KJV (1611)?

[Random Man]

Why is it that this is the only "true" word of God. Why can't people use other translations of the Bible? I've just seen a lot of you post this Bible when verses need to be quoted.

[patriot4christ]

Re: KJV (1611)?

Why is it that this is the only "true" word of God. Why can't people use other translations of the Bible? I've just seen a lot of you post this Bible when verses need to be quoted.

You dont get to decide which version is right only Landover can because they are the only real Christians.

[Bryan Tamariki]

Re: KJV (1611)?

"We hold that the Bible, the Holy Word of a Holy God, was not only free from error in the originals (which have been lost for centuries) but also we believe God in His Singular providential care has KEPT HIS WORD all through the ages, right down to the present day as found in the King James Version. We consider this version our final and absolute authority, above and beyond all other authorities on earth."

http://www.chick.com/information/general/statementoffaith.asp

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: KJV (1611)?

Why is it that this is the only "true" word of God. Why can't people use other translations of the Bible? I've just seen a lot of you post this Bible when verses need to be quoted.

Follow this link for all the information you could possibly desire on the subject of false Bible translations.

http://www.temcat.com/Besieged-Bible.htm

If you're interested in the New International Version (NIV) in particular, try this one:

http://www.temcat.com/Bible-versions/NIV-KJV.htm

A quote to start you off:

I get no scarcity of questions on the Bible. These questions come by phone—many by long distance, by visitors, and by mail. Many of the questions are regarding the confusing flood of new versions of the Bible. This is especially true in respect to the New International Version, commonly referred to as the NIV. Seeing the NIV is now being urged by many, I am repeatedly asked why I do not also advocate the use of the NIV version and use it in my work of soulwinning.

As I believe it is my duty to give an answer, I will endeavour to pass on some clear and straight-forward reasons why I do not use the NIV, and never intend to use the NIV, in place of the time-honoured and sure King James Version.

Here is Luke 4:4 in the King James Version. In the NIV the underlined words are cut out:

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."

Luke 4:4 is not the only place where parts of the Word of God have been cut out. There are literally hundreds of omissions in the NIV.

This omission in Luke 4:4 makes the statement of Jesus of little sense. "But by every word of God." Now we have it. The Scriptures are to stay. The Word of God is to feed us. We are to live by the Scriptures. Here Jesus is in conflict with the devil and in this statement our Lord is revealing the efficient weapon against sin and Satan.

Is it not significant that this very mutilated version of Scripture cuts out the very passage that condemns it. This omitted passage condemns the NIV!

Note again that our Divine Guide is showing that man is to live by "every word of God." If "every word" is vital and we need "every word" what can be said in favour of a professed version that omits a whole verse? Not only that but omits scores of passages. I will never use in my work a mutilated version, no matter how popular it may be. The "Scripture of Truth" closes with these important words:

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."

I would fear to stand before the judgment bar of God, if I knowingly had used and upheld a version that had taken away from the Word of God.

We should remember also that this solemn warning against taking "away from the words" of God’s Holy Book is given by none other than our Lord Himself.

[Father Thomas Martin]

Re: KJV (1611)?

Follow this link for all the information you could possibly desire on the subject of false Bible translations.

http://www.temcat.com/Besieged-Bible.htm

If you're interested in the New International Version (NIV) in particular, try this one:

http://www.temcat.com/Bible-versions/NIV-KJV.htm

A quote to start you off:

1. The NIV (and other translations) keep these words in Matthew's account of the Lord's temptation, just not Luke's. The KJV added these words to Luke's account!

2. So, you can say Revelation 22:19 condemns the KJV then, because it takes out WHOLE BOOKS of God's Word!

[Brother Guy Bayard]

Re: KJV (1611)? Is the NKJV ok?

This morning on my way to work, I took a wrong turn in an unfamiliar area. I pulled over, stopped, consulted my street directory, and found I was not too far from my destination. But, before I turned back onto the freeway, I noticed a 'book' on the side of the road, just up ahead of me...it wasn't just any book, however... it was a Bible! Yes thats right folks, it was in fact a copy of the New King James Version, the NKJV - the kind with the words of Jesus printed in red, open and flapping away like a madwoman beating a carpet at ...wait for it...the book of Ezekiel, specifically, Ezekiel 28:15 - The prophecy against Egypt. Is this significant? Does God hate Egypt? (I expect he does - it smells like sewage wrapped in mutton mostly anyway.)
Naturally I looked inside the front cover and found that the owner is somebody by the name of Alain Ngarambe, and was awarded to him by a Peter H - as a reward for completing his baptism certificate, of the foundation of Faith.
My questions are for Pastor Ezekiel.
1. Should I notify the Church elders that this dark skinned heathen has discarded his Bible, or
2. Should the Police or the Department of Faith be notified of an obvious crime ie. theft of a Bible?
3. Does the 'New' in NKJV mean that this person is damned to Hell anyway, or is the NKJV acceptable ?
4. Should 'Alain Ngarambe' be tracked down/notified and brought back into Gods fold?
5. Is there any significance that the NKJV was open at 'Ezekiel'?
6. Did God make me take a 'wrong' turn so I may find the copy of His Word?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: KJV (1611)?

[...]

2. So, you can say Revelation 22:19 condemns the KJV then, because it takes out WHOLE BOOKS of God's Word!

You are going to speak about the Apocrypha aren't you? The very name sould give it away! It is apocryphal!

(And who wants to read about some woman fingering mary's cooter anyway?)

[Father Thomas Martin]

Re: KJV (1611)?

You are going to speak about the Apocrypha aren't you? The very name sould give it away! It is apocryphal!

(And who wants to read about some woman fingering mary's cooter anyway?)

That's DEUTEROCANON to you.

They're part of the Greek scriptures, just not the Hebrew ones (I thought you hated Jews). Both are still the Word of God either way!

And you never bothered to answer my first question.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: KJV (1611)?

[...]And you never bothered to answer my first question.

Simply because I thought you'd been at the altar wine again.

KJV was famously published in 1611 - I have no idea and no interest in when NIV was thrown, in a slap-dash way, into the printers hands by drunken monks, but it was later. Thus NIV is clearly wrong. It is wrong because it is not KJV.

If Jesus had had a Bible, it would have been KJV - end of story.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: KJV (1611)?

Simply because I thought you'd been at the altar wine again.

KJV was famously published in 1611 - I have no idea and no interest in when NIV was thrown, in a slap-dash way, into the printers hands by drunken monks, but it was later. Thus NIV is clearly wrong. It is wrong because it is not KJV.

If Jesus had had a Bible, it would have been KJV - end of story.

The heretical, Satan inspired NIV has first published in 1973. Needlessto say the it was written '60s, a decade were the entire world spent ten years spitting in the face of Jesus. It is basically a slap dash conglomeration of several so called "bibles" that the NIV (cough) scholars glued together in their cut and past fake bible.

[Father Thomas Martin]

Re: KJV (1611)?

I DON'T USE THE NIV!

I use the NRSV.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: KJV (1611)?

The difference between an old rope and a new one...

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: KJV (1611)?

I DON'T USE THE NIV!

I use the NRSV.

Why? What difference does it make to you? One false Bible is as good as the next.

Have you ever read THIS old sermon of mine? It might help sort out your Biblical confusion.