Msg # 1 Dated 12-16-89 20:54.58
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: RICHARD YIM
Re: KJV LIES
EID:b7ff 1390a6c0
Forgive me if I sound somewhat indignant, but I have a certain zeal for
the
truth of God's word, and when I see that truth being obscured by false
human traditions, I get a little irritated. Please realize that what I
say
here is not intended as a personal attack, but just as a defense of God's
truth against those who would obscure it. I love you as a Christian
brother, and thank the Lord for what he accomplishes through you.
First of all, let me state my position clearly: It is nothing less than a
lie to say that the King James is the most accurate version of the Bible
which exists today. It sounds to me as if you haven't taken the time to
examine the NIV yourself, preferring instead to rely on religious bigotry
to form your opinions for you.
God's will is for his people to be the light of the world, revealing
clearly to a darkened world the truth of his Word, and bringing people
into relationship with the True Light, Jesus. Satan would like us to hide
that light under a bushel; then, half of his work in deceiving this world
would be accomplished.
We cannot blame the lack of comprehension people have in reading the KJV
on their lack of reliance upon the Holy Spirit! If the Holy Spirit speaks
through any translation, why not just read from the original Greek? After
all, we don't need to KNOW the language, do we??? <<What a novel
concept.>>
Like it or not, 16th-century English is in many ways a different language
than modern English. Even if you rely on the lie of the KJV's relative
accuracy, certainly you must admit that the Greek (& other) manuscripts
are more accurate than the KJV! Or do you perhaps hold that the Greek
manuscripts were a kind of translation-before-the-fact? Do you believe
that the KJV is inerrant, that every word was delivered from God's hand?
Does that mean that the apostles and others were just translating this
English word of God into Greek so that it would make sense for their
people???? Why, then, didn't the apostles use the "inspired" KJV? After
all, you cannot accuse them of being insensitive to the Holy Spirit, can
you?
Sure, your kids (who, I'm sure, have gone to church all of their lives and
heard the strange vocabulary of the KJV since conception) can understand
this
foreign language. But, if (remembering our call) we are thinking of the
needs of others, especially the unsaved, it will matter a great deal more
to us that many today do not understand the KJV. As an AWANA leader, I am
consistently faced with poverty-stricken kids, totally unfamiliar with
the language of Church-ianity, who must (because of AWANA's Satanic bias
for the KJV) painstakingly memorize scriptures containing words which make
absolutely no sense to them. What a tragedy!
I challenge you, Richard, if you really believe that it is God's will for
us to continue to use exclusively the KJV, go into the inner city. Find
two poor kids who have not been to church before. Take one kid and
explain
the plan of salvation to him (using "Romans Road" or whatever you prefer)
from the KJV. Take the other kid and explain the plan of salvation to him
from the NIV. YOU TELL ME WHICH KID WILL COMPREHEND MORE QUICKLY, MORE
EASILY, AND MORE COMPLETELY GOD'S PLAN FOR HIS LIFE! Listen to God in
this,
Richard, and you will find that Satan has been using you and the other
KJV bigots as his tool.
Until that time, please don't do any more harm to God's kingdom by
intentionally veiling his Word.
Please read Jesus' inspired words (from KJV, of course!):
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men. (Mark 7:7)
(If the KJV-only doctrine is NOT a commandment of men, please tell me
where in the word of God this commandment is found!?!?)
I trust that YOU are really serious of learning what God has to say.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 2 Dated 12-16-89 22:49.02
From: RICHARD YIM
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R) KJV LIES
EID:ca77 1390b620
Dear Tim,
Thanks for taking time to share your view on KJV vs NIV.
If you are open to hear our side of story, please press -FBC18 at the
menu prompt. You will see an article there, written by an advocate of
KJV. I am not all together with him in all points he makes but I think
you will learn something about KJV which you never have known before.
I know Rev. Bob Harris who is the official On-Line Pastor will reply
to you in better English, so I will just refer to that article I carry
on this forum.
Your argument is in a nutshell that NIV is better because it is easier
to understand. I believe more important factor to consider in decidng
which version should we use should be how faithfully and accurately
translation was made, and not how easy it is to understand. Streching
your argument will land one on the Living Bible rather than NIV.
Remember God spoke in parables "lest at any time they should be
converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them." Mark 4:12?
It is God who saves not salesman Christians, Tim. Our job is to be
obedient to Him who called us to be faithful.
Richard Yim.--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 3 Dated 12-20-89 00:27.42
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940175
Dear Tim,
Thank you for your letter regarding the King James Bible. I noticed it
because it appeared in the On-Line Pastor conference, along with
Brother Richard's response to it. Since he invited me to answer it,
I will do so at length. This will be a multi-part answer--an attempt
to flood you with evidence against your position of calling the King
James Bible a "lie" and those who love it and think of it as the word
of God as "bigots."
I am especially pleasantly surprised to see you engage in name-calling,
using such colorful terminology as "religious bigotry," "KJV bigots,"
"satanic bias," and referring to those who state that the King James
Bible is the most accurate translation of the word of God as liars.
Usually, because of the strong stand I take on the King James Bible,
it is I who am accused of name-calling. It is refreshing to see that
the "other side" isn't above doing it, either. Makes them look very
hypocritical when they point their fingers.
So, sit back, relax, and read very carefully the evidence that is now
going to be presented to you. I do not expect to convince you of my
position, but I DO pray that, after weighing the evidence, you'll go
to the Final Authority for the answer.
Because you see, Tim, that's the REAL issue--FINAL AUTHORITY. Did God
REALLY say something? And IF He did, where IS it? Do I rest on the
authority of the word of God--every jot, every tittle--or do I put my
confidence in some mythological "original manuscripts" or the opinions
of self-proclaimed "scholars"?
Sadly, your letter suggests that you have already made up--and closed--
your mind on the issue. But, if you are REALLY seeking the truth,
then the Final Authority will reveal it to you. "If any man will do
his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or
whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17).
Bob Harris
(part 1 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 4 Dated 12-20-89 00:48.17
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940108
Please read the following very carefully and, preferably, with the
King James Bible and other "versions" (e.g., NIV, NASB, RSV, etc.)
side-by-side, so you can see these for yourself.
Keep in mind that Satan HATES the Word of God and has continually
attacked it throughout history, ever since the first time He
questioned it (Genesis 3:1) and then outright DENIED it (Genesis 3:4).
He is "that old serpent" (Revelation 20:2), which is "more subtle than
any beast of the field which the LORD God had made" (Genesis 3:1).
So, if some of these seem to be very SUBTLE differences--well, that's
what Satan SPECIALIZES in!
Also, many people think the King James Bible is a CATHOLIC Bible. No,
it is a PURITAN REFORMATION Bible. There were Catholics and Anglicans
on the 1611 translation committee, to be sure, but their influence was
completely overshadowed by that of the Puritans on the committee.
Oddly enough, it is the MODERN versions which are the "CATHOLIC
Bibles"! I'll illustrate that in the next message.
(to be continued next message...)
Bob Harris
(part 2 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 5 Dated 12-20-89 00:48.47
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940117
(continued from previous message)
There are literally hundreds of Greek manuscripts of the Bible still
in existence. Most of them fall into two groups--those which
originated from Antioch, Syria (the "Byzantine" group) and those which
originated from Alexandria, Egypt (the "Alexandrian" group). Without
known exception, the "modern" versions--which began appearing around
1880, and now number more than 100 in the English language--use the
"Alexandrian" group manuscripts for their primary readings.
Of these "Alexandrian" manuscripts, two--the Codex Sinaiticus and the
Codex Vaticanus (Vaticanus--Vatican, get it?)--are the most famous.
The Codex Sinaiticus was a REJECTED Greek manuscript discovered in an
ancient TRASHCAN by an archeologist on an excavation on the Sinai
Peninsula! I repeat--it was discarded as TRASH! I guess that's because
that's what it IS!
The Codex Vaticanus--the most complete of the two--was supposedly
locked away in a vault in the Vatican for hundreds of years, until it
was OPENED by the Pope in the late 19th Century and released to the
public. That's when the "modern" versions started appearing. They're
from the VATICAN; they're CATHOLIC!
Now, in Psalm 12:6,7, we read: "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." Notice that "words" is plural; we're not talking about
THOUGHTS, or MEANINGS, or SUM TOTALS; we're talking about WORDS! God
promised to preserve the individual WORDS!
Another passage, Jesus speaking in Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away." And there are
other examples.
(to be continued next message...)
Bob Harris
(part 3 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 6 Dated 12-20-89 00:50.37
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940152
(continued from last message)
So, you should see by now that God promised to preserve His Word at
the level of the individual WORDS. This means that the doctrine of the
PRESERVATION of the Word of God is just as Scriptural and valid as the
doctrine of the INSPIRATION of the Word of God.
And if God is true, then that "line of PRESERVATION" must exist
somewhere. Where is it?
There are HUNDREDS of verses in which the "modern" versions differ
with the text of the King James. Of these, there are some 66 instances
where the differences amount to MAJOR CHANGES IN DOCTRINE!
So you take your pick on where you think God has preserved His words.
MATTHEW 1:25
King James reading: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her
firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Modern versions: Take out the word "firstborn," in accordance with the
Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
It is believed Mary NEVER had any children by natural means; but
that's NOT TRUE. After Jesus, she had SEVERAL children by her husband
Joseph (Mark 6:3)--sons AND daughters. She did NOT remain a virgin!
Subtle, isn't it? Yet clearly a word has been removed! And, if the
curse mentioned in Revelation 22:19 refers to the whole Bible, then
something's a little WACKY here!
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
Part 4 of many parts
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 7 Dated 12-20-89 00:52.57
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 1394019c
(continued from last message)
MATTHEW 5:22
King James reading: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with
his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
Modern versions: Take out the phrase "without a cause"...makes the
Lord Jesus a sinner.
Did Jesus ever get angry? You bet! Practically ALL of Matthew 23 is
His furious tirade against the scribes and Pharisees. He "had looked
round about on them with ANGER" (Mark 3:5). And the most FAMOUS
accounts of His anger are when He drove the moneychangers out of the
Temple--not ONCE, but TWICE (Matthew 21:12,13 and John 2:14-16)
But, according to these "modern" Bibles, that put Him in danger of the
judgment! What a lie! Our Lord "knew no sin" (II Corinthians 5:21); he
"did no sin" (I Peter 2:22). He's the ONLY person who EVER lived who
NEVER SINNED!
Once again, someone has tampered with your Bible--right under your
nose.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
Part 5 of many parts
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 8 Dated 12-20-89 00:53.21
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139401aa
(continued from last message)
MARK 1:2,3
King James reading: "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send
my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight."
Modern versions: Remove "the prophets" and replace with "Isaiah the
prophet."
That's WRONG! Mark 1:3 is indeed a quote of Isaiah (40:3)--BUT NOT
MARK 1:2! That's from a different prophet entirely--Malachi 3:1.
The King James is more accurate; "the prophets" means more than one
prophet! So, if you have any other Bible than the King James, you've
got a Bible with a mistake in it! But in the King James, there just
ain't no error!
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 6 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 9 Dated 12-20-89 00:53.56
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139401bc
(continued from last message)
LUKE 2:33
King James reading: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those
things which were spoken of him."
Modern versions: Take out "Joseph and his mother" and replace with
"His father and mother."
Wait a minute! That's a LIE! Joseph wasn't Jesus' father; GOD was!
Joseph had nothing to do with bringing the Lord Jesus into the world;
He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary without
a man in it!
But not according to the "modern" versions. So far we have seen the
accuracy of the Scriptures attacked, as well as the virgin birth of
the Lord Jesus and His sinless perfection, played down. I wonder what
else we'll come up with?
LUKE 23:42
King James reading: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when
thou comest into thy kingdom."
Modern versions: Take out "Lord" and have the malefactor addressing
Him simply as "Jesus."
This may not seem like much to you, but it DOES attack the Lordship of
Jesus Christ. Did you know that NONE of His disciples ever addressed
Him as "Jesus"? He was ALWAYS called "Lord" or "Master" by those who
loved Him. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be
saved" (Romans 10:13); "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the
LORD Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9); "Believe on the
LORD Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).
During Saul of Tarsus' "blinding light" experience, he asked, "Who art
thou, LORD?"
---to be continued--- Bob Harris
part 7 of many parts
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 10 Dated 12-20-89 00:54.29
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139401ce
(continued from last message)
JOHN 1:18
King James reading: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him."
Modern versions: Replace "the only begotten Son" with "the only
begotten God." This denies trinitarian doctrine; it's in accordance
with some cult teachings that Jesus Christ was not co-equal with God
the Father in the Holy Trinity, but rather some "lesser deity" who was
a created being.
In Koine Greek, the word for "beget" is defined "to cause to come into
existence." That's JUST NOT TRUE of the Lord Jesus Christ; He was
NEVER created! He is ETERNAL! He ALWAYS has existed. John 1:2: "The
same was in the beginning with God." The beginning of WHAT? The
beginning of EVERYTHING!!
But His body was created and prepared for Him when He came to earth
(Hebrews 10:5).
As God of very God, the only living God, Jehovah Himself, He is the
"Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). But
as the only begotten Son of God, the Father said, "Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee" (Psalms 2:7; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5).
Oh, yeah? And what day was that, Lord? He was "declared to be the Son
of God with power...BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD!" (Romans 1:4).
Don't let these "modern" versions fool you!
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 8 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 11 Dated 12-20-89 00:54.58
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139401dd
(continued from last message)
JOHN 3:13
King James reading: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Modern versions: Take out "which is in heaven," thus attacking the
omnipresence of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the ONLY person who ever lived who could be in TWO places at
the same time. Why? Because He is God (John 1:1), and God is
EVERYWHERE (Psalms 139:8).
Now, who would want you to believe otherwise? Perhaps "the god of this
world" (II Corinthians 4:4)?
JOHN 7:8
King James reading: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto
this feast; for my time is not yet full come."
Modern versions: Leave out the little word "yet," which makes a liar
out of Jesus, because He did INDEED go up to the feast a while later
(John 7:10).
Again, His sinless perfection has been attacked--with ONE LITTLE WORD
LEFT OUT!
Furthermore, if the Lord cannot be relied upon to tell the truth to
His earthly brothers (Mary and Joseph's kids, remember?), then how do
you know He's telling the truth when He says, "I am the way, the
truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John
14:6)? Answer: You DON'T!
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 9 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 12 Dated 12-20-89 00:55.27
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139401ed
(continued from last message)
To its credit, the NIV does include the word "yet" in its text. But,
to its shame, it leaves doubt about whether it BELONGS there with a
footnote that says: "Some early manuscripts do not have 'yet.'" Wonder
which ones? Only TWO--the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus--the
"trashy" one and the Catholic one, remember?
MATTHEW 8:2; MATTHEW 9:18; MATTHEW 15:25; MARK 5:6
In each of these instances, the King James says somebody came to the
Lord Jesus and "worshipped Him."
But not in the "modern" versions! There, they simply "knelt" or "bowed
down" before Him.
HEY! There's a DIFFERENCE between merely "kneeling" before somebody
and WORSHIPPING somebody! In Asian cultures, it's still common
practice to lower yourself before someone--as a token of RESPECT, not
of WORSHIP!
So, which is it? Was the Lord Jesus worshipped, or was He just
"respected"--given lip service?
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 10 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 13 Dated 12-20-89 00:56.02
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940101
(continued from last message)
I TIMOTHY 3:16
King James reading: "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory."
Modern versions: Replace "God" with "He," thus playing down His deity.
Who was "manifest in the flesh?" The Lord Jesus? Yes, that's who we're
talking about here. But so were YOU! So was I! EVERY HUMAN BEING was
manifest in the flesh at some point--the POINT of CONCEPTION (you
know, where the coastline of California turns northward?--grin--). It
means NOTHING that "He was manifest in the flesh"; it means EVERYTHING
that GOD was manifest in the flesh! That's the point! God became man.
You can't get saved and go to heaven unless you BELIEVE that!
Don't you see? There is no Gospel, there is no Good News, unless GOD
was manifest in the flesh. The Gospel is of "none effect" without the
Word of God. In fact, people have to get born again "by the word of
God" (I Peter 1:23). And someone hates the Word of God so much that
he's not above tampering with it--because he wants it destroyed.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 11 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 14 Dated 12-20-89 00:57.10
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940125
(continued from last message)
I PETER 3:18
King James reading: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the
just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death
in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."
Modern versions: Replace "quickened by the Spirit" with "made alive IN
the spirit," thus denying the bodily resurrection and going with the
cult teaching that Jesus' spirit was resurrected--not His body.
The NIV has "by the Spirit" in its main text but allows "in the
spirit" as an alternate reading in the footnotes.
The passage is talking about Jesus being quickened by the Holy Spirit.
The King James correctly capitalizes the word "Spirit." Someone is
playing down the Holy Spirit! Whoever he is, he's got a dubious
future: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath NEVER
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation" (Mark 3:29).
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 12 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 15 Dated 12-20-89 00:57.38
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940133
(continued from last message)
I JOHN 5:7
A whole VERSE is taken out here!
King James reading: "For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
The "modern" versions don't even HAVE this verse. Naturally! It's one
of the clearest presentations of trinitarian theology in the Bible.
MARK 16:9-20 and JOHN 7:53--8:11
TWO WHOLE PASSAGES CUT OUT!
The New American Standard Version places these two passages in
brackets with the footnote explanation: "Not found in most of the old
manuscripts." And the NIV allows them in the text but with the
subtitle, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and
other ancient witnesses do not have..."
That's a LIE! The ONLY two manuscripts which omit these passages are--
do I have to tell you?--Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 13 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 16 Dated 12-20-89 00:58.07
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940143
(continued from last message)
MATTHEW 17:21
Would you like to know how to cast out a devil?
Well, then, read the King James Bible. This verse is BRACKETED as not
being RELIABLE in the NASV, and it isn't even FOUND in the text of the
NIV. What does it say?
King James reading: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting."
Now, who do you suppose would like to prevent you from casting out a
devil from someone? Jesus said, "If Satan cast out Satan, he is
divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" (Matthew
12:26).
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto ALL GOOD WORKS" (II Timothy 3:16,17).
"Throughly furnished unto all good works"? Is casting a devil out of
some possessed and tormented person a good work? Well, if you're using
any Bible other than the King James--you will NOT be furnished to do
THAT good work!
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 14 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 17 Dated 12-20-89 00:58.40
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13940154
(continued from last message)
ISAIAH 14:12
One final example, this one from the Old Testament. The modern
versions rarely tamper here, because the traditional Hebrew Masoretic
reading of the Old Testament has been accepted VERBATIM by Jewish
rabbis for over 2,000 years. But the modern versions still mess around
in a few places where they ought not to mess around. But when you
realize who's behind all this, you're not surprised!
Here's some evidence which I believe points to the identity of the one
behind all of this tampering with the Word of God. Thanks to the
worldwide distribution of the King James Bible over the past 378
years, it is commonly known that Satan's name as an "angel of light"
in heaven prior to his fall from same was "Lucifer." Reading this
verse in the King James, there is no doubt about the subject matter!
But where is the name "Lucifer" in any of the modern versions? It's
GONE! That old serpent had his name removed. You can no longer clearly
see this as a reference to Satan.
I wonder why?
Who really IS your "Final Authority?"
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 15 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 18 Dated 12-20-89 00:51.05
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: RICHARD YIM
Re: (R) KJV LIES
EID:b7ff 13940660
Richard,
Thanks for taking the time to respond so quickly to my message. I
hope you and the other KJV-only advocates on this BBS will consider
seriously God's will in this matter.
Your "nutshell" evaluation of my argument was entirely incorrect.
As a matter of fact, I summerized my argument for myself when I wrote:
"... let me state my position clearly: It is nothing less than a lie to
say that the King James is the most accurate version of the Bible which
exists today." No, ease of understanding is NOT the core of my argument.
As a matter of fact, I stopped using my Living Bible over 10 years ago,
because I found it to be INTERPRETING the Word, not just paraphrasing
God's words. (I'll stick with the Holy Spirit as my interpreter, thanks!)
After studying the document #18 from your BBS regarding the KJV,
I found nothing to challenge my statement that the KJV-only people are
perpetuating a lie. As a matter of fact, I found 90 percent of that
document to be just hot air.
I am not a Bible "scholar", though I have studied the Bible and
have taken a few Bible courses in college. Contrary to your accusation,
I am not a "salesman". My only motivation (other than zeal for God's
truths
to be communicated clearly) is this:
I was brought up by my dad (Richard Palmquist, who co-founded
KEAR etc...) to test everything--even sermons from trusted pastors. The
measuring stick is God's word. Any message which does not agree with
God's
word is to be rejected, no matter who the source is. The fact remains
that
the KJV-only doctrine is a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of God's word;
those who insist upon perpetuating this doctine are kicking against the
pricks much as Paul was. I'm sure the difficulty of continuously fighting
God's truth accounts for much of the hot air.
Allow me to respond briefly to the presentation in your file #18.
My reaction can be summed up in one word: IDOLATRY. Yes, idolatry. I
believe that the KJV-only proponents are guilty of worshipping the book
rather than the Author. This belief is substantiated by the comments
regarding those who were saved through the KJV. What foolishness! I have
been saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that is the
only salvation which is any salvation at all. And I just could not
believe
my eyes when I read the out-of-context proof-text (that's all it is, after
all) from the Psalms, which supposedly shows that the Bible is superior to
Jesus! Blasphemy! THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN,
WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED (Acts 4:12). Jesus' name is the name above every
name (Philippians 2:9). Honestly, Richard, I am ashamed of you for
allowing
such heresy to be sent forth from your ministry!
The statement by the author of document #18 that no group using
the
KJV has ever taught heresy is just entirely false. Some of the worst
heresies have come from KJV proponents. Hark, hast thou ever hearkened
to the name "Mormon"?
To clarify my position, let me say that I am not against using the
KJV; I am against the doctrine that anyone who doesn't use the KJV is
somehow an apostate. There are obvious advantages to other translations
(not
just the NIV), especially for today's young people. And, most
importantly,
there are obvious pitfalls to using the KJV with today's young people.
You conveniently ignored the challenge in my last message. That
challenge was sincere, and I hope you will respond to me in this.
Please, please, please, Richard, search the scriptures for
yourself
and see if these things are true!
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 19 Dated 12-21-89 13:04.51
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: KJV LIES...
EID:b16c 13956899
Bob,
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks (thanks 15 times) for your replies
regarding the KJV-only doctrine. I have previously clarified some of
your
misconceptions in a message to Richard Yim. You would do well to read
that
if you have not done so already.
.
Before you put me in your camp as a "name-caller", please re-read my
initial
message and reconsider. You refer to my
'...position of calling the King James Bible a "lie" and those who
love
it and think of it as the word of God as "bigots".'
It seems as though you enjoy misrepresenting my position. As you know,
I
did NOT say that the KJV is a "lie"; no, instead I stated that "It is
nothing less than a lie to say that the King James is the most accurate
version of the Bible which exists today." I stand by that statement,
not
by your misrepresentation that I said the KJV itself is a lie.
.
In regards to "bigotry", you should realize that the word "bigot" is a
quite appropriate word when applied to those who hold to the KJV-only
doctrine: "person with strong, intolerant, unreasoning attitudes". (Oh,
and you're going to tell me that calling those who use other
translations
"apostates" and refusing to look at reams of documentation does not
qualify
you for this title?) Being one who loves the King James Bible and
thinks of
it as the Word of God does not make you a bigot; being a person who
refuses
to accept the fact that God speaks more clearly to many people through
other
versions does go a long way towards qualifying you for that description,
however.
.
The "Satanic bias" of refusing to allow versions other than the KJV
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 20 Dated 12-22-89 00:13.13
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139601a6
(continued from last message)
Here are some things you'll find ONLY in a King James Bible and NOT in
any of the "modern versions":
1. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE puts the rich man of Luke 16 into "HELL"
and has Christ going down through "HELL" after His crucifixion
(Acts 2, Luke 16). The word has not been translated in any other
English version.
2. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE has Gentile money for the Gentile
believer in the church age as an English "POUND" (Luke 19:24).
3. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE gives you a "mansion" in glory (John
14:2). No other English translation has the word in it.
4. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE magnifies the deity of Christ in
Acts 4:27,31. All others strip His deity from Him.
5. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE shows that a male lamb will not bleat at
its shearing, although a female lamb will (Acts 8:32). The word
has been altered in the NKJV because whoever meddled with it
thought there was a contradiction. He obviously had never been
a sheep herder.
6. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE reveals that native-speaking Greek
scholars are "SUPERSTITIOUS" (Acts 17:22). This sin has been
carefully glossed over with a more positive term in ALL the other
translations.
7. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE has Paul standing on "Mars' Hill" when
he addresses these mutton-headed Athenians who only want a "NEW"
translation (Acts 17:21,22).
(to be continued...)
Bob Harris
(part 16 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 21 Dated 12-22-89 00:13.46
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139601b7
(continued from last message)
8. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE reveals that Christian educators and
Greek scholars pervert the Truth as they "HOLD IT IN UNRIGHTEOUS-
NESS" (Rom. 1:18). All other versions cover the sin.
9. ONLY A KING JAMES BIBLE reveals that educators (Rom. 1:22)
"CHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD INTO A LIE."
10. ONLY A KING JAMES BIBLE admits that Jews have a RIGHT to ask
for a sign (1 Cor. 1:22) since their national life began with
SIGNS (Exod. 2-4).
11. ONLY A KING JAMES BIBLE warns you that men will CORRUPT the word
of God (2 Cor. 2:17).
12. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE points out clearly that a man who is
counting on the law to justify him in this age is NOT saved, nor
ever was (Gal. 5:4). All of the other versions do something with
the verse to intimate that he may have once known Christ.
13. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE disconnects the "breadth, length, depth
and height" with the "LOVE OF CHRIST" (Eph. 3:18,19), so you will
understand that the reference was to geographical location in the
universe, not the "love of Christ." ADVANCED REVELATION FROM A
KING JAMES BIBLE. All of the Hebrew and Greek scholars missed it.
All in the nineteenth and twentieth century (the "scientific
age"!)...without one exception.
14. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE preserves the deity of Christ in His
incarnation in Philippians 2:7. All others follow the modernis-
tic readings of the National Council of Churches of Christ.
15. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE retains the good old "four-letter
words" in Philippians 3:8 and 3:21, since these verses deal with
HUMAN NATURE and HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 17 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 22 Dated 12-22-89 00:14.34
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139601d1
(continued from last message)
16. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE points out that God wants your
AFFECTIONS (not your "mind") set on heavenly things (Col. 3:2).
The heady, high minded, "godly" scholars decided that their
minds were more important than their hearts; that is, in EVERY
BIBLE EXCEPT AN AV.
17. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE warns you about the "appearance of
evil" (1 Thess. 5:22). The term occurs nowhere in any English
Bible on earth translated by ANY scholar.
18. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE dares tell you what the main sin of
modern Christian scholarship is, after it rejected the Book. It
is "SUPPOSING THAT GAIN IS GODLINESS." But this reading cannot
be found in ANY BIBLE on this earth but an AUTHORIZED VERSION
(I Tim. 6:5).
19. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE dares state that "THE LOVE OF MONEY IS
THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL" (1 Tim. 6:10). Again, the Book rang the
Alexandrian phone ($$), so they had to get another "unlisted
number." The old Roaring Lion of the Protestant Reformation
was still "alive and well" and just as powerful as the day he
broke the back of the Roman Catholic Church in England (1611-
1640).
20. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE warns you about the dangers of
"science," the great twentieth century "god" of the heathen.
The term "science" is so inextricably entwined with higher
education of any kind (Christian or otherwise) it had to be
protected. An Alexandrian will do anything or say anything
to protect the authority of his sacred cows. The word
"SCIENCE" disappeared from Biblical language (1 Tim. 6:20)
after 1611.
21. ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE commands you to STUDY the "word of
truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). And if that were not enough it is the
ONLY Bible on earth that tells you HOW to study the word of
truth. You will find it in the AUTHORIZED VERSION now,
or you will MISS IT.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris (part 18 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 23 Dated 12-22-89 00:15.59
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139601fd
(continued from last message)
Hi, Tim,
I will now address directly the statements you made in your first
letter...
>Forgive me if I sound somewhat indignant, but I have a certain zeal
>for the
>truth of God's word, and when I see that truth being obscured by
>false human traditions, I get a little irritated.
Zeal for what one believes in is quite admirable, but yours is
misguided, as I'm in the process of demonstrating.
>Please realize that what I say
>here is not intended as a personal attack, but just as a defense of
>God's
>truth against those who would obscure it. I love you as a Christian
>brother, and thank the Lord for what he accomplishes through you.
I'm glad you made that clear!
>First of all, let me state my position clearly: It is nothing less
>than a
>lie to say that the King James is the most accurate version of the
>Bible which exists today.
On the contrary, it is nothing less than FOOLISH and IGNORANT to say
otherwise! The overwhelming textual evidence is that the King James
Bible IS the most accurate translation in English. This message is in
the midst of several I'm sending demonstrating just a small fraction
of that evidence.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 19 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 24 Dated 12-22-89 00:16.41
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13960114
(continued from last message)
>It sounds to me as if you haven't taken the time to
>examine the NIV yourself, preferring instead to rely on religious
>bigotry to form your opinions for you.
Can't speak for Brother Richard, but I HAVE "examined the NIV myself,"
reading it from beginning to end, studying its footnotes, and
researching the manuscripts from which it was translated and the
background of how it came to be translated. I compared it carefully
to the King James Bible, weighed all the evidence, and finally PRAYED
TO GOD for an answer! I did not rely on "religious bigotry," as you
say--I relied on the FINAL AUTHORITY!
>God's will is for his people to be the light of the world, revealing
>clearly to a darkened world the truth of his Word, and bringing
>people into relationship with the True Light, Jesus. Satan would
>like us to hide that light under a bushel; then, half of his work in
>deceiving this world would be accomplished.
I agree with the jist of your statement above. Your mathematics may
be a little conservative, however.
>We cannot blame the lack of comprehension people have in reading the
>KJV on their lack of reliance upon the Holy Spirit!
Why not?
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 20 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 25 Dated 12-22-89 00:17.46
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13960137
(continued from last message)
>If the Holy Spirit speaks through any translation, why not just read
>from the original Greek?
Now that's a little silly, don't you think? Are you saying that the
"original Greek" is easier to understand than the King James Bible?
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit does NOT speak through "the original
Greek," since "the original Greek" no longer exists. There are over
5,000 manuscripts--many of them fragmented--of the Greek New Testament
still in existence. ALL of them DISAGREE with one another in important
readings. How can there be anything "reliable" about THAT?
>After all, we don't need to KNOW the language, do we??? <<What a
novel concept.>>
I don't understand your sarcasm above, nor what you are trying to say.
>Like it or not, 16th-century English is in many ways a different
>language than modern English.
Only in that it is far SUPERIOR to present-day English or American. So
revered is its elegance and beauty that, even in present-day,
latter-20th-century America, an "actor" isn't really considered an
"actor" unless he has done Shakespeare. Shakespeare's writings are
alive and well in the latter-20th Century--and they PRE-DATE the
King James Bible!
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 21 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 26 Dated 12-22-89 00:19.10
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13960165
(continued from last message)
>Even if you rely on the lie of the KJV's relative
>accuracy, certainly you must admit that the Greek (& other)
>manuscripts are more accurate than the KJV!
I don't have to admit that at all. How can they be "more accurate,"
when they disagree WITH EACH OTHER in over 10,000 particulars?
Furthermore, your contention seems to be that the modern versions are
clearer and easier to understand than the King James Bible. Now you
start talking about "the Greek (& other) manuscripts," as though you
think THEY are easier-to-understand. Your argument is absurd, hardly
worth dignifying with an answer.
>Or do you perhaps hold that the Greek
>manuscripts were a kind of translation-before-the-fact?
Once again, I don't understand your question above.
>Do you believe that the KJV is inerrant, that every word was
>delivered from God's hand?
This one I understand, and the answer is YES.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 22 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 27 Dated 12-22-89 00:20.58
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 1396019d
(continued from last message)
>Does that mean that the apostles and others were just translating
>this English word of God into Greek so that it would make sense for
>their people????
No, of course not. God's revelation was progressive. God gave Abraham
that portion of His word which He wanted him to have; God gave Moses
that portion of His word which He wanted him to have. Abraham did not
have access to the Book of Deuteronomy. Moses did not have access to
the Psalms. David did not have access to the Book of Isaiah, and
Isaiah did not have access to the Book of Jeremiah. NOBODY IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT had access to Matthew through Revelation.
It was progressive.
>Why, then, didn't the apostles use the "inspired" KJV? After
>all, you cannot accuse them of being insensitive to the Holy Spirit,
>can you?
Because the King James Bible was not "given by inspiration"
(II Timothy 3:16) until 1611. The apostles did not have access to the
"seventh purification" (Psalm 12:6,7). You and I are blessed
in that we do.
>Sure, your kids (who, I'm sure, have gone to church all of their
>lives and heard the strange vocabulary of the KJV since conception)
>can understand this foreign language. But, if (remembering our call)
>we are thinking of the needs of others, especially the unsaved,
>it will matter a great deal more to us that many today do not
>understand the KJV.
That's not God's fault, and that's not my fault. The King James Bible
has been in worldwide circulation now for more than 375 years--PLENTY
of time for God's people to teach it to the world. If anything, it's
YOUR fault for refusing to teach the word of God to them. When the
Ethiopian eunuch didn't understand what he was reading, God sent him
an evangelist to explain the plan of salvation to him--and he got
saved. And all he had was a book he didn't understand.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris (part 23 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 28 Dated 12-22-89 00:23.07
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 139601e3
(continued from last message)
Interesting that you should mention Brother Richard's children, who
happen to be Korean. You might ask Brother Richard how he taught
English to them--my guess is the King James Bible played a major part
in this!
>As an AWANA leader, I am consistently faced with poverty-stricken
>kids, totally unfamiliar with the language of Church-ianity, who
>must (because of AWANA's Satanic bias for the KJV) painstakingly
>memorize scriptures containing words which make absolutely no sense
>to them. What a tragedy!
D.L. Moody was just such a kid growing up on the streets of Boston in
1854, when a Sunday school teacher named Edward Kimball took his King
James Bible and won him to Christ. What a tragedy indeed that the
modern versions weren't around yet. Poor D.L. might have really
ACCOMPLISHED something with his life if he hadn't been restricted
by a Book "containing words which made absolutely no sense to him."
What a pity indeed!
And how tragic for all the millions of people around the world between
1611 and 1880, who learned of God's wonderful plan of salvation from a
Book that was preached to them that "made absolutely no sense to
them"!
I say this with charity, but the REAL tragedy is that you're too lazy
to TEACH it to them, or perhaps even get to know the Book yourself.
I'm surprised that you claim to be an Awana leader, since you
apparently have very little loyalty to the organization, accusing it
of having a "Satanic bias for the KJV."
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 24 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 29 Dated 12-22-89 00:24.44
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13960116
(continued from last message)
>I challenge you, Richard, if you really believe that it is God's will
>for us to continue to use exclusively the KJV, go into the inner
>city. Find two poor kids who have not been to church before. Take
>one kid and explain the plan of salvation to him (using "Romans
>Road" or whatever you prefer) from the KJV. Take the other kid and
>explain the plan of salvation to him from the NIV. YOU TELL ME WHICH
>KID WILL COMPREHEND MORE QUICKLY, MORE EASILY, AND MORE COMPLETELY
>GOD'S PLAN FOR HIS LIFE! Listen to God in this,
>Richard, and you will find that Satan has been using you and the
>other KJV bigots as his tool.
The challenge has already been met and overcome. There is a church
full of streetwise, inner-city kids and young people in South Central
Los Angeles, who were won to Christ by me and others, using nothing
other than a King James Bible. And, though a person COULD get saved
by being exposed to the NIV, if he continues to "grow in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," he'll eventually turn
to the King James Bible--because that's the ONLY one in the English
language with God's breath on it. That's the ONLY Bible God wrote.
You are invited to come see this miracle for yourself.
Evening Star Missionary Baptist Church
211 W. 59th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90003
>Until that time, please don't do any more harm to God's kingdom by
>intentionally veiling his Word.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Brother Richard "intentionally
veiled" anything. You are a false accuser.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 25 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 30 Dated 12-22-89 00:25.13
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: (R)KJV LIES
EID:b16c 13960126
(continued from last message)
>Please read Jesus' inspired words (from KJV, of course!):
> Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
> the commandments of men. (Mark 7:7)
>(If the KJV-only doctrine is NOT a commandment of men, please tell me
>where in the word of God this commandment is found!?!?)
Deut. 8:3 and Matt. 4:4, for starters. Obeying these verses is NOT
possible if we no longer have EVERY word that proceeds out of the
mouth of God--which is what you and all the other modern-Bible ad-
herents would have us believe. II Tim. 2:15 is no longer possible
either, if there's nothing authoritative any more to study. Then
check II Timothy 3:14,15--there's nothing to "continue in" if we
don't have the "holy Scriptures"--if only the so-called "originals"
are the holy Scriptures.
>I trust that YOU are really serious of learning what God has to say.
Back at ya, pal.
(to be continued)
Bob Harris
(part 26 of many parts)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 31 Dated 12-21-89 13:13.12
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569a0
(message 1 of 3)
Bob,
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks (thanks 15 times) for your replies
regarding the KJV-only doctrine. I have previously clarified some of your
misconceptions in a message to Richard Yim. You would do well to read
that
if you have not done so already.
Before you put me in your camp as a "name-caller", please re-read my
initial
message and reconsider. You refer to my
'...position of calling the King James Bible a "lie" and those who love
it and think of it as the word of God as "bigots".'
It seems as though you enjoy misrepresenting my position. As you know, I
did NOT say that the KJV is a "lie"; no, instead I stated that "It is
nothing less than a lie to say that the King James is the most accurate
version of the Bible which exists today." I stand by that statement, not
by your misrepresentation that I said the KJV itself is a lie.
In regards to "bigotry", you should realize that the word "bigot" is a
quite appropriate word when applied to those who hold to the KJV-only
doctrine: "person with strong, intolerant, unreasoning attitudes". (Oh,
and you're going to tell me that calling those who use other translations
"apostates" and refusing to look at reams of documentation does not
qualify
you for this title?) Being one who loves the King James Bible and thinks
of
it as the Word of God does not make you a bigot; being a person who
refuses
to accept the fact that God speaks more clearly to many people through
other
versions does go a long way towards qualifying you for that description,
however.
The "Satanic bias" of refusing to allow versions other than the KJV
remains;
as I stated, Satan loves to find ways to obscure the truth of God's Word.
I did NOT say that those who have this bias are Satanic, however; only
their
bias is from the prince of darkness.
Your statement that I called anyone a liar is a complete fabrication.
Read
my message again. I identified several lies, but intentionally did not
identify anyone in particular as a "liar". What is it that makes you (as
a Pastor??) follow instead the Father of Lies by misrepresenting my
position?? Please respond to me in this, for you are only harming your
own cause! And why is it "refreshing" to you, a Pastor, that you perceive
someone else to be joining you in "name-calling", a sin? Love "rejoiceth
not in iniquity..."!
You can pretend as if I am insincere if you desire, but you are wrong. I
pray that every day I have an open mind to whatever God wants to teach me,
even if that means that I throw away everything I think I have "learned"
so
far. God is my Final Authority. I love God's Word, and in spite of the
obvious problems with the KJV, I work hard in trying to teach young people
from those pages, because I don't have any other choice under AWANA. If I
didn't have an open mind to the KJV--and to God's Word in general--I
wouldn't be "wasting my time" with these kids. Go ahead, stand as a judge
over my motives. God knows.
(Continued in message 2 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 32 Dated 12-21-89 13:14.24
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569c0
(message 2 of 3)
Your explanation of the origins of the different manuscripts reminds me of
what my dad says he was jokingly taught at Dallas Seminary: "Weak point?
Pound hard!" Who cares if a manuscript was found in a trashcan, or if
the Vatican had locked it away for hundreds of years? What matters is:
which manuscripts are closest to the original manuscripts (a subject you
conveniently avoid)?
After all, if "every word" is inspired (and I believe this!), then we must
be speaking of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words with which the Bible
was
written. Every "jot and tittle" refers to the original strokes of those
human vessels who were used by God to write down His inspired words. As
you
know, if you look at every jot and tittle which was sent from God, you
will
not be looking at King James English, Pastor Harris. If "every word" of
the KJV is directly sent from God, then we have a problem! For example,
look at the phrase "tossed to and fro" in Ephesians 4:14. This phrase in
the KJV actually represents one Greek word, "kludonizomai". If God's
promises to preserve his words refer to each singular word in the KJV,
God's promise failed (but we know his promises never fail, hallelujah)!
There's no way to get around it, Pastor Harris, the Bible just was not
written in old English.
After dealing with the above subjects in your replies, you began to
list a number of ways in which Satan supposedly has subverted the true
message of the inspired KJV by removing or changing words in the modern
versions. Time and space constraints do not allow me to comment at length
on every example you gave, though I wish we had an opportunity to
personally
interact with each other on these issues. (It's already almost 1 am and
I must get my rest in case my wife goes into labor tonight!!)
As you would know if you had examined each of the verses you cite in the
NIV, most of the supposed modern-version problems are not true of the NIV.
I must admit that you presented a few verses, however, which truly seem to
merit some close examination. I suspect that there is a valid explanation
for all of these differences, however (probably, as many margin notes
indicate, that the original manuscripts did NOT actually contain the words
in question). More to the point, however, is the fact that not one of the
doctrines you discuss as being somehow subverted by the modern
translations
is actually in any danger of being understood any less in the modern
translations than in the KJV. All of the doctrines you mention can be,
and
are, taught well from the pages of the NIV, NASB, and RSV.
The problem of the word "firstborn" being omitted in Matthew 1:25 is
definitely interesting, though I suspect no foul play from the Catholics
(sorry). Even if Mary had no more children, Jesus would have been her
firstborn child, so the omission of this word carries no special
significance.
In discussing Mark 1:2,3 you stated that "if you have any other Bible than
the King James, you've got a Bible with a mistake in it!" Sorry, Pastor
Harris, you failed to check the NIV.
(Continued in message 3 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 33 Dated 12-21-89 13:15.30
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569e0
(message 3 of 3)
The problem of Joseph being called Jesus' "father" is not unique to the
modern translations. No, in your own inspired KJV you will read of
Jesus' "parents" (i.e., Joseph and Mary) and Jesus' "father" (i.e.,
Joseph)
in Luke 2:41 and 2:48, respectively. Obviously the Bible refers to Joseph
in this way because he was in the position of Jesus' earthly father, just
as a man who has adopted a child is still called that child's "father".
Only the NASB version of John 1:18 uses the term "only begotten God"; the
other modern versions use "Son". Even so, what does "only begotten God"
communicate to the reader? The answer is obvious: the Son (obvious
because
of the word "begotten") who is the only God (capitalized, not lower-case).
There is no doctrinal problem here.
You state that modern renderings of I Timothy 3:16 as "He appeared in a
body" somehow play down the deity of Jesus, but the context of these
verses
in any of these versions clearly dictates that Jesus is God.
Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV refers to "Lucifer". Perhaps you didn't realize
that
Lucifer is a name, the meaning of which is "the star of the morning". Now
read those modern versions again and tell me what's wrong.
You lament the removal of Mark 16:9-20 from the modern versions. I must
confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that this passage does not
appear in some ancient manuscripts. However, I must ask how you can
be so insistent upon the inclusion of this passage when verses 17 and 18
(if they are indeed God-breathed words) clearly show that YOU have not
believed!
I have attempted to respond point-by-point to everything in your replies.
I would appreciate a corresponding effort from you, because I suspect that
there are points I have addressed in this message which you would prefer
to
conveniently ignore.
I sincerely hope that we will both be guided by our Lord in these
discussions. As I wrote to Richard Yim, I hope you understand that my
zeal
for the truth of the Lord motivates me, and that nothing I have written is
intended in any way as a personal attack against you. Though I have not
met you, I love you in the Lord.
Do you live in the Ventura area, or is that just the BBS you use? If you
ever happen to be in Delano, CA on a Wednesday night, I would appreciate
it
if you would come to our AWANA meeting with me, and see firsthand the way
in which Satan is using KJV-idolatry as a veil to prevent God's children
from understanding His Word.
(-end of messages-)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 34 Dated 12-21-89 13:13.12
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569a0
(message 1 of 3)
Bob,
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks (thanks 15 times) for your replies
regarding the KJV-only doctrine. I have previously clarified some of your
misconceptions in a message to Richard Yim. You would do well to read
that
if you have not done so already.
Before you put me in your camp as a "name-caller", please re-read my
initial
message and reconsider. You refer to my
'...position of calling the King James Bible a "lie" and those who love
it and think of it as the word of God as "bigots".'
It seems as though you enjoy misrepresenting my position. As you know, I
did NOT say that the KJV is a "lie"; no, instead I stated that "It is
nothing less than a lie to say that the King James is the most accurate
version of the Bible which exists today." I stand by that statement, not
by your misrepresentation that I said the KJV itself is a lie.
In regards to "bigotry", you should realize that the word "bigot" is a
quite appropriate word when applied to those who hold to the KJV-only
doctrine: "person with strong, intolerant, unreasoning attitudes". (Oh,
and you're going to tell me that calling those who use other translations
"apostates" and refusing to look at reams of documentation does not
qualify
you for this title?) Being one who loves the King James Bible and thinks
of
it as the Word of God does not make you a bigot; being a person who
refuses
to accept the fact that God speaks more clearly to many people through
other
versions does go a long way towards qualifying you for that description,
however.
The "Satanic bias" of refusing to allow versions other than the KJV
remains;
as I stated, Satan loves to find ways to obscure the truth of God's Word.
I did NOT say that those who have this bias are Satanic, however; only
their
bias is from the prince of darkness.
Your statement that I called anyone a liar is a complete fabrication.
Read
my message again. I identified several lies, but intentionally did not
identify anyone in particular as a "liar". What is it that makes you (as
a Pastor??) follow instead the Father of Lies by misrepresenting my
position?? Please respond to me in this, for you are only harming your
own cause! And why is it "refreshing" to you, a Pastor, that you perceive
someone else to be joining you in "name-calling", a sin? Love "rejoiceth
not in iniquity..."!
You can pretend as if I am insincere if you desire, but you are wrong. I
pray that every day I have an open mind to whatever God wants to teach me,
even if that means that I throw away everything I think I have "learned"
so
far. God is my Final Authority. I love God's Word, and in spite of the
obvious problems with the KJV, I work hard in trying to teach young people
from those pages, because I don't have any other choice under AWANA. If I
didn't have an open mind to the KJV--and to God's Word in general--I
wouldn't be "wasting my time" with these kids. Go ahead, stand as a judge
over my motives. God knows.
(Continued in message 2 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 35 Dated 12-21-89 13:14.24
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569c0
(message 2 of 3)
Your explanation of the origins of the different manuscripts reminds me of
what my dad says he was jokingly taught at Dallas Seminary: "Weak point?
Pound hard!" Who cares if a manuscript was found in a trashcan, or if
the Vatican had locked it away for hundreds of years? What matters is:
which manuscripts are closest to the original manuscripts (a subject you
conveniently avoid)?
After all, if "every word" is inspired (and I believe this!), then we must
be speaking of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words with which the Bible
was
written. Every "jot and tittle" refers to the original strokes of those
human vessels who were used by God to write down His inspired words. As
you
know, if you look at every jot and tittle which was sent from God, you
will
not be looking at King James English, Pastor Harris. If "every word" of
the KJV is directly sent from God, then we have a problem! For example,
look at the phrase "tossed to and fro" in Ephesians 4:14. This phrase in
the KJV actually represents one Greek word, "kludonizomai". If God's
promises to preserve his words refer to each singular word in the KJV,
God's promise failed (but we know his promises never fail, hallelujah)!
There's no way to get around it, Pastor Harris, the Bible just was not
written in old English.
After dealing with the above subjects in your replies, you began to
list a number of ways in which Satan supposedly has subverted the true
message of the inspired KJV by removing or changing words in the modern
versions. Time and space constraints do not allow me to comment at length
on every example you gave, though I wish we had an opportunity to
personally
interact with each other on these issues. (It's already almost 1 am and
I must get my rest in case my wife goes into labor tonight!!)
As you would know if you had examined each of the verses you cite in the
NIV, most of the supposed modern-version problems are not true of the NIV.
I must admit that you presented a few verses, however, which truly seem to
merit some close examination. I suspect that there is a valid explanation
for all of these differences, however (probably, as many margin notes
indicate, that the original manuscripts did NOT actually contain the words
in question). More to the point, however, is the fact that not one of the
doctrines you discuss as being somehow subverted by the modern
translations
is actually in any danger of being understood any less in the modern
translations than in the KJV. All of the doctrines you mention can be,
and
are, taught well from the pages of the NIV, NASB, and RSV.
The problem of the word "firstborn" being omitted in Matthew 1:25 is
definitely interesting, though I suspect no foul play from the Catholics
(sorry). Even if Mary had no more children, Jesus would have been her
firstborn child, so the omission of this word carries no special
significance.
In discussing Mark 1:2,3 you stated that "if you have any other Bible than
the King James, you've got a Bible with a mistake in it!" Sorry, Pastor
Harris, you failed to check the NIV.
(Continued in message 3 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 36 Dated 12-21-89 13:15.30
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569e0
(message 3 of 3)
The problem of Joseph being called Jesus' "father" is not unique to the
modern translations. No, in your own inspired KJV you will read of
Jesus' "parents" (i.e., Joseph and Mary) and Jesus' "father" (i.e.,
Joseph)
in Luke 2:41 and 2:48, respectively. Obviously the Bible refers to Joseph
in this way because he was in the position of Jesus' earthly father, just
as a man who has adopted a child is still called that child's "father".
Only the NASB version of John 1:18 uses the term "only begotten God"; the
other modern versions use "Son". Even so, what does "only begotten God"
communicate to the reader? The answer is obvious: the Son (obvious
because
of the word "begotten") who is the only God (capitalized, not lower-case).
There is no doctrinal problem here.
You state that modern renderings of I Timothy 3:16 as "He appeared in a
body" somehow play down the deity of Jesus, but the context of these
verses
in any of these versions clearly dictates that Jesus is God.
Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV refers to "Lucifer". Perhaps you didn't realize
that
Lucifer is a name, the meaning of which is "the star of the morning". Now
read those modern versions again and tell me what's wrong.
You lament the removal of Mark 16:9-20 from the modern versions. I must
confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that this passage does not
appear in some ancient manuscripts. However, I must ask how you can
be so insistent upon the inclusion of this passage when verses 17 and 18
(if they are indeed God-breathed words) clearly show that YOU have not
believed!
I have attempted to respond point-by-point to everything in your replies.
I would appreciate a corresponding effort from you, because I suspect that
there are points I have addressed in this message which you would prefer
to
conveniently ignore.
I sincerely hope that we will both be guided by our Lord in these
discussions. As I wrote to Richard Yim, I hope you understand that my
zeal
for the truth of the Lord motivates me, and that nothing I have written is
intended in any way as a personal attack against you. Though I have not
met you, I love you in the Lord.
Do you live in the Ventura area, or is that just the BBS you use? If you
ever happen to be in Delano, CA on a Wednesday night, I would appreciate
it
if you would come to our AWANA meeting with me, and see firsthand the way
in which Satan is using KJV-idolatry as a veil to prevent God's children
from understanding His Word.
(-end of messages-)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 37 Dated 12-21-89 13:13.12
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569a0
(message 1 of 3)
Bob,
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks (thanks 15 times) for your replies
regarding the KJV-only doctrine. I have previously clarified some of your
misconceptions in a message to Richard Yim. You would do well to read
that
if you have not done so already.
Before you put me in your camp as a "name-caller", please re-read my
initial
message and reconsider. You refer to my
'...position of calling the King James Bible a "lie" and those who love
it and think of it as the word of God as "bigots".'
It seems as though you enjoy misrepresenting my position. As you know, I
did NOT say that the KJV is a "lie"; no, instead I stated that "It is
nothing less than a lie to say that the King James is the most accurate
version of the Bible which exists today." I stand by that statement, not
by your misrepresentation that I said the KJV itself is a lie.
In regards to "bigotry", you should realize that the word "bigot" is a
quite appropriate word when applied to those who hold to the KJV-only
doctrine: "person with strong, intolerant, unreasoning attitudes". (Oh,
and you're going to tell me that calling those who use other translations
"apostates" and refusing to look at reams of documentation does not
qualify
you for this title?) Being one who loves the King James Bible and thinks
of
it as the Word of God does not make you a bigot; being a person who
refuses
to accept the fact that God speaks more clearly to many people through
other
versions does go a long way towards qualifying you for that description,
however.
The "Satanic bias" of refusing to allow versions other than the KJV
remains;
as I stated, Satan loves to find ways to obscure the truth of God's Word.
I did NOT say that those who have this bias are Satanic, however; only
their
bias is from the prince of darkness.
Your statement that I called anyone a liar is a complete fabrication.
Read
my message again. I identified several lies, but intentionally did not
identify anyone in particular as a "liar". What is it that makes you (as
a Pastor??) follow instead the Father of Lies by misrepresenting my
position?? Please respond to me in this, for you are only harming your
own cause! And why is it "refreshing" to you, a Pastor, that you perceive
someone else to be joining you in "name-calling", a sin? Love "rejoiceth
not in iniquity..."!
You can pretend as if I am insincere if you desire, but you are wrong. I
pray that every day I have an open mind to whatever God wants to teach me,
even if that means that I throw away everything I think I have "learned"
so
far. God is my Final Authority. I love God's Word, and in spite of the
obvious problems with the KJV, I work hard in trying to teach young people
from those pages, because I don't have any other choice under AWANA. If I
didn't have an open mind to the KJV--and to God's Word in general--I
wouldn't be "wasting my time" with these kids. Go ahead, stand as a judge
over my motives. God knows.
(Continued in message 2 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 38 Dated 12-21-89 13:14.24
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569c0
(message 2 of 3)
Your explanation of the origins of the different manuscripts reminds me of
what my dad says he was jokingly taught at Dallas Seminary: "Weak point?
Pound hard!" Who cares if a manuscript was found in a trashcan, or if
the Vatican had locked it away for hundreds of years? What matters is:
which manuscripts are closest to the original manuscripts (a subject you
conveniently avoid)?
After all, if "every word" is inspired (and I believe this!), then we must
be speaking of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words with which the Bible
was
written. Every "jot and tittle" refers to the original strokes of those
human vessels who were used by God to write down His inspired words. As
you
know, if you look at every jot and tittle which was sent from God, you
will
not be looking at King James English, Pastor Harris. If "every word" of
the KJV is directly sent from God, then we have a problem! For example,
look at the phrase "tossed to and fro" in Ephesians 4:14. This phrase in
the KJV actually represents one Greek word, "kludonizomai". If God's
promises to preserve his words refer to each singular word in the KJV,
God's promise failed (but we know his promises never fail, hallelujah)!
There's no way to get around it, Pastor Harris, the Bible just was not
written in old English.
After dealing with the above subjects in your replies, you began to
list a number of ways in which Satan supposedly has subverted the true
message of the inspired KJV by removing or changing words in the modern
versions. Time and space constraints do not allow me to comment at length
on every example you gave, though I wish we had an opportunity to
personally
interact with each other on these issues. (It's already almost 1 am and
I must get my rest in case my wife goes into labor tonight!!)
As you would know if you had examined each of the verses you cite in the
NIV, most of the supposed modern-version problems are not true of the NIV.
I must admit that you presented a few verses, however, which truly seem to
merit some close examination. I suspect that there is a valid explanation
for all of these differences, however (probably, as many margin notes
indicate, that the original manuscripts did NOT actually contain the words
in question). More to the point, however, is the fact that not one of the
doctrines you discuss as being somehow subverted by the modern
translations
is actually in any danger of being understood any less in the modern
translations than in the KJV. All of the doctrines you mention can be,
and
are, taught well from the pages of the NIV, NASB, and RSV.
The problem of the word "firstborn" being omitted in Matthew 1:25 is
definitely interesting, though I suspect no foul play from the Catholics
(sorry). Even if Mary had no more children, Jesus would have been her
firstborn child, so the omission of this word carries no special
significance.
In discussing Mark 1:2,3 you stated that "if you have any other Bible than
the King James, you've got a Bible with a mistake in it!" Sorry, Pastor
Harris, you failed to check the NIV.
(Continued in message 3 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 39 Dated 12-21-89 13:15.30
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569e0
(message 3 of 3)
The problem of Joseph being called Jesus' "father" is not unique to the
modern translations. No, in your own inspired KJV you will read of
Jesus' "parents" (i.e., Joseph and Mary) and Jesus' "father" (i.e.,
Joseph)
in Luke 2:41 and 2:48, respectively. Obviously the Bible refers to Joseph
in this way because he was in the position of Jesus' earthly father, just
as a man who has adopted a child is still called that child's "father".
Only the NASB version of John 1:18 uses the term "only begotten God"; the
other modern versions use "Son". Even so, what does "only begotten God"
communicate to the reader? The answer is obvious: the Son (obvious
because
of the word "begotten") who is the only God (capitalized, not lower-case).
There is no doctrinal problem here.
You state that modern renderings of I Timothy 3:16 as "He appeared in a
body" somehow play down the deity of Jesus, but the context of these
verses
in any of these versions clearly dictates that Jesus is God.
Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV refers to "Lucifer". Perhaps you didn't realize
that
Lucifer is a name, the meaning of which is "the star of the morning". Now
read those modern versions again and tell me what's wrong.
You lament the removal of Mark 16:9-20 from the modern versions. I must
confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that this passage does not
appear in some ancient manuscripts. However, I must ask how you can
be so insistent upon the inclusion of this passage when verses 17 and 18
(if they are indeed God-breathed words) clearly show that YOU have not
believed!
I have attempted to respond point-by-point to everything in your replies.
I would appreciate a corresponding effort from you, because I suspect that
there are points I have addressed in this message which you would prefer
to
conveniently ignore.
I sincerely hope that we will both be guided by our Lord in these
discussions. As I wrote to Richard Yim, I hope you understand that my
zeal
for the truth of the Lord motivates me, and that nothing I have written is
intended in any way as a personal attack against you. Though I have not
met you, I love you in the Lord.
Do you live in the Ventura area, or is that just the BBS you use? If you
ever happen to be in Delano, CA on a Wednesday night, I would appreciate
it
if you would come to our AWANA meeting with me, and see firsthand the way
in which Satan is using KJV-idolatry as a veil to prevent God's children
from understanding His Word.
(-end of messages-)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 40 Dated 12-26-89 19:39.44
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611 QUESTIONS
EID:b16c 139a99f6
I am now going to embark on answering every objection to the inerrancy
and superiority of the King James Bible.
The reason for this is two-fold.
First, to answer the raft of questions used by critics of the
King James Bible to attack and destroy the faith of anyone who really
BELIEVES that the Bible is infallible. The style is such that its
arguments can be understood and advanced by one who has NOT had the
benefit (or curse) of a Bible college education.
Second, some time ago a leader of a large fundamental movement
made the statement, "What really fires me is...these guys with a High
School education debating textual criticism." For years those
faithful folk who have not been to college have been bullied around
for their lack of formal education by an arm load of D.D.'s who seek
to keep them "in the dark." Many of these people have done more
serious study of the Bible issue in the privacy of their homes than
the honorarily doctored critics have in college classrooms. Yet the
common man is often intimidated by the "trick" questions asked by his
"educated" foe. The critic feels invincible in his armor of education.
So please study these questions and their answers carefully.
They are written so that the ordinary Christian will be properly
equipped to defend him or herself from the fiery darts of their
pompous foes.
In fact, they may even punch a few holes in their armor.
Bob Harris
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 41 Dated 12-26-89 19:40.18
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611 QUESTION 1
EID:b16c 139a9909
QUESTION 1: Shouldn't we be loyal to the "original autographs"
and not a mere translation?
ANSWER: We should put as much value on the "originals" as God
does.
EXPLANATION: It is impossible to be true to the originals
because the originals have long been lost. This well established fact
should be enough to make the sincere student of Scripture realize that
an affirmative answer to the question is an impossibility.
But it does not explain the above answer. Just how much value
does God put on the originals?
To get the answer we must explore seveal chapters in the book
of Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning
the roll that Jeremiah had written.
In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read
by his servant Jehudi.
According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and
King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on
the hearth until it was destroyed.
Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!
Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some
words to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)
Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.
We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45-
51 where it reproduced for our benefit.
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 42 Dated 12-26-89 19:41.00
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 1
EID:b16c 139a9920
(continued...part 2 of 2 parts)
Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into
Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after
he finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into
the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!
Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!
But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters
45-51. Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2
which we can only call ORIGINAL #3!
So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize
the "originals."
(1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has
a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the
"second" original, or ORIGINAL #3.
(2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't
have the least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it
had been copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more
of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is
plainly unscriptural.
Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in
the King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they
were available.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 43 Dated 12-26-89 19:42.25
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 2
EID:b16c 139a994c
QUESTION: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the
word pascha and shouldn't it be translated as "passover"?
ANSWER: No, pascha is properly translated "Easter" in Acts
12:4 as the following explanation will show.
EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in
Acts 12:4 is the word pascha. This word appears twenty-nine times in
the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered
"passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt
and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting
Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.
The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible
have made much of this translation of pascha.
Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they
seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is
not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are
wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of
Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has
always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original
form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the
winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction.
For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the
rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are
known for the reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was
Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of
heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). He is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel
8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take
place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the
references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter
has never had any association with Jesus Christ. Problem: Even
though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and
the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we
know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the
Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation
of pascha as "Easter" is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the
pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must
truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in
print today which has the correct reading.
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 44 Dated 12-26-89 19:42.57
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 2
EID:b16c 139a995c
(Continued...part 2 of 7 parts)
To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we
must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the
puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of
unleavened bread...") To secure the answer that we seek, we must find
the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We
must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of
unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).
Our investigation will need to start at the first passover.
This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt.
The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on
the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now
see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of
unleavened bread.
Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token
upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass
over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I
smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall
keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep
it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first
day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth
leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul
shall be cut off from Israel.
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to
you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every
man must eat, that only may be done of you.
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 45 Dated 12-26-89 19:43.36
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION2
EID:b16c 139a9972
(continued--part 3 of 7 parts)
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in
this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt:
therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an
ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at
even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day
of the month at even."
Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The
LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the
blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days
shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread.
These are the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April
14th through the 21st.
This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers
28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the
passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven
days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do
no manner of servile work therein."
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be
the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days
of unleavened bread."
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 46 Dated 12-26-89 19:45.14
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 2
EID:b16c 139a99a7
(Continued--part 4 of 7 parts)
Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and
keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the
LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by might.
2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD
thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall
choose to place his name there.
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt
thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for
thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest
remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all
the days of thy life.
4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all
thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh,
which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until
the morning.
5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy
gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to
place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at
the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of
Egypt.
7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD
thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto
thy tents.
8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the §eventh
day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no
work therein."
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 47 Dated 12-26-89 19:45.43
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 2
EID:b16c 139a99b5
(Continued--part 5 of 7 parts)
Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is
sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting
that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs. 6) not at
sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).
In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened
bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.
II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day,
offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and
on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year,
even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and
in the feast of tabernacles."
Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast
of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to
keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the
second. But the dates remained the same.
II Chronicles 30:15,21: "Then they killed the passover on the
fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites
were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt
offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of Israel that
were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven
days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the
LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."
Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the
passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the
feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made
them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to
strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of
Israel."
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 48 Dated 12-26-89 19:46.18
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 2
EID:b16c 139a99c9
(Continued--part 6 of 7 parts)
We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say
concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the
passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the
passover.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened
bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned
in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten
on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened
bread are NEVER referred to as the passover. (It must be remembered
that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt one night, not seven
nights in a row.)
Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: "And because he saw it pleased
the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (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."
Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of
unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of
unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and
gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in
his statement concerning Easter. The next passover was a year away!
But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember!
Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven." He was
NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might
argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of
upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of
thinking.
First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated
Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 49 Dated 12-26-89 19:46.53
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 2
EID:b16c 139a99da
(Continued--part 7 of 7 parts)
Second, he could not have been waiting until after the
passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a
religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew
26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James.
Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts
during religious festivities, not after.
In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must
remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew
14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even
willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested
Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The
days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after
that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not
killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he
wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews
(Matthew 26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during
a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going
to let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan
festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-
filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate
pascha as "Easter." It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish
passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader
and make the truth of the situation unclear.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 50 Dated 12-26-89 19:49.13
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 3
EID:b16c 139a9926
QUESTION 3: I have been told that King James was a homosexual.
Is this true?
ANSWER: No.
EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the
translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many
to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England
has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring
tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and
Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British
Empire.
At a time when only the churches of England possessed the
Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should
have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James
called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this
great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep
their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects
the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the word
of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and
schooled in Italian and Spanish, even wrote a tract entitled
"Counterblast to Tobacco," which was written to help thwart the use of
tobacco in England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony
Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It
was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James, that
Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual.
Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 51 Dated 12-26-89 19:49.40
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION3
EID:b16c 139a9934
(Continued--part 2 of 2 parts)
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough
people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for
years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped
that vilifying King James would tarnish the Bible that bears his name
so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern"
translation.
It seems, though, that Weldon's false account is being once
again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the
exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church
was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the
English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of
Parliament in 1605.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the
direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in
the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which
he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After
killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-
establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who
resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been
one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other
conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the
character of King James join an unholy lot.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 52 Dated 12-26-89 19:50.12
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 4
EID:b16c 139a9946
QUESTION 4: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't
we need a modern translation to eliminate them?
ANSWER: Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible
but No, we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.
EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very
true. An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day
speech and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic
word is found in I Corinthians 10:25.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no
question for conscience sake."
The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common
speech with the word "market place." Indeed we can be certain that
"shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market
place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed
from common use.
Well then, shouldn't we publish a new translation which
removes "shambles" and inserts the more common "market place"?
No, what we should do is turn to the Bible, our final
authority in all matters of faith and practice and see what the Bible
practice is concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a
perfect Bible will want to follow the Bible's practice concerning
archaic words.
In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for
handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now there was a
man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of
Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.
2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man,
and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a
goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher
than any of the people.
(to be continued)
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 53 Dated 12-26-89 19:51.03
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 4
EID:b16c 139a9961
(Continued--part 2 of 3 parts)
3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said
to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go
seek the asses.
4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the
land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through
the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the
land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.
5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to
his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father
leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.
6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a
man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh
surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our
way that we should go.
7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what
shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and
there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?
8 And the servant answered Saul aga^n, and said, Behold, I
have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I
give to the man of God, to tell us our way.
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God,
thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now
called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go.
So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young
maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer
here?"
Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9, we are not
only confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for
handling it.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 54 Dated 12-26-89 19:51.31
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611--QUESTION 4
EID:b16c 139a996f
(Continued--part 3 of 3 parts)
We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for
the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5). They decide to go to see
Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).
In verse 11 we are going to run into an a¨chaic word. But,
before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to
tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now
called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer." Thus we see that,
between the time that this event took place and the time that the
incident was divinely recorded the word "Seer" had passed from common
use to be replaced with "Prophet." "Seer" was now archaic.
BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word
appeared.
"And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young
maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer
here?"
Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer."
It does not say, "Is the prophet here?"
Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of
the Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but
did not change the holy text!
So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations
such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the
congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called
`shambles' is now called `market place'." But we should leave the
archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are
not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words
than God has.
So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic
words in the Bible but No we do not need a modern translation to
eliminate them. God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want
us doing it.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 55 Dated 12-21-89 13:13.12
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569a0
(message 1 of 3)
Bob,
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks (thanks 15 times) for your replies
regarding the KJV-only doctrine. I have previously clarified some of your
misconceptions in a message to Richard Yim. You would do well to read
that
if you have not done so already.
Before you put me in your camp as a "name-caller", please re-read my
initial
message and reconsider. You refer to my
'...position of calling the King James Bible a "lie" and those who love
it and think of it as the word of God as "bigots".'
It seems as though you enjoy misrepresenting my position. As you know, I
did NOT say that the KJV is a "lie"; no, instead I stated that "It is
nothing less than a lie to say that the King James is the most accurate
version of the Bible which exists today." I stand by that statement, not
by your misrepresentation that I said the KJV itself is a lie.
In regards to "bigotry", you should realize that the word "bigot" is a
quite appropriate word when applied to those who hold to the KJV-only
doctrine: "person with strong, intolerant, unreasoning attitudes". (Oh,
and you're going to tell me that calling those who use other translations
"apostates" and refusing to look at reams of documentation does not
qualify
you for this title?) Being one who loves the King James Bible and thinks
of
it as the Word of God does not make you a bigot; being a person who
refuses
to accept the fact that God speaks more clearly to many people through
other
versions does go a long way towards qualifying you for that description,
however.
The "Satanic bias" of refusing to allow versions other than the KJV
remains;
as I stated, Satan loves to find ways to obscure the truth of God's Word.
I did NOT say that those who have this bias are Satanic, however; only
their
bias is from the prince of darkness.
Your statement that I called anyone a liar is a complete fabrication.
Read
my message again. I identified several lies, but intentionally did not
identify anyone in particular as a "liar". What is it that makes you (as
a Pastor??) follow instead the Father of Lies by misrepresenting my
position?? Please respond to me in this, for you are only harming your
own cause! And why is it "refreshing" to you, a Pastor, that you perceive
someone else to be joining you in "name-calling", a sin? Love "rejoiceth
not in iniquity..."!
You can pretend as if I am insincere if you desire, but you are wrong. I
pray that every day I have an open mind to whatever God wants to teach me,
even if that means that I throw away everything I think I have "learned"
so
far. God is my Final Authority. I love God's Word, and in spite of the
obvious problems with the KJV, I work hard in trying to teach young people
from those pages, because I don't have any other choice under AWANA. If I
didn't have an open mind to the KJV--and to God's Word in general--I
wouldn't be "wasting my time" with these kids. Go ahead, stand as a judge
over my motives. God knows.
(Continued in message 2 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 56 Dated 12-21-89 13:14.24
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569c0
(message 2 of 3)
Your explanation of the origins of the different manuscripts reminds me of
what my dad says he was jokingly taught at Dallas Seminary: "Weak point?
Pound hard!" Who cares if a manuscript was found in a trashcan, or if
the Vatican had locked it away for hundreds of years? What matters is:
which manuscripts are closest to the original manuscripts (a subject you
conveniently avoid)?
After all, if "every word" is inspired (and I believe this!), then we must
be speaking of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words with which the Bible
was
written. Every "jot and tittle" refers to the original strokes of those
human vessels who were used by God to write down His inspired words. As
you
know, if you look at every jot and tittle which was sent from God, you
will
not be looking at King James English, Pastor Harris. If "every word" of
the KJV is directly sent from God, then we have a problem! For example,
look at the phrase "tossed to and fro" in Ephesians 4:14. This phrase in
the KJV actually represents one Greek word, "kludonizomai". If God's
promises to preserve his words refer to each singular word in the KJV,
God's promise failed (but we know his promises never fail, hallelujah)!
There's no way to get around it, Pastor Harris, the Bible just was not
written in old English.
After dealing with the above subjects in your replies, you began to
list a number of ways in which Satan supposedly has subverted the true
message of the inspired KJV by removing or changing words in the modern
versions. Time and space constraints do not allow me to comment at length
on every example you gave, though I wish we had an opportunity to
personally
interact with each other on these issues. (It's already almost 1 am and
I must get my rest in case my wife goes into labor tonight!!)
As you would know if you had examined each of the verses you cite in the
NIV, most of the supposed modern-version problems are not true of the NIV.
I must admit that you presented a few verses, however, which truly seem to
merit some close examination. I suspect that there is a valid explanation
for all of these differences, however (probably, as many margin notes
indicate, that the original manuscripts did NOT actually contain the words
in question). More to the point, however, is the fact that not one of the
doctrines you discuss as being somehow subverted by the modern
translations
is actually in any danger of being understood any less in the modern
translations than in the KJV. All of the doctrines you mention can be,
and
are, taught well from the pages of the NIV, NASB, and RSV.
The problem of the word "firstborn" being omitted in Matthew 1:25 is
definitely interesting, though I suspect no foul play from the Catholics
(sorry). Even if Mary had no more children, Jesus would have been her
firstborn child, so the omission of this word carries no special
significance.
In discussing Mark 1:2,3 you stated that "if you have any other Bible than
the King James, you've got a Bible with a mistake in it!" Sorry, Pastor
Harris, you failed to check the NIV.
(Continued in message 3 of 3)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 57 Dated 12-21-89 13:15.30
From: TIM PALMQUIST
To: SYSOP
Re: (R) RE:KJV LIES
EID:758e 139569e0
(message 3 of 3)
The problem of Joseph being called Jesus' "father" is not unique to the
modern translations. No, in your own inspired KJV you will read of
Jesus' "parents" (i.e., Joseph and Mary) and Jesus' "father" (i.e.,
Joseph)
in Luke 2:41 and 2:48, respectively. Obviously the Bible refers to Joseph
in this way because he was in the position of Jesus' earthly father, just
as a man who has adopted a child is still called that child's "father".
Only the NASB version of John 1:18 uses the term "only begotten God"; the
other modern versions use "Son". Even so, what does "only begotten God"
communicate to the reader? The answer is obvious: the Son (obvious
because
of the word "begotten") who is the only God (capitalized, not lower-case).
There is no doctrinal problem here.
You state that modern renderings of I Timothy 3:16 as "He appeared in a
body" somehow play down the deity of Jesus, but the context of these
verses
in any of these versions clearly dictates that Jesus is God.
Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV refers to "Lucifer". Perhaps you didn't realize
that
Lucifer is a name, the meaning of which is "the star of the morning". Now
read those modern versions again and tell me what's wrong.
You lament the removal of Mark 16:9-20 from the modern versions. I must
confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that this passage does not
appear in some ancient manuscripts. However, I must ask how you can
be so insistent upon the inclusion of this passage when verses 17 and 18
(if they are indeed God-breathed words) clearly show that YOU have not
believed!
I have attempted to respond point-by-point to everything in your replies.
I would appreciate a corresponding effort from you, because I suspect that
there are points I have addressed in this message which you would prefer
to
conveniently ignore.
I sincerely hope that we will both be guided by our Lord in these
discussions. As I wrote to Richard Yim, I hope you understand that my
zeal
for the truth of the Lord motivates me, and that nothing I have written is
intended in any way as a personal attack against you. Though I have not
met you, I love you in the Lord.
Do you live in the Ventura area, or is that just the BBS you use? If you
ever happen to be in Delano, CA on a Wednesday night, I would appreciate
it
if you would come to our AWANA meeting with me, and see firsthand the way
in which Satan is using KJV-idolatry as a veil to prevent God's children
from understanding His Word.
(-end of messages-)
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: COMPU-PAL (IFNA# 161/616) Castro Valley, CA (415) 538-2040
(1:77/6)
SEEN-BY: 77/6 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 77/6 206/2844
Msg # 58 Dated 12-27-89 23:41.50
From: SYSOP
To: TIM PALMQUIST
Re: AV1611 ANSWERS
EID:b16c 139bb939
Hi, Tim,
I am now going to attempt to answer your recent messages to Richard
Yim and me, one statement at a time.
> Thanks for taking the time to respond so quickly to my
> message. I
>hope you and the other KJV-only advocates on this BBS will consider
>seriously God's will in this matter.
It is my hope that YOU will do the same.
>
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
* Origin: HIS BOARD, Ventura, CA 805-652-1478 (RBBS-PC 1:206/2844)
SEEN-BY: 103/102 161/616 206/2844 910/4
PATH: 206/2844
Msg # 59 Dated 12-27-89 23:42.22
From: SYSOP
To: ALL
Re: AV1611 ANSWERS
EID:b16c 139bb94b
> Your "nutshell" evaluation of my argument was entirely
> incorrect.
>As a matter of fact, I summerized my argument for myself when I wrote:
>"... let me state my position clearly: It is nothing less than a lie
> to
>say that the King James is the most accurate version of the Bible
> which
>exists today." No, ease of understanding is NOT the core of my
> argument.
Funny--"ease of understanding" appears to me to be what you spent the
rest of the letter speaking about, complaining about how difficult it
is for your hypothetical Awana children to understand. That appeared
to be the REAL issue of your letter. The "accuracy" issue, about
which you are woefully misinformed, was used apparently as only an
"attention-grabber" in your message.
Examples (from your own words):
>We cannot blame the lack of comprehension people have in reading the
>KJV on their lack of reliance upon the Holy Spirit!
>Like it or not, 16th-century English is in many ways a different
>language than modern Engli