Bible versions

[OneLight]

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.sermonaud...D=1116082139113

http://www.sermonaud...SID=37092224413

Hi TLF,

I have listened to the first link and made notes while cross-referencing....the arguments brought up are very very poor, and I believe anybody with access to several Bibles will soon see

that the majority of the grievances are simply sheer fantasy. Does this gentleman honestly think everyone is so gullible that they are just going to see his apparent point without looking

any further or a little deeper...his exegesis is remarkably shaky and his conclusions even shakier.

Right from the get-go he makes a statement along the lines that if you listen to him and are a true Christian you will see the evidence and change your mind....so there we have it, in one

breath he is catagorically casting doubt on peoples salvation if they disagree with what he is presenting...I was astonished.

He softens the blow a little later (also by contradicting his initial statement) by suggesting somewhat patronizingly that he isn't saying those who use other Bibles aren't saved...just that

they are basically open to deception, and in so many words are less of a follower of Jesus than those who uphold the KJV.

This is just the starters...he then goes on to quote the differences between Gen 1:1. Is 14:12. Dan 3:25. Matt 5:22. John 1:18. and 1Tim 3:16.

I don't disagree with everything here, and in some instances I can see that I would rather go with the KJV than some others...but he makes some bad assumptions and jumps to unsubstantiated

claims...especially trying to demonstrate that allalternative translations are actively being used by Satan to deceive the masses...it really boils down to a conspiracy theory. Although I do agree

there are some translations that like Judas, would have been better never to have seen the light of day...but they stick out like a sore thumb.

I think he really shoots himself in the foot with 1 Tim 6:10 and the translations that say the love of money is a root of 'all kinds of evil' as opposed to the KJV, 'the root of all evil'...the translators are making the

distinction that money is actually not the root of all evil, BUT a root of all kinds of evils. When looking at the Greek I can see why both arrive at the translation they do...but I think the NASB gives a better

understanding of what was intended, because if you think about it, the love of money is not literally the 'root of all evil'...rather it is a roots behind many evils that we recognise. So why he gets all hot under

the collar over this baffles me.

The reference to Lucifer as opposed to morning star in Is 14:12 is also interesting, especially as it was Jerome who utilised the word Lucifer through a traditional understanding and not according to the

text of Scripture...but this seems to be completely over-looked by this fellow, as is the fact that morning-star or day-star is a perfectly legitimate translation, and in no way seeks to equate Satan with

a title of Jesus because the context is completely different...but if anyone took what is being said at face value they would again think some conspiracy is afoot.

If warning lights aren't flashing by now...they should be.

I will listen to the next link tomorrow.

Hi Botz,

Well, i must admit, i am surprised by your reply. If you are using other Bibles to make your case against the KJB when the whole point of it all is the to see for your self the perversion and corruption of the revised versions then i do not get it. If the whole point is about "corrupt" texts and "dodgey ' translators then why would you seek to make a case with the very translations that we are saying are not " sound "

You talked about the NASB as giving a better understanding to what was intended and i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon) has publicly repented of his counterfeit translation and advised those who hear to go back to the "Authorized"KJB

I am very interested to hear what you have to say on the next part Botz cos there definitely are lights flashing but they are not for me.

I find your understanding of the origins of the NASB lacking truth. Dr. Frank Logsdon had nothing to do with the translation of the NASB. Here is a link to a piece from The Lockman Foundation about your claims. The Lockman Foundation's Official Response to KJVO claims about Frank Logsdon

Here is information about the NASB: Translators of the New American Standard Bible®

[OneLight]

First, please cite where this information is from to give due credit to who wrote it.

Secondly, what I have given you is a statement from the Foundation that was responsible for the ASB and the NASB about this claims. You have to refute them, not me.

[OneLight]

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.sermonaud...D=1116082139113

http://www.sermonaud...SID=37092224413

Hi TLF,

I have listened to the first link and made notes while cross-referencing....the arguments brought up are very very poor, and I believe anybody with access to several Bibles will soon see

that the majority of the grievances are simply sheer fantasy. Does this gentleman honestly think everyone is so gullible that they are just going to see his apparent point without looking

any further or a little deeper...his exegesis is remarkably shaky and his conclusions even shakier.

Right from the get-go he makes a statement along the lines that if you listen to him and are a true Christian you will see the evidence and change your mind....so there we have it, in one

breath he is catagorically casting doubt on peoples salvation if they disagree with what he is presenting...I was astonished.

He softens the blow a little later (also by contradicting his initial statement) by suggesting somewhat patronizingly that he isn't saying those who use other Bibles aren't saved...just that

they are basically open to deception, and in so many words are less of a follower of Jesus than those who uphold the KJV.

This is just the starters...he then goes on to quote the differences between Gen 1:1. Is 14:12. Dan 3:25. Matt 5:22. John 1:18. and 1Tim 3:16.

I don't disagree with everything here, and in some instances I can see that I would rather go with the KJV than some others...but he makes some bad assumptions and jumps to unsubstantiated

claims...especially trying to demonstrate that allalternative translations are actively being used by Satan to deceive the masses...it really boils down to a conspiracy theory. Although I do agree

there are some translations that like Judas, would have been better never to have seen the light of day...but they stick out like a sore thumb.

I think he really shoots himself in the foot with 1 Tim 6:10 and the translations that say the love of money is a root of 'all kinds of evil' as opposed to the KJV, 'the root of all evil'...the translators are making the

distinction that money is actually not the root of all evil, BUT a root of all kinds of evils. When looking at the Greek I can see why both arrive at the translation they do...but I think the NASB gives a better

understanding of what was intended, because if you think about it, the love of money is not literally the 'root of all evil'...rather it is a roots behind many evils that we recognise. So why he gets all hot under

the collar over this baffles me.

The reference to Lucifer as opposed to morning star in Is 14:12 is also interesting, especially as it was Jerome who utilised the word Lucifer through a traditional understanding and not according to the

text of Scripture...but this seems to be completely over-looked by this fellow, as is the fact that morning-star or day-star is a perfectly legitimate translation, and in no way seeks to equate Satan with

a title of Jesus because the context is completely different...but if anyone took what is being said at face value they would again think some conspiracy is afoot.

If warning lights aren't flashing by now...they should be.

I will listen to the next link tomorrow.

Hi Botz,

Well, i must admit, i am surprised by your reply. If you are using other Bibles to make your case against the KJB when the whole point of it all is the to see for your self the perversion and corruption of the revised versions then i do not get it. If the whole point is about "corrupt" texts and "dodgey ' translators then why would you seek to make a case with the very translations that we are saying are not " sound "

You talked about the NASB as giving a better understanding to what was intended and i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon) has publicly repented of his counterfeit translation and advised those who hear to go back to the "Authorized"KJB

I am very interested to hear what you have to say on the next part Botz cos there definitely are lights flashing but they are not for me.

I find your understanding of the origins of the NASB lacking truth. Dr. Frank Logsdon had nothing to do with the translation of the NASB. Here is a link to a piece from The Lockman Foundation about your claims. The Lockman Foundation's Official Response to KJVO claims about Frank Logsdon

Here is information about the NASB: Translators of the New American Standard Bible®

I just checked out the links and the first one says very little and the second one although excludes Dr Frank Logsdon does not prove he had no input into the NASB.

Your claim " i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon)" is false according to the Lockman Foundation that put the version out.

[OneLight]

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.sermonaud...D=1116082139113

http://www.sermonaud...SID=37092224413

Hi TLF,

I have listened to the first link and made notes while cross-referencing....the arguments brought up are very very poor, and I believe anybody with access to several Bibles will soon see

that the majority of the grievances are simply sheer fantasy. Does this gentleman honestly think everyone is so gullible that they are just going to see his apparent point without looking

any further or a little deeper...his exegesis is remarkably shaky and his conclusions even shakier.

Right from the get-go he makes a statement along the lines that if you listen to him and are a true Christian you will see the evidence and change your mind....so there we have it, in one

breath he is catagorically casting doubt on peoples salvation if they disagree with what he is presenting...I was astonished.

He softens the blow a little later (also by contradicting his initial statement) by suggesting somewhat patronizingly that he isn't saying those who use other Bibles aren't saved...just that

they are basically open to deception, and in so many words are less of a follower of Jesus than those who uphold the KJV.

This is just the starters...he then goes on to quote the differences between Gen 1:1. Is 14:12. Dan 3:25. Matt 5:22. John 1:18. and 1Tim 3:16.

I don't disagree with everything here, and in some instances I can see that I would rather go with the KJV than some others...but he makes some bad assumptions and jumps to unsubstantiated

claims...especially trying to demonstrate that allalternative translations are actively being used by Satan to deceive the masses...it really boils down to a conspiracy theory. Although I do agree

there are some translations that like Judas, would have been better never to have seen the light of day...but they stick out like a sore thumb.

I think he really shoots himself in the foot with 1 Tim 6:10 and the translations that say the love of money is a root of 'all kinds of evil' as opposed to the KJV, 'the root of all evil'...the translators are making the

distinction that money is actually not the root of all evil, BUT a root of all kinds of evils. When looking at the Greek I can see why both arrive at the translation they do...but I think the NASB gives a better

understanding of what was intended, because if you think about it, the love of money is not literally the 'root of all evil'...rather it is a roots behind many evils that we recognise. So why he gets all hot under

the collar over this baffles me.

The reference to Lucifer as opposed to morning star in Is 14:12 is also interesting, especially as it was Jerome who utilised the word Lucifer through a traditional understanding and not according to the

text of Scripture...but this seems to be completely over-looked by this fellow, as is the fact that morning-star or day-star is a perfectly legitimate translation, and in no way seeks to equate Satan with

a title of Jesus because the context is completely different...but if anyone took what is being said at face value they would again think some conspiracy is afoot.

If warning lights aren't flashing by now...they should be.

I will listen to the next link tomorrow.

Hi Botz,

Well, i must admit, i am surprised by your reply. If you are using other Bibles to make your case against the KJB when the whole point of it all is the to see for your self the perversion and corruption of the revised versions then i do not get it. If the whole point is about "corrupt" texts and "dodgey ' translators then why would you seek to make a case with the very translations that we are saying are not " sound "

You talked about the NASB as giving a better understanding to what was intended and i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon) has publicly repented of his counterfeit translation and advised those who hear to go back to the "Authorized"KJB

I am very interested to hear what you have to say on the next part Botz cos there definitely are lights flashing but they are not for me.

I find your understanding of the origins of the NASB lacking truth. Dr. Frank Logsdon had nothing to do with the translation of the NASB. Here is a link to a piece from The Lockman Foundation about your claims. The Lockman Foundation's Official Response to KJVO claims about Frank Logsdon

Here is information about the NASB: Translators of the New American Standard Bible®

I just checked out the links and the first one says very little and the second one although excludes Dr Frank Logsdon does not prove he had no input into the NASB.

Your claim " i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon)" is false according to the Lockman Foundation that put the version out.

Every man involved in that translation is a translator including Dr Frank Logsdon

Yet, according to the Foundation, he was not a translator. Even those who contributed were given credit. His name is missing among the list.

[OneLight]

There was a lot of feedback from what he claimed, but according to the people who put the version out, he had nothing to do with it. People like to jump on the bandwagon when someone makes a stink about something, and this is what happened when Dr Logsdon made his statement which the Foundation refuted. Here is what they wrote about him, from the link I provided.

Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman's death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered "co-founder" of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an "inspirational thought."

It seems that Mr Logsdon is wrong.

So, it appears that the statement about your claim that he was the translator is also incorrect.

[OneLight]

There was a lot of feedback from what he claimed, but according to the people who put the version out, he had nothing to do with it. People like to jump on the bandwagon when someone makes a stink about something, and this is what happened when Dr Logsdon made his statement which the Foundation refuted. Here is what they wrote about him, from the link I provided.

Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman's death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered "co-founder" of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an "inspirational thought."

It seems that Mr Logsdon is wrong.

So, it appears that the statement about your claim that he was the translator is also incorrect.

Of course the people that put that per "version" out would refute what he had to say because it was a major indictment upon them all !

It is sad how you will not accept the truth of what they put in print for all to read, as you will not accept that what you posted was false. If it were not true, don't you think Mr Logsdon would of brought some charges against them to back his statement, to to prove his words are truth? This is no small statement from the Foundation and according to Mr Logsdon, it is something that is bothering him.

So, are you still going to claim that "i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon)", despite the fact that those who wrote the NASB clearly states that he had not done any form of translation?

[OneLight]

There was a lot of feedback from what he claimed, but according to the people who put the version out, he had nothing to do with it. People like to jump on the bandwagon when someone makes a stink about something, and this is what happened when Dr Logsdon made his statement which the Foundation refuted. Here is what they wrote about him, from the link I provided.

Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman's death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered "co-founder" of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an "inspirational thought."

It seems that Mr Logsdon is wrong.

So, it appears that the statement about your claim that he was the translator is also incorrect.

Of course the people that put that per "version" out would refute what he had to say because it was a major indictment upon them all !

It is sad how you will not accept the truth of what they put in print for all to read, as you will not accept that what you posted was false. If it were not true, don't you think Mr Logsdon would of brought some charges against them to back his statement, to to prove his words are truth? This is no small statement from the Foundation and according to Mr Logsdon, it is something that is bothering him.

So, are you still going to claim that "i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon)", despite the fact that those who wrote the NASB clearly states that he had not done any form of translation?

What bothered him was is his conscience because he obviously feared the LORD and repented of his wickedness in tampering with GODs holy word.

In the 1950s Logsdon was invited by his businessman friend Franklin Dewey Lockman to prepare a feasibility study which led to the production of the New American Standard Version (NASV). He also helped interview some of the men who served as translators for this version. He wrote the Foreword which appears in the NASV.

As we see in the following testimony, in the later years of his life Logsdon publicly renounced his association with the modern versions and stood unhesitatingly for the King James Bible. In a letter dated June 9, 1977, Logsdon wrote to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia, "When questions began to reach me [pertaining to the NASV], at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. ... I can aver that the project was produced by thoroughly sincere men who had the best of intentions. The product, however, is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times."

I apologise for stating he that he was a translator OneLight , i was wrong, everything else is factual in regards to his association with this dubious translation.

Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make.

The NASB is not a dubious translation. It uses the critical text instead of the majority text (or the received text or Textus Receptus), which the KJV uses. That is why some verses are missing in the NASB that are included in the KJV or the NKJV.

I personally use the NKJV, KJV and NASB as my main text, and when I have a question when there is a difference, I return to the Hebrew or Greek. Many use the NIV, but I don't personally care for this translation. I don't have anything against it, I just don't use it as a main study text.

To me, it is wrong to argue over which translation is best because we learn everything from the Holy Spirit. When we neglect the Holy Spirit, we stand apart from God and that is like telling the Holy Spirit we don't need Him. He is the one who holds all truth and He can use which ever text we are reading, as long as we are allowing Him to teach us.

What I stand strongly against are paraphrased versions and The Message, which is not a bible at all.

I also need to point out that this is not a King James Only site. We are a nondenominational site where many people use many different translation. If you plan to continue to debate, please do so with respect to your brothers and sisters that accept the same Christ Jesus as their savior. Keep in mind that nobody wants to hear that the bible they have been reading is wrong any more then you would like someone telling you that the KJV is wrong. Debate the subject without causing division.

Peace be with you.

In His Service,

Alan

[Guest]

True Love

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15

And Those Men Of God

Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Timothy 2:22-25

And The Facts Of The One Eternal Hope Within You All

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:2-6

Hallelujah~!

~

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Botz]

Hi Botz,

Well, i must admit, i am surprised by your reply. If you are using other Bibles to make your case against the KJB when the whole point of it all is the to see for your self the perversion and corruption of the revised versions then i do not get it. If the whole point is about "corrupt" texts and "dodgey ' translators then why would you seek to make a case with the very translations that we are saying are not " sound "

Hey TLF....I have no case to make against the KJB...I AM NOT AGAINST IT...I LOVE IT. What I have laboured to demonstrate is that some modern versions like the ESV or the NASB are not quite the evil conduits that you make out,

and I tried to show you that the case Gregory Miller attempts to make is not only very weak but down-right patronising against those that do not share his views....Oh we are graciously accepted as Believers by him, but in a very real sense he makes

us out to be thicko's who have been blinded and manipulated by succumbing to inferior/watered down/evil versions.

Further more....the case I have tried to make, but which you have not attempted to reconcile, is that the translations he believes are so wrong...are in fact perfectly legitimate translations, and in some cases have better contextual clarity

that what is shown in the KJV...what was so hard to understand?

You talked about the NASB as giving a better understanding to what was intended and i know that the very "translator" of that per "version" ( Frank Logsdon) has publicly repented of his counterfeit translation and advised those who hear to go back to the "Authorized"KJB

Dear Frank reacted out of concern for his own conscience before G-d...but that does not mean everything in the NASB is wrong...it just means that he reconsidered some things and withdrew his endorsement...but he played a small role

and his concerns have been duly noted. It could be that he blew things out of proportion...and here we have the witness of one man, against the witness of 50+ that were also G-d fearing scholarly individuals...the only conclusion one

can draw is that they were all in cahoots to present a fradulent translation, and that as far as I can see is a conspiracy theory.

I am very interested to hear what you have to say on the next part Botz cos there definitely are lights flashing but they are not for me.

Well I have listened to the second part TLF, and I could not believe my ears....Gregory Miller has a real nerve (not boldness) when he talks about the two streams, and insinuates once again that those who follow what he calls the impure line (Alexandrian text) do not really believe the Gospel of the L-rd Jesus and do not preach the true Gospel....thats Christian slander...have a listen to the opening section again and understand what I'm getting at.

What I would be interested for you to point out, is how any of us that happily use such versions as the NASB or ESV, or even the NIV (although I'm with Alan on that one) differ in our relationship with the L-rd or the Gospel that saved us and that we preach,

to those who adhere to the KJV alone....what has so permeated our understanding that we do not have what you have?...please show me. You can often find quotes of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant that paraphrase the original...but still capture the essence of what was being spoken, and it appears acceptable. I know of no doctrinal differences that have ever come about by godly translations of the Scriptures...only honest attempts at further clarification and better use of language.

[hr.jr.]

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

My theory is that because The Bible is the number one selling book in the English speaking world; there is big money in publishing translations that royalties can be collected on. I bet you we would not have all these modern translations if it were not for huge financial profits for the translator.

Having said that, I own pretty much all of the modern translation but for the most part they catch dust and I use KJV.