Jim B
Well-Known Member
test of enlarged signature, making sure deluded people can clearly read it
Thoughts about using a KJV update?
- Thread starter BibleBeliever5
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
It's a simple fact that not all bibles say exactly the same thing. They each say things a little differently and do not always agree. There can be only ONE Word of God because God is not going to give us conflicting different forms of communication. God is not the author of confusion. It has to be a translation whereby the reader does not have to rely upon a schooled church guy or scholar to interpret it for you. Back in the day, the holy men in the Catholic church had complete control on the meaning of what God's Word meant. The regular guy could not really read the Bible and understand it for themselves because they did not read and or speak Latin (in most cases). The regular guy had to place his faith in what a holy man said over what the Word said. History in a way repeats itself. Now it is scholarship who have become the new holy men and people look to them to help them know what God's Word says when in reality we know that in 1 John 2:27, that the believers that John was writing to did not need any man to teach them but they had the “anointing” (the Holy Spirit) to teach them God's Word.
See, the Catholic church is all about tradition and they are not Sola Scriptura (or what I prefer to call: “The Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It”). They want to get the Christian or bible reader to not trust the Bible for the Trinity but they want people to trust the church instead. They don't want people to trust the deity of Christ by pointing to the Bible, but they want you to trust the church instead. That's their goal. To keep the layperson away from the Word of God. For they believe only the priests understand the Word and we should just accept their interpretation. This is why I had Catholics tell me I am wrong for studying the Bible when I spoke about biblically based beliefs they did not agree with (and they basically told me to trust what their priests say).
In a sad chapter of the Catholic Church: Unfortunately it appears that they burned anyone for owning the Scriptures (Note: This is not to say that all Catholics agreed with such a thing at the time). But the point here is that the Catholic Church changed tactics. Instead of killing a person for possessing the Scriptures, they joined in on subtly altering the Bible to get Christians to trust the scholar (priest) over what the Bible plainly says.
In fact, we learn that the translation of the KJB began in 1604. However, one year later in 1605, we know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Check out the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”
KJB: The Book That Changed the World:
Trailer:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
A Brief Look at
the KJV vs the Modern Translations
in American History:
the KJV vs the Modern Translations
in American History:
Abraham Lincoln had used and quoted from a King James Bible.
Old school literary authors quoted from the King James Bible.
It's influence here in America can never be forgotten.
Riots broke out here in America over their desire of having the Catholic version of the Bible in public schools. One took place in 1844 in Philadelphia. Others took place at a later date in Cincinnati, Ohio.
What Bible were Catholics up against being used in school?
The King James Bible.
In 1852, the King James Bible was ruled in court fit for use in public schools since it was common to all Christians.
It wasn't until 1872 that the state of Ohio banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools. However, the United States Supreme Court did not ban the practice of reading the bible in public schools on a national level until 1962.
While these riots were one reason that resulted in the ultimate banning of Bible reading in public schools, another reason was the declining favor for the King James Bible over the slight rising increase of interest in Modern Translations.
In New England: The first major departure from the King James Bible (Textus Receptus) took place in 1881 with Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament based on two Catholic manuscripts (The Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus).
This English Revised Translation of the Old Testament done in 1885 (ERV) (Also known as the Revised Version - RV). The ERV or RV (Revised Version) was copyrighted in the United States in 1885 for publication here in America.
Note: No Modern Translation existed here in America before 1885.
The ERV was based on supposedly more advanced scholarship, but it sold poorly here in the United States.
So an effort was created to bring in the American Standard Version (ASV). It was launched in 1901. This version also was faced with a lack of success.
Then the Revised Standard Version (RSV) came out in 1947, and then the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) followed in 1971.
However, the perception of the “New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)” at this time was that it leaned more towards liberalism and ecumenism.
The last in line of these Modern Translations (mentioned here) was an implicit eucumenical translation that was intended to look good to Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians equally.
It was the NIV.
The NIV (The New International Version) released in 1973 was designed supposedly to return to the Protestant distinctiveness of the King James (Which was not true). The NIV was also designed with advances in supposedly trusted Biblical scholarship.
The NIV became the most popular Bibles ever with the American public, whereas all other versions up to this point attempted word for word translation, the NIV relied less on former translations that would be easier to understand for the average reader.
This is why the boom of Modern Bible movement went mainstream in the 1970's. It was because of the NIV. Then all the other popular candy coated Bible versions followed. So it was a time when men abandoned the authority of the Word of God (the KJB). It was also the same time when the rise of the New Age Movement began (i.e. the 1970's). This was the punishment for men abandoning God's Word. Also, in the past, a person could walk into a Bible alone believing church at almost any time, and find a King James bible within it. Today, Bible alone believing churches have locked their doors because the changing times of darkness. No longer can someone just walk in to a Bible alone believing church and find the pure Word of God that is unadulterated. They got the candy coated NIV, NLT, ESV, etc. and you have to ask the Pastor to see his Bible or if you can borrow it. In the past, I have seen various churches with book stores inside them that try to sell you these Modern Translations.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
To all:
While I believe God can use Modern Bibles and they are helpful in updating the archaic words at times in the KJB, they cannot be our final Word of authority because they change major doctrines, and they are influenced by Rome (getting you to trust the priest or scholar to understand the Bible). For I believe that the religion of Modern Scholarship has pulled the wool over many people’s eyes, and it has taught people to not trust the Bible entirely but they are to also trust the scholar (at the expense of what the Bible says). The heart of the issue here is you believing Psalms 12:6-7, Isaiah 34:16, and Matthew 24:35.
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.”
Isaiah 34:16
“Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.”
If you believe the above three pieces of Scripture and believe them with all your heart, then you will conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands somewhere on this planet.
While I believe God can use Modern Bibles and they are helpful in updating the archaic words at times in the KJB, they cannot be our final Word of authority because they change major doctrines, and they are influenced by Rome (getting you to trust the priest or scholar to understand the Bible). For I believe that the religion of Modern Scholarship has pulled the wool over many people’s eyes, and it has taught people to not trust the Bible entirely but they are to also trust the scholar (at the expense of what the Bible says). The heart of the issue here is you believing Psalms 12:6-7, Isaiah 34:16, and Matthew 24:35.
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.”
Isaiah 34:16
“Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.”
If you believe the above three pieces of Scripture and believe them with all your heart, then you will conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands somewhere on this planet.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
To all:
We are living in the last days,
and the falling away of the church is growing.
In other words, people just do not believe the Bible like they used to.
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.
Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith adopted in 1830, considered the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God.
Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.
In 1868 the General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James’s version.
In 1896 the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice.
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
1881: The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, Let not the hands of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament. We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit, as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible… The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come ( June 6, 1881).
1882: I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED... (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).
1890: The Supreme Court said, the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)
1945: President Harry S. Truman said, THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST THERE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE, and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it, and all they do is take the poetry out of it.
Here is Ronald Reagan on the King James Bible vs. a Modern Version:
Article source used for the majority of this post:
Another King James Bible Believer
We are living in the last days,
and the falling away of the church is growing.
In other words, people just do not believe the Bible like they used to.
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.
Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith adopted in 1830, considered the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God.
Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.
In 1868 the General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James’s version.
In 1896 the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice.
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
1881: The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, Let not the hands of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament. We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit, as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible… The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come ( June 6, 1881).
1882: I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED... (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).
1890: The Supreme Court said, the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)
1945: President Harry S. Truman said, THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST THERE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE, and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it, and all they do is take the poetry out of it.
Here is Ronald Reagan on the King James Bible vs. a Modern Version:
Article source used for the majority of this post:
Another King James Bible Believer
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
To all:
So if you hate the King James Bible as being the Word of God, then you hate American history and its influence upon Americans.
Would you try and go back in time and tell the Baptists to stop using their King James Bible as the Word of God?
What better alternative do you have? You don’t believe in a perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands that has any authority.
You don’t believe any perfect Bible exists and it has been lost to time.
But Christians who simply just believe God’s words believe that God has preserved His words (just as the Christian men through history believed).
This is what you are truly fighting against.
So if you hate the King James Bible as being the Word of God, then you hate American history and its influence upon Americans.
Would you try and go back in time and tell the Baptists to stop using their King James Bible as the Word of God?
What better alternative do you have? You don’t believe in a perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands that has any authority.
You don’t believe any perfect Bible exists and it has been lost to time.
But Christians who simply just believe God’s words believe that God has preserved His words (just as the Christian men through history believed).
This is what you are truly fighting against.
Rollo Tamasi
Well-Known Member
I've been using the NIV since 1985.
None of you got anything on me.
None of you got anything on me.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
It's a great translation. I still have my 1978 version and a 1973 New Testament. I was so happy to have found the NIV; it gives a much clearer understanding than the KJV, which is so often re-translated to have it mean what the person wants it to mean.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
King James wrote this: "Kings are called Gods by God Himself because they sit upon God's earthly throne." (source: "The Book of Books -- The Radical Impact of the King James Bible 1611-2011", by Melvyn Bragg)
The KJV was clearly created to bolster King James image of himself and his slanted doctrine, not to accurately translate the early sources.
The KJV was clearly created to bolster King James image of himself and his slanted doctrine, not to accurately translate the early sources.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
You believe in the false teaching of Once Saved Always Saved. While OSAS is not exclusive to those who reject the Doctrines of Preservation and Inerrancy (Seeing there are KJB Only who believe in OSAS), I believe that both OSAS and Originals Onlyism have the same problem. They are both rejecting the authority of God’s Word to a certain degree. How so? Well, Once Saved Always Saved is basically saying you are saved and there is nothing that you can do that can make you unsaved. Meaning, you can sin and still be saved on some level. Yes, I know that there are many who think OSAS is only true if you live a holy life, but that still does not explain 1 John 1:9. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. How can you be forgiven of sin by confessing sin if you are Once Saved Always Saved? It makes no sense. 1 John 1:9 is in context to 1 John 2:1 that talks about how we are to “sin not” but if we do, we have an advocate that we can go to named Jesus Christ. So we obviously confess our sins to Jesus if we sin on rare occasion so that we can be forgiven of that sin. For if you sin, and you believe you are saved even while you sin, then you are turning God’s grace into a license for immorality (Jude 1:4). For if a believer looked upon a woman in lust and then immediately got hit by a bus and quickly died, they would not be saved. A believer has to confess of their sins to be forgiven of sin. So salvation is clearly conditional. God does not force you to be saved. Philippians 2:12 says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. But the OSAS crowd believes you can sin on some level and be saved (Which is contrary to tons of Scripture). Thus, they are rejecting God’s authority (i.e. His Word) to a degree.
The same is true with accepting the plain meaning of verses like Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 34:16, and Matthew 24:35, etcetera. One is rejecting the authority of these verses if one does not believe them. For combined together, we understand that there is an actual book of the Lord that we can read from and that the words of the Lord are pure, and that they will last forever. For believing these verses like a child and not as a person being hoodwinked by Modern Scholarship in what they say will simply lead one to conclude that there is a perfect Word of God somewhere on our planet that we can read from. I believe the best candidate is the King James Bible. The NIV over the years has the devil’s name in it where it does not belong. The NIV has false doctrine in it. The NIV removes and chops out tons of verses that are good. The NIV has errors in it. The NIV (New Testament portion) is based upon a Greek text that is influenced by Rome. The NIV (Old Testament portion) is based on a text by a German who was antisemitic. So the NIV is not the Word of God.
In other words, both OSAS and Originals Onlyism rejects the authority of God’s Word to a certain degree. For nobody likes to be under the authority of GOD but they want to be their own authority.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Obviously you guys never read John 10:34 before (with any kind of understanding). Look at it in the different translations at Biblehub or Biblegateway. They all basically implying that kings are gods in this verse. For Jesus is not saying they are divine beings or little Mormon gods where they have their own planet or something silly.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
You have some strange thought process! Nobody "hates" the King James Bible; that is a strange delusion. And you actually couple that with [hating] American history and its influence upon Americans -- an even stranger delusion. The Puritans fled King James' rule with their Geneva Bibles, which James hated because of the footnotes that pointed out the problems with earthly kings' rule. The KJV was created for political purposes, pure and simple. The goal was not to produce an accurate translation but to filter the sources through a clearly political agenda.
"Tell the Baptists to stop using their King James Bible as the Word of God"? Are you having a nervous breakdown? That is beyond sanity!
You are correct in two things...
1) saying that "you don’t believe any perfect Bible exists and it has been lost to time" (which is self-contradictory). No "perfect" Bible exists because a) there are no original sources, only copies and b) it's impossible to create a "perfect" translation because of the difference in the source languages and the destination language.
2) Most Christians believe God’s words because they believe that God has preserved His words.
I think you need a "time out" (as I said to my children when they were young and misbehaved). Sit back, have a beer, and watch a baseball game like a real American.
I fear that you've "lost it" in your irrational defense of your favorite translation and the criticism of those who know it's just one of many translations.
Rollo Tamasi
Well-Known Member
So are you saying you never sin or are you saying you are only saved if when you die you have no sin.
2 Tmothy 4:7-8;
Nowhere does the Bible say that a Christian in this life will ever be completely perfect—that is, free from all sin (1 John 1:8).
And if we I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. re not free from sin, then how do we get to heaven
Paul is saying he is going to heaven.
It is Scripture.
Do you believe it?
He hasn't died yet.
He can still sin.
It seems you are twisting Scripture to suit your needs.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Rollo, I don't know why you are responding to Bible Highlighter's post as he is clearly going "off the rails". The OP is about using a KJV update and he is discussing OSAS -- once saved always saved -- as though they are somehow connected. Your signature -- OSAS is a way of life, not a doctrine --
is correct; there should be no discussion about it, including in this thread.
Then he goes on later with "For believing these verses like a child and not as a person being hoodwinked by Modern Scholarship in what they say will simply lead one to conclude that there is a perfect Word of God somewhere on our planet that we can read from."
I seriously think that he is having some kind of breakdown, writing about OSAS then spewing nonsense about "believing these verses like a child and not as a person being hoodwinked by Modern Scholarship".
Perhaps the KJV has so confused his thinking that he has lost whatever sanity he had. My prayer is that he will recover and, with God's help, learn the truth.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
We all sin LOL some more than others and count on the forgiveness of Christ. Some think that belief in Christ is a license to sin.
Of course they do not like the word license. Repent of your sins and honestly pledge to sin no more, particularly the sins we are asking forgiveness for. And as Christ said to the adulteress, go and sin no more.. Of course we are still going to sin on occasion. A lot of it has to do with an honest intent. But then you have those that live a sinful lifestyle and think that Christ is so naive that He will continue to forgive them. But Christ and Apostles will tell you that is not going to happen, and they keep warning Christians that will not happen and how sinful it is to even think that. They even tell you the sins that will prevent you from inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven.
Does it hurt if a person believes in OSAS even though they live their lives with very few sins? It can. OSAS is a false belief. If they convince some one that came to Christianity that they do not have to change their sinful lifestyles and can go to heaven just because they believe in Christ and continue to lead those sinful lifestyles....they may have lead those people down a path to hell. Can they be accountable for that? That is up to Christ on Judgment Day.
Do you think that Heaven will be full of people like murders, child molesters, rapists, thieves, abortionists, cannibals and LGBTQ? Do you think that you could be at that that heavenly banquet and the guy on your left could be pouring ketchup on your arm because he wants to eat you? Could the guy behind you be picking your pocket? Could the guy on your right be bragging about the women he raped. Basically do you believe heaven will be where evil will go and God and good people will have to move out.
Along with OSAS is the belief that no one can be good, so there is no sense in trying.....that is Satan whispering in their ear.
Nothing in the Bible suggest that people should not try to be moral and lists the lifestyles that will prevent you from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
2nd Corinthians :5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
1st Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:21 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Hebrews 10:26-31 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Last edited:
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter, as I wrote Rollo Tamasi, this thread is supposed to be about the use of a KJV update, not a discussion about the doctrine of OSAS. If you guys want to discuss that doctrine, how about starting another thread?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Aside from being wrong and using the verse as King James did to justify his translation, this also is off subject. Can't you guys stay on topic?
Rollo Tamasi
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
