PeterJohn

Dear Pointer, The a priori requisite of the Holy Spirit enacting Righteousness in the Believer is self-evident in the AV But where is that same knowledge drawn from the context of those verses in the NIV which speaks plainly ... ONLY THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WHOLLY AND HOLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD and the Qu'ran IS A MAN-CREATED COUNTERFEIT ...just so you know my position there ... I was saying God uses any tool which he knows can reach the heart of the true seeker after Himself, even means which we as humans in our individual narrow-focuses (no matter how broad-minded we may be )have difficulties or cannot embrace ...in the instance of that Muslim he came into contact with a Christian national and from there more conventionally thru the Word of God; The Holy Bible; but his Questions seeking Salvation began with sections of the Qu'ran before this took place ... Anyway in this thread I promise from now on to keep strictly to the Thread's own guidelines ...maybe this version question can be approached in a new thread altogether

Can you show that to be true? There are other verses but this will serve as a pointer: NIV ...Rev.19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given to her to wear."(Fine linen stands for the righteouy acts of thr saints.) Parenthesis as above in Niv KJV; Rev 19:8 And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in bright linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. Are those who support the primacy of Non-KJV translations not based on the Textus Receptus also claiming that it is the riighteous acts of the saints (i.e.salvation thru Good Works) which God allows his Bride the Church to wear or is the allegedly later and purportedly less accurate KJV trans which imputes that" the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints" suggests that we are not the Bride of Christ thru our self-righteousness but by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Believer ... There is a notorious verse in the OT which transposes Lucifer for God in one of the Prophets and may be considered by some to be a niggling inaccuracy but by others as a translators Blasphemy ...this is the "Star of the Morning" verse in one of the Major Proiphets Incidentally I am not KJV-Only tho The KJV is my first English trans. Bible; as I qouted above in another reply I do read other versioms but The KJV is the trans I use as a member of the congregation; and in my personal devotions ... God, can and has used other Versions and other devices to bring believers to Christ as He is the Author of ALL and meets people where thry are at in the pre-conversion, conversion phase ... Does that necessarily mean that He endorses those methods as his Son or Daughter matures .... I mean, there is a verified instance of God using the Qu'ran to bring a Muslim to Saving Grace in Christ so does God endorse the Qu'ran as Scripture?

My principle Bible in terms of English Translations is the KJV, I have read and owned other trsns. such as The NEB, NIV, Level 66 NKJV The Bible in Basic English (actually more difficult to understand than the KJV?) While the KJV is my prinxiple text I use the other translations for comparison/clarity Incidentally becuase a surviving text is older does that automatically assure us that it is necessarilly more accurate than a later surviving "original" text ....All these Hebrew and Greek texts are copies ...admitted but let us be open-minded enough to the suggestion that even tho tesxts such as the Textus Receptus may be chronoloically later as copies, the lost Source Text may infact be earlier (This can be established thru the somewhat subjectiv literary analysis of the text). Consider that in secular History 400 years remains betweens Alexander the Great and his Biographre Appisn and Rufius; that the intervening material has been lost with the exception of The Romances of Alexander ...how much then of Alexander's record is to be trusted as historically accurate and uncorrupted using some of the arguments which I have heard above which are not without logic; I am a B.A. History Major (UNE Armidale nsw) graduated 1999 not a Theology Major and while not at all happy with the secular humanist philosophy of the secular arts and sciences I find as an observer less inclined to trust the teachers/teaching in schoos of theologu which give primacy to secular science over the Word of God (Which is neither KJV or NEB or TEV or RSV or Revised NIV) Hmmmmm are the gender inclusivist or gender free versions of the NIV even more reliable texts than the original NIV?

I use a combination of Thompson's Chain Reference AV and Defined King James both of which are based on the more accurate Textus Receptus or Received Text; all later Bibles are based on the inaccurate Westcort-Hort MS and variants as NJKV also use other variants as these as NU-text; I grew up with the AV and yes some passages are difficult; however in tandem use of a good commentary such as Youngs the Rough is made Smooth; and we rely in Prayer on the Holy Spirit to interpret for us; if we as humans follow our human natures and only seek an easy path we will never learn as we need to learn or grow as we need to grow The AV is not perfect; but is the most perfect of imperfect translations as it follows the original Hebrew and Koine Greek MS in a crib-like fashion and does not freely INTERPRET the MS ...