coheir

The new testament gives us a better way. Heb 7 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. Phillip 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: Rom 4 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Gal 3 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 2nd Cor 3 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Acts 15 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Eph 2 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Colos 2 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Heb 8 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb 10 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Eph 3 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Rom 4 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Gal 3 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Rom 3 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Gal 4 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Heb 9 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Gal 5 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. You are not under any laws of the old testament OR you are under all the laws of the old testament

Some may misuse the word for profit. I bought a book called " the gun bible " it had everything you need to know about all types of guns. Like the Bible has everything you need to know to seek Jesus Christ.

So I'm a goth, so what? I wear black, does that mean I'm evil? What does goth mean? There are many ways to describe Gothic. Let me overview some of them. An obsession with death A liking to the color black Witchcraft Evil or demonic Those are some examples of what most "normal" people would call Goth Now I'll tell you what I think. Don't agree with me, but don't tell me I'm wrong. These are my beliefs. Goth is a beautiful thing. Yes is usually means we dress in black. However, I know plenty of goths that dress in nothing but white. Does it mean we are obsessed with death? Maybe, but is it possible that we could be obsessed with the death of our earthly burdons and the need to cast a blanket of darkness over that which is bad? I went to a church once dressed "normally". When I say normal, I mean: Black clothing, big boots, trenchcoat, eyeliner and black lipstick. When I attended the church, I was quickly shunned because of the way I looked. Why does goth mean that I love God less than you? Wouldn't Jesus love me? Jesus hung out with theives and prostitutes! Not because he wanted to change them, but because he loved them! Did not Jesus say "I AM the Light of the World"? Do you think Jesus would love me for who I am? Or would he turn me away? I despise the church signs they say things to the effect of: Stay away from all things with the appearance of evil... I have to tell you, that's not goth. When you say Jesus hung out with theives and prostitutes and did not want to change them; YOU make it sound like he allowed them to continue to practice their chosen field on a daily basis while they went along with him wherever he went. I disagree with your beliefs. Jesus is about change. from the ways of the world ( the world we live in by our choices before we know him ) to his ways.

Most use this but has anyone looked at this page, why wold this be ok for your body. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/medicine/prescription-drug-side-effects.htm

Yeah, this one kinda gets me. If we are to understand that spring is the beginning of the year then how is it said that the feast of the ingathering would be at year's end? What then about winter? Gary We tend to look at it all with our own ideas of what a calendar should be seen as yet if we look at it this way, the spring is for sowing, sowing seeds as well as the word of God, then we go through each season, watering and dryness. Then we come to the beginning of the harvest where wheat, us, are pruned, refined and finally gathered to Him and brought into the kingdom, or the wheat is harvested and stored in the grain house. Just like farmers today prepare the soil, water and tend it then gather it this is the center of Gods calendar, a prophetic time clock so to speak, the beauty of God to show us things in such simple ways. shalom, Mizz this was the original challange by GDE MOSS Here is the challenge: Using the bible as the only source for your answers, determine what God has revealed a time period of one year consists of. Please do not even mention what we know that man currently observes or historically it has been claimed to have been observed but only that which can be discovered within the pages of our Holy Bible, the Word of God.

I think jobs back then were a little harder to find than they are today and people worked off some sort of debt and this may have been called slavery. Not to say there was no actual slaves.

Yeah, this one kinda gets me. If we are to understand that spring is the beginning of the year then how is it said that the feast of the ingathering would be at year's end? What then about winter? Gary The way I understand it wheat planted in winter and harvest is at years end. this was all I could find in the kjv to determine the year. other than spring and summer which I wrote in the rest is I got in kjv

I have a question . in numbers God told Moses to number the tribes, for war, starting at 20 years old and up. You state 30 year old and up. where or why would it not be from 20 and up? thanks

Today as I was studying, I found that Solomon had 12 different people to cook for him. One for each month of the year. 1Ki 4:7 And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision. This leads me to believe 12 months in a year according to Solomon. But I also found this: Exd 34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Which would lead one to believe that the seasons are linked to years as well. Then I found this: 1Ch 27:1 Now the children of Israel after their number, [to wit], the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds, and their officers that served the king in any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year, of every course [were] twenty and four thousand. The following verses outline the 12 months of the year depicting a 12 month lunar calendar. So for now I am kinda tied up in my mind because the seasons seem to be linked to the times of the year yet 12 lunar cycles as a year would not allow for it. Not considering outside sources, I have to look into the bible itself for a solution. Grace and peace unto you, Gary Exo 12: 2 spring This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Exo 34: 22 summer And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

Can you point me to the verses that say all slaves were black or point me to the verses tha say all masters were white?

Hi and welcome to Worthy, Your question is something I have been looking into once again as it seems to crop up fairly regularly...this is what I understand so far. There are a small group of sincere Believers who have been convinced that the 1611 KJB is somehow especially correct and preserved by G-ds grace for the English speaking peoples. They seem convinced too that ever since then there has been some sort of skullduggery afoot that seeks to chip away at the authentic translation of the 1611 version and to replace it with words that detract from the fuller sense they believe is contained only in the 1611 translation...I uunderstand this is because they will say the men King James chose were all gifted scholars, loved G-d and were directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.....(others were not I presume) When I have read and listened patiently to the supposed facts that promote the 1611 version above all else, I have noticed that they are very good at building up a strong argument against people like Westcott and Hort, (who although they held some controversial ideas were actually professing Believers), however their arguments seem more directed against the personal beliefs of these men, than their work on the manuscripts. I'm not saying it is unimportant...but it strikes me that the way these two men are attacked is solely to discredit any possibility that their lifes work had merit. Modern scholarship may be indebted to their work, but from what I have read they revise it when they feel it is inadequate and do not attempt to hold it forth like some Holy Grail. When I listen to the vehement language and erstwhile tone of many KJO supporters (just visit any KJO website for a taste) I cannot escape the feeling that rather than enlighten the rest of us and encourage the Body of Messiah they are more intent on hammering home their own brand of religious exclusivity that promotes their stance and negates and condemns those that do not share their particular revelation. From past experience and Scripture I find this to be 'skating on thin ice'...there is an imbalance that is troubling. If I understand their main thrust, it is that Satan is cleverly at work subverting every Bible that does not conform with the 1611 version, by introducing a watering down of the original intent of the words, adding and subtracting from the available documents, solely in order to pervert the truth....if we sum it up in reality there is a huge conspiracy going on, and all the modern translators and publishers are united in their aim (consciously or soulishly) to blind G-ds people and hide the 'real truths' that the 1611 solemnly upholds. The reason I think this is not only wrong but a fundamentally important issue is that in a very real sense it is introducing an element to the Gospel that is unbiblical, and against which Paul was at pains should not gain a foothold within the Body. In his day one thing that troubled Believers was the idea that their salvation could not be held as authentic unless they were circumcised....in this instance what is being called into question is the authenticity of a Believers faith if he has been deceived by pernicious translations that are the tools of devils and promote lies. The substance of the KJO claims can easily be weighed up when you place a verse side by side with say the NASB or ESV (both of which I use) and see why each translates it the way they do... By their own rules, the KJV is found wanting in places and is no more perfect than many other attempts at excellence in translation....and for many the language is a big disadvantage and hardly an encouragement. I'm not going to say any more at this point, but let Scripture speak. Galatians 5: 1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. 7You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. 9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves. 13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. I ask you to look at a couple verses Rev 22: 16 kjv 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. Isa 14: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! 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! In Rev 22: 16 Jesus says he is the bright and morning star kjv In Isa 14: 12 kjv says lucifer, son of the morning In Isa 14: 12 non kjv removes lucifer and replaces it with O day star.

Hi TLF, I believe you are making a mistake in how you attempt to promote the 1611 KJV above all others, and try to destabilise all other versions by pointing to one or two people involved in a group of 50 or more that were used in translation work....do you honestly think that if one or two people involved in such a consolidated effort, tried to incorporate their own personal agenda it would be so easily accepted and not thoroughly checked over? This is particularly the case the NASB and the ESV which are also under your blanket attack...I fear what you are doing is jumping on the band-wagon and hearing a report about someone being homosexual and then using that information to insinuate that those used in translation and editing are careless and ungodly people...when the facts are vastly different...especially if your reference about homosexuals is based solely around a NIV consultant Virginia Mollenkott. I agree that there are some translations that are wholly unacceptable, but there are also some very good translations available...just as good as the 1611 KJV and better in places. Part of the troubling aspect of promoting the 1611 KJV above all others is that it leads to an unwholesome exclusivity, and elevates those that promote this view/conviction to a place of almost divine authority, when the fact is that the only people that hold such a one-sided view are those from the ranks of the KJO Believers themselves....and as I have indicated before, this is a dangerous position that has all the worrying trends associated with cults, and my fear is that those holding and promoting such views will eventually alienate and cut themselves off from the Body, because they believe they hold the monopoly on the truth...and those that disagree have sided with Satan. The section of Revelation you quoted makes it seem as if the L-rd was referring to the whole of Scripture....whereas it was a reference to the book/scroll of Revelation. (that is no excuse to take away or add to any Scripture...just an observation how we can seem to place a slant on Scripture in the way we use it.) I believe there is a great lack amongst Believers because we do not check out Scripture for ourselves and do not submerge ourselves in the Word...not a lot of study goes on and there seems to be a lazy attitude in the West as we have it comparatively easy and fill our lives with many distractions negating our need to understand Scripture, and thus the heart, character and ways of the L-rd amongst other things...there is very little desire to be a pilgrim....and as you say lack of fear of the L-rd. However I believe you make an assumption when you quote those dear men of G-d...the assumption being that they would support your view. There are many truly G-d-fearing men and women around today who also find in all conscience they have to distance themselves from what you are attempting to promote. Let's be lovers of the truth and not get side-tracked into holding on to unprofitable convictions that seem righteous but whose end is strife. Hold-fast to what is true and profitable...discern the heart of G-d in all this. Concerned......Botz I believe sound doctrine is very important Botz and i do not need any old timers to support my view, i used them as an example of Godliness. We need to realize that the enemy is a liar and a thief and because of my studies i have found GODs holy word being defiled. I am only seeking to warn believers of this " Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices" 2Cor2:11 Here are 2 links i would like you to check out, and if you are still unconvinced then i will not seek to warn you again. Fair deal Botz ? http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1116082139113 http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=37092224413 I only do this out of love for the Brethren even if i am resented for it .... excellent video's Brother Amen

I say that if the KJV was good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for me. If you are going to make the claim that verses in "other" translations of the Bible have been "changed" you are going to have to show proof as well as stating exactly what translations you think have been tampered with, or the claim is meaningless. There are not different "versions" of the Bible, simply different translations, the same category that the KJV itself would fall under. just thought I would throw this there Synonyms, Thesaurus & Antonyms of 'version' Princeton's WordNet 1. (noun) version an interpretation of a matter from a particular viewpoint Synonyms: edition, reading, translation, interpretation, variant, variation, interlingual rendition, rendering, adaptation

Hi and welcome to Worthy, Your question is something I have been looking into once again as it seems to crop up fairly regularly...this is what I understand so far. There are a small group of sincere Believers who have been convinced that the 1611 KJB is somehow especially correct and preserved by G-ds grace for the English speaking peoples. They seem convinced too that ever since then there has been some sort of skullduggery afoot that seeks to chip away at the authentic translation of the 1611 version and to replace it with words that detract from the fuller sense they believe is contained only in the 1611 translation...I uunderstand this is because they will say the men King James chose were all gifted scholars, loved G-d and were directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.....(others were not I presume) When I have read and listened patiently to the supposed facts that promote the 1611 version above all else, I have noticed that they are very good at building up a strong argument against people like Westcott and Hort, (who although they held some controversial ideas were actually professing Believers), however their arguments seem more directed against the personal beliefs of these men, than their work on the manuscripts. I'm not saying it is unimportant...but it strikes me that the way these two men are attacked is solely to discredit any possibility that their lifes work had merit. Modern scholarship may be indebted to their work, but from what I have read they revise it when they feel it is inadequate and do not attempt to hold it forth like some Holy Grail. When I listen to the vehement language and erstwhile tone of many KJO supporters (just visit any KJO website for a taste) I cannot escape the feeling that rather than enlighten the rest of us and encourage the Body of Messiah they are more intent on hammering home their own brand of religious exclusivity that promotes their stance and negates and condemns those that do not share their particular revelation. From past experience and Scripture I find this to be 'skating on thin ice'...there is an imbalance that is troubling. If I understand their main thrust, it is that Satan is cleverly at work subverting every Bible that does not conform with the 1611 version, by introducing a watering down of the original intent of the words, adding and subtracting from the available documents, solely in order to pervert the truth....if we sum it up in reality there is a huge conspiracy going on, and all the modern translators and publishers are united in their aim (consciously or soulishly) to blind G-ds people and hide the 'real truths' that the 1611 solemnly upholds. The reason I think this is not only wrong but a fundamentally important issue is that in a very real sense it is introducing an element to the Gospel that is unbiblical, and against which Paul was at pains should not gain a foothold within the Body. In his day one thing that troubled Believers was the idea that their salvation could not be held as authentic unless they were circumcised....in this instance what is being called into question is the authenticity of a Believers faith if he has been deceived by pernicious translations that are the tools of devils and promote lies. The substance of the KJO claims can easily be weighed up when you place a verse side by side with say the NASB or ESV (both of which I use) and see why each translates it the way they do... By their own rules, the KJV is found wanting in places and is no more perfect than many other attempts at excellence in translation....and for many the language is a big disadvantage and hardly an encouragement. I'm not going to say any more at this point, but let Scripture speak. Galatians 5: 1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. 7You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. 9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves. 13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. It only takes a little bit of leaven to leaven the lump Botz, as it does 99% of food mixed with 1% of poison to kill a rat. The King James Bible is "Authorized" and it is the only one that is; " The Kings heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turns it withersoever he will "Prov21:1. We are talking GODs very pure Word here-Ps119:140) and ANY man that seeks to translate His Word must do it in the fear of the LORD and the power of the Holy Ghost. If you look into the lives of these "brave" translators that have dared do it, you will find some are not right with GOD and very dubious regards being born again. Some are practicing homosexuals, some unbelievers, some have had occultic aspirations and " many " unregenerate think that because they have mans university education (scholars) think that gives them the right to tamper with GODs holy Word JESUS said " 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: 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. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Rev22:18-20 What i find common today Botz is the lack of the fear of GOD before mens eyes and the excuse that " i don't like that translation because it is hard to understand". Why will not one " study" to understand instead of seeking to change GODs Word to suit themselves ? All the old timers like the Wesley's, Spurgeons, Hudson Taylor, Moody, Jonathon Edwards etc etc used the King James and they were Godly men. It if was good enough for them then it is good enough for me . Check this out http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-21-king-james-bible.htm here is another http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-02-17/controversial-niv-bible-lifeway/53131628/1 check out htis page http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/ check out this http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/most_added_removed_words.html heres another page http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/Genesis.html cobalt check oit this http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/ side by side view http://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm another http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/versions-kautz.htm http://www.momof9splace.com/7reasons.html Thanks Onelight for putting this together

Anyone can find all the verses and words that have been changed in the different bilbles on the internet. I have several sites in my favorites that show the ljv verse and the other verse side by side. It is clear there have been changes. and it is clear some change the meaning.My Bible software has most of the Bibles on it. I can with a couple of clicks choose anyone of them and compare and see the changes. My intent for this thread was not to post all the different changes between them and debate the how and why. My question was after a person knows of the changes why notchange Bibles.

If you study these "revised versions" texts and translators you find it all goes downhill from the 1611 "Authorized" King James Bible. 2 devils named Westcott and Hort, revised and translated the 1811 version on a corrupt text and held strange heretiical beliefs. Here is a bit about them from jesusissaviour.com WESTCOTT AND HORT Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something of the two men who have so greatly influenced modern textual criticism. In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be. Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211). If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17. Here's what Westcott and Hort said about... The Scriptures: "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii). "Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400) "Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212) Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2nd Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV). The Deity of Christ: "He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297). "(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16). "(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36). Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature). Salvation: "The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159). "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77). Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1st Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (ASV). Hell: "(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78). "We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149). Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matthew 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote. Creation: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191). "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189) Romanism: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. ) "The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77) It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild). Westcott and Hort talked to Spirits of the dead. I call it Satanism. Westcott and Hort Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) have been highly controversial figures in biblical history. On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture. I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts. I believe it is essential at this time that we examine what we know about these men and their theories concerning the text of the Bible. I long sought for copies of the books about their lives. These are The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son, Arthur, and The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, written by his son. After literally months of trying, I was able to acquire copies of them both for study. Most of the material in this section will be directly from these sources so as to prevent it from being secondhand. We cannot blindly accept the finding of any scholar without investigating what his beliefs are concerning the Bible and its doctrines. Scholarship alone makes for an inadequate and dangerous authority, therefore we are forced to scrutinize these men's lives. A Monumental Switch Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Westcott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were older. This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. Hort said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Genealogy, pg 92—as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257). Vicious Prejudice In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let his emotions show... Hort said: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” (Life, Vol. I, p. 211). Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text! Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession. Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the Concordia discourse. Commenting on the four places in Mark's Gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the cocks crowing is mentioned said: "The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places." 87 A Shocking Revelation That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers! Hort wrote, quote: For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity. 88 He also states, Quote: In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission. (Emphasis mine.) 89 We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so? Blatant Disbelief Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith. Hort denies the reality of Eden: I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adams fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues. 90 Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of Essays and Reviews. Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible." 91 We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated: "As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces groundless, on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did recognize Providente in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment." And further commented to a colleague: "But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing." 92 Strange Bedfellows Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book." And to John Ellerton he writes: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period." 93 Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge." 94 "Coleridge was the college drop-out whose drug addiction is an historical fact. The opium habit, begun earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806." 95 "One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers." 96 This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge. Forsaking Colossians 2:8, Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. MacMillian, he stated: "You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in revelation." 97 Lost in the Forest In some cases Hort seemed to wander in the woods. In others he can only be described as utterly lost in the forest. Take, for example, his views on fundamental Bible truths... Hort's Devil Concerning existence of a personal devil he wrote: "The discussion which immediately precedes these four lines naturally leads to another enigma most intimately connected with that of everlasting penalties, namely that of the personality of the devil. It was Coleridge who some three years ago first raised any doubts in my mind on the subject - doubts which have never yet been at all set at rest, one way or the other. You yourself are very cautious in your language." "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?" 98 Hort's Hell Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal hell. "I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word eternal has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible. 99 Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I held the doctrine. 100 Hort's Purgatory Although the idea of a literal devil and a literal hell found no place in Hort's educated mind, he was a very real believer in the factious Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854: I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named. 101 Also while advising a young student he wrote: The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended. I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth. 102 Thus we see that Dr. Hort's opinions were certainly not inhibited by orthodoxy. Yet his wayward ways do not end here. For, as his own writings display, Dr. Hort fell short in several other fundamental areas. Hort's Atonement There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind. "The fact is, I do not see how Gods justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 103 In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christs atonement as heresy! "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christs bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 104 The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christs payment for sins than God. "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father." 105 Hort's Baptism Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration was more correct than the evangelical teaching. ...at the same time in language stating that we maintain Baptismal Regeneration as the most important of doctrines ... the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical. 106 He also states that, Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom. 107 In fact, Hort's heretical view of baptism probably cost his own son his eternal soul, as we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation: You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven. 108 Hort's Twisted Belief Along with Hort's unregenerated misconceptions of basic Bible truths, there were his quirkish and sometimes quackish personal beliefs. One such example is his hatred for democracy, as he asserts in a letter to Rev. Westcott dated April 28, 1865: "...I dare not prophesy about America, but I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms." 109 It is not an amazing thing that any one man could hold to so many unscriptural and ungodly beliefs. It is amazing that such a man could be exalted by Bible believing preachers and professors to a point of authority higher than the King James Bible! Dr. Hort was a truly great Greek scholar, yet a great intellect does not make one an authority over the Bible when they themselves do not even claim to believe it! Albert Einstein was a man of great intellect, but he rejected Scripture, and so where he speaks on the subject of Scripture he is not to be accepted as authoritative. Possessing a great mind or great ability does not guarantee being a great spiritual leader. Dr. Hort was a scholar, but his scholarship alone is no reason to accept his theories concerning Bible truth. If fundamental pastors of today enlisted the services of an evangelist and found that this evangelist had beliefs paralleling those of Fenton John Anthony Hort, I believe that the pastor would cancel the meeting. Strangely through, when a pastor discovers such to be true about Dr. Hort, he excuses him as a great Greek scholar and presents his Authorized Version to him to be maliciously dissected and then discarded as Dr. Hort sets himself down in the seat of authority which the Bible once held. Here again I must assert that most often this is done with childlike faith on the part of the pastor, due to the education he received while in seminary. The seminary is not really guilty either, for they have simply and unsuspectingly accepted the authority of two men raised under the influence of a campaign by the Jesuits to re-Romanize England. Wilkenson reports that Hort had been influenced by these Roman Catholic forces: Dr. Hort tell us that the writings of Simon had a large share in the movement to discredit the Textus Receptus class of MSS and Bibles. 119 Problems with Westcott Unfortunately for the new Bible supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that Moses and David were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the sun rising, it was no less necessary that he would use the names Moses and David as His contemporaries used them... There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.) 120 He also said David is not a chronological but a spiritual person. 121 That the first three chapter of Genesis are all allegory has been believed by liberals and modernists for years. Do today's fundamentalists realize that those modernists beliefs were nurtures in the heart of this Bible critic? Westcott was also a doubter of the Biblical account of miracles: I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover somewhat of evidence in the account of it. 122 If a great fundamental preacher of our day were to make this statement, he would be called apostate, but what then of Westcott? Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a physical coming but a spiritual coming: "As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the Lord's coming in my little book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lords words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is coming' to us now. 123 Westcott's Heaven Wait! This fundamental doctrine is not the last one to be denied by Bishop Westcott, for he believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place. Note the following quotations from Bishop Westcott: No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place; heaven is a state and not a place. 124 Yet the unseen is the largest part of life. Heaven lies about us now in infancy alone; and by swift, silent pauses for thought, for recollection, for aspiration, we cannot only keep fresh the influence of that diviner atmosphere, but breathe it more habitually. 125 We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavor to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life. 126 Westcott's Newmanism Dr. Westcott was also deeply devoted to John Newman, the Roman Catholic defector who took 150 Church of England clergymen with him when he made the change. Those of his disciples who did not make the physical change to Rome, made the spiritual change to Romanism, though many, like Westcott, never admitted it. These are the convictions of a man greatly responsible for the destruction of Christian faith in the Greek Text of the Authorized Version. Place Mr. Westcott next to any present fundamental preacher or educator, and he would be judged a modernist, liberal and heretic. In spite of his outstanding ability in Greek, a man of his convictions would not be welcome on the campus of any truly Christian college in America. This is not an overstatement, nor is it malicious. The Christian colleges of today hold very high standards and simply would not settle for a man of such apostate conviction, no matter how great his ability to teach a given subject. If you continue your study Coheir you will be shocked and astonished regarding these other counterfeit Per "versions" like the Niv, NASB etc The problem is that most do not "Study to show themselves approved unto God, workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" 2Tim2:15 and have underestimated satan who has used devils masquerading as angels of light to tamper with, add too and subtract from GODs holy Word....... I agree with this statement completely. I however am hoping someone who uses other bible than kjv would share if they know it has changed verses and why they still use it. I have many articles pertaining to how and what was changed, but that really is not what I seek. thank you thetruthlivesforever

I say that if the KJV was good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for me. If you are going to make the claim that verses in "other" translations of the Bible have been "changed" you are going to have to show proof as well as stating exactly what translations you think have been tampered with, or the claim is meaningless. There are not different "versions" of the Bible, simply different translations, the same category that the KJV itself would fall under. Most people's indignation is aimed at the NIV when they carry this mindset. The NIV is a good daily reading Bible, but not really a good study Bible. And even then, the assertions that the NIV has altered verses or "missing" verses is left without any visible means of support when the NIV has copious notes in every instance such as notes that gives alternate manuscript readings, or say there is disagreement on the text, or that some manuscripts do not carry a certain verse. It is not as if the verse just disappears into thin air and the disappearance is simply unexplained, and the verse is given anyway in the notes. The KJV is a very good translation, but no translation is perfect, including the KJV. thanks, cobalt for the reply, versions was the wrong word. translations would have been much better. when I wanted a second bible I thought about one of the others like niv or nkjv. While looking online I ran accross several articles that say most translations change the wording of verses. It caused me to buy another kjv. If you took offence to my question I assure you I meant no offence. Its just a question. The only thing I could claim as proof is what I found on the internet. this example The word "damned", "damnation" is NOT in the NKJV! They make it "much clearer" by replacing it with "condemn" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). "Condemned" is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as "damned"! Damned is eternal! One can be "condemned" and not "damned". Romans 14:22 says, ". . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Webster defines "condemned": to declare to be wrong, but the much more serious and eternal "damn": "to condemn to hell".

I too say thanks. Very uplifting.

I too use avg and find it very good, have not used surf shield

Any bible will do for a while they all will help a person grow in the word. I may be wrong in my thinking, ( it often happens ) it just seems like a person would change if they knew of altered verses. I originally bought a kjv and read it, later I wanted to buy another and in searching I found that a lot of bibles do have verses altered which give a different meaning to the reader. When I bought my second bible that was a major factor for me. Im not hear to denigrate anypne choice just curious why they keep what ever version. Im aware they are easier to read but just thought their might be more to it than that. ps thanks for your reply.

I asked two questions you answered neither.

Just curious are you a Gerald Flurry fan? No not particularly, are you? No not a fan of the offshoots of Armstrongs churches, my husband grew up in Armstrongs church. Armstrong and the rest feel they are 'the church of God' and all must join to it, they do not believe we are all Israel but Ephraim and Manneseh, that whole brit/Israel thing and I don't. Thy are also now speaking firmly out against any other groups that keep the Sabbath as 'cults' kinda funny if you ask me. I am Messianic. shalom, Mizz you certainly do not owe me any explanation, Im just curious after reading some of your post. Please do not take offence for my question. we each have our own beliefs thats our right. do you agree with this site http://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php Thanks I forgot to answer your question my belief is in the new covenant very much like this site Im asking you to comment on.

Curious why people use and promote other versions of the bible other than kjv. Aren't verses changed that give a different understanding than the original intent? what say ye

I found this and it seems to convey the peoper understanding. What is the relationship of Gentile Christians to the laws of the Torah? Messiah’s Holy Community of Jews and Gentiles (the Church), while having much in common with Israel, is not identical to Israel. The New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant. Jews who enter the New Covenant remain Jews, and Gentiles who enter the New Covenant remain Gentiles. Gentile Believers are not the same as the Gentile foreigners who lived in the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. Gentile Christians have an elevated status compared to the aliens who lived in the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. They are fully co-heirs of the Kingdom with the Jewish saints. Being grafted into Israel doesn't mean that Gentile Believers become Israel or are required to live the same way as the Jewish people. Jews and Gentiles are one because of our one God and Father of all: “one Lord, one faith and one Baptism.” We share equally in the Spirit of God, who lives in all of us, and have the same hope of living forever in the New Jerusalem. Being one doesn’t negate the differences in roles and calling and lifestyle between Jews and Gentiles. Keep in mind that most of the laws of the Torah were directed specifically to the Jewish people and not to the other nations. The laws formed Israel’s constitution. The laws were meant to keep Israel distinct from the other nations. So what relationship does the Gentile Christian have to the 613 laws of the Torah? The book of Acts records that Messiah's Emissaries (the Apostles) and the Elders of Messiah's Holy Community met to decide this very issue. In the Messianic Jewish community we commonly refer to this meeting, recorded in Acts 15, as “the First Jerusalem Council.” According to the binding, Holy Spirit-inspired decision issued by the Emissaries and Elders, apart from saving faith in Messiah Yeshua, only four essential practices are necessary for Gentile Christians: abstaining from food dirtied by idolatry, from sexual immorality, from eating blood and from the meat of animals that have been strangled (see Acts 15, especially verses 19-20, 28-29). In addition to these Four Essentials, obedience to the Moral Law (for example, not stealing, not murdering, not committing adultery and not bearing false witness) is required. The Creator has written these moral laws on everyone's heart (see Romans 2:14-15). Apart from these Four Essential Practices and the Moral Law, everything else - including the Sabbath, holidays and dietary laws - is to be regarded as non-essential, and comes under the area of Christian freedom and liberty. If someone wants to observe a Biblical holiday or custom, there is freedom, but no obligation, to do so. Gentile Christians have the freedom to celebrate the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays, or not observe them. If someone says, “Messiah is my Passover and I don't need to celebrate a Passover Seder” - that’s fine. If someone says, “Messiah is my Sabbath, and I'm resting in Him, and therefore I don't need to rest on the Sabbath” - that's OK. If someone wants to observe the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship, he has every right to do so. If someone says, “I want to observe the Sabbath and celebrate the Passover to help me better remember and appreciate Messiah, my Passover Lamb” - that's fine, too. This does not make the Torah useless or irrelevant for Christians. The Torah is full of great wisdom. In the Torah are found the principles for salvation, atonement and God-ordained ways of worship. The initial prophecies and God-ordained qualifications for the Messiah are found here. True and accurate historical accounts - the history of the Creation, the Fall and the Flood; the origins and dispersing of the nations and their languages; the foundation and calling of Israel; the covenants made with Noah, Abraham and Moses - are all contained in this great Book. Basic laws of morality and justice, and principles for godly living - principles that can be applied to the life of every nation and every Christian - are found in the Torah. Every Christian should be well-versed in the Torah.

Just curious are you a Gerald Flurry fan?