Here is the testimony of Dr. Frank Logsdon who was the Chief Editor and Co-Founder of the New American Standard Version.
This man not only was a genuine scholar; but, had the INTEGRITY to give the greatest example any man of God can give to the brethren - PERSONAL REPENTANCE. It is sad today, how few so-called men of God, can demonstrate the example of personal repentance.
The following are words of Dr. Logsdon who was able to repent of the work which he led, as Co-Founder and Chief Editor, to produce the New American Standard Version bible.
"I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words."
"Well, up to that time I thought the Westcott and Hort was THE text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You'd be surprised; if I told you wouldn't believe it. They haven't gone into it just as I hadn't gone into it; [they're] just taking it for granted."
"I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it? Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life,"
"I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them."
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."
"If you must stand against everyone else, stand. How can we know that we have the whole truth? Well, just simply by believing God. And what do I mean by that? John 16:13--"When he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into" how much? Tell me. Tell me, now. "All truth." And if we don't have all truth, the Holy Spirit isn't doing His work. We have to have all truth for Him to lead us into all truth. And there are many, many other passages which teach this."
"If we could hear His voice we would have no trouble learning His Word from the Authorized Version. Let me tell you this: You might not be able to answer the arguments, and you won't be [able to]. I can't answer some of them, either. Some of these university professors come along and say, What about this; what about that? They go into areas that I haven't even had time to get into. You don't need to defend yourself, and you don't need to defend God's Word. Don't defend it; you don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it. Just say, "Well, did this version or this translation come down through the Roman stream? If so, count me out. Whatever you say about Erasmus and Tyndale, that's what I want."
ISA 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. If we allow Satanic people to deprive us of the accurately translated Word of God, we have lost the battle with evil. Many such "translators" may be "honest and sincere". BUT, the designers of buildings, bridges and freeways in Kobe, Japan "honestly and sincerely" thought their design would stand against earthquakes of 10 on the Richter scale. When put to the test of a 7.2 quake, they failed. When we are deceived and destroyed, does it help that those who helped in our deception were "honest and sincere"? Our true condition is stated here: JER 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
Letter from Dr. Frank Logsdon Editor of NASV
-
_Jeff Bakhuizen
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:09 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
Letter from Dr. Frank Logsdon Editor of NASV
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Ro 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus
Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken
of throughout the whole world.
Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken
of throughout the whole world.
Actually, parts of the above post seem to be fabricated...perhaps to make the ramifications sound more appealing. I doubt, however, that the poster himself made these adjustments. Most fabrications are just repeated.
Nevertheless, I think in the interest of honesty, it should be noted that 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....He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. He said he was a friend of Lockman and as such was invited to come out to California and help launch the venture.
The above admission was copied from KJV-pnlyist author David Cloud
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm
I think this is why KJV-only argumentation doesn't appeal to many serious Christians. If KJV-onlyists would stick to solid argumentation and speak what they consider the truth in love instead of resorting to half truths and demonizing other translations (not that the above post demonized anything, only that such seems to be common in my observation of KJV-onlyism) I'd be much more interested in their arguments. If KJV-onlyists have to resort to half-truths and/or non-truths to make their arguments, that says something about what they're arguing for.
Nevertheless, I think in the interest of honesty, it should be noted that 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....He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. He said he was a friend of Lockman and as such was invited to come out to California and help launch the venture.
The above admission was copied from KJV-pnlyist author David Cloud
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm
I think this is why KJV-only argumentation doesn't appeal to many serious Christians. If KJV-onlyists would stick to solid argumentation and speak what they consider the truth in love instead of resorting to half truths and demonizing other translations (not that the above post demonized anything, only that such seems to be common in my observation of KJV-onlyism) I'd be much more interested in their arguments. If KJV-onlyists have to resort to half-truths and/or non-truths to make their arguments, that says something about what they're arguing for.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
You have a problem. I have the cassette taped message by Logdson where he said those words, and many more, and tells the entire history of his dealings with lockman and the NASB. You need to understand that Bible committess are notorious for trying to hide the truth when the truth hurts their venture. Westcott and Hort did it, the NIV committee did it(by denying that a Feminist Lesbian was a part of the committee), and so has the NASB group. How convenient they issue all these denials about Lodgson AFTER he died and can't defend himself and prove them wrong!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Here's a quote from Dr. Kenneth Barker (Exectutive director of the NIV Tranlation Center) on this matter.the NIV committee did it(by denying that a Feminist Lesbian was a part of the committee),
"...in the late 60's and early 70's Virginia Mollenkott was consulted breifly and only in a minor way of matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a comminted evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not appear to surface until years later in some of her later writings. If we had known in the 60's what became public knowledge years later, we never would have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV editors and translators in any of their final dicisions"
Not to mention, they do not hide that homosexuality is wrong in this translation or any of the main modern translations.
1 Cor. 6:9 (NIV)
"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"
Rom. 1:26 (NIV)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Having said this, I will say that I use the King James as my main bible. But I do consult the modern versions regularly, as I think any serious bible student should do.
I think it is very sad that the KJV only groups resort to these tactics to attack the brethren over a translation of the Bible. There seems to be no end to the silly hobby horses in Christianity today.
What would Paul say if confronted with this translation issue I wonder? Probably something like this:
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ... ... every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."
Romans 14:10,13
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
That is Barker's "story", and its not the whole story. More on that later.
Having said this, I will say that I use the King James as my main bible. But I do consult the modern versions regularly, as I think any serious bible student should do.
No he wouldn't. He would say what the pro KJV crowd has been saying, and he would qoute God's Words from Jer 23 wherein the leaders of that day were "attacked" by the Lord when he said "Ye have perverted the Words of the Living God".
Having said this, I will say that I use the King James as my main bible. But I do consult the modern versions regularly, as I think any serious bible student should do.
The above statement is an attack, because it either completely misunderstands the issue, or is a deliberate strawman. Only a simpleton would pretend this is an attack of the brethren over a translation of the Bible, when thousands of SERIOUS CHANGES have taken place, and attacks--shall we speak of them, attacks on doctrinal passages on the Diety of christ, the Trinity, and the blood of Christ occur in the new versions. To make light of this, as if it is nothing, is quite ridiculous.I think it is very sad that the KJV only groups resort to these tactics to attack the brethren over a translation of the Bible. There seems to be no end to the silly hobby horses in Christianity today.
What would Paul say if confronted with this translation issue I wonder? Probably something like this:
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ... ... every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."
No he wouldn't. He would say what the pro KJV crowd has been saying, and he would qoute God's Words from Jer 23 wherein the leaders of that day were "attacked" by the Lord when he said "Ye have perverted the Words of the Living God".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
A more thourough response about "attacking brethren" over this issue by David Cloud(posted with permissionj).
===============
Republished August 25, 2002 (First published January 19, 2001) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)
There are many people who will never believe this, but I don't like doctrinal contentions. The Lord knows that sometimes I grow very weary in the battle, and I have to strengthen my arms for the task. If it were not for the fact that I am convinced God has called me to this ministry, I would have quit long ago, or at the very least I would have made my preaching at last a little more positive and would have stopped naming names! It is not pleasant to have to warn about men who are well liked, some of whom are leaders in your own church group. It is not pleasant to receive angry letters and e-mails every day of your life. It is not pleasant to be continually and willfully misunderstood and misjudged by those who do not like what you preach. Just recently a fundamentalist pastor told his congregation that "Cloud named his paper O Timothy because he has apostolic pretentions." Oh, spare me! Even if that were true, how could he possibly know such a thing? Is that not the very type of judgment--judgment of motives, of the very secrets of the heart---that God expressly forbids us to make? Yet that is the type of judgment that is heaped upon me day upon day.
I love unity far more than division and peace far more than strife, but the fact remains that this is an evil and apostate hour and if ever there were a time in which men must stand up and be counted for the truth AND AGAINST error, it is today. Having a desire to please God in these matters, I will continue to lift up my voice against things I believe are hurtful for God's people, and that means I will identify those who are leading the way in those hurtful things. Vague preaching saves the preacher from a lot of trouble, but it accomplishes very little.
Now I come more directly to my subject. Of all the battles I am facing these days, the most tiresome is to be labeled a divisive cultist because I stand for the old English Bible that was used to build the fundamental Baptist movement of which I am a part. Practically every church, school, and missions institution that exists among fundamental Baptists was built squarely upon the King James Bible. (There might be minor exceptions, but I don't know of any.)
If the King James Bible was based upon a weak, preliminary, happenstance Greek text and was produced by men who did not possess good scholarship, as some would have us believe, it makes no sense to me why such a Bible continued to be used by almost all fundamental Baptists decade after decade after decade, instead of replacing it with a better one. I, for one, don't believe it needs to be replaced, and I don't believe there is anyone today who could produce a better one. I believe the crying need of the hour for English-speaking people is not a new version but a new zeal to study the excellent one God has given us. I have manifold tools at my disposal with which I can dig into the King James Bible and its underlying Greek and Hebrew text. That is far better than going to the modern versions with their Gnostic-tinged Greek New Testament and their dynamic equivalency methodology and their unsettled, constantly changing "authority."
Some of our leaders and professors, though, are not only going after the modern versions, but are boldly promoting the same and are busy tearing down the KJV. And when other men who do not buy their theories refuse to sit idly by and allow this to happen and thus rush to the defense of the KJV, some have the gall to complain that it is the King James Bible defenders who are the dividers. Something is wrong with this picture.
I AM FED UP WITH THIS FALSE ACCUSATION, AND I CHALLENGE THOSE WHO ARE MAKING IT TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
Is the Bible not the foundation for everything we believe and do? Is the battle over the Bible, therefore, not FUNDAMENTAL and FOUNDATIONAL? Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us that every word of God is life. The Bible version debate affects dozens of entire verses and thousands of disputed words. Are we now going to take the ecumenical, New Evangelical position that "unity" is more important than truth?
How can it be right to contend for the faith and be wrong to contend for the words in which that faith was delivered? We have been commanded to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Is that faith not contained in divinely-given words?
Do I have the right to preach what I believe is the truth about the Bible and its texts and versions? If so, why are you trying to close my mouth on this subject by raising a loud hew and cry against "carnal division"?
Do I have the right to say another man is wrong on the Bible version issue and to defend my position against attacks and to warn God's people about what I perceive to be errors and dangers in this issue?
If it is wrong for Pensacola Christian College, Heritage Baptist University, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Landmark Baptist College, Fairhaven Baptist College, the Dean Burgon Society, etc. to preach on this issue and to issue warnings, why is not also wrong for Bob Jones University, Northland, Clearwater, Detroit, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, etc., to preach what they believe on the issue and to issue warnings? Why is one divisive and the other not? And if both are divisive, why not say it plainly and name the names of ALL of those who are doing the dividing? Those who are crowing so much about divisiveness seem to be awfully lopsided on this issue.
Why is it divisive to defend the King James Bible and its Greek and Hebrew text, while it is not divisive to tear it down with the theories of modern textual criticism and other methods of doubting its accuracy?
Why is it divisive for King James Bible defenders to stand for what they believe is the truth, while it is not divisive for Bob Jones, Northland, Clearwater, etc. to label King James Bible defenders as semi-cultists? (Yes, they have done that in their videos, magazines, and books, including the book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, all of which I have in my library.)
If the price for unity and peace is to let the preserved Bible be replaced with a corrupt one, that price is far too high. I refuse to pay it, and I pray earnestly to the God of the Bible, the God who has magnified His Word above all His name, that He will raise up a multitude to make the same refusal.
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2).
===============
Republished August 25, 2002 (First published January 19, 2001) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)
There are many people who will never believe this, but I don't like doctrinal contentions. The Lord knows that sometimes I grow very weary in the battle, and I have to strengthen my arms for the task. If it were not for the fact that I am convinced God has called me to this ministry, I would have quit long ago, or at the very least I would have made my preaching at last a little more positive and would have stopped naming names! It is not pleasant to have to warn about men who are well liked, some of whom are leaders in your own church group. It is not pleasant to receive angry letters and e-mails every day of your life. It is not pleasant to be continually and willfully misunderstood and misjudged by those who do not like what you preach. Just recently a fundamentalist pastor told his congregation that "Cloud named his paper O Timothy because he has apostolic pretentions." Oh, spare me! Even if that were true, how could he possibly know such a thing? Is that not the very type of judgment--judgment of motives, of the very secrets of the heart---that God expressly forbids us to make? Yet that is the type of judgment that is heaped upon me day upon day.
I love unity far more than division and peace far more than strife, but the fact remains that this is an evil and apostate hour and if ever there were a time in which men must stand up and be counted for the truth AND AGAINST error, it is today. Having a desire to please God in these matters, I will continue to lift up my voice against things I believe are hurtful for God's people, and that means I will identify those who are leading the way in those hurtful things. Vague preaching saves the preacher from a lot of trouble, but it accomplishes very little.
Now I come more directly to my subject. Of all the battles I am facing these days, the most tiresome is to be labeled a divisive cultist because I stand for the old English Bible that was used to build the fundamental Baptist movement of which I am a part. Practically every church, school, and missions institution that exists among fundamental Baptists was built squarely upon the King James Bible. (There might be minor exceptions, but I don't know of any.)
If the King James Bible was based upon a weak, preliminary, happenstance Greek text and was produced by men who did not possess good scholarship, as some would have us believe, it makes no sense to me why such a Bible continued to be used by almost all fundamental Baptists decade after decade after decade, instead of replacing it with a better one. I, for one, don't believe it needs to be replaced, and I don't believe there is anyone today who could produce a better one. I believe the crying need of the hour for English-speaking people is not a new version but a new zeal to study the excellent one God has given us. I have manifold tools at my disposal with which I can dig into the King James Bible and its underlying Greek and Hebrew text. That is far better than going to the modern versions with their Gnostic-tinged Greek New Testament and their dynamic equivalency methodology and their unsettled, constantly changing "authority."
Some of our leaders and professors, though, are not only going after the modern versions, but are boldly promoting the same and are busy tearing down the KJV. And when other men who do not buy their theories refuse to sit idly by and allow this to happen and thus rush to the defense of the KJV, some have the gall to complain that it is the King James Bible defenders who are the dividers. Something is wrong with this picture.
I AM FED UP WITH THIS FALSE ACCUSATION, AND I CHALLENGE THOSE WHO ARE MAKING IT TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
Is the Bible not the foundation for everything we believe and do? Is the battle over the Bible, therefore, not FUNDAMENTAL and FOUNDATIONAL? Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us that every word of God is life. The Bible version debate affects dozens of entire verses and thousands of disputed words. Are we now going to take the ecumenical, New Evangelical position that "unity" is more important than truth?
How can it be right to contend for the faith and be wrong to contend for the words in which that faith was delivered? We have been commanded to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Is that faith not contained in divinely-given words?
Do I have the right to preach what I believe is the truth about the Bible and its texts and versions? If so, why are you trying to close my mouth on this subject by raising a loud hew and cry against "carnal division"?
Do I have the right to say another man is wrong on the Bible version issue and to defend my position against attacks and to warn God's people about what I perceive to be errors and dangers in this issue?
If it is wrong for Pensacola Christian College, Heritage Baptist University, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Landmark Baptist College, Fairhaven Baptist College, the Dean Burgon Society, etc. to preach on this issue and to issue warnings, why is not also wrong for Bob Jones University, Northland, Clearwater, Detroit, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, etc., to preach what they believe on the issue and to issue warnings? Why is one divisive and the other not? And if both are divisive, why not say it plainly and name the names of ALL of those who are doing the dividing? Those who are crowing so much about divisiveness seem to be awfully lopsided on this issue.
Why is it divisive to defend the King James Bible and its Greek and Hebrew text, while it is not divisive to tear it down with the theories of modern textual criticism and other methods of doubting its accuracy?
Why is it divisive for King James Bible defenders to stand for what they believe is the truth, while it is not divisive for Bob Jones, Northland, Clearwater, etc. to label King James Bible defenders as semi-cultists? (Yes, they have done that in their videos, magazines, and books, including the book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, all of which I have in my library.)
If the price for unity and peace is to let the preserved Bible be replaced with a corrupt one, that price is far too high. I refuse to pay it, and I pray earnestly to the God of the Bible, the God who has magnified His Word above all His name, that He will raise up a multitude to make the same refusal.
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I guess I am a "simpleton" then.Only a simpleton would pretend this is an attack of the brethren...
...SERIOUS CHANGES...
Only if you start with the assumption "KJV=God's word" can you possibly think anything has been "changed" or "deleted".
It is a circular argument.
Every single "attack" verse (from a modern version) quoted by KJ only folks that has any bearing on any doctrine can usually be found in that same bible in another Gospel. A rather silly move if they are trying to "change" or "attack" a cardinal doctrine of Christianity (see the above post for quotes from the NIV regarding homosexuality).
Not a very smart move if they want to (to quote Gail Riplinger) "move mankind to the Antichrist's one world relegion" don't you think?
Of course you never see these verses in the KJV only publications.
Maybe you can help me understand something. Where is it that King James Only people get the idea that the KJV is the inspired word of God? I can't recall anyone ever really saying why they believed that it was inspired.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
Well bro Derek, you respond in typical automoton fashion. You simply spit out the same responses, refuted 1000 times already, as if they haven't been. How about reading a few books by the KJV side? Then, if you're honest, you won't repeat the errors of the anti-kjv crowd. Then we can stick to facts, and not have to deal with nonsense, like I must now.
Secondly, these same renderings can be found in Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva and Tyndale, which takes the readings of the KJV back another 100 years as far as the English people. Then we find its readings are based on the Received Text, and that takes us back still further.
The readings of the KJV were WELL KNOWN for a long time in Europe and Asia Minor. The perversions of the vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not known nor were those two mss used by the churches of Christ until Westcott and Hort, two apostate Protestant scholars put them before the world.
Remove not the ancient landmark.
There is no circular reasoning. The Text of the KJV was established in Greek and in English for hundreds of years. Westcott and Hort, and everyone since them DID CHANGE the Word of God, they did delete words and verses, they did sow doubt and confusion and discord into the body of Christ about something that was settled and need none of their ideas. You have not thought this through.
Its a very smart move by the Devil to dilute the Word of God, little by little, slowly but surely. He is clever, and has outwitted most Christians today. So while you boast about how dumb you think he is if our argument is true, the sad truth is he has outsmarted you and those that taught you to think as you do.
No it isn't! It is a historical-fact argument! Where did you get this from, Jimmy White? You seem to forget that the KJV was here for 270 years before Westcott and Hort attacked the Word of God with their phoney Greek text and lame English translation. Its phraseology and all its verses were a part of Western Christendom for a LOOOOOONG time.Only if you start with the assumption "KJV=God's word" can you possibly think anything has been "changed" or "deleted".
It is a circular argument.
Secondly, these same renderings can be found in Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva and Tyndale, which takes the readings of the KJV back another 100 years as far as the English people. Then we find its readings are based on the Received Text, and that takes us back still further.
The readings of the KJV were WELL KNOWN for a long time in Europe and Asia Minor. The perversions of the vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not known nor were those two mss used by the churches of Christ until Westcott and Hort, two apostate Protestant scholars put them before the world.
Remove not the ancient landmark.
There is no circular reasoning. The Text of the KJV was established in Greek and in English for hundreds of years. Westcott and Hort, and everyone since them DID CHANGE the Word of God, they did delete words and verses, they did sow doubt and confusion and discord into the body of Christ about something that was settled and need none of their ideas. You have not thought this through.
Paul said we are not ignorant of Satan's devices. Things have changed. based on your argument and logic then, how can you condemn the Jehovah's witness Bible??? You can find all the fundamentals of the faith in there SOMEWHERE! Is this your critieria???" Not accuracy? Not purity? Just "close enough" according to human opinion. How funny your logic vindicates the New World translation, seeing it also is based on Westctoo and Hort. Birds of a feather. Oh, and lets not forget how much the vatican hates the TR and the KJV. The enemies of the KJV tell us something of its true identity. Yet these two same enemy groups of the gospel LOVE the NIV. How interesting.Every single "attack" verse (from a modern version) quoted by KJ only folks that has any bearing on any doctrine can usually be found in that same bible in another Gospel. A rather silly move if they are trying to "change" or "attack" a cardinal doctrine of Christianity (see the above post for quotes from the NIV regarding homosexuality
Its a very smart move by the Devil to dilute the Word of God, little by little, slowly but surely. He is clever, and has outwitted most Christians today. So while you boast about how dumb you think he is if our argument is true, the sad truth is he has outsmarted you and those that taught you to think as you do.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
SSS -
I can tell from your posts that you are passionate about the KJV bible.
However, what's the point?
Are you asserting that reading from a non-KJV Bible translation puts a believer's salvation at risk?
Is it a sin to read from other translations?
Does reading from the NIV result in the sin of homosexuality?
Since the majority of church history had followers of Christ who didn't have access to the KJV (and even currently in many parts of the world), are they not truly Christians even if their hope and faith and obedience is in Christ?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, please consider that you may have elevated this issue to an importance greater than it deserves.
If you answered no to all the above questions, great! You may want to reconsider how you are coming across in this discussion.
My friend, in all love and respect for you and the proponents of KJV-only, this debate is a distraction from the real work of the Kingdom of God and is inappropriately divisive to the church.
1 Timothy 1:3-7
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
I can tell from your posts that you are passionate about the KJV bible.
However, what's the point?
Are you asserting that reading from a non-KJV Bible translation puts a believer's salvation at risk? Is it a sin to read from other translations? Does reading from the NIV result in the sin of homosexuality? Since the majority of church history had followers of Christ who didn't have access to the KJV (and even currently in many parts of the world), are they not truly Christians even if their hope and faith and obedience is in Christ?If you answered yes to any of the above questions, please consider that you may have elevated this issue to an importance greater than it deserves.
If you answered no to all the above questions, great! You may want to reconsider how you are coming across in this discussion.
My friend, in all love and respect for you and the proponents of KJV-only, this debate is a distraction from the real work of the Kingdom of God and is inappropriately divisive to the church.
1 Timothy 1:3-7
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
amen to to that Schoel!!
i suspect that even if the only version of the bible we had was The Message paraphrase (horrors) we just might survive. well, maybe not but you get the gist.
TK
i suspect that even if the only version of the bible we had was The Message paraphrase (horrors) we just might survive. well, maybe not but you get the gist.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)