Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

[JimmyB]

2 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Not sure how you can say that when all Bible versions are not saying the same thing.

That is how false teachings strive on are those changed messages that taken out of context, supports their false teachings whereas with the KJV, in regards to those changed message that supports false teachings in the modern bibles, the KJV does not.

Still think the CEV has not changed the message from most modern Bible versions in Matthew 5:33-37 & Galatians 5:1-5?

Check it out for yourself.

As I have said before, the King James translation was created to satisfy the demands of a secular king that the Bible express only his version of Protestantism.  It is not, and never was, the word of God.

If you think it is, that is a serious problem.  Modern translations are based on more and better sources, a better understanding of the early languages, how the early hearers understood those languages, a more accurate translation into modern languages, and are review by ecumenical committees to minimize any bias.

[JimmyB]

2 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Not sure how you can say that when all Bible versions are not saying the same thing.

That is how false teachings strive on are those changed messages that taken out of context, supports their false teachings whereas with the KJV, in regards to those changed message that supports false teachings in the modern bibles, the KJV does not.

Still think the CEV has not changed the message from most modern Bible versions in Matthew 5:33-37 & Galatians 5:1-5?

Check it out for yourself.

Matthew 5:33, KJV: "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths"

What does this mean?

[Arial]

2 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Galatians 5:1-5?

5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

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.

⁵ For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

5 Christ has set us free! This means we are really free. Now hold on to your freedom and don't ever become slaves of the Law again.

² I, Paul, promise you that Christ won't do you any good if you get circumcised. ³ If you do, you must obey the whole Law. ⁴ And if you try to please God by obeying the Law, you have cut yourself off from Christ and his gift of undeserved grace. ⁵ But the Spirit makes us sure God will accept us because of our faith in Christ.

How are they saying anything different? Perhaps you don't understand what it is the KJV is saying?

And the CEV is not so much a translation as a paraphrase. It was published by the American Bible Society with the goal of uncompromising simplicity. It is written at a fourth grade reading level, making it appropriate for children and adults with limited English skills. The translation method used was the dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought as opposed to word-for-word.

[Arial]

15 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Was that to fill the pages or is it a valid warning when antiKJVers says the KJV is a good Bible but they prefer an easier to read Bible.  And then from there they complain that not all Bibles are saying the same thing and so they charge Bible readers to go learn the Greek & Hebrew.  And while scholars make light of the KJV, they cannot agree with their own translation from the Greek and Hebrew.

And so I see this prophesy as a double prophesy coming to pass.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.

It is per usual to ignore what was actually said by a poster and go off into a whole other subject, as though the mere volume of words and scripture quotes is the backup plan when confronted with irrefutable facts. What it does is change the subject. That is all it does.

 

15 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

CEV makes it look okay to make promises, but just don't swear by them and yet Jesus in the KJV says not to make oaths, not even to swear by them.  Swearing means to show the oath maker sincerity in finishing that oath but Jesus did not want His followers to do that at all, to not even swear by it.  Verse 36 is the why because when you make an oath that is your work as you are to do all that proceeds out of your mouth Numbers 30:2 KJV and you are not allowed to leave it unfinished or undone per Ecclesiastes 5:4-7 KJV les the Lord destroys the work of your hands.

This ignores the point Jesus is making and veres into a form of legalism. What Jesus is saying is let your yes be yes and your no be no. Or if you prefer and find it easier to understand, your yey be yey and your nay, nay. It is speaking of being trustworthy and having integrity.

 

15 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Coincidence that Promise Keepers' Movement used the CEV Bible at their convention in St. Louis where the holy laughter movement manifested there at the same time in that same PK convention?

Vering off again. I explained the purpose of the CEV in a previous post which is probably why they were using it. But that aside the version of the Bible they were using had nothing to do with the "holy laughter." That appears in places no matter what version is used because the teaching is false and most often has nothing to do with the Bible in the first place. Certainly not the gospel.

 

15 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

The law of keeping those promises or commitments is not of faith and those that strive to keep it as if seeking justification by keeping it, shall be judged by it.

The Law Paul was speaking of was the Sinai old covenant Law, circumcision being used as a representative of that Law. And He was speaking of trying to be justified by the Law which no man can be.

 

15 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

But hey.  If you see nothing wrong with the CEV, and nothing wrong with the Promise Keepers movement, the Lord will have to do a miracle on you to see it.

CEV and Promise Keepers are not synonyms. In fact Promise Keepers had no pertinent place in this conversation. It is a whole other conversation. I disagree with it, but not on the basis of the Bible translation they use, but because it a works righteousness basis that almost completely removes the gospel and sound doctrine from the equation. See---I actually have a reason for disagreeing with it!

[ChristB4us]

58 minutes ago, Arial said:

³³ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

³⁴ But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

³⁵ Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

³⁶ Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

³⁷ But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

 

 

³³  You know our ancestors were told, “Don't use the Lord's name to make a promise unless you are going to keep it.” ³⁴  But I tell you not to swear by anything when you make a promise! Heaven is God's throne, so don't swear by heaven. ³⁵  The earth is God's footstool, so don't swear by the earth. Jerusalem is the city of the great king, so don't swear by it. ³⁶ Don't swear by your own head. You cannot make one hair white or black. ³⁷ When you make a promise, say only “Yes” or “No.” Anything else comes from the devil.

How are they saying anything different? I added verse 37 which you left out because it summarizes the message (the meaning) of what Jesus is saying.

Jesus talked about how in old times, they perform their oaths unto the Lord and so it was about the subject of oaths for when He said not to even swear at all which is the addition to making oaths to show the sincerity of the oath maker in finishing that oath that believers were not even to do that.

Numbers 30:2 testifies that a man has to do all that proceeds out of his mouth in performing that vow.  That means God cannot help him to do his vows when he is telling God and man that he will do it.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-7 warns believers under the Old Covenant not to make vows and leave them undone les God destroy the works of their hands.  That is significant because a man's vow is his own work of what he said he will do and that is why Jesus says it is evil now because believers in Jesus Christ are to be the works of His hands as we place our confidence in Him to finish His work in us to His glory.

A believer cannot do both.

Either they believe Jesus Christ will do it for why they follow him by faith or they are resorting to their own power in making themselves good by keeping a promise.

The CEV just brought Promise Keepers into bondage by making those promises when they should be looking to Jesus Christ to help them to be good and to do good.

It is either by the works of the law by keeping promises or they stand fats in that liberty and rest in Him that He will help them to be good husbands & good fathers.

[JimmyB]

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, 1to3.

I prefer the KJV for three very important reasons.

First, the KJV has been around the longest, and it's the version I grew up with and by which I was introduced to our Lord.

Second, it is public domain. It is not a copyrighted book, and is therefore, open to anyone's need to quote from it. That's not true with other versions. Most of the newer versions are copyrighted, and although most won't mind you quoting their work, there are limitations to what the owners of the copyrights will allow.

Third, and this may seem odd to some people, it's the ONE version that PRESERVES the "thee's" and "thou's" in the text.

The second person pronouns in the KJV contained more information than they do today. They used to provide case and number, and the verbs used with these pronouns reflected the same case and number.

Here's a quick chart:

SECOND PERSON PRONOUNS

SINGULAR:

Subjective: thou
Objective: thee
Possessive adjective: thy
Possessive pronoun: thine

PLURAL:

Subjective: ye
Objective: you
Possessive adjective: your
Possessive pronoun: yours

Today, we are reduced to "you," "your," and "yours" used for both singular and plural, and "you" used for both subjective and objective cases.

Of course, this information was all but lost to the churches in which I grew up. Their meanings were implied, but some actually felt that the "thee's" and "thou's" were HOLY words, for they were used to translate the Ten Commandments into English.

No English version of the Bible is perfect, because translations are HUMAN attempts to make the Scriptures available in a different language. Furthermore, no two languages will match precisely one-to-one. A Greek word might be rendered by several different English words, for example, while several different Greek words might be translated with the same English word.

However, the original manuscripts were inspired by God, and I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of God's Word. EVERY WORD was so inspired! Such important documents were protected by God's blessings and cursings. And, I believe that God perfectly preserved the important meanings of the text through the translation process. All the same, the translation doesn't have the same force as the original documents.

We no longer have the original manuscripts. All we have today are many COPIES of the original that were copied by scribes who did their best to remain faithful to the text they copied. However, sometimes, a scribe might take liberties with the text to help "explain" a passage better, or to somehow "improve" on how the text was worded. Seldom was the intent to deceive, but any change in the text is informational thermodynamics. That is, they introduced human changes into the God-inspired text, and thereby risked the introduction of error into the text!

This is why I feel it is important to learn the original languages to the best of our abiliies. And, one should not just learn the vocabulary, but also the grammar of the language! By doing so, we are no longer at the mercy of the translators but can read the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts for ourselves. I feel it is our DUTY to do so!

But, that's my opinion. I've no authority to dictate to others how God leads them.

First, you wrote, "the KJV has been around the longest, and it's the version I grew up with and by which I was introduced to our Lord."  Fine, then use it if that's the translation that you prefer.  Being around the longest a) doesn't mean much, and b) there are older translations, e.g., the Geneva Bible.

Secondly, in the United Kingdom, the King James Version of the Bible is covered by crown copyright.  Also, because many versions of the King James Bible contain explanatory notes and articles, maps etc. they are copyrighted.

Thirdly, you can quote from other versions without copyright attribution.  It's done (legally) all the time, as you said.  The restriction is on how much you quote.

It doesn't matter if it's the ONE version that PRESERVES the "thee's" and "thou's" in the text. a) That isn't true and b) who cares?  There are many other words in use  that are no longer in use, e.g. "shalt".  The KJV version contains words such as "unicorn" and "plowshare" too.  Many 17th Century words have vanished from English.  We're not "reduced" to anything. a) What is your point? and b) if you prefer "thee" and "thou", why don't you use them in your writing?

I agree with the rest of your post.

[ChristB4us]

42 minutes ago, Arial said:

It is per usual to ignore what was actually said by a poster and go off into a whole other subject, as though the mere volume of words and scripture quotes is the backup plan when confronted with irrefutable facts. What it does is change the subject. That is all it does.

Feel free to actually discuss what the Father was warning us about through Jesus Christ and not just say He was not talking about Bible versions.

Then what was He talking about if not keeping His sayings and the saying of His disciples which would involve writings?  John 14:23-24 & John 15:20

I would not have need to go to Amos 8th reference when bible versions are not all saying the same thing which is why believers today have a hunger for more of God in these apostate movement of the "spirit" looking for the supernatural & that emotional high rather than getting close to Him in His words.

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

[JimmyB]

14 hours ago, 1to3 said:

Some facts and explanations concerning the newer bible versions.

https://www.mikeleake.net/2015/07/on-those-missing-verses-in-your-esv-and-niv-bible.html

 

https://becomingchristians.com/2018/06/18/12-unspoken-reasons-why-you-should-never-use-the-new-international-version-niv-bible/

 

Also can be listened to on youtube with the following title:

https://www.mikeleake.net/2015/07/on-those-missing-verses-in-your-esv-and-niv-bible.html

 

 

 

Why do you even post stuff like this?

Verses are not "missing" in the ESV, the NIV, and other modern translations.  They are based on the best early source documents, a better understanding of the early languages, better translation techniques, etc.  One could just as well ask why the KJV adds many verses, including the "long ending" of Mark and the words added to Romans 8:1.

 

[ChristB4us]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

Matthew 5:33, KJV: "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths"

What does this mean?

Jesus talked about how people of old times would just make oaths without swearing in performing their oaths.  Then He was speaking against making oaths by adding not to even swear at all.

Verse 36 is testifying that an oath is your work and to make yourself good or to do good, you were not to make any such promises because you cannot make yourself good or to be good by keeping a promise.

The power in living the Christian life comes from Jesus Christ as faith in Him in being our Good shepherd & Friend to help us lay aside very weight & sin daily in walking in the light in fellowship with the Father & the Son is how we follow Him by faith alone.

[ChristB4us]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

As I have said before, the King James translation was created to satisfy the demands of a secular king that the Bible express only his version of Protestantism.  It is not, and never was, the word of God.

It was the Puritans that had requested King James for that Bible version.  They were the ones that had problems with errant marginal notes in the Geneva 1599 Bible; examples were that Jesus was Michael the arch angel and rebelling against those in authority, thus alluding also to the church and not just the government. 

Be sure not to visit anti-KJV web sites as there are some claiming that King James was a homosexual and he had changed scripture, even though the scriptures reproving homosexuality are still in it.

So for this notion that the Bible expresses his version of Protestantism has to come from a prejudicial source.  Yes, he was against Catholicism, but you are not going to find any missing or changed verses in modern Bibles to prove KJV as favoring Protestantism.  Scripture just speaks against the teachings of Catholicism.

If you read the Preface to the KJV from the KJV translators, you may get a different impressions for how the KJV came about.

Quote

If you think it is, that is a serious problem.  Modern translations are based on more and better sources, a better understanding of the early languages, how the early hearers understood those languages, a more accurate translation into modern languages, and are review by ecumenical committees to minimize any bias.

Can you give an example of that in minimizing any bias that supposedly the KJV has??

As for more and better sources, if the argument is the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts, may I point out that those who loved Him & His words would be using the documents and needing to replace them from wear and tear from use.

You have to wonder why the oldest manuscripts were still around unless set aside.

Unless you an clarify what you mean by more and better sources, I can only guess you are referring to that reason that is floating around out there on the internet as speaking against the KJV.