next »

[stallent]

Hi S, it looks to me by your statement "The words of God are pure, and perfect, and true, wherever they might be, including outside the covers of the KVJ Bible"   as though you have gone off into the cloudland of mysticism.  This is where I believe Christianity is headed, so it really comes as no surprise to me.  YOU were the one who was asking about "inspired words" and I was pointing you the the Book.  Now, you tell us that not only are they not in the Book but "wherever they might be".  This is pure mysticism.

Will, remember that you are the one that said that the words of God are located in other places besides the KJV of the Bible. I merely said that the words of God are pure and perfect even if they are located outside of the KJV. If I share the words of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ with an unbeliever, it seems that you are saying that if I don't quote KJV, the words of God are no longer pure and perfect, they are no longer true. This is consistent though, because you also said that any words of God that are outside of the KJV are not inspired. Words of God that are not inspired?? How can this be? How can they be words of God if they were not given by the inspiration of God? By extension, you maintain that the words of God that are outside of the KJV can be untrue, impure, and imperfect. How can this be??? How can the words of God be untrue, impure, and imperfect? "The law of the Lord is perfect," in the KJV, but outside of the KJV the law of the Lord is imperfect? "The testimony of the Lord is sure," unless this testimony happens to be outside the covers of the KJV? "The statutes of the Lord are right," but only in the KJV? "The commandment of the Lord is pure," except when it escapes the confines of the KJV? Who could believe this???

Will, your arguments are consistently contradictory. I will examine some of the other things that you've said and your rather cavalier handling of Scripture in future posts.

[JoyInHim]

Wasn't the NIV translated with additional, earlier transcripts that the KJV translators did not have available?  A pastor told me this is why the NIV was often preferred over KJV.

(We use both - and have not found any conflicts - though the NIV has a couple verses which are left out that the KJV includes.)

Regarding the Lucifer - morning star thing.  Lucifer means angel of light.  He appeared as the most beautiful of God's created angels.  (Would you really be naive enough to believe Lucifer would appear as a scary or unattractive being?  That is hollywood, not reality.)  Of course he is a fallen angel, and not of light any more!

And yes, Jesus Christ is referred to as the bright Morning Star.  Satan often counterfits the Real Thing.

[Journeyman]

The following link has bible version comparisons for those who wish to study:
http://www.avpublications.com/3_catalogue/nabv/nabv_html_tract.htm#anchor1086736

Here is another if you are truly serious:
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

And you can read about what happened when new age bible version scholars lost their voice during debate:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2360/tracts/voice1.html

The following is taken from:
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/bible.htm

Let's look at some more recent cases for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Heb. 13:8 KJB) Gail Riplinger, in her book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, points out where five Bible corrupters lost their voice either during or after their work was complete. They are: Kenneth Taylor - Living Bible, Philip Schaff - New American Standard Version, S.P. Tregelles - New Greek Text, Westcott - Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and J.B. Phillips - The New Testament in Modern English. If that is not enough for you, how about in 1995 during a Bible debate when Dr. Don Wilkins (new version corrupter) lost his voice. He was asked by John Ankerberg (of The John Ankerberg Show) if it were true about the five men in Gail's book losing their voice. Right at that point was when Dr. Wilkins lost his voice for about ten minutes. (BBB Nov. 1995, pg. 14) (Read these to see what the Bible says about losing the ability to speak: Luke 1:20,11:14; Psalm 12:3, 31:18; Prov. 10:31! KJB) Evil spirits can cause lose of voice! (Matthew 9:32-33 KJB)

[darryl]

In the past I read other versions thinking they were all translations. My understanding of what a translation was and is would be taking from one language to another without loosing meaning. Before I knew of a "Bible controversy" I read out of 2 versions of the Bible. After, I read out of many. After reading, talking to others, and thinking about the issue I was basically confused about the whole thing. One day I was fed up with trying to figure it all out. I prayed and acknowledged to God, that I knew people on all sides of this issue were smarter than me. I asked Him to show me what I should do about it. A few days  later I decided to do a study on a certain word in the Bible. The version I picked up to do the study was obviously not a translation. I had forgotten about the prayer I had prayed until it occurred to me what I had learned. God has never showed me any errors in the KJV.

[bloodwashed]

In the past I read other versions thinking they were all translations. My understanding of what a translation was and is would be taking from one language to another without loosing meaning. Before I knew of a "Bible controversy" I read out of 2 versions of the Bible. After, I read out of many. After reading, talking to others, and thinking about the issue I was basically confused about the whole thing. One day I was fed up with trying to figure it all out. I prayed and acknowledged to God, that I knew people on all sides of this issue were smarter than me. I asked Him to show me what I should do about it. A few days  later I decided to do a study on a certain word in the Bible. The version I picked up to do the study was obviously not a translation. I had forgotten about the prayer I had prayed until it occurred to me what I had learned. God has never showed me any errors in the KJV.

darryl, interesting that you mention word studies. When I teach, I always (so far anyway) teach the context. Nothing stands alone. And when you get to certain parts of Romans - the meaning of a single word can change the interpretation of key verses (one comes to mind immediately, but I suppose there are more were I to think about it). Okay, just thought of another and it's one I believe Mike Pearl gives a lengthy treatment to in his Romans book -  5:11 and the word atonement verses reconciliation in other versions.

I have not tried much, but believe you couldn't do a satisfactory word study in versions that take too many liberties with too little thought to whole picture.

[FatBoy]

I realize that this is an "old Topic" however I am not understanding the reasoning behind this discussion.  I have read a few of the other threads on this and posted some responses.  I can see a common thread in most of the "back and forth"s that have taken place in this particular thread.  That commonality is a show of arrogance. 

I do not know for sure much about disputable matters (doubtful disputations, as the KJV calls it, Romans 14:1), but I know how one ought to come to Christ.  There is so much that could be "disputations" in reference to KJVO.  God's words are inerrant period.  Nowhere in Scripture are we told that there will be one and only one translation that will contain every inspired words that God uttered through His authors.  There are many references that we will have God's words preserved, absolutely.  To say that they will be in one compiled book would tend toward idolatry.  This is apparent in the ways that other belief systems hold the acctual "book" as sacred (i.e. the Koran).  I once had someone pick my Bible off the floor saying that I was disrespecting God's Words.  Is "the Book" that which we were called to worship, pray unto, be saved by, honor?  No, it is Christ! Yes, I indict myself in "disrespecting" the book itself, I have since realized that I ought to treat the book better to the extent that it will then last longer and I will not have to replace it, so being a better steward of what God has allowed me to have.

As I read the post on this I saw many Scriptures taken out of context. Such as Isaiah 30:8. The use was apparently to "prove" that there will be one book that is the inspired words of God.  In context it is speaking about the "rebellious children" How it ought to be noted in a book ... "That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD" (KJV).

There were other remarks by one of the main posters that were obvious speculations.  I cannot quote the exact post but it said that God knew that English would become the "universal" language and therefore put His inspired words into the KJB.  This is unsubstantiated speculation.  If one would chose to believe that it would be a religion as defined by Merriam-Webster.  It is based on faith not proof.  The "proof" used is circular reasoning similar to other "religions." 

I must go for now but will continue to read and research this topic.

I encourage discussion, but not engage in vain divisive arguing.

In Christ,
FatBoy

[brandplucked]

God's words are inerrant period.  Nowhere in Scripture are we told that there will be one and only one translation that will contain every inspired words that God uttered through His authors.  There are many references that we will have God's words preserved, absolutely.  To say that they will be in one compiled book would tend toward idolatry. 
In Christ,
FatBoy

Hi FatBoy.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Now, I have to wonder if you have really thought through your present position.  You tell us God's words ARE inerrant (using a present tense verb as though they are something that you have right now and have seen).  You also tell us God's words have been preserved.  If you really believe this, then would you mind telling us exactly where we can get a copy of these preserved and inerrant words you say you believe in so we can compare it to whatever we are reading now?  That would be most helpful. 

Thanks,

Will Kinney

[bloodwashed]

God's words are inerrant period.  Nowhere in Scripture are we told that there will be one and only one translation that will contain every inspired words that God uttered through His authors.  There are many references that we will have God's words preserved, absolutely.  To say that they will be in one compiled book would tend toward idolatry. 
In Christ,
FatBoy

Hi FatBoy.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Now, I have to wonder if you have really thought through your present position.  You tell us God's words ARE inerrant (using a present tense verb as though they are something that you have right now and have seen).  You also tell us God's words have been preserved.  If you really believe this, then would you mind telling us exactly where we can get a copy of these preserved and inerrant words you say you believe in so we can compare it to whatever we are reading now?  That would be most helpful. 

Thanks,

Will Kinney

Brother, can you see how FatBoy is justified in calling certain arguments arrogant?

I'm struggling here, too, Will. You cannot make a logical proof that the KJV is the inspired and preserved word for English. You can pile an awful lot of circumstantial evidence on that argument, but nothing definitive along the lines of a prophecy in scripture that points specifically to the KJV and only the KJV.

Disclaimer - I strongly prefer the KJV and I trust it because I've found it to be theologically consistent and not riddled with modern political correctness. I have no intent of attempting to unconvince someone of their position relating to the KJV. I just have a hard time advocating the position that every jot and tittle of the KJV 1611 is inspired when it cannot be proven, but must ultimately be taken on faith.

The original manuscripts were certainly perfect. It strikes me that this statement is also a matter of faith, but it is one I do subscribe to because it is supported by scripture.

I am forced to this position: Either the KJV is perfect in every jot and tittle or the content and theology therein and (perhaps in other honest attempts at original translation) is preserved intact despite language/translation issues and disputations over source documents. It doesn't matter to me which is true as I am certainly not shaken in my faith in Christ with questions over whether my KJV is absolutely perfectly inspired by the Holy Spirit every bit as much as the original documents written by the authors.

As people with far more knowledge on the subject than I have pointed out, if you compare all source documents (including non-biblical bible quotes from sermon notes for example) we have - there's really no substantial differences. The differences come in the translation (or interpretation). Now, obviously, I find the KJV unequaled in that regard.

[brandplucked]

Brother, can you see how FatBoy is justified in calling certain arguments arrogant?

I'm struggling here, too, Will. You cannot make a logical proof that the KJV is the inspired and preserved word for English. You can pile an awful lot of circumstantial evidence on that argument, but nothing definitive along the lines of a prophecy in scripture that points specifically to the KJV and only the KJV.

Disclaimer - I strongly prefer the KJV and I trust it because I've found it to be theologically consistent and not riddled with modern political correctness. I have no intent of attempting to unconvince someone of their position relating to the KJV. I just have a hard time advocating the position that every jot and tittle of the KJV 1611 is inspired when it cannot be proven, but must ultimately be taken on faith.

The original manuscripts were certainly perfect. It strikes me that this statement is also a matter of faith, but it is one I do subscribe to because it is supported by scripture.

I am forced to this position: Either the KJV is perfect in every jot and tittle or the content and theology therein and (perhaps in other honest attempts at original translation) is preserved intact despite language/translation issues and disputations over source documents. It doesn't matter to me which is true as I am certainly not shaken in my faith in Christ with questions over whether my KJV is absolutely perfectly inspired by the Holy Spirit every bit as much as the original documents written by the authors.

As people with far more knowledge on the subject than I have pointed out, if you compare all source documents (including non-biblical bible quotes from sermon notes for example) we have - there's really no substantial differences. The differences come in the translation (or interpretation). Now, obviously, I find the KJV unequaled in that regard.

Hi bloodwashed.  I agree that the King James Bible only is to a certain extent a position of faith.  There are many tangible evidences of its being the only true Bible on earth.  It always tells the truth.  All modern versions pervert truth to various degrees.  God has sovereignly chosen to use the KJB in history far more than any other Bible.

But one of the main issues is this.  If the King James Bible is NOT the only true Bible then NONE exists and everybody knows this.  Did God promise to preserve His words here on earth in a Book?  I believe the Scriptures teach that He promised to do so.  If He did, then where is this Book?

The ONLY position left for those who do not believe the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, is to embrace the belief that there is no such thing as "the inspired and inerrant word of God", so they should just plain stop repeating this mindless mantra because  in fact they do not believe it.

Saying you believe in something you KNOW does not exist is not a good sign of honesty, spirituality nor a sound mind.

All of grace,
Will Kinney

[AndysDad]

The ONLY position left for those who do not believe the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, is to embrace the belief that there is no such thing as "the inspired and inerrant word of God", so they should just plain stop repeating this mindless mantra because  in fact they do not believe it.

Actually, Will, there is another option: That the 1560 Geneva Bible is the Final Written Authority, the result of a devoted team of devout translators, and all the editions of the King James Version are  modern corruptions authorized by a queer king and carried out by a bunch of pedobaptist Puritans.

I suggest you get a 1560 Geneva Bible.

AndysDad

[brandplucked]

The ONLY position left for those who do not believe the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, is to embrace the belief that there is no such thing as "the inspired and inerrant word of God", so they should just plain stop repeating this mindless mantra because  in fact they do not believe it.

Actually, Will, there is another option: That the 1560 Geneva Bible is the Final Written Authority, the result of a devoted team of devout translators, and all the editions of the King James Version are  modern corruptions authorized by a queer king and carried out by a bunch of pedobaptist Puritans.

I suggest you get a 1560 Geneva Bible.

AndysDad

Hi Andys Dad. You of course are free to take this option but it does not have the stamp of God's approval.  In the sovereignty of God the Geneva bible was put on the shelf long ago.  By the way, do you happen to have a 1560 Geneva bible?  I believe it was only the N.T. that came out in 1560, though I could be wrong.  Then it went through several revisions.  I understand that the 1560 Geneva has Easter in Acts 12:4.  Is this correct?

Here are some facts about the Geneva bible.  If you think it is the true Bible, then the KJB and all others are not.

I'll also make this a separate thread, but here is the link to my own study of the Geneva bible.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Geneva.html


All of grace,
Will Kinney

[bloodwashed]

Hi Andys Dad. You of course are free to take this option but it does not have the stamp of God's approval.  In the sovereignty of God the Geneva bible was put on the shelf long ago.  By the way, do you happen to have a 1560 Geneva bible?  I believe it was only the N.T. that came out in 1560, though I could be wrong.  Then it went through several revisions.  I understand that the 1560 Geneva has Easter in Acts 12:4.  Is this correct?

Here are some facts about the Geneva bible.  If you think it is the true Bible, then the KJB and all others are not.

I'll also make this a separate thread, but here is the link to my own study of the Geneva bible.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Geneva.html


All of grace,
Will Kinney

The KJV has also gone through several revisions, Will. And what we call the 1611 today is essentially a modernized version of the 1611, which was written in even older English, if I recall correctly. If that's true, then the NKJV, in 'spirit' at least, is essentially another modernization of the English. I say in 'spirit' because that's the intent as I understand it. I know there exists arguments that the NKJV alters theology from the KJV. I do not intend to open that particular can of worms.

Forgive me if I'm getting my debate terminology wrong as I was never formally trained in debate, but I think you are setting up a 'false dichotomy' by arguing either you believe the KJV is inspired in ever jot and tittle or you don't believe the bible is inerrant. As implied in my previous post - I think the KJV might be so inspired, but at the very least the doctrine and message of God is sufficiently preserved.

[brandplucked]

The KJV has also gone through several revisions, Will. And what we call the 1611 today is essentially a modernized version of the 1611, which was written in even older English, if I recall correctly. If that's true, then the NKJV, in 'spirit' at least, is essentially another modernization of the English. I say in 'spirit' because that's the intent as I understand it. I know there exists arguments that the NKJV alters theology from the KJV. I do not intend to open that particular can of worms.

Forgive me if I'm getting my debate terminology wrong as I was never formally trained in debate, but I think you are setting up a 'false dichotomy' by arguing either you believe the KJV is inspired in ever jot and tittle or you don't believe the bible is inerrant. As implied in my previous post - I think the KJV might be so inspired, but at the very least the doctrine and message of God is sufficiently preserved.

Hi bloodwashed. You bring up several issues which I will try to address one by one.  By the way, I like your screen name. 

As for the alleged 'revisions' of the KJB there has never been a revision, and the changes had nothing to do with older English to more modern English as you will soon see.

What About Those Printing Errors and "Revisions" of the 1611 King James Holy Bible?

People who do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language IS right now, today, the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God often raise this objection. They ask us Which Revision of the King James Bible is the inspired word of God?

The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised". There have been different editions of the King James Bible, in which the Gothic type was changed to Roman type, the spelling of various English words was updated, some minor punctuation changes were made, and several minor printing errors were corrected, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed at all.

Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. 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 Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.

His article can be seen here - http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

Pastor Reagan rightly says: "We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

Brother Herb Evans, another strong King James Bible believer, briefly answers this typical objection to the King James Bible being the pure words of God. " If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?"

Brother Evans answers: "Probably because He did not extend His supervision to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them are without errors and none are even complete. We can't expect more of the KJB Bible printers than we can of the Hebrew and Greek printers, now can we? Don't you make any distinctions between textual errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also? "– Herb Evans

Dr. Donald Waite also has written a booklet titled The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version. In this booklet Dr. Waite discusses the "thousands of changes", and he clearly shows that the vast majority of the changes have to do with changing the printing type from Gothic print to Roman, and updating the spelling of such words as "Sonne" to "Son", and "sinne" to "sin", "blesse" to "bless", "weepe" to "weep" and "owne" to "own".

In the first printing of the 1611 Holy Bible there were hundreds of very minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or the mispelling of a simple word. None of these printing errors seriously affected the sense of the passage nor introduced any false doctrines. The printing process was laboriously done by hand, one letter at a time, and it was very common in all printed works of that day to contain "typos". These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" Acts 8:32; "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" 1 Peter 2:5 ; "made a" to "made thee a" Isaiah 57:8; "the field" to "thy field" Lev. 33:22; "Bozra" to "Bozrah" Genesis 36:33; "Jabok" to "Jabbok" Lev. 21:24, and "while the feast" to "while their feast" Judges 14:17.

The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED in the English text aside from these minor corrections of printing errors nor in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts that were used in the making of this magnificent Holy Bible.

The total number of printing errors that have been corrected or the spelling updates would amount to no more than a maximum of one-tenth of one percent. Among these changes are the following examples:

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.

BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.

AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.

LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.

The nature of the other so called "revisions" have been of the type of "thy people" to "the children of thy people" in Ezekiel 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); "wayes" to "ways" 2 Kings 22:2; "wee shall" to "for we shall" Romans 14:10. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors, but THE TEXT itself has never changed.

In the first printing of 1611, the words "of God" were accidentally left out of 1 John 5:12. These two words are in the Greek texts and in all previous English Bible versions. 1 John 5:12 reads: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."  This minor printing error was soon discovered and was restored to the original reading in 1629.

The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidentally omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

In every case, the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts remained the same and only minor printing errors occured, all of which were soon caught and corrected to read as they now stand in the King James Bible.


Modern Bible versions such as the NASB, NKJV, NIV are constantly and deliberately changing their own English texts in literally hundreds and even thousands of places. The NASB made some 8000 changes in their own text from the 1977 to the 1995 editions. Likewise the NKJV 1982 edition has changed thousands of words from that of their 1979 edition, and the NIV continues to do the same from one edition to the next. These are not minor printing errors in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV, but deliberate alterations of both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts as well as the English translation.

Throughout the history of Bible publishing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors . It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the “Wicked Bible” because the seventh commandment read, “thou shalt commit adultery.” The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.”

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” and one in Romans 6:13 that read, “"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as “the Unrighteous Bible.”

In 1716, the “Sin On Bible” commanded, “Go, and sin on more” in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the “parable of the vineyard,” which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called “the Vinegar Bible.”

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of “murmurers”, and Mark 7:27 stated, “let the children first be killed” instead of “filled.” This Bible was nicknamed “the Murderers Bible.”

  In 1820, Jesus says, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called “the Ears to Ear" Bible.

In 1823, Genesis 24:61 states "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in “Rebekah’s Camels Bible.”

The cause for all of these defects may be found in “the Printers' Bible” (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of “princes.” have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of legitimate meaning, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."

The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen and is not a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best texts", "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible." They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. The alleged "revisions" and "hundreds of printing errors" is a non-issue of no real significance.

Another member at one of the internet Bible clubs brought up this very common objection. He asked: "Why did God guide the hands and minds of the KJV tranlators to produce a perfect Bible, only to have it corrupted by printers? I'll await your answer."

To which I answered: Hi..., excellent question. Here is what I believe about this. The production of the KJB mirrors exactly what happened in the case of the originals and all good copies of the correct texts.

God inspired the originals. Scribes then copied these originals into other manuscripts but all of the correct line of good copies introduced "printing errors", inversion of word order, slight omissions, and such like. God's word was not lost but needed some degree of purification as a result of human error.

God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.

It seems you would have to admit that the stated purpose of modern scholarship is to accomplish this same end. They believe they need to examine the evidence, purge the texts of errors and false readings, and try to restore the texts to their original state.

Yet their results are exceedingly flawed, and some even admit it is hopeless. Witness the textual differences between the ESV, NASB, Holman Christian Standard, and the NIV. Literally hundreds of words from the texts themselves are different between the ESV, Holman, and the NASB.

The scholars today, all of whom have the same training and access to the same information, all come up with very different conclusions, and the multiple, conflicting bible versions reflect these differences.

I think God has allowed the issue of "printing errors" to act as a stumbling block to blatant hypocrites. It is hypocritical to claim a Bible or text of any kind needs to be free of all scribal or printing errors in order to meet the Standard of being "inerrant and inspired". This man-made Standard then turns on the one who makes it, because it then invalidates his own claim to any Bible or any version as being the infallible word of God. His own favorite bible version(s) also fail to meet the Standard he has set up. By bringing up the issue of "printing errors" the Bible critic cuts his own throat.

If one adopts the view that the correction of printing errors in the history of any Bible version or Hebrew or Greek text disqualifies it from being the word of God, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Guess who wants you to think this way?

Without exception, every person I have encountered who raises this objection about "printing errors and revisions" in the King James Bible's history, himself has no Bible and no text that he considers to be the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God. If he insists on raising this petty and hypocritical objection to the King James Bible as being the perfect word of God, then God will allow him to stumble over this pebble by the roadside. He will reap the bitter fruits of his own unbelief in the promises and ways of God who covenanted to preserve His words in a Book till heaven and earth pass away.

My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same "scholarly process" to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. After all, it is only God who really knows which readings are His and which are not. The King James Bible believer first looks to God and His promises to preserve His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.

The "No Bible is Inspired" group, or the "reliable but flawed versions" promoters, seem to think that they and their colleagues are capable "restoring" what God never lost, and deny that God has already preserved His inerrant words in any Bible on this earth.

This is the fundamental difference in our approach to the doctines of inspiration and preservation. We King James Bible believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do. The Bible of the Month Club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more confused and divergent as time goes by.

The Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, continues to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced a multitude of textual variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. They often reject the Hebrew readings in favor of the alleged pre-Christian Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Vulgate texts. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, and the ESV in this regard.

God alone sees the end from the beginning and He knew very well that the battle for the Bible would intensify in the latter days. God gave us His holy and true words in the Bible that He knew would be used far more effectively than any other in history - the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Those who cavil and complain about the minor printing errors in the history of this great Book of books are stumbling over pebbles and straining at gnats to swallow a camel.

The "Probably Close Enuf" side ends up with no inspired, complete, inerrant, sure words of God, and maximun uncertainty. = "Yea, hath God said...?"

The King James Bible believer is convinced he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of Almighty God. = "Thus saith the LORD".

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one in 1611.

I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

If you care to read it, here is a well done and short article dealing with the so called "revisions" of the King James Bible, and the printing errors issue. http://www.scionofzion.com/revisions.htm

Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

If that's true, then the NKJV, in 'spirit' at least, is essentially another modernization of the English. I say in 'spirit' because that's the intent as I understand it. I know there exists arguments that the NKJV alters theology from the KJV. I do not intend to open that particular can of worms.

Forgive me if I'm getting my debate terminology wrong as I was never formally trained in debate, but I think you are setting up a 'false dichotomy' by arguing either you believe the KJV is inspired in ever jot and tittle or you don't believe the bible is inerrant. As implied in my previous post - I think the KJV might be so inspired, but at the very least the doctrine and message of God is sufficiently preserved.

Hi bloodwashed.  The NKJV has a lot of problems and I definitely do not consider it to be the true Bible.  Here are some of my own studies on this imposter.  Check out some of the links at the end of the article too. You may be surprised at some of these serious differences.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NKJVhack.html

And Yes, it is my contention that if one does not believe the King James Bible is the only true words of God, then he has no inspired and inerrant Bible,but mere ballpark approximations and ever increasing doubt as to what God may or may not have said.

It is a simple, provable fact that every day fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of The Bible.  It's all written in the Book.  There will come a falling away from the faith in the last days and no one is going to stop it.

All of grace,

Will K

[bloodwashed]

(Thanks for the comment on my name. It's been years and I still like it. My wife stole my original favorite, though. Where does 'Brandplucked' come from?)

We're not as far apart in position as it seems, Will.

You quote 'Pastor Reagan' saying: "Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man"

I would substitute 'Word' for 'text' in that quote because I don't think the power of God's Word resides in the printed symbols on paper. It's conveyed through them, sure, but if they are not 100% perfect, it does not invalidate God's Word.

I don't want to get sucked into this too far for a few reasons, first of which is what I said in an earlier post - I do not desire to dissuade anyone from their KJ-only position. It's certainly a preferable position to 'The Message'-only (shudder)  Secondly, I enjoy a good debate and I'd have to play an awful lot of catch-up on my scholarship to be equally armed. Finally, I'm not sure I want to be in the position of arguing AGAINST the KJV.  As you would no doubt point out repeatedly I have no better alternative and as you've already conceded, at some level believing the KJV is as inspired as the original autographs is essentially a faith position and not one that can be definitively proven. What do we have left to debate but pointless details?

Only I'll say this: 1) you should re-think the position of lumping grammatical changes with spelling updates. Removing an 'e' and 'n' from 'son' doesn't change the meaning, but moving a comma,  a semi-colon or a period most certainly can, and 2) though interesting, I am not yet convinced of the argument the 1611 has not been revised. I'm reading now that, supposedly, what we have now is more descended from the 1769 Oxford text than the 1611 text and there are some changes in it that appear to be more arguably 'revisions' than you allow.

As I was reading through your posts and doing a little reading elsewhere on the topic, I was reminded of this passage:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(1Co 13:9-10)

At some level, is it your contention that the bible is 'that which is perfect'? Is that part of the reason it's imperative for you to have a perfect translation in English rather than allowing that God continues to work through imperfection?

[AndysDad]

The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidentally omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

This is how the 1611 KJV reads at Exodus XIII:10--

10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh,
the children of Israel lift vp their eyes,
and behold, the Egyptians marched af-
ter them, and they were sore afraid: and
the children of Israel lift vp their eyes,
and beholde , the Egyptians marched
after them, and they were sore afraid:
and the children of Israel cried out vn-
to the LORD.

I bolded the 21 words that have been 'skipped over' in more recent editions of the KJV. But in this case, that was an improvement because they are not in the Geneva 1560, which reads:

10 And when Pharaóh drewe nie,the chil-
dren of Ifraél lift vp their eies,and be-
holde,the Egyptians marched afther thé,
and they were fore afraied : wherefo-
re the children of Ifraél cryed vnto the
Lord.

You really need to get a Geneva 1560 Bible, so you can see for yourself how perfectly preserved it is.  Any differences between it and the KJV, beyond obvious orthographic updates, are surely the corruptions of pedobaptist Puritans, who at least were unsuccessful in corrupting this verse for very long.

The most egregious printing error in the 1611 KJV is in Psalm  LXIX:32 which says "and your heart shall liue that seeke good" instead of "and your heart shall live that seek God." This went through several printings before it was caught, but as far as I know, no one was ever fined for it. The perfectly preserved 1560 Geneva Bible, however, reads:

& thei that feke
God,shalbe glad,& your heart fhal liue,

AndysDad

[brandplucked]

(Thanks for the comment on my name. It's been years and I still like it. My wife stole my original favorite, though. Where does 'Brandplucked' come from?)

Hi bloodwashed.  Brandplucked comes from Zechariah 3:2 "Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?"

As I was reading through your posts and doing a little reading elsewhere on the topic, I was reminded of this passage:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(1Co 13:9-10)

At some level, is it your contention that the bible is 'that which is perfect'? Is that part of the reason it's imperative for you to have a perfect translation in English rather than allowing that God continues to work through imperfection?

Yes, I would say this is a big part of my believing there has to be a perfect Bible somewhere on this earth.  The Bible itself says "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" (Ps. 19) and Psalm 138:2 in the true bibles says: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast exalted thy word ABOVE all thy name."

That is what God thinks about His word.

Blessings,

Will K

[brandplucked]

You really need to get a Geneva 1560 Bible, so you can see for yourself how perfectly preserved it is.  Any differences between it and the KJV, beyond obvious orthographic updates, are surely the corruptions of pedobaptist Puritans, who at least were unsuccessful in corrupting this verse for very long.

The most egregious printing error in the 1611 KJV is in Psalm  LXIX:32 which says "and your heart shall liue that seeke good" instead of "and your heart shall live that seek God." This went through several printings before it was caught, but as far as I know, no one was ever fined for it. The perfectly preserved 1560 Geneva Bible, however, reads:

& thei that feke
God,shalbe glad,& your heart fhal liue,

AndysDad

Hi Andys Dad,  two things.  Do you have a copy of the 1560 Geneva?  I think it is only the New Testament, but I could be wrong.  If you have one, what does it read in Acts 12:4 Easter or Passover?

#2  The example you gave of Psalm 69:32 was a printing error that was caught and corrected in the year 1617. 

Will K

[AndysDad]

Brandplucked,

1) The copy I have access to reads:
THE BIBLE
AND
HOLY SCRIPTVRES
CONTEYNED IN
THE OLD AND NEWE
Testament.
TRANSLATED ACCOR-
ding to the Ebrue and Greeke,and conferred With
the beft translations in diuerse langages.
WITH MOST PROFITABLE ANNOTA-
tions vpon all the hard places,and other things of great
importance as may appeare in the Epiftle to the Reader.
 . . .

AT GENEVA
PRINTED BY ROULAND HALL
M^.D^.L^.X

2) ActesXII:4
. . . intending after the Paffeouer to bring him forthe to the people.

So, as you can see, "Easter" is a later corruption to the perfectly preserved text.

AndysDad

[brandplucked]

Brandplucked,

1) The copy I have access to reads:
THE BIBLE
AND
HOLY SCRIPTVRES
CONTEYNED IN
THE OLD AND NEWE
Testament.
TRANSLATED ACCOR-
ding to the Ebrue and Greeke,and conferred With
the beft translations in diuerse langages.
WITH MOST PROFITABLE ANNOTA-
tions vpon all the hard places,and other things of great
importance as may appeare in the Epiftle to the Reader.
 . . .

AT GENEVA
PRINTED BY ROULAND HALL
M^.D^.L^.X

2) ActesXII:4
. . . intending after the Paffeouer to bring him forthe to the people.

So, as you can see, "Easter" is a later corruption to the perfectly preserved text.

AndysDad

Hi AndysDad.  Well, I guess you should get yourself the 1557 Geneva edition.  Easter is correct and is found in a lot more Bibles than the Monarch of the Books you are now railing against.

 In Acts 12:4 we are told of Peter being taken prisoner by Herod.  “Then were the days of unleavened bread.  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him;  intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

   The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha.  Some say the word should only be translated as Passover and not Easter.   The KJV is not alone in translating this word as Easter.  The Tyndale 1525, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s, Cranmer, the Great Bible (which preceeded the KJB), Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as  Easter. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4. When the Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "easter" was changed to "passover."  Likewise the modern KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible both read "after Easter" in Acts 12:4.

Will K

[Larry]

But one of the main issues is this.  If the King James Bible is NOT the only true Bible then NONE exists and everybody knows this.  Did God promise to preserve His words here on earth in a Book?  I believe the Scriptures teach that He promised to do so.  If He did, then where is this Book?

The ONLY position left for those who do not believe the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, is to embrace the belief that there is no such thing as "the inspired and inerrant word of God", so they should just plain stop repeating this mindless mantra because  in fact they do not believe it.

Saying you believe in something you KNOW does not exist is not a good sign of honesty, spirituality nor a sound mind.

All of grace,
Will Kinney

I agree.


I put a lot of stock in context and very little stock in extrabiblical books. It's amazing to me how much faith people will put in a lexicon or commentary... enough, it seems, to shake their faith in the KJV.

Just looking at the context, we see that Herod has an intention of holding Peter until after Easter. much to-do is made about the KJV using the word Easter and not Passover but the context reveals that this is Herod's intention...obviously, Herod regarded Easter... Easter being the pagan holiday that the Roman Catholic church later Incorporated into it's traditions.

I know very little about translating anything, but I do know that context is, or should be, a determining factor. Somebody got's a book that says  pascha can only be translated as Passover....that's very intresting, because I got a book that translats it as Easter. I guess I'll believe my book and you can believe yours.

[jchthys]

The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised". There have been different editions of the King James Bible, in which the Gothic type was changed to Roman type, the spelling of various English words was updated, some minor punctuation changes were made, and several minor printing errors were corrected, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed at all.

It was indeed changed VERY SLIGHTLY, but it was indeed changed, and not all the changes are only spelling:
1 Corinthians 12:28 - “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
Joshua 3:11 - “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
2 Kings 11:10 - “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Isaiah 49:13 - “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
Jeremiah 31:14 - “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Jeremiah 51:30 - “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
Ezekiel 6:8 - “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 - “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 24:7 - “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
Ezekiel 48:8 - “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
Daniel 3:15 - “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
Matthew 14:9 - “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
1 Corinthians 15:6 - “And that” vs. “After that”
1 John 5:12 - “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

Even just one different word would eliminate the possibility of KJV being 100% God’s words.

[jchthys]

But one of the main issues is this.  If the King James Bible is NOT the only true Bible then NONE exists and everybody knows this.  Did God promise to preserve His words here on earth in a Book?  I believe the Scriptures teach that He promised to do so.  If He did, then where is this Book?

The ONLY position left for those who do not believe the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, is to embrace the belief that there is no such thing as "the inspired and inerrant word of God", so they should just plain stop repeating this mindless mantra because  in fact they do not believe it.
Will Kinney

God never promised all the inspired words in one book. “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalm 119.89 KJV)

There is an alternate position: there is an inspired word of God, that we have accurate copies in Hebrew and Greek, and God enables translators to make adequate versions.

[jchthys]

I agree that the King James Bible only is to a certain extent a position of faith.  There are many tangible evidences of its being the only true Bible on earth.  It always tells the truth.  All modern versions pervert truth to various degrees.  God has sovereignly chosen to use the KJB in history far more than any other Bible.

A given conservative modern version (NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV) perverts truth no less than KJV. Quoting from http://rickbeckman.org/giving-the-kjv-the-truth-test/:

Does not 1 Timothy 6:10 tell us that, “For the love of money is the root of all evil…”? Is that a true statement? Is money really the cause of all evil? If it is not, then the King James Version’s translation is, well, wrong. Money has nothing to do with a great many of sins which are committed today and which have been recorded in the Scriptures.

Sorry to say, but the love of money is not the root of all evil. Looks like that verse could use an overhaul. Indeed, a literal translation would have us believe, “For the love of money is a root of all evils.” Money is no longer the root but is one of many — a true statement. Nor is money the root of all evil, but of all evils, a change which emphasizes variety rather than totality. The love of money can cause a variety of evils, but it is not the root of all evil.

The King James Version is wrong in this instance, plain and simple…

In addition, the KJV obscures the deity of Christ in Titus 2.13 (“the great God and our Saviour” for the more accurate “our great God and Saviour”) and the personality of the Holy Spirit in Romans (“the Spirit itself” for “the Spirit himself”).

[andiclare]

But one of the main issues is this.  If the King James Bible is NOT the only true Bible then NONE exists and everybody knows this.  Did God promise to preserve His words here on earth in a Book?  I believe the Scriptures teach that He promised to do so.  If He did, then where is this Book?

The ONLY position left for those who do not believe the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, is to embrace the belief that there is no such thing as "the inspired and inerrant word of God", so they should just plain stop repeating this mindless mantra because  in fact they do not believe it.
Will Kinney

God never promised all the inspired words in one book. “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalm 119.89 KJV)

There is an alternate position: there is an inspired word of God, that we have accurate copies in Hebrew and Greek, and God enables translators to make adequate versions.

Exactly. And endlessly repeating that you either believes the KJV is the only true Bible or you believe that there is no true, inspired and inerrent Bible is a false dilemma as I see it. The Bible doesn't say anywhere that God's Word in the scriptures will one day be confined to one single translation of one book. And I believe that God can speak through the scriptures to any seeking heart, through conceivably any translation. He is not limited.

My uneasiness with the KJ Only position is just because it's a tradition of man that relegates the Word of God to simply mean words on a page. Which is not supported by scripture as far as I can see. This is just my opinion.

[AndysDad]

Just looking at the context, we see that Herod has an intention of holding Peter until after Easter. much to-do is made about the KJV using the word Easter and not Passover but the context reveals that this is Herod's intention...obviously, Herod regarded Easter... Easter being the pagan holiday that the Roman Catholic church later Incorporated into it's traditions.

The problem with your theory that Easter was a pagan holiday is that the very 1611 King James Bible that has "Easter" in Actes 12:4 has in the front a calendar titled, "To finde Eafter for euer" under which is written,

"When ye haue found the Sunday letter in the uppermoft line, guide your eye downeward from the fame, till yee come right ouer againft the Prime, and there is fhewed both what Moneth, and what day of the Moneth Eafter falleth that yeere."

A few pages on is a list of approved holidays, including:

"Munday and Tuefday in Eafter Weeke"

Easter was a Christian holiday celebrated both by those who translated the KJV, and those who read it. There is no chance that the KJV  intended to indicate a pagan holiday in Acts 12:4.

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

In any case, Herod himself was Jewish (or half)... and the word in Greek is pascha... which (Luke as the author) has to, as I see it, indicate Passover.

This disagreement is futile, as I see it. Obviously the word of God... the express communication of God to man... is embarrassingly weak if it can be "lost." That God faults gentiles in Romans for not believing Him based on the witness of His creation is a telling testimony to the sureness of the word of God. Obviously not the text of the word of God in this case. On the other hand, that God promises punishments for adding to or taking away from His word (specifically the text of the Revelation of John) also indicates to me that textual tampering is a very real objective of people... presumably not the few that find the straight path, but rather the many that choose the broad road that leads to Hell. In other words, I think it is safe to say that the majority of people interested in the text of the Bible will be those that would see it overturned, not those that would understand it.

That the KJ is (IMO) a largely unassailable text from the standpoint of source texts, integrity and uniformity of translation, the obvious understanding that the translators had of the source texts, and the odd fact that it is the KJV as opposed to any other translation which is at the center of possibly the biggest argument over textual validity to ever compass any translated work speaks worlds to me. Amazingly, I do, personally, think that I have found a few places where the text seems to be mistranslated... or maybe ill-translated is the better term... anyway, I am not a KJVO type, maybe a KJV-if-at-all-possible type.

Anyway... in this discussion, let the text of the Bible speak. I am more interested in whether, how and where the Bible itself discusses the nature of the word of God (textual if possible).

The KJV debate is huge for a reason: there are messed up translations, and people want to justify them. The answer isn't to swear allegiance to the KJV. The answer is to seek God, to discover His communication to humanity in its several contexts (text transcribed from spoken words, creation itself, prophecy being fulfilled), and to seek the fulfilling of His prophecies... which in my opinion validate the correct translations and overthrow the perverted ones.

--gabe

[PeterAV]

The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidentally omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

This is how the 1611 KJV reads at Exodus XIII:10--

10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh,
the children of Israel lift vp their eyes,
and behold, the Egyptians marched af-
ter them, and they were sore afraid: and
the children of Israel lift vp their eyes,
and beholde , the Egyptians marched
after them, and they were sore afraid:
and the children of Israel cried out vn-
to the LORD.

I bolded the 21 words that have been 'skipped over' in more recent editions of the KJV. But in this case, that was an improvement because they are not in the Geneva 1560, which reads:

10 And when Pharaóh drewe nie,the chil-
dren of Ifraél lift vp their eies,and be-
holde,the Egyptians marched afther thé,
and they were fore afraied : wherefo-
re the children of Ifraél cryed vnto the
Lord.

You really need to get a Geneva 1560 Bible, so you can see for yourself how perfectly preserved it is.  Any differences between it and the KJV, beyond obvious orthographic updates, are surely the corruptions of pedobaptist Puritans, who at least were unsuccessful in corrupting this verse for very long.

The most egregious printing error in the 1611 KJV is in Psalm  LXIX:32 which says "and your heart shall liue that seeke good" instead of "and your heart shall live that seek God." This went through several printings before it was caught, but as far as I know, no one was ever fined for it. The perfectly preserved 1560 Geneva Bible, however, reads:

& thei that feke
God,shalbe glad,& your heart fhal liue,

AndysDad

*******
You do mean Exodus XIV:10
[I believe] That printer's error was rectified as early as 1612.
*******
Then you say the most egregious error......
Say what? So God is not good?
[As I see it] All readings are 100% correct now, anyway.
This includes any typos & other eratta.
*******
Plus [as I see it,] your Geneva is not as pure as the AV.
[If I had the time, I would show that] This is easily proven, even though it, as well as other early Reformation texts, are the very word of God. Seeing that they came from the correct stream of MSS, I have no quarrell with these editions.
*******
But if one desires to have 100% truth, then [in my opinion] it bodes well to go straight to the AV.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

Editor's Note: Welcome PeterAV, please take some time to look over the rules...

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 07, 2012, 03:27:31 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6893
• Latest: ROxidRe4

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 27
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 29
• Total: 29