Is the KJV easy for you to read?

[kittylover0991]

Hey I recognized *one* name

"Literary Critics and Other Consultants

1. Edward M. Blaiklock. University of Auckland, New Zealand. No church affiliation given.

2. Frank E. Gaebelein. Headmaster Emeritus, The Stony Brook School. Reformed Episcopal.

3. Charles E. Hummel. Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. Baptist.

4. Elisabeth Elliot Leitch. Writer. Episcopal.

5. Calvin Linton. The George Washington University. No church affiliation given.

6. Kathryn R. Ludwigson. Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College. No church affiliation given.

7. Alvin Martin. Fuller Theological Seminary. Christian and Missionary Alliance.

8. Virginia Mollenkott. William Paterson College. No church affiliation given.

9. Margaret Nicholson. Author-Editor. No church affiliation given.

10. W. T. Purkiser. Kansas City, Missouri. No church affiliation given.

11. Walter R. Roehrs. Concordia Theological Seminary. No church affiliation given.

12. Samuel J. Schultz. Wheaton College. Baptist.

13. John T. Timmerman. Calvin College. No church affiliation given.

14. Richard F. Wevers. Calvin College. Christian Reformed."

Mollenkott was selected to be English Stylist on teh NIV translation committee. She later disclosed that she had been a lesbian since the age of 11, and is to this day proud to be so. the NIV commititee understadabley distanced itself from her when this was discovered.

(Lecture Notes December 7, 2006 KJV Debate)

Basicially, according to Mollenkott, she was a stylist consultant which meant she woudl read the work of the translation committees, and gave her opinion about if it was effective English.

Basically, she is willing to talk about her past and not defend it, but it's interseting that all the references to sodomy has been "removed from the NIV (- whoever is responsible)".

Here ist he question that was posed to us inthe last day of my bible class on the KJV:

"Is it now possible for hte NIV committee to claim that GOd hasd a handin the selection of those who were in it?"

(Lecture Notes)

I just think it's interesting because my pastor actually emailed her and she replied back which is where he got a lot of his information (most of which I did not post for hte sake of privacy) but, she had a part in the translation of the NIV. It's also interseting, if one looks at this list that was posted (ty for posting the list!) then one can see that there were so many differnt theological positions included in the translating of the NIV such as Charimstaics, modernists, and "reformed theologians". Just something to think about.

[ayin jade]

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Misuse of scripture. That is not a prophecy for the KJV, nor is it proof of the KJV's being the only real bible.

[kittylover0991]

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Misuse of scripture. That is not a prophecy for the KJV, nor is it proof of the KJV's being the only real bible.

I think her point is that God preserved his Word in a perfect English translation. Those who accept new translations all have one thing in common, a belief that there are errors in every translation. They may say they are minor mistakes, but they do not believe God preserved a perfect English translation.

Right Butero. Jadey, also I am firm believer that the KJV is the preserved Word of God, I am asking for someone to take these verses, which are obviously in scripture dealing with God's Word, and tell me where God's preserved WOrd is. After studying, I have reason to believe that it is the KJV, but even beyond that.. say that KJV does have errors... My question is "where" is God's preserved Word, considering these verses?

Actually, based on these verses, can one actually say that God did preserve His Word, or did he mean something else by these verses?

Crystal

[Floatingaxe]

God is preserving His Word---the words change according to language evolution---but His Word--the message, the essence of His Word NEVER has, nor will change.

[kittylover0991]

I gave this example earlier on, but it seems appropriate here. It shows that there are differences between the English translations. In this case, a pretty big one. It is not possible to believe all translations are equal, yet believe that God preserved his Word perfect in each of these translations.

27 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.

29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days,

You may be saying to yourself, where is verse 28? It is found in a footnote at the bottom.

a27 Some manuscripts left 28 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones: (Isaiah 53:12)

To someone who is simply reading, without looking to the footnotes, they completely omitted verse 28. In addition, even if you took the time to read the footnote, the validity of the verse is discredited.

Now, if you turn over to Mark 16, after verse 8 comes this remark. (The two most reliable manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.)

This completely discredits verses 9 through 20 in the minds of the gullible who actually believe the lie that the two most reliable manuscripts leave all those verses out. This is typical of the kind of problems found in the NIV and why I don't have any regard for it.

Something else interesting about those last twelve verses of mark, notice that in the Vaticanus (one of hte two manuscripts the newer versions are based off of), the priests actually left the entire column blank. Typically, they would start the next chapter/book very shortyly there after, but there is just enough space for the last twelve books of marks. Considering how much precaustion the priests took in writing even the name "Lord" (I think they had to wash their hands and their feet), it is obvious that this could not be coincidence.

Just a thought

[Marnie]

You guys cannot prove the veracity of ANY version of the Bible by comparing verses of translations, ie., KJV vs NIV vs RSV. The only way to prove the accuracy of Scripture is to compare how various translations handle the Hebrew to English and Greek to English. I know one authority, my husband, said he has NO interest in doing that here unless he has somebody else to work with who is objective. I think AK is pretty well versed in the original languages and maybe Leonard, and both you guys are pretty dispassionate and objective.

The problem is, as I have noted time and again, you KJV onlies check your brains at the door and use emotion-filled arguments to cling the the notion the the KJV is the preserved Word of G-d. That is NOT what the Bible teaches, at all. No disrespect intended on any of you. But you are doing a great disrespect to the Word when you make such silly statements. Floatingaxe, whom I have had disagreements with in the past, is 100% right in this case. It is NOT a translation that is preserved, it is the essence of the Word; the essential doctrines and theology that is preserved from generation to generation. G-d's preserving power is NOT dependent upon the lame abilities of any man or translation committee.

[Vickilynn]

You guys cannot prove the veracity of ANY version of the Bible by comparing verses of translations, ie., KJV vs NIV vs RSV. The only way to prove the accuracy of Scripture is to compare how various translations handle the Hebrew to English and Greek to English. I know one authority, my husband, said he has NO interest in doing that here unless he has somebody else to work with who is objective. I think AK is pretty well versed in the original languages and maybe Leonard, and both you guys are pretty dispassionate and objective.

The problem is, as I have noted time and again, you KJV onlies check your brains at the door and use emotion-filled arguments to cling the the notion the the KJV is the preserved Word of G-d. That is NOT what the Bible teaches, at all. No disrespect intended on any of you. But you are doing a great disrespect to the Word when you make such silly statements. Floatingaxe, whom I have had disagreements with in the past, is 100% right in this case. It is NOT a translation that is preserved, it is the essence of the Word; the essential doctrines and theology that is preserved from generation to generation. G-d's preserving power is NOT dependent upon the lame abilities of any man or translation committee.

Shalom Marnie,

Amen and amen! I agree 100%! You are so right on! Thank you.

[kittylover0991]

You guys cannot prove the veracity of ANY version of the Bible by comparing verses of translations, ie., KJV vs NIV vs RSV. The only way to prove the accuracy of Scripture is to compare how various translations handle the Hebrew to English and Greek to English. I know one authority, my husband, said he has NO interest in doing that here unless he has somebody else to work with who is objective. I think AK is pretty well versed in the original languages and maybe Leonard, and both you guys are pretty dispassionate and objective.

The problem is, as I have noted time and again, you KJV onlies check your brains at the door and use emotion-filled arguments to cling the the notion the the KJV is the preserved Word of G-d. That is NOT what the Bible teaches, at all. No disrespect intended on any of you. But you are doing a great disrespect to the Word when you make such silly statements. Floatingaxe, whom I have had disagreements with in the past, is 100% right in this case. It is NOT a translation that is preserved, it is the essence of the Word; the essential doctrines and theology that is preserved from generation to generation. G-d's preserving power is NOT dependent upon the lame abilities of any man or translation committee.

Hey Marnie

I think I'll take a minute just to point something out...

"KJV onlies check your brains at the door and .... cling the the notion the the KJV is the preserved Word of G-d."

"But you are doing a great disrespect to the Word when you make such silly statements"

"Floatingaxe... is 100% right in this case"

"It is NOT ... it is .... the essential doctrines and theology that is preserved from generation to generation"

"G-d's preserving power is NOT dependent upon.... "

This was my point earlier in this thread. It is interseting that those who are "KJV onlys" can not make absolutle statements about God's Word, while someone who holds to the newer verisons says "____ is 100% correct!!" and "this is how it is". Marnie, not saying you are hypocritical, but isn't it wrong to tell one person they can't say one thing about their opinion, but then turn around and do the same for yours?? This isnt' specifically about you, but that is how it has been throughout the thread. No one here has disrespected ANYBODY who does not believe that the KJV is the the pure preserved Word of God. Given their opinion, and possibly backed it up with facts, yes, but the same for someone who holds to the newer versions. It is ridiculous to say that someone is giving "disrespect to God's Word" by saying that God preserved His Word adn it is the KJV, while it isn't disrespect to say that God's preserving power IS dependent upon translators?

I want to explain my last statement... You said "God's preserving power is Not dependent upon.... ". By saying that, then one can not hold to that God can't protect the infallibility of his Word through translators, right? I mean seriously, if God isnt' dependent upon that (which He isn't) then what makes it so that He couldnt' preserve His Word, considering he spoke and worked through man for the written form on his Word on this earth? Is it that outrageous?

The thing is, God said he woudl preserve His Word, and obviously, we have his written Word. Are you saying that God didn't preserve His Word in written form and that my bible is corrupt because God is "not dependent" on a man or translating committes? How am I to know what parts of my bible to trust?

[Floatingaxe]

God is preserving His Word---the words change according to language evolution---but His Word--the message, the essence of His Word NEVER has, nor will change.

Fine, but there are variations between one translation and another. As such, it is not possible for them all to be 100 percent accurate, and those defending them never make the claim that is the case. They will perhaps believe they are 96 percent right or 95 percent right, but never 100 percent. Is that your position?

The message of God, given by His Holy Spirit inspired Word is always 100%! He sees to it that we receive the Word to our hearts and minds without any adulteration. I don't worry about it. That is what we call His preservation. He is Lord Most High. He wants us to know what He says...He sees to it we get the message.

It's easy for Him.

[Scarletprayers]

I think the import thing is, Christ is being preached and His saving grace explained to the masses, and studied by the faithful, and I don't care which version is being used to do it.

All of us believe................what we believe, and none of us can show 100% proof positive, its all conjecture. I use a bunch of different versions, because something I can't understand in one, can be more easily understandable in another. Then again, sometimes I come here and pm people who's opinion I value and ask them also.

I'm just glad we are all studying the Word, and standing on the promises!

to all of you!