Polus wrote:
In many many places the AV employs dynamic equivalence

God still used the KJV+Textus Receptus for four centuries.

And Westcott and Hort were both heretics and contribute to the Nestle Aland modern versions.

And that is before you get into the badly translated NIV and its method dynamic equivalence.

The KJV used "FORMAL EQUIVALENCE" Only!!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
If you need a dictionary to read a Bible, then throw that version aside.
.........
The people in the KJV day understood it, because it was much closer to common speech than it is now!

The real problem is that LIBERAL ANGLICAN heretics helped to write the NIV, NASB et al.

Therefore it is much more logical to read a reliable version of the Word of God such as the KING JAMES VERSION which clearly GOD approved by using it for four hundred years. AND which comes from a more reliable Greek Text.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The KJV is a heretical Bible, in many aspects, thankfully it isn't in English

In his devout and obsessive nasbiness we find the true Jim Lincoln, behind the scenes. It is a shame that poor Jim cannot read the King James Bible, - But equally it is sad that Jim puts his trust in a modern version which two ANGLICAN LIBERAL HERETICS contributed so much to the writing and translation of. We should pray for poor Jim that the Lord may open his eyes one day soon.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Yes, I do like the NKJV it is the most accurate of AVs necessary revisions.

Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote:
In fact, the NKJV followed the Greek text of the Textus Receptus throughout the New Testament and "anywhere the NKJV appears to differ from the Greek text used by the KJV translators, it is because it has corrected the KJV

Quote;
"When the NKJV translators claim that their New Testament is based upon the Received Text, this is not entirely true. In a number of places it chooses to agree with the Westcott and Hort text. It also misses out words found in the Greek and in some places it adds words without the use of italics....." (Alan J MacGregor)

Now I've told you before about these two ANGLICAN LIBERAL HERETICS Westcott and Hort. And as you know their input into translation is complete heresy. Their so called higher criticism has destroyed the Greek texts, so much so that THEIR text is a joke.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Why do those who support King James Onlyism use an even more corrupt Textus Receptus written by a Roman Catholic priest

The Textus Receptus has been good enough for GOD these last four hundred years, since HE translated the Holy Word of God into english for us.

Whats good enough for GOD is wholly acceptable to HIS disciples.

As I have told you many times before the reason for my objection to the modern versions are your colleagues Westcott and Hort, two ANGLICAN LIBERAL HERETICS.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Doug Kutilek wrote:
Let me say it again--the sole justification for producing and publishing any Bible translation is so that those who do not understand the words in the original languages can nevertheless gain access to them through words they do understand in their own language

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Doug Kutilek wrote:
And I could write at length of the KJV's fourfold reference to the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, as "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11), which in my opinion comes little short, if indeed it comes short at all, of blasphemy.

"IT"
18th century dictionary::
"IT is used absolutely for the state of a person or affair."
"IT is sometimes used of the first or second person."

Modern Dictionary::
"it -used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or DISREGARDED)"

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The NIV of 1984 and earlier are of course much better Bibles than the AV, a dynamic translation based on accurate original texts

The NIV published in "Dynamic Equivalence" - In other words paraphrased - words and doctrines CHANGED - by people you don't know the theology of???.....

As for quote "accurate texts"??????
WESTCOTT AND HORT the 19th century Anglican LIBERAL heretics who doubted Scripture and its doctrines - Who loved the Roman Catholic maryolatry, purgatory and wrote that he preferred the "Romish view to the evangelical one." And denied the existance of the Garden of Eden. And rejected Christ's atoning death!!!

WayneUK wrote:
" While people in the King James Movement hold to a range of opinions, they generally believe that the AV is inspired. Although Dr White has at times put TBS in this camp, we fo not hold this view." Same magazine page 30

"While people in the ‘King James Only Movement’ hold a range of opinions, they generally believe that the AV is Divinely inspired. Although Dr White has at times put TBS in this camp, we do not hold this view."

There is a sense in which the KJV does not need to be "divinely inspired" since it is a copy of the original, in that respect it is the writers of the original who are what is termed "divinely inspired."
However the TBS clearly considers the KJV to be the closest to the original since it is the only Bible which they publish.

Divine inspiration today comes from the Holy Spirit to the elect when receiving the truth from Scripture. For example the Liberal and Roman Catholics do not receive this truth.

Fat Guy wrote:
"Maybe the King of England "used" the KJV issue to seperate himself from the Pope through the establishment of the anglican Church inorder to deify himself (legitimacy), just like Calvin and Luther used the scriptures to legitimatize a political movement, hence the dead state church movement. The TR (greek)text is an excellent text, but the KJV translation has accuracy problems just like any other translation."

The idea to produce an English Bible had been going for centuries eg the Venerable Bede in the 7th century began one. Then there is Wycliffe, Tyndale etc etc.

Luther and Calvin and others were ordained by GOD to begin the Reformation and bring the REAL: Church into existence, *The Protestant Presbyterian Church.* Amen.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
why did this really bad translation last 400 years?

1. Because it is not a "bad translation" but indeed is the BEST translation as ordained by God in 1611.

2. Because it is far - far better than the modern versions found today which jeopardise Christian doctrines.

3. Because God made it so! And continues so to do!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
a) Matthew 24
24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
Applies to wha Mohler said.

b) whoever is saved will be saved and those who aren't won't be

Jim Lincoln wrote:
a) Four point Calvinism

b) As far as Dr. Mohler is concerned you seem to have made a straw horse, he's a Calvinist!

c) Again, what if Dr. Mohler was an Arminian

b) Mohler?? Calvinist?? Hmmm I'll have to reserve decision on that since I don't know him very well.

c) Mohler?? Arminian?? Well note the quote in the first para, quote, "represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times,"

A challenge to 'FAITH'???
Is faith the GIFT of God Jim?
Does God's GIFT fail?
Does God provide a GIFT which can loose its ultimate end of salvation?
Can mans reveries and reprobate assumed 'wisdom' actually weaken FAITH?? even destroy FAITH?

OR
Is Mohler's concept of 'faith' like that of the Arminian, that it is merely a human intellectual assent.
And therefore 'breakable?'

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I was talking about Evolution not the Calvinism & Arminianism controversy and as you can see we come down on the Calvinist side

Mike wrote:
How does a statement about maligning belief and marginalization of Christians have anything to do with believing a Christian can lose salvation?

Also can mans speculations upon "our" simian ancestry and the age of the planet negate the 'work' of the Word of God. If so at what result?

Mohler says
"The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high."

What cost?

Does he mean that ultimately if we ignore the question of evolution - the elect will not......??? (what)

CV wrote:
Tushe

Jim Lincoln wrote:
R.A. Mohler, Jr. wrote:
The New Atheists would have no coherent worldview without the dogma of Darwin," Mohler wrote. "With it, they intend to malign belief in God and to marginalize Christians and Christian arguments

Which by the way is not only heresy but fallacy. AND doubt on God's election.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote:
In fact, the NKJV followed the Greek text of the Textus Receptus throughout the New Testament and "anywhere the NKJV appears to differ from the Greek text used by the KJV translators, it is because it has corrected the KJV departures from the Textus Receptus. Consequently, the NKJV adheres more closely

Just ONE of many examples.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
To raise the AV to the level of a second rate bible it has to at least be put into modern understandable English

"The New King James (NKJV) is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words!" (chick.com)

And all of this achieved only in God's providence and blessing.

JR wrote:
can't come to the conclusion that God is glorified and pleased with all this wrangling, regardless of all your 'reasons.' Please show me otherwise.

If you did you too would contend for GOD's Word.
____________

IS 'THE' Word important?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Psalm 119:50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me

89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Douglas S. Chinn & Robert C. Newman wrote:
,,,the ... refusal of many pro-KJV people to acknowledge that the KJV is an imperfect text demonstrates that scholarship is not the primary basis of the TR-KJV movement. Rather, it shows that another basis besides scholarship is being used to establish the KJV as the best NT text, to split fundamental churches, and to polarize individuals over this issue. In their desire for absolute certainty, many people have replaced true scholarship with "faith without scholarship." However, such a methodology does not allow one to distinguish between biblical Christianity and such "blind faith" heresies

Do you believe that to be quote, "blind faith heresies???"