the claims of the so-called scholars. God has preserved His words. We have the scriptures given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" KJV
(context is the last days of the church age).

With superior manuscripts from Antioch

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

Superior translators.

Psalms 68:11
"The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it." KJV

During the Philadelphian period of church history

Revelation 3:8
"I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name." KJV

Under authority of a king.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV

God preserved His Words in the English text of the Authorized King James Bible of 1611.

Someone who uses "modern versions", can only hold a "reliable translation" of a corrupt text from Alexandria, Egypt (Siniaticus & Vaticanus)

Deut 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

And clam "only the originals were inspired", when they are no such things as the "originals" any longer.

I hope this information will help someone see the truth about God's Word. God Bless you all.

[Tragic Paradox]

I use the NIV. My pastor preaches from the NASB. I believe both are excellent translations.

[Cody2]

Hey brother, before I give you this information. I want you to know that I don't look down on you at all. I love you in Christ and I want to show you truth. I pray that you read and study this subject on your own. Here are some links talking about the NIV and NASV.

Take a look who the publishers are in the NIV and also study about the verses they show on this site from the NIV.
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

Read what a NASV committee member said about the NASV.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.htm

God Bless you

[Vambram]

Cody2, as one brother in Christ to another, I respectfully ask for you to read other posts in these forums in which I have steadfastly and stubbornly defended the doctrine of the Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Scriptures. Also, by looking at my foru.ms profile, then you can see that I am an Independent Baptist Fundamentalist. Therefore, I believe that one of the fundamentals of the faith is believing in Sola Scriptura

It is always good to see another Baptist like yourself whom very very strongly believes as I do in the authority and inspiration and inerrancy of the Sciptures.


However, I caution you against attacking the NKJV if you so very strongly hold to the KJV yourself. Why? Well, are you aware that the KJV that you are using is probably not the 1611 KJV version, but one that was revised a few times up until around 1786.
Also, if you read the preface to the NKJV for yourself, and read the preface for the NIV, the New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Bible, then I am confident that you will make more accurately discerning decisions about those English translations.

Also, my brother in Christ and fellow Baptist, let me ask you this. Since you believe that the KJV is the perfect written word of God, then which translations into other languages besides English are also the perfect written word of God in your opinion?

:) :hug: :)

[Cody2]

Thank you for your reply, brother. I have also studied about the so-called revisions in the King James Version. There were no changes, only printing errors. I encourage you to study more about this with much prayer. I believe this is an important subject and we must ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

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

In my opinion I believe God preserved His perfect word in English. Although, I do believe people can get saved and can learn with other versions, but that doesn't make them the perfect word of God. English is one of the most popular languages and I believe God wanted to make His word known.

Did you know that England holds absolute time and location?
If England holds absolute time and location, why not truth?

I believe there are good versions in other languages, but I believe God preserved His perfect word in the King James Bible.

Love in Christ and God Bless

[Vambram]

Thank you for your reply, brother. I have also studied about the so-called revisions in the King James Version. There were no changes, only printing errors. I encourage you to study more about this with much prayer. I believe this is an important subject and we must ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.


I completely and totally agree that we must ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, about this and all other spiritual topics. For the last 29 years of my life since I was born-again at the age of 13, I've learned and believed and always tried to practice listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, especially concerning topics and issues about doctrines, spiritual growth, and personal growth as a born-again believer of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I ask that you check out the prefaces of those versions I suggested, and see what they say for themselves, rather than only trusting what the av1611.com website or what a few preachers and teachers are saying as they attack various other excellent English translations of the Scriptures.

[Cody2]

Wow, that's cool. I was saved at age 13 also. On May 13, 2002. I'm so glad He saved a sinner like me. And I saw you go to a church called "Trinity Baptist". Me too! lol

I'm sure a preface of a new version would say good things about it. The publishers would be crazy to say it was a bad version when they're trying to sell it. What we need to do is compare verses. Please take a look at those NKJV links I gave you, if you haven't already.

Also, do you know the King James Version is not copyrighted? You're probably thinking, "I have a KJV and it has a copyright in it." Do you know why? If you have side notes, maps, a dictionary, concordance, etc, then yes you will have a copyright in your King James Bible, but if you get a plain King James Bible with nothing in it, but the text than you'll have no copyright. You can freely print the King James Bible and there will be no lawsuits, but you can't do that with the new versions.

Who would seriously believe that God's word is bound by human copyright? God made it possible for His word not to be copyrighted and I think that is absolutely amazing. Also, lets take a look at what the Bible says about this.

2 Timothy 2:9
"Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound." KJV

The word of God is not bound.

Don't take my or anyone else's word for it, brother. Keep on studying about this and you will find truth.

2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." KJV

Please watch this video and tell me what you think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0

[Vambram]

The New King James Version: Preface
Purpose
In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, known popularly as the King James Bible, state that it was not their purpose "to make a new translation...but to make a good one better." Indebted to the earlier work of William Tyndale and others, they saw their best contribution to consist in revising and enhancing the excellence of the English versions which had sprung from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today?s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures.
A Living Legacy For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world. The precision of translation of which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled that monumental version of the Word of God to become the mainspring of the religion, language, and legal foundations of our civilization. Although the Elizabethan period and our own era share in zeal for technical advance, the former period was more aggressively devoted to classical learning. Along with this awakened concern for the classics came a flourishing companion in interest in the Scriptures, an interest that was enlivened by the conviction that the manuscripts were providentially handed down and were a trustworthy record of the inspired Word of God. The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted.


Complete Equivalence in Translation
Where new translation has been necessary in the New King James Version, the most complete representation of the original has been rendered by considering the history of usage and etymology of words in their contexts. This principle of complete equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form. Dynamic equivalence, a recent procedure in Bible translation, commonly results in paraphrasing where a more literal rendering is needed to reflect a specific and vital sense. For example, complete equivalence truly renders the original text in expressions such as "lifted her voice and wept" (Gen 21:16); "I gave you cleanness of teeth" (Amos 4:6); "Jesus met them, saying ?Rejoice!?" (Matt 28:9); and "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?" (John 2:4). Complete equivalence translates fully, in order to provide an English text that is both accurate and readable.
In keeping with the principle of complete equivalence, it is the policy to translate interjections which are commonly omitted in modern language renderings of the Bible. As an example, the interjection behold, in the older King James editions, continues to have a place in English usage, especially in dramatically calling attention to a spectacular scene, or an event of profound importance such as the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. Consequently, behold is retained for these occasions in the present edition. However, the Hebrew and Greek originals for this word can be translated variously, depending on the circumstances in the passage. Therefore, in addition to behold, words such as indeed, look, see, and surely are also rendered to convey the appropriate sense suggested by the context in each case.
In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture; and in the inerrancy of the original autographs.

:groupray:

[Vambram]

Wow, that's cool. I was saved at age 13 also. On May 13, 2002. I'm so glad He saved a sinner like me. And I saw you go to a church called "Trinity Baptist". Me too! lol

I'm sure a preface of a new version would say good things about it. The publishers would be crazy to say it was a bad version when they're trying to sell it. What we need to do is compare verses. Please take a look at those NKJV links I gave you, if you haven't already.

Also, do you know the King James Version is not copyrighted? You're probably thinking, "I have a KJV and it has a copyright in it." Do you know why? If you have side notes, maps, a dictionary, concordance, etc, then yes you will have a copyright in your King James Bible, but if you get a plain King James Bible with nothing in it, but the text than you'll have no copyright. You can freely print the King James Bible and there will be no lawsuits, but you can't do that with the new versions.

Who would seriously believe that God's word is bound by human copyright? God made it possible for His word not to be copyrighted and I think that is absolutely amazing. Also, lets take a look at what the Bible says about this.

2 Timothy 2:9
"Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound." KJV

The word of God is not bound.

Don't take my or anyone else's word for it, brother. Keep on studying about this and you will find truth.

2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." KJV

Please watch this video and tell me what you think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0
It is a good video, and one that effectively debates and effectively discusses some facts as well as that speaker's beliefs about this. :hug:

[Vambram]

Students of the Bible applaud the timeless devotional character of our historic Bible. Yet it is also universally understood that our language, like all living languages, has undergone profound change since 1611. Subsequent revisions of the King James Bible have sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech. The present work is a further step toward this objective. Where obsolescence and other reading difficulties exist, present-day vocabulary, punctuation, and grammar have been carefully integrated. Words representing ancient objects, such as chariot and phylactery, have no modern substitutes and are therefore retained.
A special feature of the New King James Version is its conformity to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. The reader discovers that the sequence and selection of words, phrases, and clauses of the new edition, while much clearer, are so close to the traditional that there is remarkable ease in listening to the reading of either edition while following with the other.
King James doctrinal and theological terms, for example, propitiation, justification, and sanctification, are generally familiar to English-speaking peoples. Such terms have been retained except where the original language indicates need for a more precise translation.
In addition to the pronoun usages of the seventeenth century, the -eth and -est verb endings, so familiar in the earlier King James editions, are now obsolete. Unless a speaker is schooled in these verb endings, there is common difficulty in selecting the correct form to be used with a given subject of the verb in vocal prayer. That is, should we use love, loveth, or lovest? do, doeth, doest, or dost? have, hath, or hast? Because these forms are obsolete, contemporary English usage has been substituted for the previous verb endings.
The real character of the Authorized Version does not reside in its archaic pronouns or verbs or other grammatical forms of the seventeenth century, but rather in the care taken by its scholars to impart the letter and spirit of the original text in a majestic and reverent style.


:groupray:

[Andy Broadley]

Verily I say unto thee, the King James Translation posesseth great power and Impacteth mightily upon the heart, yet canst be exceeding difficult to comprehendeth.

Personally I use several, ranging from KJV right through to The Message, but NIV would be my most commonly used, and is tghe one used in church also.

The best one? The one that gets read of course;)

[Epiphoskei]

The King James was neither the first nor the last english Bible. Why should God choose to preserve the text perfectly in the King James, but refuse to preserve it perfectly in the Tyndale or Wyclyff, which came earlier?

[Cody2]

No, the King James Bible was not the first bible or the last English bible, but it was the seventh.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

The AV1611: Purified Seven Times
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance5.html

God Bless

[Epiphoskei]

It's a little ethnocentric to belive that Psalms is talking about english bibles, and it's absurd to believe that King James, a known homosexual, had the spiritual authority to "authorize" a Bible in God's eyes.

Besides which, the King James 1611 is simply not in our English language. The King James is not in our language any more than Chaucer is. If we're going to read a bible that isn't in our native language, let's just use Greek.

[Andy Broadley]

Thats fine...if you can read Greek.

However you read it, in whatever form you read it.

From Ol' King Jim to Eugene P

Gods word will always be Gods word.

The 1611 KJV will always have a role and a place

Bearing in mind that most of the great men and women God has used in the last 400 years, certainly in the UK, have gone forth for God with a KJV in their hands and the words thereof on their hearts and mouths.

When Wesley rode forth and founded Methodism. When Booth stood in that tent in the East London slums and The Salvation Army was born. When Wilkerson set foot in New York to do great things with the gangs. They all did so with a KJV and the power of Gods word it contained.

My own personal favurite verse of Scripture is Joshua Ch1v9

The KJV states it thus

"Be strong and of a good courage. Be not dismayed, neither be thou afraid; For the Lord thy God is with thee wheresoever thou goest"

I'll tell you this much friends. There aint a translation out there that can say that with the same power and beauty as the KJV does.

When I go to bed shortly, the Bible I will pick up from my bedside table is a new living Translation. In church tomorrow, the Bible used will be an NIV (as it is when Laura and I do our joint devotions)

The Bible in my locker at work is a New English,and the one in my work bag is Pattersons Message NT.

I use them all and the Lord speaks to me and guides me through them all.

But when I need strength. When I need reassurance. When I need comfort. I reach for that old, heavy, leather bound KJV.

[Cody2]

Epiphoskei, King James was not a homosexual. That was just a bogus rumor.

"King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.
At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.
It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot."

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp

If you can't understand the King James Version because the thee's and thou's then I don't know what to tell you. Studies have been done and actually the King James Bible is very easy to read compared to the new version bibles.

Is the KJV Harder to Understand
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html

Archaic Words in the NIV
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

Here is a KJV Bible Companion/Dictionary
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1007.asp


Why Do We Need "Thee" and "Thou"?

In almost every language but Modern English, people knew whether the speaker was addressing one person or many. In Classical English, this is preserved. If the speaker is talking to one person, he uses "thee" or "thou". If he is talking to many people, he says "you" or "your."
The King James preserves this distinction.When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, He said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again" (John 3:7). What He said in effect was, "Marvel not that I said unto thee(Nicodemus), ye (all of you people) must be born again." Jesus did not tell this only to Nicodemus.He spoke to all people of all times, from those who stood around that night, even to us today:Ye must be born again!

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1007.asp#thee

[Epiphoskei]

Epiphoskei, King James was not a homosexual. That was just a bogus rumor.

"King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.
At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.
It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot."

His love letters to the Duke of Buckingham would seem to argue otherwise.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877456690/

[Cody2]

FACT:
James wrote in his work Basilicon Doron that:

"There are some horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience never to forgive: such as witchcraft, willful murder, incest, and sodomy."

There is no recorded objective documentation that King James ever practiced or promoted sodomy, the historical record only knows of King James' heterosexuality and condemnation of sodomy.

FICTION:
"There are a number of recorded statements in which James justified homosexuality/sodomy...King James was a homosexual monarch."

FACT:
King James condemned "soft delicacies" in a man more than once:

"But especially eschew to be effeminate in your clothes, in perfuming, preening, or such like...and make not a fool of yourself in diguising or wearing long your hair or nails, which are but excrements of nature...Guard against corrupt leide and effeminate ones."

The King also condemned "female transvestism" by instructing the clergy by royal order and express commandment to inveigh vehemently in their sermons against the faddish practice.

FICTION:
James was effeminate and encouraged his favorites to also be effeminate.

FACT:
King James wrote to his wife Queen Anne:

"I thank God I carry that love and respect unto you which by the law of God and nature, I ought to do to my wife and mother of my children...for the respect of your honorable birth and decent I married you but the love and respect I now bear you for that ye are my married wife and so partaker of my honor...God as my witness ever I preferred you to all my bairns much more than any subject (signed) Your Own, James Rex."

King James also wrote love poetry to his wife and in addition to this James also wrote of Anne:

"...if it were possible for me to love her better than ever I did before it were my part to do it."

After her death, James wrote, "She was an excellent wife to us...she has left a great longing for her." The Mighty King James had 8 children with his wife Queen Anne.

FICTION:
King James did not love his wife, disliked the institution of marriage and women in general.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james-unjustly_accused.htm

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

Finally, much is made of King James VI & I articulating in his writing that he "loved" someone of the same gender giving the reader the mistaken belief that "love" stood for a sexual attraction and thus yet another "proof" of the "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Also, it is alleged that King James VI & I "justified homosexuality many times" in his writings.

The most common offered "proof" of this mistaken assertion is a quotation from King James VI & I's speech to Parliament which is violently ripped from its intended meaning and context. For an in- depth refutation of this form of argument the diligent reader is referred to my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused.

The Reverend Barrie Williams sums up the desperation of this reasoning:

"... there must be many besides myself for whom nine short words of the King are sufficient: 'Jesus had His John, and I have my George.' King James was in every estimate a devout protestant, and anyone who can believe that he would cast aspersions on the moral integrity of Our Saviour would have no difficulty in believing that the world is flat."

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_king_james_a_homosexual.htm

People have took what King James has said and twisted it. This proves how sick people really are. People have tried to do the same thing with Jesus Christ.:(

More information about King James:
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/kjv/notqueer.html
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/sorenson-ch10-2.html

[Epiphoskei]

We have the letters. You can't convince me somthing's fiction when I see the fact before my face. His writings to Queen Anne only prove he was bisexual. His writings to the Duke of Buckingham, however, are conclusive.

[Cody2]

Can you please quote what he said that implies he is homosexual or bi-sexual?

[Andy Broadley]

We have the letters. You can't convince me somthing's fiction when I see the fact before my face. His writings to Queen Anne only prove he was bisexual. His writings to the Duke of Buckingham, however, are conclusive.

Can you please quote what he said that implies he is homosexual or bi-sexual?


Are we perhaps missing the point just a little here gentlemen?

[rainbowpromises]

It does not matter who set in motion the translation of the KJV. It was a very good translation and still is a very good translation. I use KJV.

However I also work with children and Bible memory verses. These children who have never had any exposure to church or Bible reading have a difficult time getting out the words. They concentrate so hard on the words that they miss the meaning.

Our church has opted to use NKJV in order to reach these children with something closer to their own language. We opted not to use NIV because we find many of the passages seem watered down in meaning. I have tried reading portions of The Message in order to help teach these children, but found that the Message uses way too many words to get across one point. By the time you get to the point the kids have lost interest.
I still teach in KJV because it is what I understand the best.

BOTTOM LINE:
I would rather reach others with the gospel than hold onto a version of Bible.

[Andy Broadley]

It does not matter who set in motion the translation of the KJV. It was a very good translation and still is a very good translation. I use KJV.

However I also work with children and Bible memory verses. These children who have never had any exposure to church or Bible reading have a difficult time getting out the words. They concentrate so hard on the words that they miss the meaning.

Our church has opted to use NKJV in order to reach these children with something closer to their own language. We opted not to use NIV because we find many of the passages seem watered down in meaning. I have tried reading portions of The Message in order to help teach these children, but found that the Message uses way too many words to get across one point. By the time you get to the point the kids have lost interest.
I still teach in KJV because it is what I understand the best.

BOTTOM LINE:
I would rather reach others with the gospel than hold onto a version of Bible.


:amen:

[Cody2]

Brothers and Sisters, please research these new versions with much prayer. Pray that God opens your eyes on this subject. God's Holy Word is being watered down and stepped on. These new versions take out thousands of words and verses. Brothers and Sisters, I come to you not with anger, but with a broken heart. My heart is broken because God's Word is being watered down.

Holding on to the King James Bible for me doesn't take anytime away from me witnessing and sharing the gospel. The King James Bible isn't hard to understand. All we need to do is ask God for wisdom to understand His Word, instead of getting a new version that is "easier" to read. I'm sure they're easier to read. They take out thousands of words and even take out verses.

For you that think I'm wrong to hold the position that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, let me ask you some questions.

1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the King James Version is the word of God?

2. What is wrong with telling Christians you can trust every word? (Proverbs 30:5)

3. Will God punish me for believing He preserved His Word in the King James Bible?

4. If the King James Bible is not the word of God, which version is? (Since God promised to preserve them in Psalms 12:6-7.)

Love in Christ and God Bless

[Andy Broadley]

Horses for courses.

I agree that in some cases the message is being diluted though

Adrian Plass (Brit Christian writer) speaks of churches who use the other NIV (Never infamatory version).

[Vambram]

Brothers and Sisters, please research these new versions with much prayer. Pray that God opens your eyes on this subject.

All praises do I Lift up to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as HE and the Holy Spirit have guided and instructed me on not only this doctrine and topic of discussion, but many many other doctrines for many years since the day of my salvation in 1978.

God's Holy Word is being watered down and stepped on. These new versions take out thousands of words and verses. Brothers and Sisters, I come to you not with anger, but with a broken heart. My heart is broken because God's Word is being watered down.

Which new versions take out thousands of words and verses? I know that the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB, and the ESV do NOT take out thousand of words and verses. I also know that each and every doctrine that this Independent Baptist Fundamentalist believes and teaches which I learned from the verses of the KJV can also very strongly be taught, affirmed, and believed by using the same amount of the various passages of Scriptures found in the translations or versions of the NKJV, the ESV, and the NASB.

Holding on to the King James Bible for me doesn't take anytime away from me witnessing and sharing the gospel. The King James Bible isn't hard to understand. All we need to do is ask God for wisdom to understand His Word, instead of getting a new version that is "easier" to read. I'm sure they're easier to read. They take out thousands of words and even take out verses.

For you that think I'm wrong to hold the position that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, let me ask you some questions.
The only perfect, and without error written word of God were the Divinely Inspired original manuscripts as written by the original human authors writing down exactly what God told them to write while allowing the original human writers of the Scriptures to use their own vocabulary and styles of writing. If we believe that the translators of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were also divinely inspired on the same level of inspiration that the original human authors were inspired, then my brother Cody2, you are making a claim of inspiration that not even the translators of the KJV themselves claim to have.


1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the King James Version is the word of God?
None. And I am sure that all of us here in this discussion believe that the KJV, as well as other excellent translations are the word of God.

2. What is wrong with telling Christians you can trust every word? (Proverbs 30:5)

Beyond any hint and shadow of a doubt, I know that I can believe and trust every word in the Bible. Inded, the Bible is the ultimate written authority for all matters of faith, doctrine, and spiritual truth.

3. Will God punish me for believing He preserved His Word in the King James Bible?
Of course not, for the Lord GOD has indeed preserved His written word in the KJV. Then when languages changed, and as the English language changed, then why must there be this insistence that GOD does not work through translators whom are:: just as godly, and theologically sound in doctrine and scholarly as were the translators of the KJV 1611; so that God insures that His written word is equally preserved or made perfect for today's English language rathen than an English that is well over 200 years old?

4. If the King James Bible is not the word of God, which version is? (Since God promised to preserve them in Psalms 12:6-7.)


The King James Bible is the preserved written word of God. But as I have said, there are other English translations that are every bit as "perfect" and used by the Lord God as is the King James Bible.



Love in Christ and God Bless




May the Love, Grace, Mercy and Blessings from the Lord Jesus Christ shine down upon you and all of your loved ones. :groupray:

[DeaconDean]

Just as a casual observer, I saw a reference to chick.com.

Just as a general "heads-up" links to chick.com at one time were not allowed. So in the future, please be careful using this link.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

But I must ask, why does this question keep coming up?

Search the threads and see how many of these have came up just in the last 2-3 years.

We even had a ban at one time on KJV only threads.

This sort of thing only serves to split people.

You force people into making a choice of one version over any others.

Lest I remind everybody, the original "God-breathed" manuscripts, those authoried by the Apostles/Disciples themselves, are gone. We don't have them any more. And regardless of what anybody says, all we have are "translations."

Even one of the oldest available papri only date back to as far as AD 150. (papri-46/p-46)

If you really want to study God's word, then I suggest studying in the Hebrew and Greek.

Even the LXX only dates back to around AD 300.

Just a few things to think about.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Cody2]

People say that God's word can only be found in the "originals." What's wrong with this? The originals are gone. God did not preserve them. And alas, there are only copies of 100's of Greek texts, many of them varying from text to text. If the "words" of God were only to be found in the originals, they are gone forever. If they are found only in these varying Greek texts, one scholar's guess is good as another. However there is an alternative: God actually fulfilled the promise of Psalms 12:6,7.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

According to this text, we should have the very Words of God. Which would show, Jesus Christ really did mean what He said in Matthew 24:35.

Matthew 24:35
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." KJV

Don't be fooled by the claims of the so-called scholars. God has preserved His words. We have the scriptures given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" KJV
(context is the last days of the church age).

With superior manuscripts from Antioch

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

Superior translators.

Psalms 68:11
"The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it." KJV

During the Philadelphian period of church history

Revelation 3:8
"I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name." KJV

Under authority of a king.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV

God preserved His Words in the English text of the Authorized King James Bible of 1611.

Someone who uses "modern versions", can only hold a "reliable translation" of a corrupt text from Alexandria, Egypt (Siniaticus & Vaticanus)

Deut 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

And clam "only the originals were inspired", when they are no such things as the "originals" any longer.

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

I posted this in the beginning of the post, but here it is again to clear up the "originals" issue.

Also, know that a lot of the men who wrote the Bible didn't claim what they wrote was inspired, but we know it was.

As for the NKJV, NIV, NASV and ESV. Here are some links I recommend you study and don't take their word for it. Get your Bibles out and compare.

NKJV
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

NIV
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

NASV
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm

ESV
http://www.av1611.org/vance/nrsv_esv.html

Thanks for the heads up, Deacon Dean. Even though the truth tends to split people up, like when Christians split from the Catholic church. I don't wish to split anyone up. I just want to give the information, so people can either accept it or deny it. Either way, I will still love all of you in Christ.

God Bless

[DeaconDean]

Cody, i just thought you should know that Jack Chick has been proven to wrong also. His tracks make a useful witness tool, but he can't be relied on. He is definately on mission to destroy the Catholic church.

But that is neither here nor there, for ultimately, he will have to stand before his Maker and answer for his actions just as you and I will.

Now you can fault me for mentioning the "original autographs," if you want. But I tell you what, take the time to search any of the historic Baptist/Anabaptist Confessions of Faith and tell me which ones say the KJV is the only "inspired, inerrant, infallible, only, certain, rule of faith."

And since this is going to turn into one of those KJV only threads, I'm getting out while the getting out is good.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Cody2]

That's why I'm an Independent Baptist.

Bye and thank you for responding.

God Bless

[DeaconDean]

One last reply and I'm outta here.

You said:

That's why I'm an Independent Baptist.

I guess then that by your statement here, you don't owe nothing to the millions of Baptist/Anabaptist brethren and sisters who paid for your indepenance with their very lives.

Questions for KJV-Onlyism Advocates

1. Which revision of the KJV is inspired and/or preserved, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?

2. What Bible did God have for the English-speaking world prior to 1611? Was it also a perfect translation? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?

3. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct? [There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.]

4. The KJV translators translated the Apocrypha and included these books in the original 1611 edition. If the KJV translation was inspired, does this mean that the Apocrypha is inspired by God also? And if so, why was the Apocrypha removed from later editions?

5. If God gave the English-speaking world an inspired translation, did He also give an inspired translation in the other languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, etc.)? If so, where is it? If not, why not?

6. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities and showing variant manuscript readings?

7. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know this and why did they not mention this in their introduction, “The Translators to the Reader”? Instead, why did they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and imperfections as Bible translators? If the KJV was perfect, why did the translators expect that others would one day make their 1611 Bible into an even better one?

8. When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus (the “Received Text”) and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Textus Receptus?

9. When there is a difference between the Majority Text and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Majority Text?

10. Did our Pilgrim fathers have the wrong Bible with them when they brought the Geneva Bible with them to North America?

11. If the KJV differs or varies from the original Greek text, should we correct the English by making it agree with the Greek or should we correct the Greek by making it agree with the English?

12. When was the KJV “given by inspiration by God”? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

13. Was the original Greek lost after 1611? If not, where are we to find it? It cannot be the Textus Receptus, because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Textus Receptus. It cannot be the Majority Text because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Majority Text.

14. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one and only one seventeenth-century English translation?

15. Should we condemn Tyndale’s translation (1525), Coverdale’s translation (1535), the Great Bible (1539), or the Geneva Bible (1560—the Bible of the Pilgrims), because these English Bibles varied slightly from the KJV? And if so, why did the “inspired” translators use these translations in their own readings?

16. If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, does this mean that the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” was in need of correction and improvement? How can the inspired, infallible originals need correcting or improving?

17. Why did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote from the Septuagint translation (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was certainly not a perfect translation?

18. Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly reflects the original?

19. F.H.A. Scrivener published a Greek New Testament that was made to reflect what the KJV says. The 1976 Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament followed the text of Scrivener and claimed to be the Greek text behind the KJV. Why is it that the KJV differs from these two Greek editions in certain places? [For example, in Acts 19:20, where the Greek editions have “Lord” but the KJV has “God.”]

20. King James Only advocates frequently refer to the “Textus Receptus” (TR, Text Received) and the work of the Roman Catholic monk Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536) as the only correct Greek text of the New Testament. Were the compilers of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, etc.) inspired by God in their work and miraculously kept from error? But Erasmus revised the Greek text four times (and the KJV translators did not use his last edition). Which is the correct, inspired text?

21. For 150 years Wycliffe’s translation was the only complete English translation in use. He completed his translation about 1382. It was not translated from the original languages but from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe’s translation varied from the KJV in many places. Should Wycliffe’s Bible be condemned or did it serve a good purpose? Was it helpful or hurtful?

22. Luther translated the Greek New Testament into the German language. Was his translation a perfect translation? Was it blessed of God and useful to the German people? Was it of the devil or of God?

23. Was Tyndale’s Bible a good translation? Was Tyndale guided by God any less than the KJV translators? It has been estimated that one-third of the King James Version is worded as Tyndale had it, and that even in the remaining two-thirds, the general literary structure set by Tyndale has been retained. Some scholars have said that ninety per cent of Tyndale is reproduced in the King James Version of the New Testament. Thus, the KJV translators were greatly indebted to Tyndale and yet they recognized that even his work was in need of revision and correcting. Did they not also recognize that their work might also be improved upon?

24. The Geneva Bible was the translation used by Shakespeare, John Bunyan, the Puritans in England, and Oliver Cromwell, as well as the Pilgrim fathers. It was the Bible that was brought to America on the Mayflower. Even the address from “The Translators to the Reader,” which is prefaced to the Authorized Version of 1611, took its quotations of the Scripture from the Geneva Bible. Was this Bible a corrupted Bible? Was it used of God? Was it hurtful or helpful to the cause of Christ? Did it make people wise unto salvation? Was it used effectively in building up God’s people in the most holy faith?

25. If God guided the KJV translators to translate a perfect Bible, did He also guide them to translate an imperfect and uninspired Apocrypha? Were the Old and New Testaments translated in the Spirit and the Apocrypha translated in the flesh?

26. Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23? [The italics were not employed, as usual, to mark a supplement, but to show that the words were regarded as suspicious. Stephanus excluded the clause but had a reference to it in the margin; Beza admits it without hesitation]. Do the italics indicate that the KJV translators were uncertain as to whether or not this clause was part of the original text?

27. Why were there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? [Examples: Matthew 26:26—“Many Greek copies have…” Luke 10:22—“Many ancient copies add these words…” Luke 17:36—“This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies” Acts 25:6—“Or as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.”
28. Was the KJV correct in following the Latin Vulgate in Revelation 22:19 (“book of life”), even though most Greek manuscripts have “tree of life”? Should the Latin be preferred over the Greek?

29. The Greek text underlying the King James Version agrees in 81 places with Beza’s Greek edition against Stephen’s Greek edition, and it agrees in about 21 places with Stephen’s Greek edition against Beza’s Greek edition, and in 29 places they agree with neither. In light of this, which Greek edition can we say has been divinely and perfectly preserved?

30. Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect, flawless Bible? If the original 1611 Bible that the KJV translators produced was perfect, does this mean that our present KJV edition (based on Blayney’s edition) is flawed in about 75,000 details?

Vambram said:

[I]The only perfect, and without error written word of God were the Divinely Inspired original manuscripts as written by the original human authors writing down exactly what God told them to write while allowing the original human writers of the Scriptures to use their own vocabulary and styles of writing. If we believe that the translators of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were also divinely inspired on the same level of inspiration that the original human authors were inspired, then my brother Cody2, you are making a claim of inspiration that not even the translators of the KJV themselves claim to have.

Of which I agree with also, in the preface to the 1611 version (the Preface and the Apocrypha which they translated have both been omitted from most copies of the KJV today), they clearly disclaim that their translation was the only Word of God. There were already several English translations in existence and being used in England, America, and other countries. Some of these were Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1525-30), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), Great Bible (1540), Geneva Bible (1560), and Bishop’s Bible (1568).

But let me give you the original preface of the KJV:

“... We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most common, lowest quality] translation of the Bible in English … containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. … We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that prevailed before us [previous translators of previous versions] in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea … that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance. … Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one …”

Now you are free to believe whatever you wish.

I dearly love my KJV Bible, but to claim it is the ONLY inspired, inerrant, infallible, word of God.

Well, I'm sure you'll take issue with this too.

Nevertheless, I'm done, and I'm finally outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Vambram]

That's why I'm an Independent Baptist.

Bye and thank you for responding.

God Bless

I am an Indepedent Baptist Fundamentalist, brother Cody2, and I strongly and very firmly disagree with your King James Version only belief.

[Vambram]

DeaconDean, thank you for showing that list of very good & excellent questions to ask King James Version only advocates. Several of those I have thought about and asked them myself, but a few of them are new thoughts and ideas to me, my brother. Again, DeaconDean, I thank you.

:amen:

[Andy Broadley]

But I must ask, why does this question keep coming up?

Search the threads and see how many of these have came up just in the last 2-3 years.

We even had a ban at one time on KJV only threads.

This sort of thing only serves to split people.

You force people into making a choice of one version over any others.

Lest I remind everybody, the original "God-breathed" manuscripts, those authoried by the Apostles/Disciples themselves, are gone. We don't have them any more. And regardless of what anybody says, all we have are "translations."

Even one of the oldest available papri only date back to as far as AD 150. (papri-46/p-46)

If you really want to study God's word, then I suggest studying in the Hebrew and Greek.

Even the LXX only dates back to around AD 300.

Just a few things to think about.

God Bless

Till all are one.


Well said sir. I agree. Lets not lose site of that in all of this.

And the word of God is the word of God. How it comes wrapped and presented is very much a secondary consideration.

Every translation has come about for a reason. The KJV is beautiful, with it's old langauge and the way it says things. But nobody talks like that anymore, so you take scripture in that format to a bunch of kids who are heavily into Metallica (for example) and they will not comprehend it at all, or probably want to.

Stryper distrubute NIV New testements at their gigs (I've got one) and the kids there are able to understand what they are reading.

That the OT is written in Hebrew, and the NT in Aramaic and Greek bears Testement to the fact that it was written in the language of the people it was written for, in the way they spoke.

God did it like that then, and He does it like that now

[rainbowpromises]

That's why I'm an Independent Baptist.

Bye and thank you for responding.

God Bless


I too am Independant Baptist.
I am saddened by the division and strife that surrounds Independant Baptists.

[Vambram]

I too am Independant Baptist.
I am saddened by the division and strife that surrounds Independant Baptists.

I don't feel like that there is as much strife and division among Independent Baptists as you might feel like there is. :cool:

[Andy Broadley]

As a newcomer to the Baptist church, I am saddened to think that this division exists at all.

I can only pray that this division exists only on the American side of the pond and not in the UK

[sageoffools]

I too am Independant Baptist.
I am saddened by the division and strife that surrounds Independant Baptists.

As a newcomer to the Baptist church, I am saddened to think that this division exists at all.

I can only pray that this division exists only on the American side of the pond and not in the UK

Unfortunately, you will always have division when you allow people to think and form opinions for themselves. This is one of the downsides as well as the upside to Independent Baptists. It allows us the freedom to study the Bible and base our decisions on that, rather than what some man or group says. However, it does allow for a great deal of discord between different churches, and even people, because their is not one governing person or body telling them what they must believe if they are to remain in that denomination.
(BTW, not everyone is this disharmonious, really. I've been in IB churches for my entire life, and I have only ever seen a handful of people leave over disagreements)

[DeaconDean]

Let me add this just as an after thought, what led most "Independent Baptist" churches to become Indepenent is because they want to decide when, where, how, and to whom, their monies are sent to and spent on. Whereas the SBC, has a collective account where money is distributed out of, Independent Baptists can decide on whether they want to support this one missionary in particular rather than send in $10,000,000 and have it spent on a hundred missionaries.

Most Indepentent Baptists believe the same core beliefs as other Baptists. Its just they chose to be Independent rather than belong to an association of Baptist churches. And there is nothing wrong in that.

Heck, I was raised in an Independent Baptist church myself.

And that is the whole thing about Independent Baptists, they want to maintain their indepenance.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Vambram]

As for the side track that this topic has gone off into, I have also seen great and wonderful fellowship among hundreds of independent baptist churches whose pastors are members of the Baptist Bible Fellowship. I speak from experience cause my home church in Texas is Trinity Baptist Church of Abilene, Texas... and we are part of the large fellowship of independent baptist churches. Each and every baptist church has total autonomy, and complete local control over its church budgets.
Frankly, I have usually been very happy and blessed by the wonderful friendship and fellowship which I have experienced among churches, and members of churches of independent baptists. I am also very confident that DeaconDean can honestly testify of the wonderful spirit of fellowship among most of the Southern Baptist churches he has seen.
:hug:

[Andy Broadley]

Seems as though the Baptists churches in America and the Baptist churches here are very different creatures

[DeaconDean]

Seems as though the Baptists churches in America and the Baptist churches here are very different creatures

Different in what sense?

Shoot friend, there is differences just between Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists.

Guess it goes back to the War of Northern Aggression. (Just kidding folks)

God Bless

Till all are one.

[rainbowpromises]

Unfortunately, you will always have division when you allow people to think and form opinions for themselves. This is one of the downsides as well as the upside to Independent Baptists. It allows us the freedom to study the Bible and base our decisions on that, rather than what some man or group says. However, it does allow for a great deal of discord between different churches, and even people, because their is not one governing person or body telling them what they must believe if they are to remain in that denomination.
(BTW, not everyone is this disharmonious, really. I've been in IB churches for my entire life, and I have only ever seen a handful of people leave over disagreements)
Within my church there is very little disagreement, however we are at odds with other independant Baptist for a number of reasons. Bible version, choice of ministries to support...

[Andy Broadley]

Different in what sense?

Shoot friend, there is differences just between Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists.

Guess it goes back to the War of Northern Aggression. (Just kidding folks)

God Bless

Till all are one.

If you ask me it goes back you upstart colonials refusing to pay yr tea tax;) :D :D :hug:

By different I meant it seems that most of the discord seems to be between American baptist churches. I think we are slightly more sedate over here

[MbiaJc]

Hey to all the Baptists. How is everyone doing?

I was wondering if there are any people here that believe the King James Version is the perfect word of God?

Love in Christ and God Bless

Hi my brother and fellow Baptist Cody. Wouldn't you agree, any literature that a person can use to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ is ok?

[Cody2]

I agree, but not all Christian literature is the very word of God.

[JacobHall86]

This horse has been beat to death.

Also, if you continue to cite Jack Chick, you will lose any sort of credibility.

[Andy Broadley]

This horse has been beat to death.

Also, if you continue to cite Jack Chick, you will lose any sort of credibility.


About time this whole thread was given a decent buriel IMHO

[greeker57married]

Wow, that's cool. I was saved at age 13 also. On May 13, 2002. I'm so glad He saved a sinner like me. And I saw you go to a church called "Trinity Baptist". Me too! lol

I'm sure a preface of a new version would say good things about it. The publishers would be crazy to say it was a bad version when they're trying to sell it. What we need to do is compare verses. Please take a look at those NKJV links I gave you, if you haven't already.

Also, do you know the King James Version is not copyrighted? You're probably thinking, "I have a KJV and it has a copyright in it." Do you know why? If you have side notes, maps, a dictionary, concordance, etc, then yes you will have a copyright in your King James Bible, but if you get a plain King James Bible with nothing in it, but the text than you'll have no copyright. You can freely print the King James Bible and there will be no lawsuits, but you can't do that with the new versions.

Who would seriously believe that God's word is bound by human copyright? God made it possible for His word not to be copyrighted and I think that is absolutely amazing. Also, lets take a look at what the Bible says about this.

2 Timothy 2:9
"Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound." KJV

The word of God is not bound.

Don't take my or anyone else's word for it, brother. Keep on studying about this and you will find truth.

2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." KJV

Please watch this video and tell me what you think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0

The video is not accurate. The oldest manuscripts are not the Byzantine text which did not become the majority text until the 9th Century A.D. In the early centuries the majority text was the Alexanderian text. The Alexanderian text is not as corrupt as the KJV only folks would have you believe. I have nothing against the KJV. The Majority text agrees with the critical text 97 or 98 percent.

God Bless
Greeker

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=677

[RuckmanKnight]

Cody, I am with you all the way Bro.

I stand on the King James Bible without apology.

I think you are already a member of my forum however

endgathering.com/forums

Ignore the pitiful "evidence" people on here are putting forth. You have already given them plenty of evidence, and now they are going to choose to base their decision on the book of opinion.

[Andy Broadley]

Thought this one had sunk into the mire for ever....but it yet lives

[jds1977]

If only they'd continue to print the preface to the 1611, "from the translator to the reader", these debates of a so called perfect translation would not be happening.

[Vambram]

Cody, I am with you all the way Bro.

I stand on the King James Bible without apology.

I think you are already a member of my forum however

endgathering.com/forums

Ignore the pitiful "evidence" people on here are putting forth. You have already given them plenty of evidence, and now they are going to choose to base their decision on the book of opinion.

"Pitiful evidence?"
Read the preface of the King James Bible. Find and read also the preface of the 1611 version of the King James Bible. Like myself and others have said, there is the unrefutable proof that proves you to be wrong about the topic of this thread.
:groupray:

[RuckmanKnight]

You are silly. The preface has nothing to do with the Bible

Is John the Baptist elijah?

John said he wasn't.

Jesus said he was!

John didn't know how much he was being used by God, and was humble.

The translators of the 1611 did not know they were bringing the very words of the Lord into English, and were humble.

Why do you choose to believe the words of man, over the words of the living God?:amen:

[Vambram]

You are silly. The preface has nothing to do with the Bible

Is John the Baptist elijah?

John said he wasn't.

Jesus said he was!

John didn't know how much he was being used by God, and was humble.

The translators of the 1611 did not know they were bringing the very words of the Lord into English, and were humble.

Why do you choose to believe the words of man, over the words of the living God?



Take the words of the translators themselves. They knew what they were doing when they were translating the 1611 King James Bible. For someone to assume that they know more about what the translators were doing and trying to do than the translators themselves really does appear to me to be the very height of ludicrous arrogance, in my opinion.
By the way, I stand extremely firmly upon my belief and knowing conviction that GOD Himself Divinely and Plenary Inspired the original manuscripts of the scriptures as written by the human hands of the authors. The original manuscripts of the Scriptures were completely and totally Inerrant, God-Breathed, and perfectly divinely & plenary Inspired by the Lord GOD Himself.
:amen:

[Andy Broadley]

Can someone please remind me exactly what it is we are suposedto be debating here?