tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post4234895237845824269..comments2024-03-22T02:49:13.173+00:00Comments on Last Days Watchman: Hold Onto Your Old Bibles and Preserve Them AT ALL COSTSAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-61793574239642460742013-06-06T02:51:47.330+01:002013-06-06T02:51:47.330+01:00John, you are of course correct that one shouldn&#...John, you are of course correct that one shouldn't follow a bad Bible version. But bad is relative and for some, bad is everything other than the favored one. There are a number of good Bibles that one can read safely and follow to great benefit. In view of the differing source texts, the need to claim any version as the best may be driven more by pride than anything objective. If brothers and sisters followed the Word with the same carefulness used in choosing it, the church and the world would be a better place.<br /><br />In terms of paraphrases, the one I read sometimes is JB Philiip's New Testament paraphrase. When reading it tho, it's more like reading a good Bible study and not to be confused with reading the real thing. blueshawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14268451146666761563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-70680047524458194952013-06-05T21:48:13.347+01:002013-06-05T21:48:13.347+01:00Hi Blueshawk
Mostly what you said sounds good. Ho...Hi Blueshawk<br /><br />Mostly what you said sounds good. However, I would disagree with your opening statement, although I understand the sentiments.<br /><br />If a believer is obeying a bad Bible version - especially if it is a paraphrase like the New age "Message" book (I refuse to call it a Bible)then the danger is that he/she will be led into deception and follow "another Jesus".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-14061657291751702202013-06-05T21:25:52.354+01:002013-06-05T21:25:52.354+01:00Don't remember who said it, but in answer to t...Don't remember who said it, but in answer to the question of which Bible version is the best, said something to the effect that the best version is the one that you will actually follow and obey. And I think that that is spot on. <br /><br />Personally, I've been reading and studying from the ESV, having come from the NASB and before that, the NIV. Moved that way because I wanted to read something literal, and word-for-word, rather than phrase-for-phrase, or a paraphrase, and the ESV was said to be the most literal word-for-word translation out there. It was a heart desire to read as much the word of God with as little of man's interpretation in between. <br /><br />But you know what? The ESV is also an interpretation and there are concerns with it compared with the original Greek. They're ALL translations requiring interpretation, of necessity since the original texts were in another language written 2000 years ago. Even the KJV is a translation, and it's not even the first one into English.<br /><br />I do not understand the more extreme KJV-only folks (or others) who condemn as apostate brothers and sisters who read a Bible translation that is different than theirs. To attack brothers and sisters over differing word translations reminds me of Jesus' comment about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. Unless there is some prophecy in the word itself authorizing specific translations that I've missed, why hold an exclusionary view of any translation as being the only correct one?<br /><br />Hopefully, it's everyone's heart desire to read the most accurate translation possible. But what is more important than having the most accurate book available, is having the Holy Spirit present to make the words of the book be living and active. The Word is powerful, and it's not that the Bible is only read and studied, but received and known. <br /><br />Even though I may prefer translations other than the NIV, how much better would we all be if what is found in the NIV is true about me and about us? If your life does not measure up to the version you complain about, how small does that complaint seem? Blueshawknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-6232219019671200952013-06-05T21:22:10.253+01:002013-06-05T21:22:10.253+01:00Hi Mark
I do not use the ESV because I don't ...Hi Mark<br /><br />I do not use the ESV because I don't know enough about it.<br /><br />Why read yet another translation if you are already comparing with 3 or 4 other translations. Which are a perfectly sufficient quantity.<br /><br />I see little point in adding to my present list of NKJV, KJV, NASB and NIV 1984.<br /><br />I want to get into the essence of God's Word - not get sidetracked by too much comparative work. Surely 3 or 4 is sufficient?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-40759482843201373692013-06-05T09:27:02.125+01:002013-06-05T09:27:02.125+01:00I have Russian Synodal Version, KJV, NIV '84 a...I have Russian Synodal Version, KJV, NIV '84 and NKJV and find them to be a huge blessing for a comparative study. One of the versions you seem to avoid is ESV. I think it is fairly accurate most of the time, but I wonder what your stance on it is.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-63171998956670304662013-05-21T02:32:32.540+01:002013-05-21T02:32:32.540+01:00Oh my goodness, I had no idea.!!.
We must Get Re...Oh my goodness, I had no idea.!!.<br /><br /><br />We must Get Ready and Be Prepared by reading His Word, studying His Word and Praying. It appears the reading of His Word is being compromised by passive pastors, tolerant theology and subtle satan.alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07054051343233418255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-52320115089904443282013-05-12T12:05:38.493+01:002013-05-12T12:05:38.493+01:00Hi, though I'm a baby Chritian but may I give ...Hi, though I'm a baby Chritian but may I give my three cents worth here. I truly believe that we should use the KJV as I chanced upon that mentioned about the publishing company for NIV was of pagan origin if I'm not mistaken and that they use Ghost writers in their companies, that may or may not have an impact on the Bible but because of the company owner's pagan roots, the Bible has to be diligently compared with the KJV to ensure that nothing is missed out. A small difference to us is a great difference to God. What the new versions do is to try and distort , tone down and minus some of the the exact meaning of God's word to cause us to fall.If you research this, you can actually find some guides that help you check the Bible to see if it's reliable. I even had my KJV checked before I used it. Better to be safe than sorry coz we've no time to be sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-32593864253548567422013-05-02T17:33:34.842+01:002013-05-02T17:33:34.842+01:00Anon.
Thanks for clearing things up the holy spiri...Anon.<br />Thanks for clearing things up the holy spirit is a teacher to all of us as we read gods word that is in the older versians of the bible its the newer ones that are corrupt so i dont think any of us would buy one. I dont think there is division amongst us as mature christians, but there is a concern for our generation as apostacy is setting in who may buy oneso i believe we must pray for them so they are not decieved.chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254261479432696577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-87772530866333085472013-05-02T13:18:07.197+01:002013-05-02T13:18:07.197+01:00John, to answer your question as to whether the 16...John, to answer your question as to whether the 1639 KJV "corrected" the errors of the 1611, as I delved into the information, it became a science on its own. It would take a lot of time to compare and look into it and I just didn't have the heart for it or time to devote.<br /><br /> My point was that the original 1611 was not perfect and in fact was soft on Romanism. This could have been because all the translators were Church of England which I think is Anglican. I don't know anything about the translators on later versions.<br /><br />I just felt this was a trail I could not devote the time to follow and would take away from my study of the Word - in other words a distraction. I hope that makes sense. I am not any expert on Bible translations, but I did obtain the 1611 out of curiosity and was shocked to find cross references to the Apocrypha in the main body of the Bible. It was not just a noncanonical insertion between the Old and New Testaments. Also, the other references to Roman holidays and veneration of Mary were troublesome. I can't say if these were expunged in the 1769 as I don't have this particular version.<br /><br />My point is we can't put the 1611 or the 1769 or any other translation on a pedestal - they are works by fallible men. But God is sovereign and the heart of truth will be preserved. As with anything we have to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for discernment. <br /><br />Some make the point that the KJV is public domain while other versions are under copyright. I just learnt that the KJV was also under copyright for quite a long time! There is nothing evil about a copyright. <br /><br />But in the end, God's Word will stand and the truth will come through if we lean on the Holy Spirit to guide us with the exception of counterfeit "bibles" such as The Message and later versions that are majorly corrupted. We do have to exercise discernment. <br /><br /> Lover of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-56091362830541273972013-05-02T12:53:43.110+01:002013-05-02T12:53:43.110+01:00John, I agree that God can work despite man's ...John, I agree that God can work despite man's failures and Satan's attempt to destroy and distort the Word of God. <br /><br />In these last days of apostasy we have seen the corruption increase beyond anything we could have ever imagined with gender sensitive and watered down versions and the ridiculous book masquerading as a Bible, The Message. <br /><br />But there is a remnant of God's people who persevere in presenting the true Gospel and discipling new converts despite all the efforts of the enemy. <br /><br />If people prefer the King James whether it is the 1611 or the 1769, great. If people prefer the New King James, great. Same with the other versions you mentioned. There is well enough truth in all of them to convert and live the Christian life and serve the Lord. <br /><br />Always listen to the Holy Spirit, the Teacher and pray for guidance and protection from error. There are so many who use even the acceptable translation/versions who are false teachers and twist the Word to make it say what they want it to say to support their false doctrine. <br /><br />Be alert and be aware and seek the Lord in all things. He has promised to lead us into all truth as we walk closely with Him. If we keep our focus on that we can't go wrong. Lover of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-2661127236739058932013-05-02T08:54:43.725+01:002013-05-02T08:54:43.725+01:00Hi Guys
Although I am not an expert on the histor...Hi Guys<br /><br />Although I am not an expert on the history behind the KJV I firmly believe that God will NEVER allow the truth of His Word to be corrupted.<br /><br />God is in TOTAL ULTIMATE control. His presence fills the Universe and with our God NOTHING is too difficult.<br /><br />We know that "It is not His Will that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance". Therefore, it makes sense that HE will preserve His Word so that ALL may know the truth.<br /><br />This blog UPHOLDS the Bible as the true inspired Word of God - especially in the original manuscripts.<br /><br />Possibly 99.9% (recurring) all the major translations (Authorised KJV, NKJV, NIV (pre 1978 to 1984), NASB are all pretty much close. If we compare all 4 I am sure the Holy Spirit will show us the accuracy of the message - we need NO OTHER versions.<br /><br />I am concerned that this debate may cause my readers to draw the conclusion that there are NO reliable versions available. I want them to know that there are versions we CAN trust.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-8874874361824085312013-05-02T08:10:22.548+01:002013-05-02T08:10:22.548+01:00Correction
my edition is 1769Correction<br /><br />my edition is <b>1769</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-73701302686970473762013-05-01T23:56:13.156+01:002013-05-01T23:56:13.156+01:00LoT, How does the 1739 edition compare with the o...LoT, How does the 1739 edition compare with the original 1611 version? Were the corruptions cleared out by that time?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-19379007914279675392013-05-01T23:54:13.646+01:002013-05-01T23:54:13.646+01:00Yes Lover of Truth, I do understand what you are s...Yes Lover of Truth, I do understand what you are saying, I put up my comment to try to clear up why the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha. No, I do not have a 1611 KJV in my possession. But I will continue to dig and research, as that is what I do, until I find the truth.<br /><br />My edition was first printed in 1739.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-37959890565540659642013-05-01T21:24:55.309+01:002013-05-01T21:24:55.309+01:00Thanks Guys for this discussion. I let it run a bi...Thanks Guys for this discussion. I let it run a bit because I was learning from you. Even though I am from the UK I know very little behind the background of old bibles such as 1611 versions (or earlier).<br /><br />LoT are you saying that the earlier versions of the 1611 KJV were corrupt whereas reprints AFTER 1611 corrected some of those earlier corruptions?<br /><br />Anyway, as I spell out in my introduction rules (read the top of the comments box) I would like this blog to be different from other blogs, by encouraging pleasant conversation. This discussion (presently) is okay, but I sense that it could overboil into a heated pro or anti KJV debate.<br /><br />Please continue on, but please try to be as respectful as possible to everybody.<br /><br />Thanks Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-91612088408544436042013-05-01T20:21:50.234+01:002013-05-01T20:21:50.234+01:00Chris, we have to remember that the Holy Spirit is...Chris, we have to remember that the Holy Spirit is our teacher and will help us to discern the truth. <br /><br />It is also amazing that with the exception of the totally corrupted versions that the verses that speak to salvation are correct. <br /><br />I have been told that in Spanish-speaking countries the Reina-valera is often the preferred translation. The Kings English does not translate well into other languages. <br /><br />It seems to me that if one sincerely studies the Word with good tools in hand with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that one can't go too far wrong. Not that we should be lax about it, but this should not cause division.<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-88858349302736641752013-05-01T20:10:27.765+01:002013-05-01T20:10:27.765+01:00Last Anon,
What I posted about the 1611 KJV IS ab...Last Anon,<br /><br />What I posted about the 1611 KJV IS absolutely true! I have one in my possession and have confirmed the statements made. <br /><br />You don't need to point out the fallacies of the Apocrapha (sp)- that is the point! Did you miss the fact that the devotional in the 1611 REFERS to the Apocrapha? <br /><br />The 1611 venerates the Virgin Mary and the Roman Catholic observances! <br /><br />With all due respect, did you actually read the content of what I posted? How can you say it is not true? Have you examined the 1611 KJV?<br /><br /><br /><br />Lover of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-36800242007034697942013-05-01T19:16:32.728+01:002013-05-01T19:16:32.728+01:00Hi John and Lover of Truth,
I have heard of that ...Hi John and Lover of Truth,<br /><br />I have heard of that argument against the 1611 AKJV. but it is not entirely true.<br /> <br />The KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as Scripture<br /><br />The critics say that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture.<br /><br />Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:<br /><br />1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.<br /><br />2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.<br /><br />3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.<br /><br />4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.<br /><br />5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!<br /><br />6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.<br /><br />7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-77043935521812216752013-05-01T14:35:31.975+01:002013-05-01T14:35:31.975+01:00It appears that all of our Bibles have marginal
e...It appears that all of our Bibles have marginal <br />errors but the latest versions is more so, so we come to the question which one do we trust? The think I will stick with the new King James version online and check it out with the King James version, I have noted the Romanish comments written in the earlier version but I still believe that it is the closest in relation to the word of god.<br />chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254261479432696577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-54938285244216458662013-04-30T22:11:38.389+01:002013-04-30T22:11:38.389+01:00I see how you could think that John, but I don'...I see how you could think that John, but I don't think it was a typo.<br /><br />now that I've seen the devious changes they've made to the KJV, I won't use any bible other than the KJV. Keep up the good work. <br /><br />If I understood correctly he/she was saying that devious changes had been made to the KJV and that he/she would only use the KJV since that had not been tampered with. I think they meant that they only use the KJV to the exclusion of all others. Maybe our friend will be so kind to clear this up.Lover of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-52462012389388343282013-04-30T21:47:06.328+01:002013-04-30T21:47:06.328+01:00LoT and John, thank you for the informative commen...LoT and John, thank you for the informative comments. Sorry, I guess I don't know enough about the 1611 KJV-wow all those Catholic doctrines! Obviously, I need to do alot more research. I still think the book is a good reccommendation especially the expose about Wescott and Hort and their 1881 New Greek version.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-32672236318261680382013-04-30T20:44:19.493+01:002013-04-30T20:44:19.493+01:00Hi LoT
I think Anonymous made a typo. The sentenc...Hi LoT<br /><br />I think Anonymous made a typo. The sentence says ".... and now that I've seen <b>the devious changes they've made to the KJV</b>, I won't use any bible other than ....".<br /><br />I think it should have said "other than the NKJV", otherwise it would not have made sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04713448621601972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-45174465356116935982013-04-30T20:11:14.893+01:002013-04-30T20:11:14.893+01:00I never cease to be amazed at people who go to ext...I never cease to be amazed at people who go to extremes on this issue and idolize the KJV. By the way, which KJV is "Anonymous" referring to? The KJV has gone through a series of changes. <br /><br />I don’t think the following information is well-known across the board. Would the one who posted please read this and comment? <br /><br />If one goes back to the original 1611 KJV one will find the following:<br /><br />The REAL 1611 KJV had a calendar for each month of the year. The calendar for the month of October contains such things as<br />- a list of designated saints days' (Oct. 18, Luke the Evangelist; Oct. 28, Simon and Jude);<br />- a list of designated fast days (Oct. 27 and 31); <br />- a notation about which sign of the zodiac the sun is in that month (Oct. 12, "Sol in Scorpio");<br />- a schedule of Scripture readings for morning and evening prayer which includes passages from the Apocrypha (Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18)<br />* Significance: saints' days and fast days are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are listed in the 1611 KJV<br />* Significance: many KJV-Only supporters consider astrology "New Age" and "of the devil," yet there it is in the 1611 KJV<br />* Significance: the 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture.<br />The REAL 1611 KJV had verses that are worded differently from today's KJVs<br />- Ruth 3:15 - "...and he went into the city." Today's KJVs read "...and she went into the city." <br />- Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that seek God." <br />- Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty...."<br />* Significance: KJV-Only advocates believe that the KJV is the "inerrant, pure, perfect, preserved Word of God." Which KJV are they referring to... the 1611 KJV or the KJV used today? <br /><br />The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha<br />- Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha<br />- Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, "Ecclus. 7:16," a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha<br />- Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, "Wisd. 2:15,16," a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha<br />- Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, "4 Esd. 1:30," a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra in the Apocrypha<br />- Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, "Tob. 4:7," a cross-reference to a book of Tobit in the Apocrypha<br />- John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, "1 Macc. 4:59," a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha<br />- Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 7:7," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha<br />*Significance: why have a cross-reference to an "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" book?<br /><br />The REAL 1611 KJV had a list of Holy Days to be observed throughout the year, including<br />- Christmas ("The Nativitie of Our Lord") and Easter <br />- The Purification of the Blessed Virgin <br />- The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin <br />- All Saints' Day <br />- other saints' days<br />* Significance: saints' days and days honouring Mary are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV.<br /><br />I hate to see this be a point of division amongst believers. Yes, we should be cautious about the "modern" versions and there are some that are corrupt. But it is not helpful to go to extremes.Lover of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-86587620990233984522013-04-30T08:18:37.313+01:002013-04-30T08:18:37.313+01:00Really enjoy reading your blog. Very informative....Really enjoy reading your blog. Very informative. I've been doing my own study of the Emergent Church. I wanted to tell you about a book that investigated the committee members of the NIV and NKJV the authors behind the NASB, RSV, CEV. Ms. Gail Riplinger did an exhaustive study and wrote this book in the '90's NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS. I highly recommend this book and now that I've seen the devious changes they've made to the KJV, I won't use any bible other than the KJV. Keep up the good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842260823875796403.post-7781652848430327122013-04-26T15:53:16.052+01:002013-04-26T15:53:16.052+01:00
Sifting through the sites I came across this one ...<br />Sifting through the sites I came across this one on how to choose a bible this could be of interest to new Christians, at least whilst the Bible is still available to buy and I thought it might be of some interest <br /><br />http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0003.html<br />God bless.<br />chrischrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254261479432696577noreply@blogger.com