Strengthen your faith in the bible Christians.

Thanx

Yes that was kind of my point, that God could have but from what we know of God he would not have.

That is why I said that the rest of the plants and animals could have evolved but Man would have to have been a direct creation. The Bible is silent on how the plants and animals were "created", just that they were. But the Bible is relatively detailed about how man was created, no evolution involved and it is assumed that all other animals were formed the same way. But as I have pointed out before evolution is a very incomplete theory and the holes in it seem to me uncloseable by any natural processes.

As for why would God single out life as a place where he chooses to act generally contrary to the rest of Creation? I would say the fact that life is different than the rest of the Creation would be a good reason. God, who is life itself, is not a product of evolution and neither are Jesus or the angels, they were direct creations.

Also as I have argued before the universe seems to have been created to sustain life but the leap from non-life to life is not something the universe can do on its own, I feel this is one of the big holes in evolution.

 

Pleasure

Using Genesis 1 as a interpretaion guideline, I think Genesis 2 is not giving us historical fact, but an important Spiritual Truth. We are not mere products of random evolution (though now some scientis are beginning to argue that evolution is not random, but a very ingeneous, for lack of better word, algorithm), but the purpose of the Creation of Earth and Life upon it. It is us that God had in mind lo those past eons when the first primitive carbon based life forms began dividing in the waters.

Nice subtle Jesus is not God there though read incorrectly you could also imply you think God is a creation.

It could be argued that God created the first life forms, however I would greatly caution against it because if or when it is discovered how, then we have lost a bit of God and simply look foolish in the eyes of atheists and agnostics.

You could hold onto that privately as a "working hypothesis", however I would not say silly things like "Yup, there is NO WAY for life to form on its own without direct and obvious intercessions by God."

As Christians we generally agree that God holds the universe together. God is not a diest. He does still act in the Universe and in our lives, it is just not always readily apparent to the scientific method.

 

What we believe in isn't determined by how we may appear to others if that were the case we might as well become agnostics or atheists because I'm pretty sure most atheists think we're foolish for believing in what we believe already so it doesn't really matter, bro. In fact, Jesus and the apostles said we should expect our beliefs to look foolish to others. I don't see how that would mean we have lost a bit of God.

 

Let me rephrase:

If we make the claim that there is NO WAY ever (zero chance, cannot happen) that life formed on its own, so God must hace done it, and then it is shown conclusively that life did form on its own we have created a God of the Gaps argument where God is only used to fill in the gaps of current knowledge.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, for example: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."

Charles Alfred Coulson later wrote "There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking."

It is not that we do not want to look foolish, but we do not want to limit God to where our own ignorance shows itself. Eventually, the claim is, there will be no room for God left.

 

If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."

AMEN.

OlderWaterbrother, LOL I was not implying at you a few posts back...just making a point.

 

The founder of Christianity was Jesus Christ.

The King James Bible was translated from the Antioch (sp?) texts. They were from the first Christian Church were St. Paul and the others established their discipleship 'headquarters' to get the word out. All the other new translations were taking from the purposefully Alexandrian Ideologies and translations, they take and weaken the Word of God and the deity of Christ...I will get more detailed coming soon (I'll also PM you brother).

When the Old testament was written God preserved it in Hebrew. The new testament he preserved for the people in Greek. When he wanted them both combined he preserved his perfect word in 1611 in English to so we can get the word out. God preserves it in only one language. The people do the rest.

Movies like Ziegeist are simply propaganda for the NWO. They don't want the truth of Christ out there for reasons.

I understand Christmas and most holidays fall on Pagan important dates. This has been established by the Chaotic Church and has nothing to do with Christianity. Did you know that most of our days are pagan names ? Sunday ?

This does not matter. You are being brainwashed into thinking Christ is false. He is not.

Today modern scholars with the agenda based purpose for the coming New Age are spinning huge, HUGE, lie for the NWO. They claim the King James is wrong and support poison texts for new bible translations...this all feeds into your brainwashing that the bible is nothing but fiction. It is not. It is very real. Are most aware of this ? No. It is a systematic approach.
Peace my friend.

 

QUESTION: Where do Bible manuscripts come from?

ANSWER: Most existing manuscripts of the Bible are divided into two "families". These families are generally represented by the cities of Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Syria.

EXPLANATION:

There are only two Bibles, God's and the devil's. There are only two views of the Bible. It is totally perfect or it is imperfect.

The two Bibles, in manuscript form, and their corresponding ideologies originate in two vastly different locations in the Mid East. Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Syria. Discerning which location gives us the perfect Bible and the correct ideology and which gave us the devil's bible and incorrect ideology is one of the easiest tasks imaginable. This pursuit is made childishly easy due to one source, the Bible.

As we have stated so many times, yet shall again, we accept the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Therefore, all anyone need do is to explore the Bible and discover what GOD thinks of Alexandria, Egypt and what He thinks of Antioch, Syria.

When studying Scripture a fundamental rule that is followed is called "the law of first mention". This means that it is generally true that the context in which someone or something is first mentioned sets the Bible attitude for that person or place.

In our study of Alexandria and Antioch we find it impossible to ignore the Bible’s attitude toward Egypt itself.

Egypt​

(1) Egypt is first mentioned in Genesis 12:10-12.
10 "And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there: for the famine was grievous in the land.

11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive."

In Genesis 12:1-3 we find Abraham is given what is known as the Abrahamic Covenant. Literally it is God's promise to deliver the world to Abraham and his seed as their own private possession.

In Genesis 12:10 Abraham goes down into Egypt to escape a famine in his homeland. In verse 12 we find Abraham's fear that the Egyptians might kill him and steal Sarai his wife. NOT exactly a positive context. We see then that the first mention of Egypt is negative.

(2) In Exodus 1:11-14 we find that the Jews were slaves in Egypt.

11 "Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:

14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. "

In fact, Pharaoh decrees that all male Jewish babies are to be killed in verses 15 and 16.

15 "And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live."

Obviously a negative connotation.

(3) In Exodus chapter 20, after He had brought the children out of Egypt, God, with His own voice, tells what He thinks of Egypt in verse 2 where He describes it as a "house of bondage" "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

Again, a negative comment and this one directly from God's lips.

(4) In Deuteronomy 4:20 Moses refers to Egypt as "the iron furnace. "
"But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day."

(5) In Deuteronomy 17:16 Israel is told that, in the future, when they have a king he is not to carry on commercial trade with Egypt.
"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

(6) And finally in Revelation 11:8, when God wants to denounce Jerusalem, He compares it to Sodom and Egypt.
"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

This brief study has shown what most Christians already know. The Bible has a negative outlook on Egypt.

Alexandria​

We find that Alexandria is mentioned only four times in Scripture and that each mention is bad.

(1) Alexandria is first mentioned in Acts 6:9.
"Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen."

It was Jews from Alexandria who were in the crowd that disputed with and eventually killed Stephen.

(2) The second mention of Alexandria is in Acts 18:24.
"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus."

Here we find a Jew from Alexandria named Apollos who though fervent in spirit was misinformed concerning the gospel. Not knowing the true gospel of Jesus Christ he preached, in Ephesus, the baptism of John the Baptist. (Acts 18:25, 19:3) Apollos was not saved and neither were his converts.
Later, Apollos is led to Christ by Aquila and Priscilla (verse 26) and gets his message straightened out (verse 28).

But in its second mention, Alexandria is synonymous with bad Bible teaching.

(3) The third and fourth mentions of Alexandria are very similar. After Paul is arrested in Acts 21 and appeals his case to Caesar he is sent to Rome, and eventual death, on a ship from, of all places Alexandria (Acts 27:6).
"And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy; and he put us therein." (4) While sailing to Rome, Paul's ship is sunk in a tempest. After spending three months on the island of Melita he is sent on his way to eventual death on another ship. And where is this second ship from that is so ready to carry Paul to his death?

Acts 28:11: "And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux." We see then that all four Bible references to Alexandria are negative. No one with any honesty could pretend that the Bible's representation of Alexandria is good.

It must also be noted here that Alexandria was a center of education and philosophy (Colossians 2:8) which it received from Athens in about 100 B.C. (Acts 17:16) There was a school of the Scriptures founded there by one Pantaenus who was a philosopher. Pantaenus interpreted scripture both philosophically and allegorically. That is to say that philosophically he believed truth to be relative, not absolute. He did not believe that the Bible was infallible. By looking at the Bible allegorically he believed that men such as Adam, Noah, Moses, and David existed only in Jewish poetry and were not true historical characters. He was succeeded as head of the school by Clement of Alexandria and later by Origen. Men who shared his skepticism.

It was Origen, deceived by the duel intoxicants of education and philosophy who upon receipt of pure copies of scripture altered them to parallel his twisted thinking. He is the father of all Bible critics and is not only responsible for the physical manuscripts which delete such verses as Luke 24:40, Acts 8:37 and I John 5:7, but he is also responsible for the Alexandrian philosophy parroted by so many of our fundamental scholars who claim that "The Bible is perfect and infallible" with one breath and then state "The Bible has mistakes and mistranslations" with the very next. It is this demented ideology that gave birth to the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts in the first place. Thus we see that not only are the physical manuscripts of Alexandria corrupt and to be rejected, but the Alexandrian philosophy, that the Bible has mistakes in it and must be corrected, is even more subtle and dangerous and must be forsaken by true Bible believers.

Antioch​

Ironically the first mention of Antioch is found in the very same book and chapter as Alexandria, Acts chapter 6, but in a radically different conte
(1) When the Apostles saw a need for helpers, helpers whom today we know as "deacons", they gave instructions for what kind of men should be chosen for the position ​

Acts 6:3,4: "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word."​

The seven men chosen are listed in Acts 6:5. "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:"​

Please notice that one of the first deacons, Nicolas, was of Antioch. Is this a mere coincidence? Certainly not! Neither is it coincidental that Nicolas is the only deacon whose home town is given. Neither is it coincidental that Antioch is mentioned for the first time in Scripture in the same chapter in which Alexandria is mentioned. And it is certainly no difficult feat to see that one, Antioch, is first mentioned in a positive light and the other, Alexandria, is first mentioned in a negative light.​

The next few pertinent appearances of Antioch start as a trickle and end as a flood of testimony to God's choice of Antioch for the center of His New Testament church.​

(2) Antioch appears next in Scripture in Acts 11:19-21.​

19 "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord."​

Here we find that certain of the Christians who had taken flight during the persecution preached the gospel as they fled. Upon arrival in Antioch they, not knowing what had happened in Acts 10 with Peter opening the door of the gospel to the Gentiles, preached the gospel to the Grecians. Verse 21 tells us that God's Holy Spirit worked mightily in Antioch and that a "great number" were saved.​

We see then that the first great gentile awakening occurred in Antioch. (3) In Acts 11:22-24 we find that Barnabus, (the son of consolation Acts 4:36) was sent to Antioch to see what was happening in Antioch. 22 "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. 23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. 24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord."​

Through the ministry of this great man of God, many more people were added to Christ, (4) In Acts 11:25,26, two important facts are revealed. 25 "Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. 26 And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."​

First, we find Barnabas departing for Tarsus to seek the young convert Saul. It was Barnabas who defended Paul's conversion to the doubting disciples in Acts 9:26,27. Doubtless he was grieved to see the zealous young convert shipped off to Tarsus (Acts 9:30), and oblivion. Upon finding Saul, Barnabus does not bring him back to Jerusalem. (And certainly not to Alexandria.) He returns with him to Antioch, the spiritual capital of the New Testament church. All that Paul ever became, he owes to the gracious act of this godly old saint. (5) In Acts 11:26 we find that born again believers were called "Christians" for the first time at Antioch. Thus every time we believers refer to ourselves as "Christians" we complete a spiritual connection to our spiritual forefathers in Antioch. Antioch is to the Christian what Plymouth Rock is to the American. (6) In verses 27 and 28 we find that God has now packed up His prophets and sent them north to Antioch. 27 "And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. 28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."​

Jerusalem is left spiritually abandoned. Home only of the disciples, who were told to leave it years earlier in Acts 1:8. (7) In Acts 11:29,30 we find that the saints who God is blessing in Antioch, must send monetary aid to the saints who God is not blessing in Jerusalem. 29 "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: 30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."​

Yet these are not the final Biblical references to the capital of God's New Testament church. (8) When God decides to send missionaries out into the world to preach the gospel, He never even glances in the direction of Jerusalem. (And most assuredly not Alexandria, Egypt) He looks instead to His faithful servants at Antioch.​

Acts 13:1-3: "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."​

Thus, it is evident that the first missionary journey mentioned in Scripture originated in Antioch, with "Christians" from Antioch. And when this great work was fulfilled, no one wasted any time sightseeing or sending reports to Jerusalem. They simply returned to Antioch.​

Acts 14:25-28: "And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down unto Attalia: 26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. 27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28 And there they abode long time with the disciples."​

Our last two glimpses of Antioch give evidence that to be in Antioch is to be in the middle of the will of God. (9) In Acts chapter 15 the disciples in Jerusalem feel a need to send a pair of envoys to Antioch with their decrees concerning Gentile believers.​

Acts 15:23-27: "And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth."​

Following the completion of the mission, Judas returns to Jerusalem, and oblivion. Silas elects to stay in Antioch, and it is Silas who we find gaining a prominent place in Scripture as Paul's missionary partner on his second missionary journey. (10) Of course, the second missionary journey did not originate in Jerusalem. It originated in the only place that it possibly could have, Antioch, as Acts 15:40 illustrates.​

What was it about Antioch that was so attractive to God that He chose it as the center of New Testament Christianity? It might be noted that, Antioch although it was a cultural center, had not abandoned itself to pagan religion, pagan education and pagan philosophy as had such prominent sites as Rome, Athens, and Alexandria.​

It might also be weighed that Antioch, unlike the above mentioned cities, or even Jerusalem, was located almost exactly in the middle of the known world, and was built at the crossing of the East-West trade routes. It even boasted a sea port, via the Orontes River. These are all important attributes for the capital of Christianity, which is known for it's mobility.​

It may be that many of the original autographs of Paul's epistles were penned in Antioch.​

In the second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a school of the Scriptures in Antioch. Lucian was noted for his mistrust of pagan philosophy. His school magnified the authority and divinity of Scripture and taught that the Bible was to be taken literally, not figuratively as the philosophers of Alexandria taught.​

So Antioch is not only the point of origin for the correct family of Bible manuscripts, but is also the source for the ideology that accepts the Bible as literally and perfectly God's words. Today many well meaning, but "Alexandrian" educated preachers are uplifting the Antiochian Bible (King James) but with the Alexandrian conviction that it cannot be perfect. In fact, this Egyptian conviction states that there cannot be a perfect Bible on earth, in spite of God's promise in Psalm 12:6,7.​

To accept the proper Book with an improper attitude will only predestine one to make the same mistakes and corruptions that their Egyptian forefathers did.​

Can anyone ignore a Bible admonition and not fall?​

Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, ignored the Biblical admonition to avoid Egypt and not go down to Egypt to multiply horses (Deuteronomy 17:16). In I Kings 3:1 he married Pharaoh's daughter. In I Kings 10:28 he had horses brought up out of Egypt. What was the result? By I Kings 11:3,4 we find that his heart had been turned away from following God. In verses 5-9 he began worshipping other gods. And by verses 9-43 God has pronounced judgment on him. If God doesn't want His people to go down to Egypt for horses, do we dare go there for a Bible or an ideology?​

Solomon could not get away with ignoring the Bible's view of Egypt. Are you wiser than Solomon? ​

Taken from:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm​

 

Yes. Dawkins has made much of the "god of gaps" problem.

 

Of late there I've been an onslaught of material published concerning the issue of which translation is best, or which one is the inerrant word of God. Of the two camps (one camp supporting modern translations, the other supporting the King James Bible), two things are abundantly clear. First, the view in favor of modern translations bases its view solely on the wisdom, intellect, and textual findings of man. Second, the view supporting the King James Bible does so not only by bringing to light factual evidence which underlines the majority of manuscripts, but also establishes its points on a scriptural basis.

This is quite clear in a recent publication by Dr. John MacArthur entitled "The Biblical Position On The KJV Controversy". In this 30 Page booklet, Dr. MacArthur does everything except. present the Biblical position on the King Jams controversy. Not one Scripture is ever given to support his position in favor of modern translations. The only time Scripture is ever used It to try to show some "errors" in the King James Bible Such are the attacks by the higher and lower critics who set In judgment of God's holy word.

Therefore, I felt the need to present the Biblical view of this controversy. No point is presented by man's wisdom, intellect or textual theory. All points are underlined and fortified by God's word. When we state that the Bible is infallible and without error, we mean what we say- not, as the modern Translators believe, that the Bible was infallible but through the process of time has lost its infallibility.
This paper is presented in outline form and gives only a brief survey of the issue at hand. It is dedicated to the living Word, my Saviour Jesus Christ. If but one person reads it and begins to believe God's every word (Matthew 4:4), it will have been a job well done.
'But speaking the truth in love, ...' —Ephesians 4:15

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE BIBLE ISSUE:
I. A Biblical Starting Point.

"So then faith cometh by hearings and hearing by the word of God." —Rom. 10:17
A. The Starting point for this issue must be Scripture! "...let God be true, but every man a liar;" —Rom. 3:4

1. God's word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3). In His infallible word, God promises to keep His words (note: W-0-R-D-S, not messages). Not one word was to be in error.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:6-7
For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." —Matt. 5:18

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." —Matt. 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." —I Peter 1:23

2. Man was not to add to or take from God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

3. Therefore, the keeping of God's word is God's job, not fallible man's.
"...Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:7

4. This was the view of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB).
Note how they concluded their preface to the A.V. 1611:
"...we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, that we may love it to the end." (See enclosed information, "Appendix 2")

If you start with Scripture, your finishing point is confidence in God's word.
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." —I Thess. 2:13

B. The starting point of modern translations.

1. First the student must study Hebrew and Greek.

2. Second he must learn the major points of textual criticism.

3. Then he makes a translation of the Bible, presents it to a translational board for review and revision by scholars.

4. The outcome is a reliable translation, but not one free of error. Note how the preface to the New International Version (NIV) reads:
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals."

5. This view is also seen in the statement of Dr. William Shedd:
"Why did not God Inspire the copyists as well as the original authors? Why did He begin with ABSOLUTE inerrancy and end with RELATIVE inerrancy?"
Psalm 118:8— "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

II. The Question of Final Authority.
A. If you have two authorities and they differ, you need a third authority to tell you which one is correct. (Such as in the courtroom). The same is true of translations. If the KJB says one thing and the NASV (New American Standard Version) says something else, you need a third authority to tell you which one is right (such as a pastor, teacher, scholar, etc.). When you do, then they become your final authority, not the Bible (Psalm 118:8).

B. To say there is no difference between modern translations and the KJB is not correct. The modern translations are based on Roman Catholic manuscripts and differ from the Greek text of the KJB 5,788 times! Translations such as the NASV differ from the KJB 36,000 times in the N.T. alone! (See enclosed information, "A Brief History of Modern Translations:" and "A Brief Comparison of Bible Translations.")

C. Modern translations have no real authority other than the view of some scholars. Scholarship is not a deciding factor in relation to the preservation of God's word. Our Lord does not say kind things concerning scholars. Note what Malachi 2:12 says, "The Lord will cut off the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts."

D. We should take heed In how we judge God's word, for one day God's word will judge us.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." —Heb. 4:12-13

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18
Note the roots of corruption.
I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

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

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."
("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

D. His. "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.
III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")
B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.
C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.
D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).
These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)

A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.
B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.
VII. Tischendorf (1869)

A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.
VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".)

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.
WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."
"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."
"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."
These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4

NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:
I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).
II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)

A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).
B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)
A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.
B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.
C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)
A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.
B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.
V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)
A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.
B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.
VI. Luther (16th. century)
A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).
B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.
VII. The King James Bible (1611)
A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.

B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.
1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, "Power Through Prayer" p. 33).
2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.
3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.

4. Dr. Miles Smiths He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.
5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).

6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, "Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee."

7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ' Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, "I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself."

8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called "Bloody Mary") before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.
NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see "Which Bible?" pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind The KJB"
C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611, (see enclosed "A Brief Summary of Some Objections to the King James Bible", V.)
D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God. (see Appendix 2).
E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.
F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well's Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.
Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit."

1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?
2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?
3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.
4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???
5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God.

A BRIEF COMPARISON OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:
"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.?" —1 Corinthians 5:6
(Leaven In the Bible is false teaching —Matt. 16:12)
I. Comparing the KJB with any modern translation of the Bible will show the following:
Colossians. 1:14 "Through his blood" is omitted.
Acts 17:26 "Blood!' is omitted.
1 John 5:7 The part of the verse proving the Trinity is omitted.
I Tim. 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" is changed to "He who was
made manifest in the flesh," thus weakening the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.
Luke 2:33 "Joseph" is changed to "Father" thus calling Joseph the father of Christ.
John 5:4 The whole verse is omitted.
Acts 8:37 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 9:44,46 These verses are omitted in all modern versions.
Romans 16:24 The whole verse is omitted.
Matthew 18:11 The whole verse is omitted.
Matthew 12:47 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 11:26 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 15:28 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 16:9-20 This passage is either omitted in the modern versions or placed in brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.
John 8:l-11 This passage is either omitted or placed In brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.
Acts 15:34 The whole verse is omitted.
Acts 2417 The whole verse is omitted.
Acts 28:29 The whole verse is omitted.
Romans 811 Half of the verse is omitted.
Romans 1:16 The phrase "of Christ" is omitted.
Matthew 6:13 Half of the verse is omitted in the modern versions.
I Peter 2:2 The phrase "unto salvation" or "in regard to your salvation" is added to the text in modern versions to teach salvation by works.
Matthew 9:13 "To repentance" is omitted.
Mark 2:17 "To repentance" is omitted.
I John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" is omitted
John 1:18 "Begotten Son" is changed to "Begotten God" in the NASV. This is also how it reads in the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These are only a few of the 36,000 changes made. In light of Scripture, one change is one too many (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).
II. In reading the KJB, NIV and NASV, you can see that they do not teach the same thing:
2 Samuel 21:19
KJB: "...Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath..."
NIV: "...Elhanan killed Goliath..."
NASV: "...Elhanan killed Goliath..."
Daniel 3:25
KJB: "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
NIV: "He said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.
NASV: He answered and said, Look! I see four men loosed and walking about In the midst of the fire, without ham, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."
Genesis 6:4
KJB: "There were giants in the earth..."
NIV: "The Nephilim were on the earth..."
NASV: "The Nephilim were on the earth..."
Genesis 7:1
KJB: "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou ... into the ark;"
NIV: "The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark,..."
NASV: "Then the Lord said to Noah, Enter the ark,..."
NOTE: There is a difference between "Come" and "Go". The KJB shows that the Lord was in the ark with Noah and his family.
I Samuel 13:1
KJB: "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,"
NIV: "Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty two years."
NASV: "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel."
NOTE: How old was Saul when he began to reign, 30 or 40? How long did he reign, 42 or 32 years? The RSV and the New Scofield Reference Bible read, "Saul was ______ years old...".
I Corinthians 7:36
KJB: "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,..."
NIV: "If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to,...."
NASV: "But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter,..."
NOTE: is it his virgin daughter or the virgin he is engaged to?
The Bible says:
[SIZE=+1]"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" —Amos 3:3[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]The Modern Translation omits the name of Christ almost 200 times.!!! [/SIZE]
Christ must have preeminence in all things (Colossians. 1.18). This includes translations of the Bible. The Bible God honors is the Bible that honors God!BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE:
The following are some objections people use against the KJB, followed by Biblical answers.

People who use the KJB only, worship a Bible and not the God of the Bible.

A. You can not make such a distinction between the Word of God in flesh (Jesus Christ) and the word of God in print (the King James Bible). If the word of God in print has error, what about the word of God in flesh? No, both are infallible.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." —I Peter l:23

B. God's word is holy, there is no honor in trying to prove the Bible
has error In it. Note the following Scriptures.
"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

"Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments." —Psalm 119:164

"Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." —John 14:23

I. Only the originals are inspired and without error, not any translation.
A. Where is this taught In Scripture?
B. In the following Scripture, Paul calls copies (not originals) inspired Scripture. Therefore, more than just the originals are inspired and without error. Any of the words God gives are inspired.

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction In righteousness." —2 Tim. 3:15-16

II. There is no difference between the KJB and modern translations.
A. The Creek mss. of the modern translations and the Greek mss. of the KJB differ about 10% of the time.
B. Ninety-six percent (96%) of all Creek mss. are of the same type as the KJB.
C. When dealing with translations themselves, there are over 36,000 differences between them and the KJB in the N.T. alone. Dr. Jack Lewis, who was one of the translators of the NIV, even stated this. When he compared the KJB and the ASV of 1909, he wrote...
"...in the end more than 36,191 corrections of various sorts were made in the N.T.. These included changes resulting from alterations in the Greek text itself, changes where the KJB appears to have chosen the poorer of the two readings, changes where the KJB is ambiguous or obscure, changes where the KJB is not consistent with itself in rendering phrases or passages that are alike or parallel, and changes that are required because of other changes made." ("The English

Bible/ From the KJV To NIV"; P. 70.)
While I do not agree with Dr. Lewis's statement, he points out the number of differences between the KJB and modern translations.
IV. The KJB is too hard to understand. The modern translation is better than nothing.

A. The Bible is a spiritual book, and cannot be understood by natural means, such as changing the words. As one preacher said, the Bible needs to be reread, not revised.

B. The Bible must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not translators using Roman Catholic mss.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." —l Corinthians 2:9-10
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." —Proverb 25:2
Fifty years ago people read the KJB and understood it. Our language has not changed that much in such a short period of time.

C. A little error counts a great deal. The Bible says, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" —l Corinthians 5:6. Therefore, the modern translation is not better than nothing at all when we have a Bible that is 100% error free and the Holy Spirit to teach it to us.

V. The KJB we have today is not the same as the one in 1611.

A. This is not true! The KJB we have today is the same as the one in 1611. Not a word of the text was changed. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bible remains unchanged and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators."

B. Calligraphy: This is the change in the way letters were used. For example the word "gave" would have been written as "gaue" in 1611. The reason was the letter "v" was written as "u". This is not changing the text as the NIV does.

C. Orthography: This is the change in spelling. Some words today are spelled differently than they were in 1611. For example, the word "took" was spelled "tooke". Again, this does not change the text as the NASV did 36,000 times.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." —John 8:32
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." —John 17:17
My friends, God said He would keep His words, without error, forever (Psalm 12:6-7; 119:89,140; Matthew 5:17; 24:35). If He did not do this, then the whole Bible is a lie. However, the Lord is always true to His word. Why not ask Christ which Bible honors Him the most and use the Bible with no corruption?
"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, 0 Lord God of hosts." —Jeremiah 15:16

taken from:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Gipp/ab_28.htm

 

for the inadequacies of the KJV, see http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/kjv.htm

 

Post them here. Only after you read everything above in the KJV bible posts. If you read them you will see anything else does not hold up. If you were to read them then you will see your link is a joke.

 

In that link the author agrees the KJV is Superior. Why ? Because it's Gods perfect Word Preserved. He also says people worship a bible. How could he know that ?

QUESTION: Don't King James Bible believer's "worship" the Bible? Didn't God destroy the originals because He didn't want these people to venerate them?

ANSWER: No and no.

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible have become very frustrated in recent years. This is due to the fact that their entire argument against the Bible has been systematically destroyed by historical fact, their own shortfall of scholastic ability and the consistent blessing of the King James Bible by the Holy Spirit.

In a desperate attempt to "sling mud" at Bible believers, they make the two statements found above.

Do King James Bible believers worship the Bible? No. They do not pray to it as they do to Jesus Christ. They do not preach that "the Bible saves" but that Jesus saves. They blissfully mark notes all over their Bibles, though none would dare to do so to Jesus Christ.

There is not even enough evidence to mistakenly believe that King James Bible believers worship the Bible. Therefore, the charge is unfortunately born of malice not sincerity.

Did God destroy the originals to keep King James Bible believers from someday worshiping them? No. Nothing could be farther from fact.

God allowed the originals to pass off the scene because their only value, was their words, which He preserved through copies. Once the originals had served their purpose and were copied, they received no loyalty from God or His people.

If the originals were somehow to "miraculously" appear today, they would be of little interest to Bible believers since they make little of them now.

If anyone would venerate them, it would probably be the crowd that makes so much of them today, the Bible critics.

 

Here are some more sources that challenge the accuracy of the KJV:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080518113121AA95rav ;http://www.grabthebasics.com/bible/...istencies-of-the-bible-king-james-version.asp ;http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm; http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb023.html http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/kjv.htm ;http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htm;http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kjvo.html;http://www.ucg.org/booklet/how-unde...le/are-there-mistakes-king-james-version-bib/; http://www.minuteswithmessiah.com/question/kjv.html ;http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Your sources don't seem to hold up. It may give you comfort to think that that God has communicated His word in a perfect English translation, but the KJV is a mess. The evidence is the KJV, itself.

 

So...

Is the KJV the only translation on any language that can be used?

I would call the modern Protest movement the Chaotic Church. How the the single visible Church of Christ become thousands of personally interpreted sects?

 

No, it's not the only bible that CAN be used. It is up to you. It is however, the perfect bible. God gave it to us. I don't see why anyone would want to use the Catholic or anyother NWO translation. . . they are all proven to be weak and untrusting. Facts are facts and they all support the JKV. Why ? God promised.

How can that happen ? I don't know. I agree, the Chruch should be of Christ as he stated it should be, when he founded it on a ROCK. I'm looking to join a Chruch of Christ. Most doctrine is far off from the bible. Satan is the father of lies and a master deciver, next to the heart and the world.


Anything else to me is....well I'm learning and studying.

One thing is for sure the Vatican is poison and a shame!

I hate no body.

 

LOL you have not read, you have no idea. All those links are laughable, honestly. THey have noting to do with any problems of Gods word...just some misunderstanding of some bilevers about Gods word, these problems can be raised in any new translation as well. So this has nothing to do with the KJV whatsoever.

You will not be able to disprove that the KJV is not the best. IT is. Anyothers serve agenda and the shortcomings of Man. I strongly suggeest you read the last two posts I put forth concerning the KJV before you go on and look more foolish.

 

You're the one who made the assertion, so you carry the burden of proof. I find it hard to believe that you read the posts. You have a closed mind. It's pointless for anyone to debate you.

 

So this is the scenerio.

God's People wrote the Tanakh in Ancient Hebrew, then in Koine Greek. Then these languages were not understood as well as the lingua franca so it was translated into Latin.

Then, as Protestants claim, it was kept out of the vernacular to opress the laity, yet God waited another 1000 years before giving his Church his perfect written Word?

This seems all too silly. Why would God do this? Did God promise to have his children kept in the dark for Centuries or did he command Peter alone to feed, tend, and protect his sheep?

 

Going to bible study...I'll come back to this. Your question can be answered. When I said that God did this language preservation I can not say it is fact dogmatically. Nobody knows God's true will. It preaches good though! I'll be back brother! Praise King Jesus!

"you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink"

OH, I am not a Protestant! I'm a Child of God, as you!

 

Sorry, I was just speaking from my beliefs and not trying to prove something about God and Jesus. (nice catch)

As for God being a creation, I was just pointing to life being a special thing in the universe and God being the foremost example of life was not evolved or for that matter created. Also that angels, also alive, were not evolved and were a direct creation. Also the angels were created before the universe, so a precedent was set for life being a direct creation before the "evolutionary" process was even set in motion.