The book of Proverbs KJB vs NKJV

[irishcowboy]

So I take it that you are a KJV ONLY person?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Yomo, You got it! Good guess :-)

It is the only inerrant Bible God has given us. You can get saved using the others, but they are not the true words of God 100% of the time. Most Christiand today do not believe The Bible, or any Bible is now the inerrant words of God, but ballpark approximations that vary wildly among themselves in hundreds of verses.

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that would mean that the hebrew and the greek were in error.... and any other Bible that was or is translated from the original doc's.....

oh well...

such is life..

[Trust & Obey]

So I take it that you are a KJV ONLY person?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Yomo, You got it! Good guess :-)

It is the only inerrant Bible God has given us. You can get saved using the others, but they are not the true words of God 100% of the time. Most Christiand today do not believe The Bible, or any Bible is now the inerrant words of God, but ballpark approximations that vary wildly among themselves in hundreds of verses.

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the KJV is inerrant, then why does it mention Easter?

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Everyone knows the festival was Passover.

Easter was a pagan holiday and the 1st century Church did not celebrate it.

The Pagan Origin of Easter

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "easter" mentioned above is exactly that...the pagan easter. it has nothing to do with a Christian-themed "easter" as presented by the RCC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point was that the "infallible KJV" lists the festival as Easter, and not Passover... which it was.

[Guest brandplucked]

Hi Yomo, You got it! Good guess :-)

It is the only inerrant Bible God has given us. You can get saved using the others, but they are not the true words of God 100% of the time. Most Christiand today do not believe The Bible, or any Bible is now the inerrant words of God, but ballpark approximations that vary wildly among themselves in hundreds of verses.

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest brandplucked]

Oh.

I noticed your name.

One question?

Does it come from a hymn?

I remember being in Suffolk 2 weeks ago....and we sang a hymn about "a brand plucked from fire" (or hell, I can't remember)

You are obviously a Baptist.

So you would sing hymns.

Was it from a hymn?

I like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Yomo, the word "brandplucked" comes from Zechariah 3:2. I like that verse very much.

I noticed a few posts here criticizing the word Easter as found in the King James Bible in Acts 12:4. Rather than post the whole article I have written about this, I will provide you and any other interested persons with the link. I hold to a different view than many other KJB believers.

Also, I have included another link to an article written by Scott Jones. I think it is quite good and

a good defense of the word Easter.

This is mine

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

And this is Scott's

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJone..._or_passove.htm

God bless,

Will K

[Guest brandplucked]

Hi Yomo, You got it! Good guess :-)

It is the only inerrant Bible God has given us. You can get saved using the others, but they are not the true words of God 100% of the time. Most Christiand today do not believe The Bible, or any Bible is now the inerrant words of God, but ballpark approximations that vary wildly among themselves in hundreds of verses.

Will K

that would mean that the hebrew and the greek were in error.... and any other Bible that was or is translated from the original doc's.....

oh well...

such is life.. Mr. Irish

Hi Mr. Irish, apparently you are of the view that no Bible and no single text in any language is now the inerrant and complete word of God. Is this right? If this is your view, you are presently in the majority.

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted.

Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

95% of the Episcopalian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

82% of the Presbyterian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

77% of American Lutheran Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

67% of American Baptist Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

If the above stats are even close to being accurate, then the church of America is in sad shape today.

Will Kinney

[Guest brandplucked]

Have any of these changes changed the Gospel or how to attain salvation?

Your post is lengthy and I am short of time for a time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi other one, Yes, there are some changes regarding the gospel too. Here is a more complete article if you wish to read it all, and here is a portion taken out of that article.

It is the truth of the Bible itself that is under attack. More and more Christians do not believe that any Bible is now the inerrant and inspired words of God. If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Psalm 11:3

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/keepobey.html

Is the way of salvation "narrow" or "hard"?

KJB - Mt 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

ESV - For the gate is narrow and the way is HARD that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Holman - How narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT the road that leads to life, and few find it.

NKJV - Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

[Guest brandplucked]

Can I ask you a question, Brandplucked?

Which do you like best?

The Origianal AV, or the Modern one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope not the original because it contained the Apocrypha.

The KJV has many errors in it that are widely known.

Hi Yomo, it appears you do not believe that there exists an inerrant Bible on this earth. Is this your view?

Secondly, could you please give us one example of a clear "widely known error" in the King James Bible, and we will discuss it, OK?

And thirdly, regarding the Apocrypha -

WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.

Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady,

[RGR]

Brandplucked,

Jesus spoke in the common language of the day. Why do you insist upon putting a stumbling block in front of people by insisting they read an archaic worded version?

[Guest brandplucked]

Brandplucked,

Jesus spoke in the common language of the day.  Why do you insist upon putting a stumbling block in front of people by insisting they read an archaic worded version?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ronald, the real stumbling block is not a handful of "archaic" words which are found in the true Holy Bible. The real stumbling block is that with all the multiple-choice, conflicting, textually corrupt and doctrinally inferior modern versions on the market, fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and most of those who know anything of depth about the textual issues will openly admit that they do not believe in an inerrant Bible of any kind, in any language.

The "Thus saith the Lord" has now been replaced with the anemic: "Well, how does this version render it?"

You have appealed to the NIV a few times, and yet the NIV frequently rejects the Hebrew readings and contains some serious false doctrines in many places. The NIV is a wild paraphrase which admits in its own complete concordance that it has "not translated" literally thousands and thousands of Hebrew and Greek words. The NIV often rejects all Hebrew texts and follows the alleged Septuagint, the Syriac, or the Vulgate readings instead, yet none of this apparently concerns you.

You call the use of "thee" and "ye" archaic, yet even a child understands what these words mean, and they are far more accurate to the Hebrew and Greek than the generic "you" of the NIV, NKJV, ESV. But accuracy is not important to you, is it? You would rather have something that rejects the God inspired Hebrew Scriptures, that omits 17 entire verses from the Traditional New Testament, and a couple thousand other phrases and words as well, and that teaches false doctrine regarding the Person of the Eternal Son of God, just so long as it is "easy to read".

I already showed you some of the hard words found in the NIV, but this made no impression on you. Here they are again.

Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry

[PeterAV]

Don't go on Safari with a New KJV Translator

I can easily list a hundred bad translations found in the imposter called the New King James Version, but here are a few that should cause any serious Christian who trembles at the words of God to cast this poor imitation in the waste basket where it belongs. .....

.....It should be obvious that the NKJV is not just "updating archaic words" in an effort to be more accurate, but is rather introducing thousands of unnecessary word changes just to be different.

I hope this little comparative study allows you to see that the NKJV has changed far more than just a few "archaic" words found in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

*******

Those thousands of new words has to do with "Copyright laws".

You are completely correct in saying "little comparative study",for I have found many more over the years.Many of the changes that may appear sincere or non-threatening at first,are full of doctrinal error.

PeterAV