Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?......Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

FORUM HALL - Defending The King James Bible

August 20 2002 at 6:53 PM
from IP address

Charges Against The King James Bible - Are They True Or Are They False?
We are going to present those charges here for your determination. Before
you begin, please read;

Some Call It Heresy - Defending The King James Bible

After reading the charges and the defense, study the links and then, click
on the vote button to register your opinion. Thank You

Let Me Know When New Charges Are Added

FastCounter by bCentral

This forum has been edited by a moderator at
that logged in from one of the below forums. These forums are not part
of, approved by or affiliated with any Church.

This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Nov 27, 2002 5:55 PM
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Oct 29, 2002 9:46 AM
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Oct 26, 2002 8:23 PM
This message has been edited by madisonchurchofchrist from IP address on Aug 22, 2002 6:43 PM
This message has been edited by madisonchurchofchrist from IP address on Aug 22, 2002 6:20 PM
This message has been edited by madisonchurchofchrist from IP address on Aug 22, 2002 5:49 PM

 Respond to this message   

THE CHARGE: ...."Easter (Acts 12:4) should be Passover"

August 24 2002, 11:41 AM 

CHARGES: "Easter (Acts 12:4) should be Passover"

(KJV) Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

THE DEFENSE: Passover and Easter were two different events during this time. Obviously the KJV translators knew when Passover and Easter occured, because they had translated the word Passover some 28 different times in the New Testament.

This time though, they chose Easter!

It should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of unleavened bread" had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.

Reference Links;

Vote: Is The Charge True? Or Is It False?

This forum has been edited by a moderator at
that logged in from one of the below forums. These forums are not part
of, approved by or affiliated with any Church.

 Respond to this message   

Passover vs. "Easter" (pascha)

December 28 2011, 2:42 PM 

Prior to ANY English translation, the term "pascha", actually a Hebrew term with no Greek equivalent consistently was understood in the literal sense - "Passover". Easter was a contrived English term that came about centuries after the New Testament was written and widely distributed.

 Respond to this message

THE CHARGE: The Use of Thee and Thou Is Outdated

August 26 2002, 5:09 PM 


This Web Site:

Charges The King James Bible;

"Are we so arrogant as to put an outdated language in a position of seeking the lost? Today, I know of too many preachers who read from the King James Version exclusively while in the pulpit."

"I am not saying that it would be sinful to pray using "Thee and Thou," but I cannot see a purpose for it."

The Charge Is False:

"Some readers object to the KJV's use of archaic words like thee, thou, thine, and ye. However, these words were used [even after they had begun to cease from English conversational use,] to convey the singularity or plurality of the person[s] addressed. This is conveyed in the Greek and Hebrew, but is not possible using only the common English pronouns "you" or "your". When Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8:44, "ye are of your father the devil " we know from the KJV that he was speaking to the entire group, not just one individual. Similarly, in the KJV the singular terms the and thou means 'you alone,' and thine means 'yours alone [for Thine is the kingdom" - Matt. 6:13.]"

Study Links;

Vote: Are The Charges True or Are They False?

 Respond to this message

THE CHARGE: Translated From A Few Late And Inadequate Manuscripts

August 26 2002, 5:28 PM 


The Charge From This Web Site:

"It should be noted that the KJV translators had access to only a few late and somewhat inadequate manuscripts. Manuscripts of the Greek text had undergone several changes and contained several additions and variations by the Middle Ages."

The Charge Is False:

"The critical difference between the King James Bible and the modern perversions is in the Greek text they were translated from. The KJ was translated from the Received Text or Textus Receptus [TR,] which was compiled and printed in Greek by Erasmus in 1516 from the majority of Greek texts available; hence the alternate term Majority Text. The reliability of this text is based on the premise that as New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand and spread throughout Asia Minor and Europe from the 1st Century AD, the majority of copies would be reliable and errors would only occur in very few of the copies. [This is a good place to add that the translators of the King James Bible were so meticulous in their task, that a single misspelled word or error of any kind resulted in a complete re-write of the affected page. The writer destroyed the corrupted page, bathed, changed clothes and prayed for several hours before returning to work.] Where the KJ differs from the modern perversions, the KJ?s readings are confirmed by thousands of scriptural quotes from the writings of early Church fathers; such as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, dating back to the 1st century and the early church at Antioch."

Study Links;
King James Old Testament Text;
King James New Testament Text;

Vote: Are The Charges True or Are The Charges False?

 Respond to this message

Addition to my Post.

November 26 2002, 10:21 PM 

I would give the following suggestions regarding translations.
1. Keep the issue of translations in perspective. Almost everyone agrees that anyone can be saved if he will read almost any translation. (exceptions may include the JW's New World Translation)God did not call us to convert people to a translation or to dispute with bretheren about translations but to save the lost.
2. When doing personal work it is always best, if possible, to allow the person you are studying with to use their own translation.
3. Every translation is imperfect. Few would argue that any translation is absolutely without fault. Thus, the issue really is: What version best expresses the original in this particular verse? (A parallel bible that contains at least two versions is what I have found most helpful.)
4. The ultimate test of a translation is whether or not it faithfully represents the original or says to the reader in the new language what the reader in the original heard, not whether or not it agrees with a favorite translation or a particular interpretation.
5. Most (probably 99%) of those who discuss translations are not qualified to judge for themselves the relative merits of differing Greek texts. And I would question the use of one's time devoted to this matter particularly if he is a minister who should be about the work of the Lord.
6. A translation should be evaluated on the basis of the purpose of its translator(s) and his or thier methods. One can learn this by reading the forward or introduction to any translation he is thinking about using. examples: The Amplified Bible was never intended to be read in public. Today's Engish Version is in simplified English for a purpose and that's why it is so different. A paraphrase should be judged and used as a paraphrase, not as a literal translation. the difference between the NIV and the NRSV(and others) which adhere to the traditon which extends fron the KJV through the ASV to the RSV is largely a matter of a difference in translation theory and practice.
7. Every translator has biases, or preconceived notons, and the reader should watch for these to show up in the translation. But the translator's biases will not necessarily be reflected in the translation.
8. For study and exegesis, one should use a number of translations.
9. It is not necessary nor wise to try to force people who have been using the KJV all their lives to quit using it. However, if this version is used, the meaning of antiquated words and difficult passages must be explained thoroughly. Furthermore, the preacher needs to find a way to help people understand that what really matters is the original text of which the KJV is a translation.
10. In my opinion, it is unwise to ask children or people who have never read the bible before to begin their study of scripture by using the KJV. To do so places an unnecessary stumblingblock in their way. They must learn to read a different language with strange words before they can begin to understand what the Lord would have them to do to be saved. We have no evidence that the lord wanted the language of scriptue to be hard to read.

Toward a better understanding of the word of God,

 Respond to this message   

Re: Addition to my Post.

November 27 2002, 5:47 PM 

Dear Mitchell;

I have no doubt that your thoughts are from the heart.

However, it is obvious that you know not what you preach or some evidence for testing would be provided.

Those that can read, let them see. The truth is far different from someones cozy beliefs.

 Respond to this message

Actually I do know what I preach!

November 27 2002, 6:36 PM 

You see I don't know what happened to the first post that I sent. Obviously it was lost. In that post I explained myself and where I am coming from. This post was just an addendum to the first which never made it onto the forum.
I was responding to the claim that the Greek Text, from which the KJV was translated, is the better Greek Text. After all it is the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus." The fact of the matter is that Erasmus first printed his Greek New Testament in 1516 and it underwent several revisions up until 1633. In 1633 the label "Textus Receptus" was placed on the publication as a marketing tool to help set it apart from other Greek New Testaments in circulation. It worked. I'm not saying that Erasmus' Greek New Testament is inferior, quite the contrary, it was good for it's time. However, just as Erasmus revised his own text as better, more reliable MSS came avaliable, people later used even more reliable MSS to create Greek bibles which are closer to the original than we have ever had before. Reasoning that the "Textus Receptus" is better because it uses the majority text is just plain faulty reasoning. Just because a MSS is in the majority does not make it more reliable, it only means that more copies of it were made and therefore if it contained errors or additions then these would be copied also.
The newer versions of the Greek New Testament use far superior MSS as they are older and come from more reliable categories of MSS. The reliability of these texts have been attested to by the patristic citations of early "church fathers."
I also question what is at the heart of those who claim that only the KJV should be trusted. What do our Spanish or Russian speaking brethren use? A translation of the KJV or a translation into their language of the original Greek?
I have done my homework on this matter. I wonder if many who claim the superiority of the KJV have done their homework. The real evidence is against you. The best way to study the bible, as ALL translations contain error, is to use several translations and use the one that that is as close to the original intent of the writer of that particular passage.

 Respond to this message

Re: Actually I do know what I preach!

November 28 2002, 1:59 AM 

Can you please explain what "more reliable MSS" you are referring to? I hope you are not referring to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. If so, your reasoning is flawed. Older is not better. Corrupt is corrupt no matter how old the manuscript is. They disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.

From your posts, it sounds like you don't have a single Bible that you can hold in your hand and declare that it is the preserved Word of God. If this is what you are saying, then you are calling God a liar, Sir.

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

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

Such Hostility!?!

November 29 2002, 10:22 PM 

I never knew what a nest of hornets I was stepping in untill after my first post! You brothers need to turn it down a notch. First of all I have never condemned the KJV and I NEVER said that I don't believe that God's word has not been preserved for us today! One should be careful about making such serious charges against another without basis. That is called slander which is condemned in the NIV, RSV, NKJV, ASV and Yes, even the KJV. Actually, I believe that we should thank God for being blessed with so many translations of His Holy Word with which we can use to study. But to hold one translation over another and declare it and it alone to be the only inspired word of God is quite dangerous. The JW's do this very thing and we condemn them for it. Until we all learn Greek then we just have to deal with the fact that we must all learn God's word through translations. It is because of this fact that we then must learn to accept that there will be errors in the translations, because what we are reading is the translation of God's word into our language by mere mortal men. As long as we recognize these facts then we can feel safe but if we confine ourself to only one translation then we are on dangerous ground and we have locked ourself into the mindset of only one group of translators.
As to the question of which group of MSS I was refering to the answer is not that simple. While the KJV locked itself into using only one version of the Greek NT (Erasmus' version), other translations chose to not limit themselves to one version so that they could use the rules of textual criticism against a variety of MSS and use the most reliable one for each verse, sentence, even down to words. (What a novel idea, use more than one version to make sure you get it right.) Any diligent bible student would do themselves a world of good to read the preface to every translation they have and find out for themselves the philosophy of translation that each particular version holds to. For example: The NIV followed the same idea as I described above. The translators of the NIV used the most reliable source material for any given passage instead of limiting themselves to just one MSS.
It may suprise you, but I am not a King James basher nor am I an NIV cheerleader. I simply want to be able to use a translation that is written in modern language so that I am not forced to spend ten minutes of sermon time explaining antiquated words and phrases to the congregation when I could be telling them more about God's precious Son. I know many faithful Men of God today who can and do(myself included), mount the pulpit and preach the sanctity of the pattern of worship that God instituted, including denouncing instrumental music in worship, while using an NIV. It is true, God has preserved His word for us today. God has even went further than that by blessing people with the knowledge of languages who can translate His preserved, Holy word into any language or dialect in the world. If God can do that then I am confident He can preserve His word to be translated into Modern English.
To God Be The Glory!
Mitchell Skelton

 Respond to this message

Re: Such Hostility!?!

November 30 2002, 1:27 AM 

I was not being hostile, I was merely responding to your own statements:

"The best way to study the bible, as ALL translations contain error, is to use several translations and use the one that that is as close to the original intent of the writer of that particular passage."

"Every translation is imperfect. Few would argue that any translation is absolutely without fault."

By stating that "ALL translations contain error", you are saying that God's Word is not preserved.

You did not state which group of more reliable MSS you were referring to. The translators of the King James Version were well aware of the existence of the corrupt Greek texts, but did not use them because they were so corrupt. It is a well known fact that all of the modern versions are based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian line), the most corrupt texts available.

While it is possible to be saved by reading the modern versions, Scripture is grossly weakened by them. How can the Bible be a weapon for the Christian or allow the Christian to grow if it is so perverted?

Heb 4:12 "For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

1 Peter 2:2 "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"

You state:

"It may suprise you, but I am not a King James basher nor am I an NIV cheerleader."

However, prior to this statement you stated:

"While the KJV locked itself into using only one version of the Greek NT (Erasmus' version), other translations chose to not limit themselves to one version so that they could use the rules of textual criticism against a variety of MSS and use the most reliable one for each verse, sentence, even down to words. (What a novel idea, use more than one version to make sure you get it right.)"

Sounds like King James bashing to me. The King James translators used Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 as PRIMARY sources for their translation, not Erasmus.

In your previous post you stated:

"I also question what is at the heart of those who claim that only the KJV should be trusted. What do our Spanish or Russian speaking brethren use? A translation of the KJV or a translation into their language of the original Greek?"

God gave us the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek and the whole Bible in English. Most countries today teach English as a second language.

Another statement you made was:

"Just because a MSS is in the majority does not make it more reliable, it only means that more copies of it were made and therefore if it contained errors or additions then these would be copied also."

I disagree. If a MSS is so reliable, why would it be found on a dust covered shelf in the Vatican or in the trash in a monastery? If a MSS is the inspired Word of God, it would be copied over and over and over to be shared with the whole world. The modern versions rely on 5 MSS while the KJV relies on 5,000. The two MSS that the modern versions rely heavily on, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone.

When you say one should use several versions, how does one determine which one to use in any particular circumstance? If two Bibles disagree with each other, which one should be considered correct? Doesn't this cause confusion?

1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

Help Me

November 30 2002, 11:24 AM 

You keep making the claim that the Modern Versions contradict with the KJV. Where? Especially when it comes to the plan of salvation. Show me where Even one version contradicts another. They are not to be found. Other so call "contradictions" are not to be found either. You are the one who is denying the fact that God has peserved His Holy Word. The bible does not contradict itself.

 Respond to this message

Re: Help Me

November 30 2002, 9:26 PM 

Luke 9:56

For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.

and they went to another village. (footnote reads "And he said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." 56")

Matthew 18:11

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

missing (footnote reads "11 The Son of Man came to save what was lost.")

Matthew 9:13

But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

1 Corinthians 5:7

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

John 6:47

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Luke 2:33

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Mark 3:15

And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

to have authority to drive out demons.

John 16:16

A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

"In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me."

1 Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[3] appeared in a body,[4]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
(footnote [3] Some manuscripts God [4] Or in the flesh)

Mark 16:9-20

Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

[And] she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

And they went and told [it] unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Luke 11:2-4
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Give us day by day our daily bread.

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

2He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,[1]
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.[2]
3Give us each day our daily bread.
4Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[3]
And lead us not into temptation.[4] ' "
(too many footnotes)

Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[2] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[3] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
(footnotes [2] Some manuscripts brother without cause [3] An Aramaic term of contempt)

Luke 4:8

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

John 9:35

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

Matthew 23:14

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

missing (footnote reads "Some manuscripts 14 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely.")

Luke 17:36

Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

missing (footnote reads "Some manuscripts 36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.)

Acts 8:37

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

missing (footnote reads "Some late manuscripts 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.")

1 John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (footnote reads [1] Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century))

2 Samuel 21:19

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

No Contradictions

December 2 2002, 12:46 AM 

I appreciate all the different bible verses you posted. It is always a pleasure to read the word of God. (This is not meant sarcastically. I truly appreciate anyone’s effort at striving to do God’s will.)

In an attempt to understand where it is you are coming from I read the article “Spiritual Deception” that you had linked to in one of your posts. I don’t know how much good our discussion will accomplish after reading this article. It seems that the attitude you and the writer have taken is that the KJV is the only true inspired word of God and that the translators themselves were inspired. While I would agree that the KJV is the inspired word of God and that the providence of God was definitely working for the good of man in their effort, I do not agree that it is the only translation that is the inspired word of God nor do I agree that the translators were inspired. The only inspired men of God involved in the completion of God’s word had a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19–21 “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

I do not believe that you think these men had that sort of gift. But since God is a living God and since He is still active in this world today then why would He not want people of today to have a copy of His Holy Word available in their native language, whether it is Spanish, Danish, Portugese, Russian, or Modern English? I believe that our God is quite capable and quiet powerful enough to use divine providence in making this happen.

As to the specific verses you quoted in your post, I suppose these were meant as a reply to my post saying that there were no contradictions in the translations. You have done a good job of making the point for me. Where are the contradictions? There are differences in translation, but no contradictions. Let’s look at a few of the verses you posted:

Let’s do the easiest one first
2 Samuel 21:19 - I suppose that you would say that there is a contradiction here because the NIV leaves out “the brother of.” The facts are that even the KJV admits in it’s own pages that “the brother of” was inserted by the translators. The words in brackets, italics, or parentheses (depending upon your particular bible) are an indication that these words were not in the original. Does this mean that the bible contradicts itself? Certainly not! We know the truth of the matter is that this actually was the brother of Goliath who was killed from reading 1 Chron. 20. We can also look to various bible dictionaries and lexicons and find out that “Lahmi the brother of” is very similar to “the Bethlehemite.” The translators of the KJV simply chose to “correct” the error in the MSS by inserting what we know to be true while the translators of the NIV chose to go with a more literal translation. Two different styles yet both are correct and no contradiction.

Matthew 9:13 - Once again, since you made no comments, I must deduce that in reference to this vers you are pointing out the omission of “to repentance” in the NIV. The facts on this matter are quite clear. The phrase “to repentance” was an addition to the MSS that was used by the KJV translators. Earlier and equally reliable MSS do not have this phrase. Does this omit doctrine from God’s word? Absolutely not! (See Luke 5:32, 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 13:3, 5 and others.)

Matthew 5:22 - I assume that the omission of “without a cause” is a contradiction. However we have accounts of Jesus saying things differently on occasion yet there is not contradiction. In Matthew 5 and 19 Jesus gives us the only reason for marriage after divorce, yet in Mark 10 Jesus gives no exception to the marriage after divorce rule. If there is an error in translation of the scripture let us all hope that it would err on the conservative side, as the NIV does here by leaving out the exception, instead of the other way around.

Mark 16:9-20 - I would agree that the statement before this section in most modern translations might cause someone who is seeking for the truth to question the authenticity of these verses. The fact of the matter is that these MSS do exist. They are earlier and in a more reliable group of MSS than many that exist. I personally believe that verses 9–20 belong in the scripture but let’s not bury our head in the sand and pretend that the issue is not out there to be dealt with. You may very well come across one of these true seekers one day with the question of whether or not these verses belong in the bible. Even if this person is fully convinced that verses 9–20 do not belong in the bible, can we not still use other portions of scripture to teach the necessity of evangelism and baptism? (See Matt. 28:18–20, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1–14, and numerous others.)

I could go on but I feel that these suffice, at least for me anyway. I leave you with the words of Paul and pray that you all would pray this prayer with me.
Ephesians 4:2–6“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. ”

Toward Unity,

 Respond to this message

RE: No Contradictions

December 2 2002, 2:42 AM 


The modern versions by virtue of their footnotes are casting doubt on God's Word by continuing Satan's lie, "Yea, hath God said".

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

The changes and deletions in the modern versions may seem trivial to the trained eye, but they accomplish casting doubt on the true Word of God.

Does the NIV lead us to believe Isa 14:12 is referring to Jesus?

Isa 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Rev 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

Why were the words "but by every word of God" removed?

Luke 4:4

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"

By removing such words, the NIV has weakened Scripture.

There are many, many examples of such changes. Many of them can be found by following the links on the main Concerned Members page or by searching for NIV vs KJV in a search engine.

Many of the changes taking place in the brotherhood can be linked to these changes in God's Word and many of them can be seen as being changed to support Roman Catholic doctrine.

Every word of God is important. The underlying Greek Text of the NIV is 2,886 words shorter than the Textus Receptus. These words DO affect doctrine and their removal CAN cause one to stumble by implanting doubt.

These are not differences in translation as you assert. They are differences in the underlying Greek Text. All of the modern versions rely on a corrupt Greek Text and should be abandoned.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message


December 7 2002, 9:34 PM 

Mitchell, I praise God there are brothers like you, with the patience to do this...

These people prove the very things they are trying to argue against every time they open their mouths.

 Respond to this message

Re: Biblioidolatry

December 7 2002, 10:36 PM 


I am very aware of the following verses:

Exodus 20:4-5 Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that
[is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth
beneath, or that [is] in the water under the

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth [generation] of
them that hate me;

I am also very aware of these verses:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and
powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the

Are you accusing me of Biblioidolatry because I believe in the inerrancy of the KJV Bible? Am I to understand from your comment that you do not believe in an inerrant Bible? If so, then what parts are in error and what parts are not? Who makes that decision? Is it left up to the individual? Isn't this postmodernism in its purest form (the only truth is what is experienced by the individual)?

Since there was not much substance to your post, would you care to elaborate on what "things" you are referring to? Just by making the statement "These people prove the very things they are trying to argue against every time they open their mouths" does not make it true. I'll be looking forward to reading a post from you with facts to support your accusations.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   
Jim Queen

Re: Re: Biblioidolatry

December 8 2002, 1:47 PM 


Try these for starters as you wait for Janine to respond.

From the perspective of one who believes the KJV Bible is a direct "Word of God" and free of all error and contradiction, how would you address the following:


Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."


Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."


Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."


I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."


Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."


Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."


Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."


Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"


Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."


James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."
The common defense here is that "we are saved by faith and works." But Paul said "not of works."


Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."
I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."


Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . that thine alms may be in secret."
Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their works they do for to be seen of men."


Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."


Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.

See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten.


Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."


Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."


James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."


Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."


John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father."
I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."


Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."


Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."


Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."


II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."


II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."


I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."


II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."


Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."


Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."


Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."


Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

 Respond to this message

Re: Jim Queen's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible

December 8 2002, 8:36 PM 

Thank you for the questions, Jim. I'm always thankful for an opportunity to study the Word.


One is a law for man concerning man. The other is concerning righteous judgment for those deserving it.

No contradiction here.


Another case of a law for man concerning man. The other is righteous judgment for those deserving it. Notice that God did not lie himself. He allowed it to happen.

No contradiction here.


Isaiah 1:13 is saying that they were so wicked that anything they did was displeasing to God including keeping the Sabbath. The other verses refer to the new covenant (New Testament). We are no longer under the Old Law.

No contradiction here.


The references given were not idols and were not worshipped.

No contradiction here.


James is referring to those who SAY they have faith, but there is no fruit (works). If you are saved, there will be a natural outpouring of good works.

Matthew is referring to a self-righteous man who SAID he had kept all of the commandments. Since no one can keep all of the commandments, you are saved by faith.

No contradiction here.


These verses deal with intent. Some of the verses are dealing with those who want their works to be seen so that they will APPEAR to be righteous. Other verses are dealing with works that can be seen by others, but for which one is not asking for credit (not bragging), so that the world will see they are a christian.

No contradiction here.


It must be understood that God knows everything. He knew what the outcome would be before it ever happened. It may APPEAR to us that he changed his mind, but did he? God already knew that there would not be 10 righteous people in Sodom, so whether it be 50 or 10 did not matter.

No contradiction here.


The first verses refer to the fact that God has the power to punish us for our parents' sins. The last verses tell us that we can avoid that result by repenting and not following the same path our parents did.

No contradiction here.


God was testing Abraham. James 1:2-3 "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing [this], that the trying of your faith worketh patience."

No contradiction here.


These speak of the Godhead. It was Jesus they saw not the Father. John 12:41 "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

No contradiction here.


These verses do not say they are not sinners. They were righteous, but no one is without sin except Jesus.

No contradiction here.


2 Sam 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:"

The key phrase here is "whom she brought up for Adriel". She did not give birth to them, but she did raise them.

No contradiction here.


Could be 4,000 large stalls of 10 stalls each for a total of 40,000.

No reason to believe this is a contradiction.


Two different definitions of "heard". Audibly hearing and understanding. They heard the voice, but they didn't understand as Paul did.

No contradiction here.


Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Because of Hebrew tradition, Luke only mentions males and uses the name Joseph to refer to Mary. Jacob is the father of Joseph and Heli is the father of Mary.

No contradiction here.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message


December 8 2002, 11:48 PM 


As I live and breathe we are in total agreement. The word of God never contradicts itself. Those who try to "prove" otherwise are merely conducting an exercise in futility. Any so called contradictions are only claims by those who are lacking in knowledge. They should take the advice of the scripture and "study to show your self approved before God."

In His Name,

 Respond to this message   
Jim Queen

Another Amen!

December 9 2002, 10:01 PM 


I believe you and I agree as to the errors in all translations from God's infallible Word in the original languages. The message is timeless and will always save the lost if the heart is right with God.


 Respond to this message   
Jim Queen

Still Biblioidolatry

December 9 2002, 9:57 PM 


Thanks for proving my point!

You seem to lose track of the basic issue at hand. I have no doubt as to the infallibility of the Word as to the original texts. I have question about problems with ALL translations made from the original Hebrew and Greek.

Back up the thread a few posts to
Mitchell Skelton Addition to my Post. November 26 2002, 10:21 PM


For the next 9 posts you and the moderator seem to question brother Skelton’s understanding of God’s Word. He questions the validity of your stance in “KJV only” as you seem to criticize all other versions. Brother Skelton is defending the use of “modern versions” in sharing the Gospel of Christ. You object vehemently by virtue of your post
Kevin Hamm SundaySchoolInExile RE: No Contradictions December 2 2002, 2:42 AM

Along comes Janine who seems to take Brother Skelton’s position. While doing this, I sense she is referring to your feelings about the KJV only position as “BIBLIOIDOLATRY” … which I take to mean as idol worship of a version of God’s Word. I can see her point easily.

“Are you accusing me of Biblioidolatry because I believe in the inerrancy of the KJV Bible?”

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M ACCUSING YOU OF! I believe you have admitted your sin by the responses you made to me.

I appreciate your use of Barnes, Gill, Matthew Henry, etc. as commentaries help explain many issues in the KJV where the translators failed to clearly communicate the intent of the original text. Let me just grab a couple.


Two different definitions of "heard". Audibly hearing and understanding. They heard the voice, but they didn't understand as Paul did.

No contradiction here.”

I don’t have any problem with your analogy. KJV left a little to be desired since the same Greek “G191” is used in both places. Take a look at how some other versions handle the issue at hand.

Acts 9:7
(KJV+) And1161 the3588 men435 which journeyed with4922 him846 stood2476 speechless,1769 hearing191 a(3303) voice,5456 but1161 seeing2334 no man.3367
(GW) Meanwhile, the men traveling with him were speechless. They heard the voice but didn't see anyone.
(ISV) Meanwhile, the men who were traveling with him were standing speechless, for they heard the voice but didn't see anyone.

Acts 22:9
(KJV+) And1161 they that were5607 with4862 me1698 saw2300 indeed3303 the3588 light,5457 and2532 were1096 afraid;1719 but1161 they heard191 not3756 the3588 voice5456 of him that spake2980 to me.3427
(GW) "The men who were with me saw the light but didn't understand what the person who was speaking to me said.
(ISV) The men who were with me saw the light but didn't understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.


Could be 4,000 large stalls of 10 stalls each for a total of 40,000.

No reason to believe this is a contradiction.”

1Kings 4:26
(KJV+) And Solomon8010 had1961 forty705 thousand505 stalls723 of horses5483 for his chariots,4817 and twelve8147, 6240 thousand505 horsemen.6571
(GW) Solomon had stalls for 40,000 chariot horses. He also had 12,000 chariot soldiers.

2Chron 9:25
(KJV+) And Solomon8010 had1961 four702 thousand505 stalls723 for horses5483 and chariots,4818 and twelve8147, 6240 thousand505 horsemen;6571 whom he bestowed5117 in the chariot7393 cities,5892 and with5973 the king4428 at Jerusalem.3389
(GW) Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 war horses. He stationed some in chariot cities and others with himself in Jerusalem.

Kevin, can you honestly say that KJV handled these two cases better than the more modern versions? DON’T TELL ME IT IS UP TO THE ONE READING THE KJV TO TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT WILL REVEAL THE INTENT AS TO NEGATE THE CONTRADICTION.


I’m not here to judge; just to point out that many versions have value in the study of God’s Word. There are none better than Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic. Our feeble English language, regardless of when it has been used, just can’t convey the intent of the original languages. We don’t have the idioms or variety of words to use.

Thanks for the study!


 Respond to this message   

Re: Still Biblioidolatry

December 11 2002, 5:52 PM 


It is the humble opinion of this moderator that you only proved that you are capable of judging Mr. Hamm a sinner. Mr. Hamms original claim that the Westcott-Hort Greek text is corrupted still stands. You did nothing to disprove that. The two Bibles you quoted are both based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text. They are both loaded with corruptions. Both the "GW" and the "ISV" are close to being total paraphrase rather than a literal translation, and probably shouldn't be called Bibles, especially "God's Word"

 Respond to this message   
Jim Queen

What say you, Mr. Moderator?

December 11 2002, 7:15 PM 

Brother Moderator,

Thanks for your humble opinion. Judging Brother Hamm a sinner is easy. We are all sinners saved by the grace of God. I am certain he has the same belief.

Could you answer a couple questions for me?

1) Is it possible for one to read either of the 2 versions that I referenced as "better than the KJV in these instances" and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?

2) Would you like to answer the question, "Kevin, can you honestly say that KJV handled these two cases better than the more modern versions? DON’T TELL ME IT IS UP TO THE ONE READING THE KJV TO TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT WILL REVEAL THE INTENT AS TO NEGATE THE CONTRADICTION.

A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE. WHICH VERSION DID THE BETTER JOB HERE?" Naturally, you need to substitute "Brother Moderator" for "Kevin" in that question.

My comment was not based on the literal accuracy of either version or paraphrase. You are correct that they probably have more "corruption" in literal translation than the KJV. They do a fine job in revealing God's plan of redemption for common man. There is no in depth study or counsel necessary for the message to be told. It's plain and simple. I would agree as I stated before that the original text with a variety of resources will help any "student" of the Word.

Grace and peace on all of you,

 Respond to this message

Re: What say you, Mr. Moderator?

December 12 2002, 1:14 AM 


You keep mentioning "the originals". You do know that the originals no longer exist, don't you?

Jer 36:1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, [that] this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jer 36:2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.

Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, [that] when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast [it] into the fire that [was] on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that [was] on the hearth.

Jer 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

Jer 51:63 And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, [that] thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates:

I find it curious that the NIV translates Psalms 12:6,7 this way:

"And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.

O LORD , you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever."

Here is the Word of God in the KJV:

"The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

No wonder you don't believe in an inerrant Bible!

Here are some questions for you:

1. Which version confirms the deity of Christ more strongly?

Acts 3:13

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go.


The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

Acts 3:26

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.

Acts 4:27

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,


Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.

Acts 4:30

By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.


Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.

Acts 8:37

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


Oops, only in a footnote.

Daniel 3:25

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

Romans 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;


regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

2. Which version supports the virgin birth of Jesus?

Luke 2:33

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.


The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Luke 2:43

And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not [of it].


After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

Matthew 1:25

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

3. Which version supports the Godhead?

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Oops, only in a footnote.

4. Which version keeps Jesus' words as required in John 14:23 "If a man love me, he will keep my words:"?

Matthew 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

5. Which version supports a literal heaven?

John 3:13

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.


No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

6. Which version supports a literal Hell more strongly?

Psalms 9:17

The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.


The wicked return to the grave,
all the nations that forget God.

Deut 32:22

For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.


For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,
one that burns to the realm of death below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.

Job 26:6

Hell [is] naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.


Death is naked before God;
Destruction lies uncovered.

Well, that's a start.

Since we have all agreed that the KJV contains no errors and no contradictions, can you say the same for the modern versions?

In answer to your two questions:

"1) Is it possible for one to read either of the 2 versions that I referenced as "better than the KJV in these instances" and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?"

We can't know the answer to this question. Who are we to question the wisdom of God?

John 19:35 And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Some may need the whole counsel of God to believe. Have more been saved with the KJV than the modern versions?

"2) Would you like to answer the question, "Kevin, can you honestly say that KJV handled these two cases better than the more modern versions? DON’T TELL ME IT IS UP TO THE ONE READING THE KJV TO TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT WILL REVEAL THE INTENT AS TO NEGATE THE CONTRADICTION.

A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE. WHICH VERSION DID THE BETTER JOB HERE?" Naturally, you need to substitute "Brother Moderator" for "Kevin" in that question."

No. They are equally handled in these two cases.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   

Simple Answers

December 12 2002, 9:03 AM 

Kevin, moderator et al

The operative word in question one is “possible.” How can you deny an answer of yes?
(I would believe that it has already happened)

I appreciate the “NO” to answer two. The “equal handling” is like saying 1+1=46. I’m sure you could prove that!


 Respond to this message

Is the KJV easier to understand?

December 14 2002, 12:27 PM 

Which version is easier to read, the KJV or the NIV?

Isa 13:8

they shall be amazed one at another; their faces [shall be as] flames.


They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame.

2 Chr 15:14

And they sware unto the LORD with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets.


They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns.

2 Chr 13:22

And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, [are] written in the story of the prophet Iddo.


The other events of Abijah's reign, what he did and what he said, are written in the annotations of the prophet Iddo.

Psa 58:7

Let them melt away as waters [which] run continually: [when] he bendeth [his bow to shoot] his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.


Let them vanish like water that flows away; when they draw the bow, let their arrows be blunted.

1 Kings 7:6

And he made a porch of pillars


He made a colonnade

Gen 40:6

And Joseph came in unto them in the morning, and looked upon them, and, behold, they [were] sad.


When Joseph came to them the next morning, he saw that they were dejected.

Prov 23:10

Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:


Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless,

Isa 14:8

Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, [and] the cedars of Lebanon, [saying], Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.


Even the pine trees and the cedars of Lebanon exult over you and say, "Now that you have been laid low, no woodsman comes to cut us down."

Isa 59:13

In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.


rebellion and treachery against the LORD , turning our backs on our God, fomenting oppression and revolt, uttering lies our hearts have conceived.

Jer 46:20

Egypt [is like] a very fair heifer, [but] destruction cometh; it cometh out of the north.


Egypt is a beautiful heifer, but a gadfly is coming against her from the north.

Mat 2:1

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,


After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem

Gen 12:9

And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south.


Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.

Gen 6:4

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.


The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Luk 23:9

Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.


He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer.

Est 1:6

the beds [were of] gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble.


There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and other costly stones.

Mat 27:27

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band [of soldiers].


Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him.

Num 34:5

And the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto the river of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea.


where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Sea.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   
Jim Qeen

Are you stuck, Kevin?

December 14 2002, 3:36 PM 


I guess I'll never get a simple yes or no to a simple question. Allow me to ask one more.

Are you stuck on bashing the NIV. I never use it. Could you make some comparatives with some other versions? I'm sure you must have access to them.

If you would really like to get in a serious discussion on a variety of topics that seem to permeate this site, you may want to try the following link:

They seem to have a balanced group of scholars with respectful(most of the time) dialogue. If I must say so myself, the teaching is at least as good as it is here.


 Respond to this message

Re: Help Me

December 28 2011, 2:54 PM 

Isn't it amazing, that while using the NIV as the contrast to the KJV (the NIV is hardly the most literal/accurate translation, regardless of manuscripts), that there is really no contradiction in those parallels. There is no doctrinal or theological discrepancy. And even if one wanted to make a case on the "missing blood" lie, there are no changed or missing doctrines in any of the more reliable "modern" translations.

 Respond to this message

THE CHARGE: John 5:7 Was Never Part Of The Original Greek Text, They Just Stuck It In!

August 26 2002, 5:45 PM 


The Charge From This Web Site;

"One clear example of an error/addition that ended up in the KJV is 1 John 5:7, which reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." While such is not false teaching, it never was, however, a part of the original inspired word of God."

The Charge Is False;

"It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma."

Study Links;

Vote: Is The Charge True Or Is The Charge False?

 Respond to this message

THE CHARGE: "the KJV is, in truth, essentially an eight-man translation."

August 26 2002, 5:59 PM 


The Charge From This Web Site;

"The KJV was actually translated by 47 men divided into six groups; these groups did not exchange their individual work in order to confer with one another, therefore the KJV is, in truth, essentially an eight-man translation."

The Charge Is False;

The only thing they got right here is the number "47".

"It may be interesting to know how and to whom the work was distributed. There were six committees chosen, two of which sat at Westminster, two at Cambridge, two at Oxford. The whole were presided over by Bishop Andrews, who, besides possessing an intimate knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, and Syriac, was familiar with 16 other languages.
As each set or committee of translators finished the particular part assigned to them, it was then subjected to the criticism of the other five sets in order; so that each part of the Bible came before the whole body of the translators. When the 47 finished their work it was then carefully reviewed by the final committee. Dr Miles Smith, Bishop of Gloucester, wrote the preface." (Ref:A8)"

Study Links;

Vote: Is The Charge True Or Is The Charge False?

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump

Other Organizations Which Defend the King James Bible

August 31 2002, 5:33 PM 

A host of reliable and scholarly books and articles about the King James Bible are available from these organizations:

The Bible for Today
900 Park Ave.
Collingswood, NJ 08108

Trinitarian Bible Society (USA)
1600 Leonard St., NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

 Respond to this message

A look at several versions

December 16 2002, 2:30 AM 

KJV John 1:18 ­ No man hath seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

NIV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but GOD THE ONE AND ONLY, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NASB John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

RSV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the ONLY SON, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

No matter how you look at it, these four all say DIFFERENT things.

The NIV calls the One at the Father's side, "God the One and Only". Does that mean the Father is not God?

The NASB makes Jesus a BEGOTTEN GOD, instead of a begotten SON making Jesus a CREATED god.

The RSV errs in the other direction. Whereas the other two omit the word "Son", this one omits the word "begotten". So now we have Jesus being the ONLY Son of God. ANY saved person is a Son of God. This is a doctrinal error.

MV supporters will try to say they have the same "message", but any HONEST person knows they all say DIFFERENT, CONFLICTING things, including false doctrine and blatant heresy.

KJV Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

NIV Mark 1:2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way"

NASB Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

RSV Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;

Malachi wrote the quote in Mark 1:2 (Isaiah wrote the quote in Mark 1:3).

KJV Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

NIV Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

NASB Titus 3:10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,

RSV Titus 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

The KJV rightly warns us to AVOID a HERETIC, whereas the MVs WRONGLY warn us to REJECT a DIVISIVE man. Jesus was divisive - he was not a heretic.

KJV Acts 25:6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.

NIV Acts 25:6 After spending eight or ten days with them, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him.

NASB Acts 25:6 After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought.

RSV Acts 25:6 When he had stayed among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesare'a; and the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought.

The KJV rightly says "MORE THAN ten days", while many MVs wrongly say "NOT more than ..." - the opposite!

KJV 2 Sam 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

NIV 2 Sam 24:13 So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me."

NASB 2 Sam 24:13 So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me."

RSV 2 Sam 24:13 So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall three years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider, and decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me."

The KJV and NASB correctly say "seven years of famine" while the NIV and RSV incorrectly say "three years of famine". This may be an attempt to "correct" a "contradiction" with 1 Chron 21:11-12, but four years of famine had already passed when David was asked "Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes" in 1 Chron 21:11-12.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   

Sons of God?

December 16 2002, 8:57 AM 


Do you not understand that there is a story to tell? Those that don’t know God and His plan for man need to know what it is. They don’t need to know how to slice it and dice it word by word to understand it. The most important part is the message itself. Let me try my own version for a moment. See if you can follow this.

The creator of the universe and all that’s in it took on the form of man to give us a record of a life that lived perfectly. His desire was that we could draw close to Him by being perfect, since He could not accept anyone in His presence that was not perfect. The creator already knew that nobody could walk that line even with the example, so He allowed that perfect one to sacrifice His life to pay for our failure to be perfect. He did that! Here are some of the highlights of that life beginning with the promise that He would come right on through His birth, death and being raised from the dead…etc.

I know this is simplistic, but it’s the basic message that we need to share, not the minutae of differences in the message.

Kevin, you seem to be stuck on trying not to do what is wrong or possibly in error. If I lived my life like that I would never do anything at all for fear of mistakes. Can’t you see the MOST IMPORTANT WAY TO LIVE THAT CAME RIGHT FROM JESUS’ LIPS? He spent His time here telling us what TO DO. He told us to love God and our neighbor. He said if we do this we will be just fine. If one focuses on these 2 things the rest will fall in line. His Spirit living in us will COUNSEL AND COMFORT us as He promised. It’s just not that tough to understand.

When I reviewed the texts that you quoted, none seem to have much bearing on our lives. They seem to try to pick the best way to say something where the message is basically clear already. There is one exception to that which was the first verse you quoted. When I read it my spirit was struck instantly and offended. I had to stop and see why. It took about 30 seconds to determine my uneasiness. Here’s why:

In your reference to John 1:18 this was your conclusion:

(((No matter how you look at it, these four all say DIFFERENT things.

The NIV calls the One at the Father's side, "God the One and Only". Does that mean the Father is not God?

The NASB makes Jesus a BEGOTTEN GOD, instead of a begotten SON making Jesus a CREATED god.

The RSV errs in the other direction. Whereas the other two omit the word "Son", this one omits the word "begotten". So now we have Jesus being the ONLY Son of God. ANY saved person is a Son of God. This is a doctrinal error.)))

How about these versions and their treatment of the message. Does any do better here?

(CEV) No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

(GW) No one has ever seen God. God's only Son, the one who is closest to the Father's heart, has made him known.

(MKJV) No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Kevin, how does your conclusion line up with God’s message and the believer’s hope and destiny? Consider these verses:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the SONS OF GOD[JQ], even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS OF GOD[JQ].

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the SONS OF GOD[JQ].

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Phi 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the SONS OF GOD[JQ], without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the SONS OF GOD[JQ]: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Kevin, I am aware that there is no “S” (capital S) in the word “Son” but it is obvious that I am a son by what is in the “MESSAGE” that has been preserved for me in God’s Word.

Thanks for reminding me!

 Respond to this message

Re: Sons of God?

December 16 2002, 12:44 PM 


You stated "There is one exception to that which was the first verse you quoted. When I read it my spirit was struck instantly and offended."

I am thankful that you finally admitted one of the MV's offended your spirit.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (emphasis mine)

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   

You misunderstood this one!

December 16 2002, 3:49 PM 


What stuck in my spirit was not the MV's translation! It was you saying that we are not "sons of GOD." My error was brought about by your "S" being a capital. There would have been no problem if you properly ascribed "s" to the word "sons" in the verse you quoted. I have no problem with the intent of any of the MV's when it comes to telling the story of how much God loves us.

I know it was late so there are no appologies necessary. I knew your intention after rereading my comment to you. Unfortunately, it was after it had already been posted.


 Respond to this message

I understand more than you know

December 16 2002, 4:50 PM 


Throughout this whole discussion you have maintained that there is no problem with the MVs when they leave out words, change words, add words, leave out whole verses, change the meaning of verses, question the deity of Jesus, question the virgin birth of Jesus, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Yet, you would have anyone that reads believe that by changing "S" to "s" changed the whole context of what I wrote? Aren't you being a little duplicitous?

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   

My Fault

December 16 2002, 5:18 PM 


All I am saying is it got me! My mistake! Period! I didn't notice your intent until after my original post because of the "S" in Sons of God. When I see a capital letter it ascribes a proper name, divinity or begins a sentence.

If the moderator had put all the posts in time sequence you would see that. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

It didn't take you long, however, to divert the situation, did it?

Prayerfully onward

 Respond to this message   

Sons of God again

December 16 2002, 10:34 AM 


I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Were you trying to say the error is that "all who believe really are sons of God?" If so, my error. I read it once more and could see how one could take your statement that way. I appologize for my failure in comprehension.


 Respond to this message

Re: Sons of God again

December 16 2002, 12:22 PM 

Yes, I stated "The RSV errs in the other direction. Whereas the other two omit the word "Son", this one omits the word "begotten"."

Continuing, again referring to the RSV "So now we have Jesus being the ONLY Son of God." This is what the RSV says.

Then I said "ANY saved person is a Son of God."

I was going to post the verses to support this position, but it was getting very, very late. Thank you for proving my point for me.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

Do the Modern Versions promote Catholic doctrine?

December 18 2002, 10:50 PM 

James 5:16

NIV Therefore CONFESS YOUR SINS to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

NASB Therefore, CONFESS YOUR SINS to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

CEV If you have SINNED, you should TELL EACH OTHER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. Then you can pray for one another and be healed. The prayer of an innocent person is powerful, and it can help a lot.

These versions support confessions to a priest. Now look at what the KJV says:

KJV CONFESS YOUR FAULTS one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.


1 Cor 10:28

NIV But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake

ESV But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience

ASV But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake:

2 Sam 5:21

NIV The Philistines abandoned their idols there, and David and his men carried them off.

NASB They abandoned their idols there, so David and his men carried them away.

CEV David and his troops also carried away the idols that the Philistines had left behind.

These versions remove the prohibition of worshipping idols. Now look at what the KJV says:

KJV 1 Cor 10:28 But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice UNTO IDOLS, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

KJV 2 Sam 5:21 And there they left their images, and David and his men BURNED THEM.


Matthew 6:7

NIV And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

CEV When you pray, don't talk on and on as people do who don't know God. They think God likes to hear long prayers.

ESV And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

These versions disguise "vain repetition" of prayer. Now look at what the KJV says:

KJV But when ye pray, use not VAIN REPETITIONS, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.


1 Cor 9:27

NIV No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

ASV but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.

Galatians 5:12

NIV As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

NASB I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

CEV I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!

These versions promote self-torture. Now look at what the KJV says:

KJV 1 Cor 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

KJV Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.


Matthew 11:12

NIV From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been FORCEFULLY ADVANCING, and forceful men lay hold of it.

NLT And from the time John the Baptist began preaching and baptizing until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been FORCEFULLY ADVANCING, and violent people attack it.

These versions support the Inquisition. Now look at what the KJV says:

KJV And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven SUFFERETH VIOLENCE, and the violent take it by force.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message


December 19 2002, 11:51 PM 

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,

Was this meant to be a serious study? Modern versions promote Catholic doctrine? Let me say that I do not agree with these Catholic doctrines that you propose the modern versions promote, but I don't think that what you have posted gives any credence at all to their position.

James 5:16

Every version you quoted gives the idea of confession "one to another" or "to each other", not to a priest which is how it is done in the Catholic church.
The word in question here I presume is "Sins" or "faults" the greek word is paraptoma meaning a side slip, error or transgression. What is an error or transgression?
1 John 3:4 (KJV)
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law"

1 Cor. 10:28
You state: "These versions remove the prohibition of worshiping idols"
Read 1 Cor. 10:7 (just prior to these verses and setting up the context)
"Do not be idolaters."(NIV)

Matt. 6:7

The KJV disguses "babbling like pagans" in prayer. Now look at what the NIV says:

"and when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans..."

Matt. 11:12

This is interesting you say that the modern versions support the Inquisition which happened BEFORE the modern versions and even the KJV were translated.

Anyway, It seems to be a moot question since the Catholics have their own translation and wouldn't use any modern version or the KJV.

In His Name,

 Respond to this message

Re: What?

December 22 2002, 2:09 AM 


When you say "Anyway, It seems to be a moot question since the Catholics have their own translation and wouldn't use any modern version or the KJV" don't you realize that the modern versions are aligned with the Catholic version? That was the whole point of my post. During this age of ecumenicalism this is especially relevant.

In James 5:16, the Greek word for "faults" is paraptoma. The Greek word for "sins" is hamartia. Paraptoma is found only in the Receptus manuscripts and hamartias is found in Aleph, B, etc. Why did Nestle and Aland change this word in their Greek text to hamartias if the meaning of the two words (as you say) are the same? Again, it is not a difference in translation, but a difference in the underlying Greek text.

Ask any Catholic what their proof texts are for confession to a priest and one of them will be James 5:16.

In 2 Samuel 5:21, there is a big difference between carrying away idols and burning them. In 1 Cor 10:28, are you saying it is acceptable to change God's words in one verse as long as the preceding verses set up the context?

I don't understand your comment about Matthew 6:7. The meaning of the word "babble" is:

1. To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds:
2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter.

This is a completely different meaning from "vain repetitions". Anyone can see that "vain repetitions" would prohibit the Hail Marys and Our Fathers of the Catholics.

The Inquisition was created to combat the heretical (according to the Catholic Church) Cathari and Waldenses. The Waldenses were successful in preserving God's word. Yes, the Inquisition predated the KJV and the MVs; however, can you not see the need of the Catholic Church to have support for its actions?

The MVs align themselves with the Catholic Church because they align themselves with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

Re: What? 2

January 1 2003, 9:18 PM 


In your previous post you stated "Anyway, It seems to be a moot question since the Catholics have their own translation and wouldn't use any modern version or the KJV."

Maybe you just didn't understand the possible implications. Please consider this:

"Jesuit cardinal CARLO MARIA MARTINI (1908- ) is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan. Since 1967, he has been a member of the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. His diocese in Europe is the largest in the world, with two thousand priests and five million "laity." He is Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. He is also President of the Council of European Bishop's Conferences. Time magazine, December 26, 1994, listed him as a possible candidate in line for the papacy. Another Time magazine article reported that Martini brought together a syncretistic convocation of over 100 religious leaders from around the world to promote a new age, one-world religion. In addressing this meeting, Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We need to synthesize a new religion for thinking men that will universalize that religion for the world and lead us into a new age." "(Excerpt from UNHOLY HANDS ON GOD'S HOLY BOOK: A REPORT ON THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES By David W. Cloud)

The implication is this:

The Revised Standard Version, the Today's English Version and the New English Bible all use the UBS Greek New Testament text.

Did you know that:

Vatican scholars prepare to rewrite the Bible

"Vatican scholars are preparing to rewrite the Bible by incorporating revelations contained in ancient scrolls discovered beside the Dead Sea in Palestine, it emerged yesterday.

A team of theologians and historians will gather in Italy later this month to start the potentially explosive task of inserting new details about the life and times of Jesus Christ.

Martyn Percy, a canon doctor at Sheffield university, welcomed the initiative but suggested the results may be less than dramatic. "There has never been a settled, definitive version of the Bible, it has been an evolving book which has gone through many translations. Only fundamentalists think it came in a fax from heaven." ",3604,550029,00.html

Mitchell, do you still believe that the Catholics have no interest in modern versions?

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

Catholics depend upon more than a version.

January 2 2003, 1:19 AM 

I think that if you want to discredit modern versions you need to try a different line than trying to align them with the Catholic church. Indeed the Catholic church is a heresy. But even if one on the proverbial "desert island" had only a modern version of the bible to go by they would never come up with the catholic church from its pages.
The Catholic church depends upon papal infallibility and papal decree as you well know. It does not matter that what the pope says contradicts the bible (any version be it KJV, or their own) the pope is, after all infallible. (their reasoning not mine)
This is the error in Catholic doctrine and it did not arise from modern versions it started very early in chuch history when man decided to follow after their own wishes and not God's.
Simply put, the Catholic church doesn't need a version to support their doctrine. They only need one to understand their idea that the pope is the head of the church and not Christ.
I don't know of any version of the bible that supports this idea.

In His Name,

 Respond to this message   

Much ado about nothing

December 28 2002, 10:50 PM 

Dear Brethren,
While I do not agree with Catholic doctrine, I must say that this website has become nothing more than a gossip forum (re: "What happened at the Madison Church of Christ") and a huge defense of the King James Bible (incidentally I don't agree with the changes that occurred at Madison either). The King James Bible is an outdated, archaic version that is hard to understand. While much of the KJV (I admit) is poetic, even musical in its language, I can just as easily find a trustworthy modern translation that makes the Bible easier to understand.

You've gotten bent out of shape over whether David and his men "burned" or "carried off" the Philistines' idols. Well, I would assume if David carried them away, he probably burned them if he knew his Law of Moses. Why give yourself an aneuryism over a word or two? Get a grip!

If you feel that it is your duty to force the KJV on every member of the Lord's church, then you're no better than the Catholic clergy of the Middle Ages who forced the Latin Vulgate on people as the "only" authoritative translation. The Catholic Church even burned people at the stake in the 1500's for translating the Bible into English--is that where we're headed?? If that happens, then I'm heading to China where the penalties for reading the Bible version of my choice won't be as severe.

Thank you,
A Concerned Member

 Respond to this message

Re: Much ado about nothing

December 29 2002, 3:59 PM 


We are here doing your job! We are trying to warn folks about what satan has been up to.
You say we are trying to force the King James on everyone, and that makes us as bad as the Catholics during the darkages.

Doesn't this sound like rage to you? Why are you raging?

We welcome you to this study. Let's use the facts to back up our position.

To your comments about The King James Being hard to understand, here is our reply;

In her excellent book "New Age Bible Versions", on page 196, G.A. Riplinger gives us the Flesch-Kincaid readability results of various 'Bibles'. In her first analysis, she compares the average grade level required to read the first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments. Her chart follows:.

Out of 5 Bibles compared and tested, which Bible was easiest to read?

"To extend the inquiry, one each of the three book-types (Gospel, Pauline epistle,and General epistle) were surveyed. The resulting data confirms the readability of the KJV" [S3P196].
Now, which Bible was easiest to read?

An objective analysis uncovers the truth. 'New versions' are actually HARDER TO READ,not easier. The claim that new versions are easier to read is ANOTHER lie. And who is the father of lies ?

"Why is the KJV easier to read? The KJV uses one or two syllable words while the new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases" [S3P196]

19:2.3 For instance: The following is a sample of the hard words used in the NASB vs. the easy words used in the KJV. This sample analysis is also courtesy of G.A. Riplinger [S3P197-208].

19:3.2 NKJV vs KJV

"Only a multi-million dollar marketing campaign could capture unsuspecting customers or the New King James Version camp. An actual collation of its text proves it MORE DIFFICULT, not 'clearer', as claimed. Second grade students can define ALL of the following sample KJV
words, but NONE of their NKJV substitutes" [S3P208].

Your Turn!

 Respond to this message

Re: Much ado about nothing

January 1 2003, 10:18 PM 

Apparently you have no regard for God's Word. You say "Why give yourself an aneuryism over a word or two? Get a grip!"

What does the Bible say about your viewpoint?

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Prov 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

The Discovery of Sinaitic Manuscript

December 23 2002, 12:34 AM 

Have you ever wondered where those "more reliable manuscripts" came from? The following is the account of Tischendorf, the man who found the Sanaitic Manuscript. Decide for yourself if this was God's preserved Word.

This extract is taken from Konstantin von Tischendorf, "When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript" (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).

"It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way."


 Respond to this message   

The Preserved Word of God

December 23 2002, 5:38 PM 


Very interesting discourse on Codex Sinaiticus. God has definitely preserved His Word in a variety of ways. Consider the Masoretic Text from centuries 7-10. Didn't God do a good job through these scholars also? When compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls of century 3 BC there is remarkable similarity. All books except Esther are represented in the DSS. A little better sample than Isaiah and Jeremiah. The DSS also bear witness to the accuracy of Codex Sinaiticus. It looks there are at least 2 threads here of preservation.

How do you feel about the Masoretic Text?


 Respond to this message

Re: The Preserved Word of God

January 1 2003, 1:16 AM 

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the most corrupt manuscripts available. While the KJV follows the Masoretic text, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus follow the LXX (Origen's corruption). To conclude that God preserved his Word in the Sinaiticus by rescuing it from a trash bin after 1400 years is spurious at best. To put that spin on what I posted was misleading.

Yes, a large number of the Dead Sea Scrolls do bear witness to the integrity of the Hebrew scribes of the Masoretic text, but some do agree with the LXX and there are a number of variants to the Hebrew text. The DSS testify to the fact that the Jews at the time of Christ had not lost their use of Hebrew as was once thought. Matthew 5:18 and Luke 11:51 also testify to this fact.

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

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Jots and tittles are the smallest parts of the Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrew canon goes from Genesis to Second Chronicles, thus Abel was the first to die and Zacharias was the last to die in the Hebrew canon. This shows that the New Testament writers were quoting the Hebrew text (Masoretic) and not the Greek text (LXX).

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message

Something to think about

January 21 2003, 11:49 PM 

Matthew 26:60 ...At the last came two false witnesses,

Mark 14:59 But neither so did their witness agree together.

Prayerfully Onward,


 Respond to this message   

King James Was A Homosexual?

January 2 2003, 10:10 AM 

King James Was A Homosexual?

David Rhoades
Researched by Kevin Hamm

Now that I have your attention, let me show you some of the other things
you will be told about the King James Bible.

Satan always accuses you and others of doing what he does. A first attack
on the King James Bible was "King James was a Homosexual."(5)
I am sure you have heard it. This is even taught in some colleges and
universities. It?s all an attack to soften you up for the NEW Bible (1).

The false attacks don't stop there; they continue. They are voluminous.
There are so many attacks that if you haven't studied the subject
enough to use discernment, you will fall for them. But yet, who has the time?

Just this week, I was sent a web page (2) attacking the King James Bible
by someone that was sold on the "NKJV"(3) Bible. He was taken
back when a ConcernedMember tried to open his eyes about the new Bible versions.

Rather than enter into a study, he sends us a KJV attack page (2) to justify
his distain for the KJV.
This is so sad, but so typical of many today within the Church--members and teachers alike.

I'm sorry, but your own study is the only thing that will save you from
the false teaching.

Let's analyze this web page (2) and just look at the first thing this web page lies about.

The first section "What Will You Find in the REAL 1611 KJV?" tells you that
the original King James Bible had a "preface" that tells you among other things
these lies below. Then they will allude to the fact that the preface is no longer
found in King James Bibles.

1.How God caused the Septuagint to be written; and of praise for Origen's Hexpla
2.Praise for St. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate
3.Declaring that even the worst English translations are still God?s Word--
that even a translation with errors is still God's Word; and that the Septuagint
is God's Word
4. More, etc.

This page will give you a link to a photograph of each page of the King James
Bible Preface that you can't even read to justify the claims.

We had no problem finding the King James Preface on another web page (4).
In fact the preface can be found in any good King James Bible, except those
published by Zondervan, and Thomas Nelson Publishers. These two companies
are two of the largest Bible publishers in the world. They have their own modern
Bible versions to promote (NIV & NKJV). They also publish the original
King James Bible, but in most cases leave out the original preface. WHY? It's simple.
Do you think they are going to publish the KJV preface when actually it
condemns the Egyptian text and it's corrupters, that wrote the Greek that their
Bibles were translated from? No way, Charlie!

Let?s look at what the preface actually says when you find a readable copy (4).
Kevin Hamm did this research:

Rather than praise for Origen's Hexpla, and the Septuagint, the preface of the
KJV actually warns you away from these books because of the additions and subtractions.

"- a passage explaining how God caused the Septuagint to be written; and of
praise for Origen's Hexpla (page 4); "

This is what the Preface says:

"These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great
purpose compiled together by Origen."

"...that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did
many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one
while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes
they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it;
which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew,
and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the
spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations
of the Old Testament."

". . .To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred
years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot,
(much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one
that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is,
most vile heretics, that they joined together with the Hebrew Original, and
the Translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of
Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by
all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the
learned, who know it already."

This doesn't sound like praise to me.

"- a passage declaring that even the worst English translations are still
God's Word; that even a translation with errors is still God's Word; and
that the Septuagint is God's Word (page 7); "

This is what the Preface says:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow,
that the translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our
profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)
containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech,
which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch,
Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted
by every Translator with the like graadventure so fitly for phrase, nor so
expressly for sense, everywhere. . The Romanists therefore in refusing to
hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the
spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and
meaning, as well as man's weakness would able, it did express. . .The like
we are to think of Translations."

This does not mean that the translators of the KJV approved of a variety of
versions differing from one another as we have in the modern versions. They
were arguing against the Roman Catholic practice of burning Bibles that were
in any language other than Latin. They were in support of translations for
people who could not read the original Hebrew or Greek.

"- note that the 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, including the passage on
prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45)."

Note that the Apocrypha was not included with the Old Testament nor the New
Testament. It was included between the two and set apart. It was included
for historical purposes and was never considered as inspired writings.

(1)ConcernedMembers Library on Bible versions.
The Watchman Database:
(2)King James attack page:
(3)What's wrong with the NKJV?
(4)King James Preface:
(5)King James was NOT a homosexual.
Other articles by this author.

 Respond to this message   
King James

But was he...

January 2 2003, 5:37 PM 

OK. So you whine and fight over the KJV. SO What. I ask you this....Was King James a member of the Church of Christ? If not, how can we trust his commissioned translation? And, we also know that he did not translate it from original manuscripts. There were none in existance! But I will be happy if you answer the first question...

Waiting Patiently.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump

Original Preface to the King James Bible

January 3 2003, 12:44 PM 

It's good to see a discussion that centers around the "real" preface to the KJV. Most older copies of the KJV only include a "Preface" in which the translators primarily provide a dedication to King James. What most KJV Bibles today don't include, but should, is the complete, original preface, which outlines the whole purpose and scope of the translators.

Before making complete fools of themselves, KJV attackers should thoroughly read this preface, which is available on-line in a reference from David Rhoades' article. The preface is also available in printed form from the Trinitarian Bible Society. Although this organization's home is located in London, there's also a USA branch: Trinitarian Bible Society (USA), 1600 Leonard St. NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49504. Email:

Recommended articles from the TBS:

"The Translators to the Readers: The Preface to the Authorised Version of 1611"

"The Authorised Version: What Today's Christian Needs to Know about the KJV."

"What Today's Christian Needs to Know about the NIV, The New International Version"

"The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text"

"The Excellence of the Authorised Version"

"What Today's Christian Needs to Know about the New King James Version"

"What Today's Christian Needs to Know about the Greek New Testament"

 Respond to this message   
James Queen

The Purpose of Translation

January 3 2003, 3:57 PM 

Dr. Crump,

It's good to see you referto the "purpose of translation" in the beginning of your post. I believe a valuable article woth considering would be found at:

I hope this link works from my cut and paste.

In search of TRUTH!


Message From The Moderator --WARNING ALL CONCERNED

International Bible Society is the translation sponsor
of the New International Version Bible. (whatever that

They are the originators of the NIV, and Zondervan now
owns the copyrights.

Keep in mind that the NIV, is more of a commentary than
a translation. A commentary by MAN!

The NIV used the corrupt Westcott-Hort Greek text, just
like most modern Bible versions.(NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc.

The King James Bible uses the "Received Text" a totally
different Greek text than the one used by the NIV.

Pay close attention to what this web page doesn't tell
YOU. They are ashamed to tell you from which Greek text
the NIV is translated, or anything else of substance.

Mr. Queen would like for you to think he is leading you
toward the truth. Use your discernment.

More information can be found on this at;

 Respond to this message   
James Queen

In response to the moderator's edit

January 5 2003, 8:39 AM 

Brother moderator,

In no way was I endorsing the NIV. I was just trying to provide a simple source of information for those that would have interest in "TRANSLATION" of the Bible. I appreciate your warning about the website. You should do the same for sites that you lead people to that have false doctrine and erroneous teachings.


 Respond to this message

Where to worship

October 17 2011, 3:20 PM 


John 4:19-26
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 The woman *said to Him, [a]Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus *said to her, Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is [b]spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. 25 The woman *said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.26 Jesus *said to her, I who speak to you am He.
a. John 4:19 Or Lord
b. John 4:24 Or Spirit
Here, then, was the end of the feud between the Samaritans and the Jews as to the correct place for worshipping G-dor it would have been if the words of Jesus had been understood, appreciated and accepted. For with his coming as the Messiah or Christ, a new era was beginning in which the whole basis of worship was to be changed. No longer would it matter where people actually were when they worshipped God. It would make no difference whether they climbed Mt. Gerizim in Samaria, or Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, or stayed just where they happened to be. A new mode of worship was being inaugurated by which men could approach the Father in their own hearts, "in spirit and in truth."
The change had been effected by the incarnation of G-d as Jesus Christ. Jesus was Immanuel, G-d-with-us. Previously the world had been getting more and more remote from G-d. To obtain contact, the worshipper had to perform rituals and ceremonies which symbolized or "corresponded to" spiritual things. These rituals connected him up with heaven and by way of heaven with G-d. The focus of the whole elaborate system had been the temple in Jerusalem, where God was supposed to live in a dark little chamber behind a curtain. The temple was believed to be literally the House of G-d. Nobody could enter, except the priests who were regarded as G-d's personal attendants; and even they could not enter the Holy of Holiesexcept the High Priest on a particular day. The common people remained outside in the courts, where they sacrificed their sheep and oxen according to the prescribed rituals. With the coming of Jesus this system of ritual was rendered obsolete. G-d had built up for himself a DIVINE HUMANITY, by which he could communicate direct with all of his children. Jesus was the link, the bridge, the mediator. He was "reconciling mankind with himself."
When the Jews asked Jesus for a proof of his authenticity, he said,
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."
We are told he spoke of his body. He was the living temple, the tabernacle or dwelling place of G-d with man. When Jesus hung on the cross and thus completed his life's work, the curtain of the temple building tore from top to bottom, exposing the Holy of Holies to public gaze. This was a spectacular sign from heaven that the old temple-worship was finished for ever. In the Book of Revelation chapter 21, John expressly says of the New Jerusalem which was to supercede the Old Jerusalem:
"I saw no temple therein, for the Lord G-d Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
Jesus is the living temple, G-d's dwelling-place with man. We can approach G-d by contacting Jesus in prayer.
"For the tabernacle of G-d is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and G-d himself shall be with them and be their G-d; for the former things are passed away."
All this took place nearly two thousand years ago, but still not everybody has caught up with it. Admittedly the word "temple" is not often used nowadays, but people still call their church "the House of God" and many seem to feel in some mystical way that God lives there. You visit him on Sundays and kneel hushed in his awesome presence, and you leave him behind when you return to your daily work.
Such a view of religion is not often held consciously, but very often unconsciously, and it is the complete antithesis of the basic principle of Christianity.
Church buildings are not the House of G-d; they are a convenient place where people can meet together for corporate prayer or worship. Jesus is the Temple or House of G-d, not these buildings or any other building and we must worship G-d in Jesus. Where is Jesus? Why, within our own heart, unless you have driven him out. If you have driven him out of your heart, you are not likely to find him anywhere. Unless you worship him in your own heart, you cannot worship him in any building, be it the most magnificent cathedral in the world.
There has been a healthy movement in recent years to get back to true Christianity stripped of all accessories, away from what is called "ecclesiasticism," away from professionalism in the ministry and all the paraphernalia of organized religion. Christianity is essentially a layman's movement, a people's movement.
Jesus himself was a layman, in contrast to the professional Scribes and Pharisees; so were the early disciples and apostles with the possible exception of Paul, who unwittingly introduced some elements of Pharisaism into the Christian Church. The present drift away from the churches loss of members, empty theological collegesis largely a reaction against a religion tied to an Establishment, with elaborate church buildings, an ordained clergy, a choir, and so onall utterly irrelevant, it would seem, to everyday 21st century life.
How did our Establishment come into being? I think it originally grew up in imitation of the secular state, the Imperial Civil Service by which the Roman Empire was administered when Christianity was first adopted as the official religion. And there it has stuck, despite the fact that the Roman Empire has long since disappeared from the pageant of history. Incidentally, the architectural style of conventional church buildings has no particular religious connotation; it was merely an imitation of the gothic manor houses of the Middle Ages.
What are we to do, then? Scrap all our church buildings, abolish the ministry, and go back to the Book of Acts, concentrating on lay-led meetings in one another's homes? This could be good, and we may well come to this when the world is more spiritually advanced than it is today. I can foresee that this will be what Christianity will look like in, say, a hundred years' time. Every vital spiritual movement in the world today seems to be working in that direction, towards a New Jerusalem with "no temple therein," but with the G-d's Divine Humanity as the tabernacle of G-d with man.
But there is another aspect of the matter, which may excuse us for wanting to preserve our weekly worship in specially consecrated buildings, led by specially trained men who have made the ministry their vocation. In our present immature state we probably need it, as is evidenced by the fact that members who move away from a church generally end up by ceasing to worship altogether. Jesus did not oppose organized worship as such. He himself attended synagogue regularly, he went there "as was his wont on the Sabbath Day." He prayed in public as well as in private. He was baptized by John in Jordan; and, of course, he instituted the Last Supper. So long as these formal acts are regarded as means to an end and not ends in themselves, they can valuable.
You see how utterly different this concept of the Church is from the priest-focused, temple-centered ecclesiasticism which Christianity came to replace. It should have ended with the destruction of the two temples in Palestine by the Roman legions shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus. Unfortunately many of us have still to learn that "God is Spirit, and they who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." During our daily work, while walking along the road, or driving the car, or waiting for a bus or plane. In our kitchen or family playroom or on the golf links. Thankfulness to G-d when all goes well. Realistic penitence for foolish behaviour, things messed up and sins committed. A cry for inner support during trouble and temptation. An outpouring of love and gratitude for help received. Intercession for a friend who is sick or in special need. Praise to G-d all the time; prayer every moment of every day.
May we value our gathering together for the enlightenment and help it gives us to worship in this way. If, to be quite honest, it does not help us very much, let's try to find out what has gone wrong. Perhaps we shall discover that the fault does not lie wholly with the group but is partly our own. Let us always remember that, if the group is to reach us and benefit us from the outside, the group must exist first of all in our own hearts.


What is this word "Ecclesia"? We use it in English as "ecclesiastic;" the French have "l'Eglise." In the Greek New Testament it is used for the Church. The evangelists took it from classical Greek, where it means an Assembly. Literally it means "CALLED OUT." The famous Ecclesia in ancient Athens was a special Assembly of leading citizens, who were summoned or "called out" from time to time to decide on urgent matters of government. It usually met on the Pnyx Hill or the Acropolis. A herald with a scroll would ride on horseback through the beautiful streets of Athens, calling out the names of the councillors in the Ecclesia. As each man heard his own name, he would stop what he was doing and hurry to the meeting place on the hill.

We might translate the word Ecclesia as "paged." In the old days before electronics, a page-boy would go through the lounges of a hotel, "calling out" the name of someone wanted at the desk. Today it is done on a P.A. system. Have you ever been paged at an airport? It gives you quite a shock to hear your own name booming out over the loud speakers! You feel everybody is looking at you, as you straighten your tie or pat your hair and set off proudly to meet the one who has "called you out."

The early Christians thought of themselves as having been paged, or "called out" by the Lord Jesus Christ, summoned to a special meeting with him. This shows very clearly in the Book of Revelation chapter 18, where after a powerful description of Babylon with all its wealth and corruption, the author reports: "I heard a voice from heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE!" The early Christians believed that not merely had they chosen the Lord, but, incredible as it might seem, he had chosen them! The Talmudic Jewish/pagan world, symbolized by Babylon, was about to be destroyed; but to the Christians a voice was sounding on the celestial loud-speakers, "Come out of her, you, and you, and you; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues." What a thrill! Those who responded to the summons, setting themselves apart and refusing to conform to the ways of a wicked and adulterous generation, were in the short term persecuted by the Jewish/pagan world, even put to death, as their Master had been; yet they knew in their hearts that their beloved Lord had taken them to himself. The Christian Ecclesia grew rapidly, even during the period of the most intense persecution. After three hundred years, converts had been "called out" from every corner of the Roman worldand a wonderful band they were! That was Christianity's finest hour.

Then an astonishing event took place, which changed the whole direction of history. The Emperor Constantine, whose mother Helena was a Christian woman (perhaps from Britain), declared Christianity to be the official religion of the whole Roman Empire! The Christian community hailed this as a magnificent triumph for their faith. God's reign on earth had begun! Ironically, however, Constantine's well-meant action just about brought the Church to an end. It could survive persecution, but not this! Christianity became fashionable. All were in it now; nobody had to be "called out" from paganism any more. Pagans became Christians over-night. People without the slightest pretensions to spirituality were baptized and ordained and even became cardinals and popes. Soon it was impossible to tell from a man's manner of life whether he was a Christian or not. Moral standards dropped lower and lower.

In Protestant Britain, after the Industrial Revolution, the Church became equated with Big Business. Wealthy factory owners supported and attended the parish church and were accepted as Christians, even though in many cases their life-style ran counter to all the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus had said:

"Blessed are the poor, the mourners, the meek, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers."

Big Business countered with:

"Blessed are the rich, the unscrupulous, those who elbow their way to the top and lavishly satisfy their hunger and thirst and all their appetites and desires!"

Missionaries were embarrassed by this situation when they began to make converts in heathen lands. At first the native peoples wanted to join the Church because they thought Christianity must have some very strong magic in it, since it made these foreigners so powerful, rich and clever. They attended the mission schools and learned to read, and were given the New Testament as their text-book. Then their bewilderment began, because it became evident that there was no relation between the way these foreigners lived, and the religion expounded in their holy book. These foreigners said with their lips "All men are brothers, equal before God;" but in practice they placed themselves on top and the native peoples underneath. They called their Christ the "Prince of Peace," but they were always at war and built up huge empires by conquest on the battlefield. Jesus had apparently lived and worked with the outcasts of society, the n'er-do-wells, traitors and prostitutes. He had been at loggerheads with the Establishment, calling the rulers a "breed of snakes;" yet the Christian Church was one of the biggest establishments in the world, and the drunks and molls and hippies had to stay outside!
No wonder the missionaries found it difficult to explain what we know to be the true position: that the foreigners were not exactly telling lies, nor were they consciously hypocritical; it was just that the holy phrases of the New Testament had lost all meaning for them. When read in church, the venerable words were so-much cotton wool which padded them round and made them feel comfortable and good; it never occurred to them that their whole way of life was challenged by those words.

One of the hopeful things about our present generation in this 21st century is that thinking people are questioning the validity of merely conventional religion. I read a book recently called "God-Evaders," which demonstrated that almost every feature of our middle-class Christianity has been subtly designed to take the bite out of our religion and enable us to evade any direct confrontation with God. Another book, "The Comfortable Pew!" carries the same message. Then there is one called Who is Killing the Churches?" and the answer given is that God himself is killing the Churches, because they have ceased to serve the purpose for which they were established.

The obvious situation is that the Church of Jesus Christ, which lost its distinctiveness back in the 4th century when it became equated with Civilization, is no longer functioning satisfactorily. As an Institution it is still impressive; but does it influence the life and thought of the people? A sociological survey conducted over a large and representative segment of the population revealed that only a negligible proportion, even of so-called Christians, paid any attention to the attitude of their churches on any live issue. The vast majority formed their opinions from radio and TV, magazines and their local newspapers; or just went the way their fancies led them.

So we have come to the point in history when the Old Christianity is moribund, and a New Christianity is taking its place. This New Christianity has not yet "jelled," so we cannot say in detail how it will develop. But I do know that if you and I are to belong to it, we shall have to begin by making a clean break with most of the attitudes and values of our western culture. We must become a New Ecclesia, called out from the world and dedicated to a truly Christian life. I do not mean that we must separate ourselves from the world in the sense of forming a closed community. Jesus himself said of his disciples:

"I pray not that they should be taken out of the world, but that they should be kept from its evil." (John 17:15.)

As members of the New Ecclesia we should live actively in the world, facing its trials and temptations, going to church, getting along with other folk, earning our living, and so on; but with a. much greater sensitivity to the demands of our religion.

Most people, I suppose, regard life as being so many years of time to be passed through as pleasantly as possible. But in the New Ecclesia we learn that we are not in this world just to pass the time. We are here for a divinely ordained purpose: which is, to qualify as citizens of the Lord's heavenly city, the Kingdom of God. This world is the anteroom of eternity, a School in which we are enrolled in order to train for sainthood. Unfortunately a large proportion of the students in this school do not take their studies very seriously! They have a lot of fun, join the correct clubs and fraternities, go to the dinners and dances; but when it comes to graduation day, they are totally unprepared.

To express it in another way, our purpose in life is to be spiritually regenerated or "born again" as children of God. ("Except a man be born again," said Jesus to Nicodemus, "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.") By our first birth we are basically selfish, dominated by love of self and love of the pleasures of the world. Our major task is to remove these two loves to a subordinate position in our hearts, and become motivated instead by love to the Lord and our neighbour. From being ego-centric we must learn to become God-centric; from being concerned only with the things of this world, we must become supremely concerned with the things of heaven. The whole of our life here on earth should be geared to this process of regeneration. When at last we die and enter eternity, nothing will be asked about us at all, except this one vital question: "to what degree are we regenerated or reborn as Children of God?" Evidently, if we are to undertake membership of the New Ecclesia, we shall have to make some vital changes in the pattern of our living. Most of us must admit that a large part of our waking lives is wasted from the point of view of regeneration.

We Westerners are a restless people. It is characteristic of our culture that we should rush around doing things, filling up every moment of the day, always busy. We even pride ourselves on how busy we are! We say we are being of use. But if what we are doing fails to develop love to the Lord and our neighbour, then it is not serving any genuine use. We are "wasting our substance on that which is not bread, and our labour on that which does not satisfy." I suggest that we should resign from all commitments and responsibilities and membership of clubs and societies and boards and whatnot, if they merely exhaust our time and energies and do not get us any nearer to heaven. We must trim down our lives and replan our programme so that we are not too preoccupied to spend time on the things that really serve a use: such as, a quiet period every day in the Lord's presence, when we can open up our inner selves and align them with the Divine Will. We should allow ourselves time to exercise our creative talents, and develop our love of beauty; time to meditate on the Bible and read books which give us new spiritual insights. You will probably find you need to spend more time with your family; and there are friendships which you should cultivate on a deep level. Such occupations as these are far more useful and worthwhile than rushing around doing things for the sake of being busy.

It is characteristic of our western culture that we should be ambitious. We are urged to be successful, to do better than the next man, to make a name for ourselves. Why? For what reason? No reason, apparently, except to boost our love of self. Yet the whole purpose of life is to devalue love of self! So, as members of the New Ecclesia, we must step right out of this, going into reverse on the ambition line. We should have only one ambition: to love the Lord with heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves.
Again, our culture requires that we should pile up possessions. A high-pressure advertising propaganda is directed towards persuading us to buy more and more of a bewildering variety of consumer goods. Why? For what reason? To satisfy our love of the world! Yet the purpose of life is to soften up our love of the world! The less we pander to it, the easier our regeneration will become. As Jesus said,

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, but lay up treasures in heaven; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

A member of the New Ecclesia must develop an altogether different set of values, priorities and standards than those normally taken for granted in this secular age. These different values will revolutionize his thinking. They will transform his attitude towards politics, towards business, towards education and the upbringing of children, towards the use of leisure, towards everything. The change will come out very strongly in his home life. His wife will find him much easier to live with. The children will catch something of it and will ease up on their own quarrels and struggles for mastery; there will be less shouting and nagging in the house. His friends will notice it; they will see he is developing a new kind of maturity and poise, and they will start coming to him for help and advice in their own problems, recognizing that he has "got something." In a crisis, he will be the stable one, on whom others lean. Because of his growing intimacy with the Lord and his deepening prayer life, he will have a confident trust in Providence, and so his fears will vanish, stresses and strains will ease away, and he will begin to experience a deep-down happiness which no outward troubles will touch, which this world can neither give nor take away. His tastes will become simpler. He will cease to need possessions to bolster his self-esteem, nor drugs or excitements or entertainments to keep him going. Old resentments will fade from his memory; quarrels will no longer seem important; physical pain and sickness will no longer disturb his equanimity. You see what is happening? He is becoming a SAINT, and his environment is therefore becoming HEAVEN! That is what is supposed to happen with us all as we grow older, and the fact that it has so seldom been seen to happen indicates the urgent need for the inauguration of a New Church, the Nova Ecclesia.

The world today is very bad, and is getting worse. It is also very good and getting better! We are at a turning point in human history. A new spirit is stirring, both within the churches and outside them. More and more people, young and old, are reacting against the sterile materialism of the age. The celestial loud-speakers are booming out from the clouds in the sky. Listen! Your name is being called! And mine! And others too. "Come out of her, my people," says the voice. "Come out of the humdrum, mediocre, secular, complacent, self-centred life that most of you have been living up till now. Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from hence, touch no unclean thing."

Where is this New Ecclesia to assemble? On the top of a hill, of course. Which hill? The Pnyx or the Acropolis in Athens? No. Read from the Book of Revelation, chapter 21:

"He carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain" (a spiritual mountain, elevated high above the ordinary levels of life) "and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God."

That is where our Assembly is to be held: in the NEW JERUSALEM. Eventually we shall find we are assembling there so often that we shall leave our present abode (our present level of life) and become permanent residents of the New Jerusalem, living to eternity in perfect peace and heavenly joy, near to the royal palace of the King of kings.

"The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of the city, and kings shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie: but they that are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation. 21: 24-27.)

 Respond to this message

Thanks for the report card.

October 17 2011, 9:13 PM 

I find it amazing that Jesus commanded evangelists to go preach and make disciples.
The resource was "that which I have commanded to be taught."

And yet at all levels of professional religionism the cry is that GOD IS SILENT and therefore we can invent our own resources.

You might think that somewhere in the theological career path one would ask: "What does the word disciple mean?" Not so. And because they need laded burdens to give occupation for burden laders, church is patterned more after the monarchy than Christ.

Your point that we are in training for a greater kingdom is not well recognized.

 Respond to this message

The "Hidden Report"

January 4 2003, 3:48 PM 

The "Hidden Report"

And the preacher said “I find your uninformed tirades
against any version but the KJV very misleading."


It never fails. Right after the completion of a pet project that you feel
pretty good about--there's always someone ready to bust your bubble.

I had just finished and posted the last part of my editorial "Secret Conversion,
Part 3." (1) In this particular part, I had been telling folks about the differences
in the verse James 5:16 among the various Bible versions.

James 5:16

NIV-Therefore CONFESS YOUR SINS to each other and pray for each
other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful
and effective.

KJV-CONFESS YOUR FAULTS one to another, and pray one for another,
that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth

These two verses are important because they clearly show one of the ways
the modern Bibles have been corrupted in thousands of verses
(intentionally I might add).

The point I was making was that the texts of the modern Bible versions say
"CONFESS YOUR SINS" and the text from the King James Bible says

This may seem trivial to you, but this verse is what gives Catholics
justification for confession to a priest and many congregations today
to encourage confessing of sins to one another.

My friends, we are to confess our sins only to God and our faults to one another!

This editorial hadn't got warm on the screen before ConcernedMembers
received an email from a Nashville area preacher.
In part this is what the email said:

"I find your uninformed tirades against any version but the KJV very

"The question here is what word is used in the Greek, not the English.
The Greek word is very clearly, hamartias (amartiaV), which is the
common word for 'sins'."

"Having translated the entire book of James from Greek to English myself,
I see no reason whatsoever to translate "hamartias" faults rather than sins. "

Well, "tirades" maybe, but uninformed I'm not! I haven't translated the book
of James from the Greek, but I have read the" Hidden Report." (2)
What I learned in this document is that the basic Greek text in the modern
versions have been corrupted. So, what that means is that the Greek is different
between the King James Bible and all other modern Bible versions. It's not a
just a translation error! The Greek is different.

This is too simple! What's wrong with this picture? Well, I don't know.
How does this Bible class flunkout know more than a preacher that has
translated the Greek? I had better check myself out. I went to a Bible study
lookup on the web. (3) I put in "James 5:16," I selected "King James Bible"
with "Strong’s Numbers." This should pull up the verse. I, then, clicked on the
word "faults" to get the Greek.

This is what I got:

Strong's Number: 3900 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
paravptwma from (3895)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Paraptoma 6:170,846
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
par-ap'-to-mah Noun Neuter

The Greek word in the King James is "Paraptoma (paravptwma)."
That's a different word than "hamartias (amartiaV)," which is in modern versions
of the Bible.

Wow, I can't wait to tell this brother in Christ about the "Hidden Report."
He'll never get it wrong again! He will be so grateful, I thought, when he
thanks me for telling him about his error, I’ll tell him about the "Hidden Report." (2)

I promptly sent him an email that said:

In part--

"The correct word in the "Received Text" is "paraptoma" not "hamartia."
You see, the KJV was translated from a different text.

I'm sure you must be aware of this.

We really don't want to be accused of "uninformed tirades," so, will you
please advise us on this so that we might study together.

We will be awaiting your response."


The good brother wrote me back. He didn’t thank me, but this is what he said:


“I think if I was using a text, which could not
be corroborated prior to the fifth century, I would
not be pointing fingers at other people's text.

The Byzantine text family cannot be shown to be the dominant text of the
church prior 400 AD. It is a later development and not the original.
The evidence shows the earlier texts used hamartia not paraptoma.
Paraptoma is only substantiated by a late ninth century ms
(049 dated to the 9th Century) and the Majority text; whereas hamartia
is substantiated by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and many
other older manuscripts.”


Well, this good brother didn't even acknowledge he had the wrong
Greek word, nor did he even think me for pointing that out!

It appears he has come back with doubt cast on the age of the
"Received Text," which was used by the King James Bible.
He thinks the "Received Text" is no older than 400 A.D.

No problem! It just so happens when I read the "Hidden Report,"
it explained the age of the "Received Text."

So, I emailed him back the following:

In part--

“Speaking of the age of the "Received Text" not being older than 400 A.D.

What about:
T H E P E S H I T T A B I B L E ( 150 A.D. )
( The Traditional Majority Text In Syrian )

or the
T H E I T A L I C B I B L E ( 157 A.D.)
( The Traditional Majority Text In Latin )

I anxiously await your reply.


Rather than bore you with the rest of this little email conversation,
I will tell you this brother did email me back to say he had more
confidence in his scholar than mine. (His scholar is on record as
believing Job is called an "ancient folktale," and Jonah is a
"popular legend.")(4)

I feel the brother resented this Bible illiterate from delving into
matters that should be left to "great scholars of the Greek."

I never really got a chance to tell him about the "Hidden Report."
I sent him a link, but I'm not sure he ever read it.

This story, which is true, is more about telling you about the
"Hidden Report" and what makes it hidden.

It's only hidden until you read it!

After reading it, then you too can carry on conversations with
"great scholars of the Greek"

The Hidden Report

(2) The Hidden Report, (70 pages) "Spiritual Deception In The Highest"
(3) Bible Study
(4) What Do Christian Preachers Really Believe?
More articles by this author:

 Respond to this message   

Back to basics

January 14 2004, 7:50 AM 

Kevin et. al.,

I am troubled by the mudslinging going on back and forth and the touting of one version above another. I am a minister of the gospel and have my preferences as to which translation I use when I have my personal bible study time. However, I am also blessed to have been trained in a preacher training school that spent a large amount of time educating preachers in the use of the original languages. By using an English translation as the measuring stick for accuracy is not wise.

While I enjoy the KJV I have one problem with the translators and that is the mistranslation of the Greek, baptizo, as baptism. There was no need for transliteration of the word to baptism. Remembering that the NT was written in koine, common, Greek what right did they have to "invent" a word? The problem we face now is many unchurched young people and even Websters dictionary now have sprinkling and pouring as acceptable definitions of the Greek, baptizo. Rightly it should have been translated as immersed.

In conclusion we have to go back to the original text and not some English translation, modern or not.

 Respond to this message   

Re: Back to basics

January 14 2004, 8:54 AM 

It's important not to just repeat something from someone trying to sell you their wares. The publishers of the modern versions will tell you anything. Study of this subject is neccessary to understand the ccusations against the King James Are False.

Baptism was the correct translation, as indicated in the link below;

"The first of these decisive factors is that every Bible written in English from that of John Wycliffe's version,(56) the very first English Bible (c. 1384),(57) to that of the Rheims New Testament,(58) the Roman Catholic version of the English New Testament and the last English Bible to be produced prior to the King James Version (1582), all use either the exact words "baptism" and "to baptize" or their contemporary equivalents in their texts.
What did the users of these Bibles take these words to mean?
The study of the baptismal mode in England indicated that they all understood them to mean "immersion" and "to immerse."

This web site will give you the study history on the word baptism;

 Respond to this message   


June 28 2004, 9:22 AM 


The KJV is a very reliable version. However, to me it has many older words and phrases that I simply don't understand. At first, I sadly changed the NIV (everyone else was, I figure it was okay). Then I learned about mistakes throught the translation. Now I use the NASB (yes, there are problems in Romans with EIS) and the NKJV. One thing I have learned from our elders at the congregation I worship with is that you need to INVESTIGATE, whether it be a preacher you hear, a commentary you read, or a translation you have. Do not take anything man made to be perfect. So, I am very careful about any translation. These are imperfect.

 Respond to this message   


June 29 2004, 9:58 AM 

Another thought....

As I read some of these responses, it concerns me that people do not notice that the NIV and others are tinkering with the original text. Some say that is no big deal. It is. It leads others astray.

The worst example of the NIV being inaccurate is in Matthew when Jesus discusses divorce. The exception given by Jesus according to the NIV is "marital unfaithfulness." How general. How dangerous. I honestly believe that some may read this and find justification for divorce for anything. The true text says "fornication" or "adultry."

If you rely on the NIV, then you rely on an error-ridden translation. Most people like the NIV just because it easier to understand. Do you trust your soul on convenience rather than accuracy?

 Respond to this message   

Old pharases

January 11 2005, 4:13 PM 

The answer to you dilemma is II Timothy 2:15, and John 16:13. The crux of the entire matter lies in the fact that Modern translation come out of completely diferent text than that which was used in 1611. Those documents were available, but rejected, buy the translators at that time. Today, you must understand that we live in the day of apostacy, the day when the one world church and one world religion in coming into full swing. Remember, they will have a bible and worship a christ, but it will not be the Christ of the bible, and the book will not be the Word of God. They will have a form of Godliness, but deny the power therof.
If you go back to Genesis 3, Satan added one word with the intent of changing the meaning of the text. The warnings given by God in Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Revelation is that they would not change the prophecy of the book. Any prophecy, including those regarding salvation. A prophecy is a "forth-telling" of a future event, not "fortune telling". The Lord said that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", which by this definition is a prophecy. Remember, Satan only changed ONE WORD, but in doing so he changed the entire prophecy. I am not an "expert" on counterfiet versions, and do not profess to know the NKJV well since I do not read it. If you want the best book I have ever heard of on the New Age and thier bible versions, go to and get the book New Age bible versions. This lady really does her homework. I know of no better work on the subject.

One other point: All of the critics of the AV have intellectual arguments about the text. But this is a Holy book not a intellectual one. They cannot show you doctrinal errors, and their arguments are always from the natural mind, which as the Lord said, is emnity (warefare)against God.

Another great resource is Websters 1828 dictionary. It is available on-line in reprinted form.

 Respond to this message   

English Standard Version

April 16 2005, 3:53 PM 

Anyone hear of the English Standard Version? Is it reliable. A friend told me that he heard it is very reliable. Just curious.

 Respond to this message   
Bible Student


April 28 2005, 12:29 AM 

The ESV is a good and reliable translation. The ESV is really just a revision of the RSV, much like the NKJV is to the KJV. The most admirable qualitie of the ESV is that it restores the gender language of the originals that the NRSV took out. It also uses the speech of modern man without "dumbing down" the text.

Overall it is a reliable and readable version.

 Respond to this message   


May 16 2005, 9:17 AM 

I keep reading on this site that the NIV is Satan's Bible because it is published by Zondervan. That is not a very good argument because Zondervan also publishes a King James Bible.

Also, if the King James is the only correct translation, then why was the apocrapha included the the 1611 version of the King James and later taken out?????

Also, did people before 1611 not have a correct translation, and what are non-english speaking people supposed to use?

 Respond to this message   

Question for KJV-only forum

January 12 2012, 2:27 AM 

Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been)

 Respond to this message


January 12 2012, 5:04 PM 

That is very true: The received text was translated by a few manuscripts including the Vulgate. Erasmus won the race to get the first Greek NT into print.

Erasmus had a few manuscripts and the latest Lat NT. Erasmus wrote"

"My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jeromes text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[2]
The last page of the Erasmian New Testament (Rev 22:8-21)

While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text"

The view is that Erasmus translated the Greek to prove his skills at translating Jerome.

B.M. or Before Me era no one would presume to be a preacher who was not a competent Latin Scholar. God knew about that and commanded that the Word be PREACHED by being READ: The Campbells knew that.

Almost without exception those on the preacher and "scholar" level depend too much on 'McGuffy's Lexicon' and even when you search the Greek in depth, the "golden thread" to understanding is never as clear as the Latin.

Modern pseudo scholars who create all of the division are found to be false teachers as most of the ways the Latin words are used in other texts prove that they just fabricate their songs and sermons. For instance instead of the Levites being the patternism for "musical worship teams" the Biblical text has Jacob warning us not to associate with the assemblies or covenants of the tribe of Levi.

In fact, the Levites performed as "Sootsayers with instrumental noise."

 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - FORUM HALL - Defending The King James Bible
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened At the Madison Church of Christ?

There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site;

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

FastCounter by bCentral