Jim Lincoln wrote:
if I had Popish sympathes I would use a Catholic Bible such as the AV....

but I would only use Bibles such as the NIV, E. S. V. and of course, the New American Standard Bible.

Then you must remember that your NASB et al, also uses the Vaticanus Greek text. I Mean Jim - How Roman Catholic can you get?

BTW Jim. Your brothers Westcott and Hort....
"1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!

2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.

3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
did Calvin...

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

D Mike Canard wrote:
You are not very bright and are very mistaken in your thinking.
Firstly, the overwhelming majority of the common people of the time could not read at all. This means they needed the Bible read to them.
Secondly, why do you think it was called the Vulgate?

"'Vulgate'. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic by Jerome between 382 and 405 CE, this text became known as the 'versio vulgata', which means 'common translation'."

As you correctly point out the people were illiterate and did not speak the language of Latin. Therefore it cannot be the "Bible" which built the Church as you alluded to in your previous post.

As I have posted below many superstitious and heretical, idolatrous practices emerged in the church in those days. Many of which remain in the modern Roman Catholic organisation today.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
If Satan were to choose which Bible he preferred it would definitely be the AV!

However Jim, since a couple of his servants the heretical Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort helped write the NASB, NIV et al, then he would not go there for the WHOLE truth would he.

"The Westcott and Hort (B and Aleph) Text Is from a Small, Lost Family of Misguided Texts.
But I suspect that in the little handful of authorities which have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of recent Textual Criticism, at the least of which stand Codexes B and Aleph, are to be recognized the characteristic features of a lost family of (once well known) second or third-century documents which owed their existence to the misguided zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent persons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting the Text of Scripture; but were entirely unfit for the undertaking." (Burgon)

This is what we have in B and Aleph. We have "corrections" of the Words of God in these mistaken and false manuscripts" (TBS)

D Mike Canard wrote:
GOD built His Church with the Latin Vulgate all over the world. God's approved and blessed Word for over a THOUSAND YEARS before your bonded leather pulp!

Thus GOD did NOT use this obscure volume to build His Church.

What came out of the centuries of Vulgate was the Papal Anti-christ, the worship of dead people idolatry, (RC 'saint' promotions), worship of dead bones and other rediculous relics and idolatrous practices, - THUS a dead religion as indeed it still is today.

Satan's Roman Catholic church is dead in sin and still remains blind to the truth.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I would also add that the KJV doesn't follow the Textus Receptus that well

But since you prefer the modern version and the W&H Greek travesty instead...

"The Westcott and Hort (B and Aleph) Text Has Many Serious Defects.
We have with us width and depth against the narrowness on their side. They are conspicuously contracted in the fewness of the witnesses which they deem worthy of credence. They are restricted as to the period of history which alone they consider to deserve attention. They are confined with regard to the countries from which their testimony comes. They would supply Christians with a shortened text, and educate them under a cast-iron system. We on the contrary champion the many against the few: we welcome all witnesses and weigh all testimony: we uphold all the ages against one or two, and all the countries against a narrow space." (Burgon)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The Anglican Church has been paying for its syncretism since its birth, it has been making the British people and all people touched by the communion of the Anglican Church, by sending a mixed message of Catholicism and Protestanism, and the two just doesn't mix, they have aways been at work, Reversing the Reformation

You cannot wipe the entire historic C of E out as sweeping as this - it is just not true.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
1) Well, KJV only types, we Americans might as well say that since God has appointed the USA to be the lead Christian country

2) New American Standard Bible

3) The Devil has been using the AV for 400 years, it's time to give a clear message,

2) Talking about Liberal Bishops the NASB relies upon the Greek translation of two heretical, Popish leaning Anglican bishops AND the Vaticanus text; - SO is your NASB for the Roman Catholic doctrines teaching, Jim.
Is the IHCC Roman Catholic...

3) BLASPHEMY! BLASPHEMY! BLASPHEMY!

Jim you will not win this debate by making God angry.

It is a fact of life on earth and history Jim, that God ordained the KJV/TR to be used to bring HIS HOLY WORD to the people in 1611.
God DID NOT use the same Greek texts which were used for your NASB, NIV et al.

Rob wrote:
The comparison is being made with all extant GK MSS!

All the MSS???

God did not use "ALL" the newly found mss which have turned up and been used by heretics such as W & H famous for their Popish leaning doctrines and - ANTI-KJV stance.

Rev 17:8
KJV - "and yet is"
Modern Versions - "and yet will come"

If you "receive" the MV words both greek and english then you are an advocate of the MV's AND their supporting Greek texts.
Since the 19th century we have had many who attack God's word and change His doctrines in the Bible - like the two Anglican Liberal Popish heretics Westcott and Hort. The modern versions use the Nestle-Aland Greek texts which rely heavily upon W & H with their higher criticism et al.
"1914--The Testimony of Herman Hoskier.
"The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as `the true text,' and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text." [Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies--a Study and an Indictment, (1914)"

Rob wrote:
Revelation 17:8 the kjv reads:

Jim Lincoln wrote:
T.S., The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer, is a Catholic Bible, Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’? Some people consider the errors in the AV minor, but they are even worse then the one in the RSV using the term "young woman," for "virgin," e.g. "it" for the Holy Spirit. They AV is a third rate Bible that he isn't even allowed to be second rate by being translated into modern English

Jim Lincoln wrote:
A) Remember that the AV was a modern translation at one time.

B) Dr. Wallace wrote:
7. It was a compromise translation between various factions within England—including High Churchmen and Puritans, and to a degree, between Protestants and Catholics. Even though it was ostensibly based on the Bishops’ Bible

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Rick Norris wrote:
Some may question whether the High Commission Court with its "distinguished" members such as some KJV translators and several Archbishops can be fairly compared to the Inquisition. As members of this Court, George Abbott and Lancelot Andrewes urged the burning at the stake of two men for their religious views and King James approved this sentence.

From Tyndale to the translators of the KING JAMES BIBLE, God used His servants to bring His Holy Word into reach of the common man. Then God used this to teach His doctrines to the Church. Thus the Church grew over these centuries.

It is perhaps relevant to point out that today we observe the huge decline of church membership and doctrine, and all things Christian - WHEN all these "modern versions" are available.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer

somewhat ironic that a corrupted Bible, the AV

To suggest the KING JAMES BIBLE is "anglican" is an attack upon God's Word emanating from the idea of the Anglicans of TODAY. Which makes Jim's attempt a lie, since the C of E in 1611 was of a completely different theological basis that the anglicans of today.

Modern versions CANNOT say that they have been used by God for centuries, and perhaps they never will be able to.

Whereas the KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God has been used BY GOD for centuries. Thus has it been "authorised" by God Himself for use in the churches.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Which ONE KJV edition is the infallible ONE?

"There have been several editions of KJV, but no revisions.

One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" (S.C.Gipp) Answer = [URL=http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp?FROM=biblecenter]]] The Myth of Early Revisions. By Dr. D.F.Reagan[/URL]

EG:: Changes noted since 1611
a] Spelling - MAN changed his method of spelling not the KJV translators.
b] Printing errors - MAN makes mistakes - NOT God!

D Mike Canard wrote:
No! GOD built His Church with the Latin Vulgate all over the world even in the "bad" old days before school was properly instituted in western societies.
If your school was any good they would have taught you to read the Latin Vulgate. God's approved and blessed Word for over a THOUSAND YEARS before your bonded leather pulp!

Your post highlights why GOD published the KING JAMES BIBLE.

As for time and when and who gets saved in history - God is sovereign over everything.

Remember that people did not start reading the Bible on their own in large numbers until the Reformation which brought the Bible out of the Latin (and the priests grip) and into the reach of the common people.

Thus after God ordained the Reformation - HE went on to bring the Bible within reach of the laity.
Hence the english translations.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
If there is one main reason (and there are many serious reasons) that they AV should be a removed from Church pews is a point that Neil alluded to, the common people are supposed to have easy access to the Scripture.

GOD built His Church with the KJV all over the world even in the "bad" old days before school was properly instituted in western societies.

Also Jim, you keep cutting the Lord out of your arguement, remember this verse...13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/biblesearch.asp?chapter=16&lookup_keyword=John]]]KING JAMES VERSION - JOHN 16[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
That's too bad, TS, since the AV has many errors in it

Also see "Alan H" post below.