The Three Raptures / Three Harvests

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
It’s definitely part of the problem. For some reason the NASB is translating the Greek word for us (hēmas) as them, and the word for we shall reign (basileuō) as they will reign.

There is no reason for anyone to translate those words in the way the NASB has in that passage. Greek is an exact language, and the words us and we mean exactly that.

Do you see why Red, myself, and others don’t tend to trust some of the other versions? It’s stuff like this.
I think I’d be wondering about my archaic version more than the new stuff, honestly. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s more right.

The NIV and the ESV all side with the NASB and it also goes better with the verse you dislike about the dead in Christ rise first. The elders aren’t raptured in a pre trib rapture. They have been there with God and later on the raptured saints show up and that when John sees a multitude. He doesn’t see the multitude when he first gets there.

It also fits with...
‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.


Because that doesn’t happen until..
‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭2:1-4‬ ‭
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.​
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
I think I’d be wondering about my archaic version more than the new stuff, honestly. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s more right.

The NIV and the ESV all side with the NASB and it also goes better with the verse you dislike about the dead in Christ rise first. The elders aren’t raptured in a pre trib rapture. They have been there with God and later on the raptured saints show up and that when John sees a multitude. He doesn’t see the multitude when he first gets there.

It also fits with...
‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.


Because that doesn’t happen until..
‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭2:1-4‬ ‭
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.​
FYI in case you missed this one on the lineage of manuscripts...

53E32D5C-71DD-44F2-8447-A62E87E8FB49.gif
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
Hmmm...

Isaiah‬ ‭26:19-21‬ ‭
Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. Come, my people, enter into your rooms And close your doors behind you; Hide for a little while Until indignation runs its course. For behold, the LORD is about to come out from His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; And the earth will reveal her bloodshed And will no longer cover her slain.




Daniel‬ ‭12:1-2‬ ‭
Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.



Matthew‬ ‭24:21-22‬ ‭
For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
‭‭

1 Corinthians 15:51-53
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.




1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,530
@Lisa I don’t see why you’d trust a Bible that’s not translated properly, unless it’s more important that it agree with you, than for it to be correct. The King James has a clear spiritual provenance that the new versions don’t.
 






floss

Star
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,556
It’s almost as if the new versions of the Bible were deliberately translated in a way that would sow confusion, contradiction, and distrust of God’s word.
Like this? Every second the Lord is saving me bits by bits and If I die without being completely saved then I lost my salvation lol... reminded me of the day when downloading Windows 98 SE with my 56K modem, the fear of being disconnected while at 99% was real.


“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:18‬ ‭NASB‬‬

VS

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:18‬ ‭KJVA‬‬
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
@Lisa I don’t see why you’d trust a Bible that’s not translated properly, unless it’s more important that it agree with you, than for it to be correct. The King James has a clear spiritual provenance that the new versions don’t.
I think the NASB is translated properly. I asked God for the best Bible and I believe He led me to it...so it’s not like I picked it and said this is it and agreed with it and bent it around my theology I didn’t. I had no theology to bend, I was a sponge, I read it and noticed scriptures and I think God helped me notice the things I have been pointing out to you all.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
I think the NASB is translated properly. I asked God for the best Bible and I believe He led me to it...so it’s not like I picked it and said this is it and agreed with it and bent it around my theology I didn’t. I had no theology to bend, I was a sponge, I read it and noticed scriptures and I think God helped me notice the things I have been pointing out to you all.
Does it not trouble you that the Alexandrian manuscripts (on which many of the modern translations are based) are the source of many of the excluded or changed verses? Alexandria was indeed a centre of learning, but also of Gnosticism. It would be like trusting the provenance of a script to the VCF ;-)

I posted the link about the “Apocalypse of James” because it was a clear gnostic text that the scribes of Alexandria were producing alongside “Codex A”.

For a more in-depth analysis of gnostic influences on the Alexandrinus, have a look at this...


Just to remind you again, it is only this document that changes “we” to “they” in Revelation 5.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
Does it not trouble you that the Alexandrian manuscripts (on which many of the modern translations are based) are the source of many of the excluded or changed verses? Alexandria was indeed a centre of learning, but also of Gnosticism. It would be like trusting the provenance of a script to the VCF ;-)

I posted the link about the “Apocalypse of James” because it was a clear gnostic text that the scribes of Alexandria were producing alongside “Codex A”.

For a more in-depth analysis of gnostic influences on the Alexandrinus, have a look at this...


Just to remind you again, it is only this document that changes “we” to “they” in Revelation 5.
It doesn’t sound so bad..

Question: "What is the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?"

New American Standard Bible - History

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) has evolved from the American Standard Version(ASV) of 1901. The ASV, in turn, was the American version of the Revised Version (RV) of 1885, also called the English Revised Version (ERV). While preserving the literal accuracy of the ASV, the NASB sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention was given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. In an effort to ensure accuracy, recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament was reviewed, and some passages were updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts. The original NASB earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The New American Standard Bible update (1995) carried on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say—not merely what the translator believes they mean.

New American Standard Bible - Translation Method
The New American Standard Bible is most known for its strict adherence to "formal equivalence" in its translation. The goal of the NASB is to be as literal "word-for-word" as possible. Most Bible scholars hold the NASB to be the most literal of all the modern English Bible translations. In order to make the NASB easier to read while ensuring accuracy, the following methods were used in the 1995 update:

• Archaic "thee’s" and "thou’s," etc., were updated to modern English.

• Words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years were updated to current English.

• Verses with difficult syntax or vocabulary were retranslated into smoother English. Verbs with multiple meanings were retranslated to accurately reflect the context.

• Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament was reviewed, and some passages were updated.

The NASB 1995 update continued the NASB’s tradition of literal translation of the original Greek and Hebrew without compromise. Changes in the text have been kept within the strict parameters set forth by the Lockman Foundation’s Fourfold Aim—that they be true to the original manuscripts, grammatically correct, understandable, and give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him.

New American Standard Bible - Pros and Cons
Probably the greatest strength of the New American Standard Bible is its literalness. More so than any other English Bible translation, the NASB seeks to take what was originally said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and say the same thing in English. The primary downside to this method is that it sometimes results in the English not being as smooth and free-flowing as it could be. Overall, though, the New American Standard Bible is an excellent Bible translation.

New American Standard Bible - Sample Verses
John 1:1,14 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

John 8:58 – “Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Titus 2:13 – “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,”
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
TESTIMONY OF A REPENTANT MODERN VERSIONS USER

My name is John Henry. I'm a sinner who was save by God's wondrous grace in 1977. For a few years after my salvation I preferred the New American Standard Version (NASV), and at first thought that all versions were okay, but I was very, very wrong!!! Upon a closer examination of the versions it became clear to me that only the King James Version (originally named the Holy Bible) is the preserved, inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God in English. I still own several modern versions. Among them the NASV, NIV, RSV, NAB, NKJV. However, I rarely use them and when I do only for comparison with the true Word of God in order to refute their errors.
There is a vast difference between the Holy Bible (also called the Authorized Version) and the modern versions (MV's). For the most part the MV's all agree with each other, but the word of God preserved in English (KJV) stands alone. As one wise preacher has said, "Things that are different are not the same."
You see, the Greek and Hebrew were tampered with by an apostate by the name of Origen in the late 2nd Century AD. There are in fact two lines of bible manuscripts: The pure line protected by New Testament churches, and a corrupted line put forth by apostates. What "scholars" try to pass off as "the oldest and best manuscripts" are actually Origen's corruption of the original. I have in my library both the corrupted Greek and the Majority Text or Textus Receptus (TR). The MV's are based on Origen's corruption. While the KJV is based on the Greek TR (Over 5200 manuscripts in better than 95% agreement) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

The AV New Testament is based on Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus (TR), but not exclusively so. It was translated from an eclectic text of several languages. Erasmus rejected the readings of the corrupt Vatican manuscript and did not include it's readings in his Greek work. He considered from the massive evidence available to him that the Textus Receptus was the correct text. The Vatican manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was in Origin's corrupted line of MSS. In addition to the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek the Authorized Version translators also used two other ancient texts: the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians. The translators also had German, French, Italian, Spanish and Latin Bibles (most of which were greatly influenced by the Waldensians; not the Roman Catholics), plus six earlier English Bibles that King James authorized for comparison and use (They were Tyndale's [1525], Coverdale's [1535], Matthew's [1537], Whitechurch's [1539], Geneva [1560] and the Bishops [1568] Bibles).

Unlike some KJV advocates, I have no problem with referring to Hebrew and Greek or even Syriac and Old Latin (Italic) for that matter. Bibles in those languages were likewise inspired of God. One might glean a good amount of insight from word studies in the ancient languages of those who gave their lives for the Bible they believed in. However, we must be careful with study helps when we see phrases as "the oldest and best manuscripts omitted these words" or "omitted in many manuscripts" or "These verses do not appear in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts" (referring to Vaticanus and another in the corrupted line of manuscripts). There are a good number of "scholars" and "authorities" out there that are trying to cast doubt on the Word of God. And such language studies are not necessary. For English readers, a good KJV Dictionary, plus Bible dictionaries like Smith's, or Davis, and an English dictionary and a good concordance are the best Bible study aids one can have. I recommend Strong's Concordance and Websters 1828 Dictionary.

Satan is very much interested in destroying the Word of God, but he will never succeed. In the mean while the Word of God is the believers only offensive weapon. If you want to use a butter knife NASV or NIV, go right ahead. But as for me, I will use "the Sword of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17; cf. Hebrews 4:12). I must disagree with all who say that "Bibles are all just translations from the original languages." No, the Holy Bible (KJV) is the preserved Word of God, and the MV's are not!

The KJV preserves the inspired words pened by the prophets and apostles translated into English. As all living things derive their life from their parants likewise the KJV derives its inspiration from the originals by way of copies and ancient translations (i.e. Syriac & Italic). Ultimately it all boils down to faith. Is our Almighty God able to preserve His Word or not? I, for one, believe God. A man's name is only as good as his Word. So it is with God! We no longer have the original manuscripts, but God did promise to preserve His Word:

"As for God, his way is perfect: the Word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Psalm 18:30) "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) "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

I hope the articles and links on this web site are a blessing to you!

John Henry


 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
TESTIMONY OF A REPENTANT MODERN VERSIONS USER

My name is John Henry. I'm a sinner who was save by God's wondrous grace in 1977. For a few years after my salvation I preferred the New American Standard Version (NASV), and at first thought that all versions were okay, but I was very, very wrong!!! Upon a closer examination of the versions it became clear to me that only the King James Version (originally named the Holy Bible) is the preserved, inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God in English. I still own several modern versions. Among them the NASV, NIV, RSV, NAB, NKJV. However, I rarely use them and when I do only for comparison with the true Word of God in order to refute their errors.
There is a vast difference between the Holy Bible (also called the Authorized Version) and the modern versions (MV's). For the most part the MV's all agree with each other, but the word of God preserved in English (KJV) stands alone. As one wise preacher has said, "Things that are different are not the same."
You see, the Greek and Hebrew were tampered with by an apostate by the name of Origen in the late 2nd Century AD. There are in fact two lines of bible manuscripts: The pure line protected by New Testament churches, and a corrupted line put forth by apostates. What "scholars" try to pass off as "the oldest and best manuscripts" are actually Origen's corruption of the original. I have in my library both the corrupted Greek and the Majority Text or Textus Receptus (TR). The MV's are based on Origen's corruption. While the KJV is based on the Greek TR (Over 5200 manuscripts in better than 95% agreement) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

The AV New Testament is based on Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus (TR), but not exclusively so. It was translated from an eclectic text of several languages. Erasmus rejected the readings of the corrupt Vatican manuscript and did not include it's readings in his Greek work. He considered from the massive evidence available to him that the Textus Receptus was the correct text. The Vatican manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was in Origin's corrupted line of MSS. In addition to the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek the Authorized Version translators also used two other ancient texts: the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians. The translators also had German, French, Italian, Spanish and Latin Bibles (most of which were greatly influenced by the Waldensians; not the Roman Catholics), plus six earlier English Bibles that King James authorized for comparison and use (They were Tyndale's [1525], Coverdale's [1535], Matthew's [1537], Whitechurch's [1539], Geneva [1560] and the Bishops [1568] Bibles).

Unlike some KJV advocates, I have no problem with referring to Hebrew and Greek or even Syriac and Old Latin (Italic) for that matter. Bibles in those languages were likewise inspired of God. One might glean a good amount of insight from word studies in the ancient languages of those who gave their lives for the Bible they believed in. However, we must be careful with study helps when we see phrases as "the oldest and best manuscripts omitted these words" or "omitted in many manuscripts" or "These verses do not appear in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts" (referring to Vaticanus and another in the corrupted line of manuscripts). There are a good number of "scholars" and "authorities" out there that are trying to cast doubt on the Word of God. And such language studies are not necessary. For English readers, a good KJV Dictionary, plus Bible dictionaries like Smith's, or Davis, and an English dictionary and a good concordance are the best Bible study aids one can have. I recommend Strong's Concordance and Websters 1828 Dictionary.

Satan is very much interested in destroying the Word of God, but he will never succeed. In the mean while the Word of God is the believers only offensive weapon. If you want to use a butter knife NASV or NIV, go right ahead. But as for me, I will use "the Sword of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17; cf. Hebrews 4:12). I must disagree with all who say that "Bibles are all just translations from the original languages." No, the Holy Bible (KJV) is the preserved Word of God, and the MV's are not!

The KJV preserves the inspired words pened by the prophets and apostles translated into English. As all living things derive their life from their parants likewise the KJV derives its inspiration from the originals by way of copies and ancient translations (i.e. Syriac & Italic). Ultimately it all boils down to faith. Is our Almighty God able to preserve His Word or not? I, for one, believe God. A man's name is only as good as his Word. So it is with God! We no longer have the original manuscripts, but God did promise to preserve His Word:

"As for God, his way is perfect: the Word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Psalm 18:30) "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) "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

I hope the articles and links on this web site are a blessing to you!

John Henry


Why would anyone want to go backwards and read a Bible that has an archaic language? How can you really understand the language from a time long past? Even the NASB was updated due to..

“Words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years were updated to current English.”

And that was a 20 year span...I can’t even imagine centuries span.

The KJV only is like a cult..


The Haters: The KJV Only Movement
Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. I don't know if this is due to the movement dying out or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.

What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians.

While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and MKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators.

Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armor and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.

KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labeled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Centuries later, when Jerome's Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labeled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings.

Don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish.

S. Michael Houdmann
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
@Lisa

Language difficulties apart, the KJV has the one benefit of not bowing to the Vaticanus readings (if I remember, you generally dislike the Catholic interpretation of scriptures). I am not a KJV only person, rather, I reject the idea that the 3.5% of “critical texts” are the more truthful. For a KJV in modern English, use a NKJV and you will be fine.

Consider this...the Catholic Church killed many thousands of Christians for having a KJV tucked away in their home, but are fine with their flock owning an NIV. It’s an interesting history but worth researching.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
Why would anyone want to go backwards and read a Bible that has an archaic language? How can you really understand the language from a time long past? Even the NASB was updated due to..

“Words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years were updated to current English.”

And that was a 20 year span...I can’t even imagine centuries span.

The KJV only is like a cult..


The Haters: The KJV Only Movement
Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. I don't know if this is due to the movement dying out or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.

What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians.

While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and MKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators.

Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armor and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.

KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labeled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Centuries later, when Jerome's Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labeled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings.

Don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish.

S. Michael Houdmann
P.s. The notion that People who quote the KJV “hate” modern clear English is more polemic than analysis. Re-read what you posted - it is a characterisation of the “type of people” rather than a clear examination of the manuscript tradition we are talking about here.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
@Lisa

Language difficulties apart, the KJV has the one benefit of not bowing to the Vaticanus readings (if I remember, you generally dislike the Catholic interpretation of scriptures). I am not a KJV only person, rather, I reject the idea that the 3.5% of “critical texts” are the more truthful. For a KJV in modern English, use a NKJV and you will be fine.

Consider this...the Catholic Church killed many thousands of Christians for having a KJV tucked away in their home, but are fine with their flock owning an NIV. It’s an interesting history but worth researching.
You’re gonna downplay the language difficulty? Really?

I dislike catholicism in general...and I’m not sure of what catholic interpretation of scripture you’re talking about but I do know that people will stick with an archaic version of the Bible and act like it’s not a big deal when you can’t possibly understand it like it is.

I don’t need to use the nkjv..my NASB is just fine.

Why would you recommend a translation that needs a translation to understand and why wouldn’t you want people to be able to read God’s word in our modern language? Don’t you think God can come up with a modern language Bible so people can read His word? He wants people to read it, to know Him...why would He make it hard and only leave us with a Bible in an archaic language? God isn’t like that but people are...
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
P.s. The notion that People who quote the KJV “hate” modern clear English is more polemic than analysis. Re-read what you posted - it is a characterisation of the “type of people” rather than a clear examination of the manuscript tradition we are talking about here.
It’s about bias...and an attempt to keep scripture away from people if you ask me, cause if you can’t understand it you aren’t gonna read it.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
@Lisa

Perhaps a look at the history of the reasons for removal of the ending of the Gospel of Mark in many modern versions might shine a little light on why I am suspicious of the some of the source texts...

e.g. Early Evidence of Mark 16 9-20

p.s. I just wanted to add that I do agree with you on you points touching on the language of the KJV. I sometimes find it hard and I studied Shakespeare! For ease of reading, I like the NKJV because it doesn't remove verses and keeps to the most part to the meaning of the TR manuscripts.

On the other hand, there are some things which are lost in modern translations as we use fewer words than they did back then. When in doubt, I try to go back to the original manuscripts (bearing in mind the two lines of manuscript posted earlier) to get the sense of meaning from specific words etc.
 






Last edited:

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
10,966
@Lisa

Perhaps a look at the history of the reasons for removal of the ending of the Gospel of Mark in many modern versions might shine a little light on why I am suspicious of the some of the source texts...

e.g. Early Evidence of Mark 16 9-20

p.s. I just wanted to add that I do agree with you on you points touching on the language of the KJV. I sometimes find it hard and I studied Shakespeare! For ease of reading, I like the NKJV because it doesn't remove verses and keeps to the most part to the meaning of the TR manuscripts.

On the other hand, there are some things which are lost in modern translations as we use fewer words than they did back then. When in doubt, I try to go back to the original manuscripts (bearing in mind the two lines of manuscript posted earlier) to get the sense of meaning from specific words etc.
Perhaps they were removed because they weren’t inspired by God like some books? Enoch for example. Or maybe there wasn’t more to Mark...either way I am confident that God can pull together a modern reading of the Bible so that people can know God from it. After all can a God who...
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Really leave people in the lurch having to read His word in an archaic language? No, God is not like that and I think your resistance says something about how you don’t think God can do it then it does about satan tainting God’s word with modern language.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
Perhaps they were removed because they weren’t inspired by God like some books? Enoch for example. Or maybe there wasn’t more to Mark...either way I am confident that God can pull together a modern reading of the Bible so that people can know God from it. After all can a God who...
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Really leave people in the lurch having to read His word in an archaic language? No, God is not like that and I think your resistance says something about how you don’t think God can do it then it does about satan tainting God’s word with modern language.
Hi Lisa,

I’m all for modern language, so don’t let the KJV Elizabethan style put you off the content - the NKJV has broadly the same reading style as the NASB but doesn’t remove verses etc just because certain manuscripts do. I’m not going to press the point with you, but I would encourage you to at least keep an open mind on the question. God bless.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,530
Before I looked into it, I didn’t think the translations made a difference, and I thought I had good reason. I mean, my own parents gave me an NASB when I was a teenager, and I had that Bible for almost 25 years.

But, as I studied the Bible, the differences in the translations began to bother me, none so much as the following. I was hearing the alarm.


"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm
By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.
However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
...but you are brought down to the grave.
Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the onlyreference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel(Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,810
Before I looked into it, I didn’t think the translations made a difference, and I thought I had good reason. I mean, my own parents gave me an NASB when I was a teenager, and I had that Bible for almost 25 years.

But, as I studied the Bible, the differences in the translations began to bother me, none so much as the following. I was hearing the alarm.


"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm
By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15reads:


However, the New International Version pens:


Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the onlyreference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel(Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.


Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you
My first Bible!

338EEA09-8A38-4C66-BBDB-92E99FAAD82E.jpeg

These days I prefer to listen to the Bible rather than read - that way I can take in a whole letter or section without getting caught up on chapter divisions etc.

This one is my personal favourite in NKJV...

 






Last edited:
Top