chuteless 1 #1 January 21, 2006 The NIV ( Non Inspired Version) , the RSV, the NASV, and all versions of the Bible except the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION, are not to be considered as the WORD of God. The NIV has more than 60,000 ommissions or changes, from the KJV, and Gail Riplinger, of Mount Ararat, Virginia has written a 3 inch thick book documenting every one of them.I drove down to visit her, and discussed her findings at length. The following is a written statement by a man who was co-founder of the New American Standard Version ( NASV) . " I must , under God, renounce every attachment to the NASV. I am afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord....we laid the ground work; I wrote the format, I sat with the translators, and I interviewed the Translators, I wrote the preface, I am in trouble. I can't refute thes arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong; its frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? When the questions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended...I used to laugh with the others. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the New American Standard version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing, and I cannot refure them. The deletions are absolutely frightening, there are so many. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? Upon investigation, I wrote to my dear friend, Mr Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grevious to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times. I don't want anything to do with it. The finest leaders that we have today havent gone into it ( the new versions use of a corrupt text) just as I hadnt gone into it...and how easily one can be deceived. I am going to talk to Dr. George Sweeting ( president of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago) about these things. You can say that the authorized King James version is absolutely correct. How correct....100 % correct. I believe that the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version. If you must stand against everyone else, then so stand. Dr. Frank Logsdon Co-Founder NASV Bible. ( End of Dr Logsdon's written statement) The modern versions were written, mostly through Zondervan Publishing Co in Grand Rapids Michigan, and the motivation was the greed for the American dollar, not the salvation of mankind. Bill Cole . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #2 January 21, 2006 Ah, finally a little detail on this subject. Thank you Furthermore, I am not sure I understand why the fact that differences exist mean that the King James version is the correct version. Could it not be the other way round?HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #3 January 21, 2006 There is nothing wrong with translating the King James version into other languages. It is still the KJV, but just in another language. When one looks at the Russian language as an example, they do not have the same letters we use in English, but as long as the translation is faithful to the text of the KJV, that is fine. The King James version was the first time God had had His Divine WORD translated into the Bible containing the 66 books, and it has such a Divine layout, only God could have directed it. It is a masterpiece, such as NO man or group of men could have designed. Much of what is hidden in its content, mankind does not even know it exists. Since 1611, when it was first published, people have been reading the King James Bible, and without realizing it, they have read right over thousands of hidden things of God without knowing it. I have found so many of these things, and listed them, and they are so remarkable, it boggles the mind that they have been there since 1611. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings to search out a matter.( Proverbs 25:2) There is 791,328 words in the King James Bible, 1189 Chapters, 31,101 verses, in 66 Books ( 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament), and not a single letter out of place. If there was, it would destroy the entire Divine layout. The law of the lord is PERFECT (Psalm 19:7), and He is so mighty and powerful, He could never make a mistake, and He did not need Zondervan Publishing Company to correct mistakes He never made. The KJV was for the soul benefit of mankind, Zondervan versions are for the financial benefit of Zondervan. Bill Cole . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #4 January 21, 2006 QuoteThere is nothing wrong with translating the King James version into other languages. It is still the KJV, but just in another language... Seems awfully pretentious to assume that the KJV is superiour to the texts from which it was translated, but hey what do I know QuoteThe King James version was the first time God had had His Divine WORD translated into the Bible containing the 66 books, and it has such a Divine layout, only God could have directed it. I take it you prefer the KJV to other versions. That still does not explain why it is better or "more true" if you wish. To say that it is a divine layout is a rather loose argument.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #5 January 21, 2006 Well, for example, there are 60,000 + ommissions and changes in the NIV Non Inspired version, it cannot be true to God. One version ( I think its the NIV but would have to check) leaves out a mention of the blood Christ shed for the redemption of sins, and without the shedding of His blood, there can be no redemption. That is only one of the many Satan influenced changes, for satan does not want mankind to be redeemed. The KJV is the final coming together of all the scriptures that God has guided through the ages to end up as His WORD, so it certainly is superior to the many pieces that made up His WORD. Bill Cole . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #6 January 21, 2006 Quote There is nothing wrong with translating the King James version into other languages. It is still the KJV, but just in another language. When one looks at the Russian language as an example, they do not have the same letters we use in English, but as long as the translation is faithful to the text of the KJV, that is fine. ... There is 791,328 words in the King James Bible, 1189 Chapters, 31,101 verses, in 66 Books ( 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament), and not a single letter out of place. If there was, it would destroy the entire Divine layout. . Serious question: But when the version is translated to another language, it might not have the same number of words or characters. There is no 1:1 ratio of words to characters between languages. Nor characters. Take just Spanish for instance: The woman(8) becomes La mujer(7). How would one find the hidden items then? The numbers used would not make sense anymore.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #7 January 21, 2006 As long as God's version is as it is, with a Divinely inspired layour, that is fine, Of course other trannslated versions wont have the same layout, but the original can never be changed. It was published in England, the center of the globe order that it could go to the four corners of the world, even in translated versions, but notchanging the content, such as Zondervan has. Bill Cole My time is up on te computer...have to go un til Monday. Have a great weekend Bill Cole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #8 January 21, 2006 How come God waited for 1611 years after the death of his son to reveal himself to King Jimmy?And what do the Holly Gail and Arafat have to do with it? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 January 21, 2006 QuoteOne version ( I think its the NIV but would have to check) leaves out a mention of the blood Christ shed for the redemption of sins, and without the shedding of His blood, there can be no redemption. that's a pretty major omission!! I was under the impression that other Bible versions simply made minor changes in phrasing the same things. Such as "your" instead of "thy", etc. and in any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the KJV also do some omissions from the Bible that came before it? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #10 January 21, 2006 I think it would be useful to have examples. One verse from a particular version put next to the same verse from another version to see if the meaning was lost or changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #11 January 21, 2006 There is some dispute about Lodgson's involvement in the New American Standard Bible. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm The Lockman Foundation has made the following statement in regard to Logsdon: "The Board of Directors of the Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950's following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. 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 or part of the Lockman Foundation. According to our records, he was present at a board meeting on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an ‘inspirational thought.’ Mr. Logsdon wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago." -- The Lockman Foundation, 1995 My understanding (from my mother, of course, because I haven't researched it much myself) is that the NASB is a carefully rendered, literally accurate translation of the original texts, which the KJV is not. I happen to prefer it for most of my understanding of the Bible, although such things as Ruth's speech to Naomi, 1 Corinthians 13 and Ecclesiastes 3 sound better to me when read from the KJV. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #12 January 21, 2006 QuoteWW(AC)D the Bride of Satan hath spoken. so mote it be. this bit here kinda undermines your credibility. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #13 January 21, 2006 Quotethis bit here kinda undermines your credibility. “Know thy lot, Know thine enemies, Know thyself.” or, as Shakespeare said: "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." The fact of the matter is that the Bible can be used for all manner of unseemly purpose. But in my case, even pagans like to be culturally literate. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #14 January 22, 2006 QuoteThere is nothing wrong with translating the King James version into other languages. It is still the KJV, but just in another language. When one looks at the Russian language as an example, they do not have the same letters we use in English, but as long as the translation is faithful to the text of the KJV, that is fine. The King James version was the first time God had had His Divine WORD translated into the Bible containing the 66 books, and it has such a Divine layout, only God could have directed it. It is a masterpiece, such as NO man or group of men could have designed. Much of what is hidden in its content, mankind does not even know it exists. Since 1611, when it was first published, people have been reading the King James Bible, and without realizing it, they have read right over thousands of hidden things of God without knowing it. I have found so many of these things, and listed them, and they are so remarkable, it boggles the mind that they have been there since 1611. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings to search out a matter.( Proverbs 25:2) There is 791,328 words in the King James Bible, 1189 Chapters, 31,101 verses, in 66 Books ( 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament), and not a single letter out of place. If there was, it would destroy the entire Divine layout. The law of the lord is PERFECT (Psalm 19:7), and He is so mighty and powerful, He could never make a mistake, and He did not need Zondervan Publishing Company to correct mistakes He never made. The KJV was for the soul benefit of mankind, Zondervan versions are for the financial benefit of Zondervan. Bill Cole . You know Bill, being the great skydiver you are still does not make you the ultimate Biblical authority. The King James Bible is in fact partly the basis of Modern English as a language, the other influence being the plays of William shakespeare, who also lived at the same time. there is also new eveidnce that Shakespeare himself may have served in a consulting role in the KJV translation. However, on a parallel track, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, and like the KJV, Luther's translation is a literary basis of the modern German language. It is not however an English to German translation of the KJV, as Luther used existing Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts himself. My family has used the NIV for years, which is accepted by both Calvary Chapel and the Assemblies of God, so what's your beef ? It's not just a matter of modern translations being more understandable (do we REALLY need to figure out what St. Paul means by "kicking against the pricks", or can we just read a modern translation ?). I'm not down on the KJV either, in fact for Christmas I just bought our family a beautiful Family Bible edition of the KJV published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bought it for a family Bible, bought because KJV is so widely accepted, bought it for the beautiful medieval artwork, bought it for the birth, death, baptism, marriage and family trees a family Bible should have. The King James has earned its place, but it's not the last word. The plain truth is that the Holy Scriptures were never written in Enlish in the first place, so ANY English Bible is a translation. And by the way, King James was a notorious homo. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #15 January 22, 2006 QuoteAnd by the way, King James was a notorious homo. I'm in love. Tom, will you marry me? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #16 January 22, 2006 QuoteAnd by the way, King James was a notorious homo. omg, that made me spit milk all over my screen. you bastard is that true? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #17 January 22, 2006 I just checked Wikipedia on James I. It is apparently true. apparently he also tried to deflect accusations by passing very strict anti-sodomy laws. it kinda makes you understand the motivations of some people who get fanatically zealous about slamming homosexuals all the time. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #18 January 22, 2006 Quoteit kinda makes you understand the motivations of some people who get fanatically zealous about slamming homosexuals all the time. Quite a big assumption, that what applies to King James I applies generally to anyone that gets "fanatically zealous about slamming homosexuals all the time".People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #19 January 22, 2006 QuoteThe plain truth is that the Holy Scriptures were never written in Enlish in the first place, so ANY English Bible is a translation. Here-Here!! just another of the hypocritical and paradoxal things that I see in Christianity (and religion in general) which makes me chuckle that anyone can be SOOOOO friggin' right and righteous about what is in the Bible. If i remember correctly, paper was not invented when it was all supposed to been 'written' and the books of Luke, Mark, Matthew, etc etc could not have been 'recorded' in any reliable way. Thus, most of it (if not all of it) was/has been passed down over generations, which pretty much makes it heresay at best. Does not stand the tests of any sort of reporting, recording or other reliability - just plain FAITH, which is fine of course - if you buy that bunk. From Genesis: 004:017 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 004:018 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. 004:019 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 004:020 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 004:021 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Cain built a City? For who? Where did the people come from? - Lamech took two wives? Where did they come from? TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adamUK 3 #20 January 26, 2006 Dude, The Bible is the word of man.. If you want to know the word of God then study Physics. (okay, this is the soapbox after all) Seriously, given that the KJV was effectively written by committee and there's other accounts of Christ's life that have been omitted (even the Vatican admits this) then my personal take is that the KJV can't be authoritative. I don't believe, (like Muslims do of the Koran when recited in Arabic), that the KJV is the word of God spoken through man. Does it matter to one's faith? To me, no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #21 January 26, 2006 QuoteIf i remember correctly, paper was not invented when it was all supposed to been 'written' and the books of Luke, Mark, Matthew, etc etc could not have been 'recorded' in any reliable way. You're right. Paper wasn't invented yet. They used this stuff called papyrus and vellum. Vellum was used well before the time of Jesus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smiles 0 #22 January 27, 2006 QuoteThe NIV ( Non Inspired Version) , the RSV, the NASV, and all versions of the Bible except the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION, are not to be considered as the WORD of God. So, then your are implying the updated authorized king james version- is not to be considered the word of god?? Software called “Translator” extracts all archaic words and by comparing them with a custom dictionary it will sort and produce a list of all verses that needs updating. The author of “Translator” then views this list and by comparing the words with references to Strong’s Greek/Hebrew concordance, the new or more comprehensible words are, then inserts them into the custom dictionary. Later the “Translator” will update all the words in the entire AUTHORIZED KJV text. The use of technology also guarantees that the work produced is not “biased” in any nature but accurate and true to its meaning. SMileseustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #23 January 27, 2006 That would make sense, except you are ignoring the idea that the entire premise of this is that the version that Bill uses was created by a DIRECT will of God. So, what does this mean? It means that no matter how much one tries to point out errors in translation or correction to fix such errors, the argument can ALWAYS fall back thusly, "The way it was created was the way God intended, no matter if differences between it and older versions appear or not. God is all powerful and therefore, he has the power to correct man's mistakes and direct man toward the correct version however he wants. " Of course, this then begs the question: What were all those people reading and following BEFORE this version? Are they all screwed? And why would God not get it right the first time? Why wait over 1600 years to make the perfect version?Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #24 January 27, 2006 Quote And why would God not get it right the first time? Why wait over 1600 years to make the perfect version? Why not make software right the first time? Because you want to get it out NOW to start making money. You get to sell new versions every year or so, and any major bugs can be sorted out with patches. 2000 years ago, God must've been thinking "Gee, these humans are getting pretty smart. If I wait for another couple of thousand years, they'll be way too smart to believe in me". So, He sent Jesus to Palestine when the people where still gullible enough to buy the stories of a street prophet who knows a few neat party tricks like turning water into wine and stuff. While Jesus is laying the groundwork, God is sweating in his study writing His Word. A few hundred years pass, and He decides "Bloody hell, it's good enough as it is, I'll release the beta version by inspiring a few believers to write it. I'll see how it works and release a Service Pack(KingJames1.0) in a thousand years or so." Did this answer your question? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #25 January 27, 2006 my question was one might pose to someone who believe the KJV is THE answer, not a question for a facetious answer. But thanks for trying. B for creativity. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
