This is the second part of the series by Bro. Wendell Butte on the KJV:
1. If things are different, then they cannot be the same
2. The word of God is settled forever in heaven.
3. I am talking about the King James Version and not the NKJV. Many say the New King James Version is just like the King James Version, but a honest look will show one different.
4. The King James Version is a tried and trusted translation .
5. The King James Version has been around almost 400 years.
There were changes made from the old english in 1611 kjv to the current 1789 edition that we have today. Words like thee, words like Hee for God. Words like gofpel to gospel etc. But no damage was done to the doctrines of the old 1611 kjv.
6. The KJV, does not do damage to the Blood of Christ-many remove the word blood. You might say prove it. Give me time, and by the help of God I will later.
7. The KJV does not do damage to the virgin birth of Christ.
8. The KJV does not do damage to the deity of Christ.
9. I believe that the KJV has beautiful language.
10.The argument that the KJV has hard words and the modern versions have easier words does not sell to me.
11.Some say we cannot understand the KJV, but I thought we were real educated .
12. Later I will write about hard words and easy words.
13.Sometimes some will say and write what has happened to the word or Bible doctrine of repentance?
It has been removed in many translations,we had better open our eyes. In Luke 13.3,5:
Jesus said. " I tell you,nay :but,except ye repent,ye shall all likewise perish ." Verse 5: "I tell you,nay : but,except ye repent,ye shall all likewise perish. "
Now think of that except ye repent-- they take repent out and put except ye change. I believe repent or repentance is turning from the sin of unbelief and to belief on and in Christ. How dangerous is a translation that changes repent to change? I know and you know that you mat change from the sin of cussing, gambling, drugs,etc and still not be saved. This is very, very dangerous don't you think? Keep looking. There will be more to follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some other changes are as follows.
ReplyDeleteAccording to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:15, one should study the Bible to find out God's plan for life choices. The Bible profits all men for all ages. The Bible profits men towards a perfect life in God. For this cause, the American Baptist Association Baptist churches choose to use the Bible as their own only rule of faith and practice. The only logical way a man can base his entire life on a book, much less an entire association of churches, is if that book remains perfect in his mind. If God's Word stands as perfect and a firm foundation to build one's life upon, and then another self-labeled Bible surfaces which contradicts the other Bible, one must conclude at least one of the Bibles must be imperfect. A man seeking God's will would want to find the Bible which remains perfect. Knowing the cause of contradictions between the English versions (being the texts from which they are translated), one can see the erroneous differences in the modern translations.
The King James Version in Matthew 6:33 states, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God …" The Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Version state
"But seek first his kingdom." This remains an improper and incorrect translation. The
Greek Textus Receptus uses the word "ζητειτε δε πρωτον την βασιλειαν του θεου."
Using the Perschbacher Greek Lexicon, the translation stands literally as "Ye seek moreover firstly the kingdom of the God." The Revised Version and New American Standard Version gives a rendering which do not clarify which kingdom a man should seek. A person could choose to seek the kingdom of man, the kingdom of self or even the kingdom of the world which Satan owns and rules, yet these are all contradictory to the rest of the teachings in the Bible. The Textus Receptus and King James Version Bible state one is to seek the Kingdom of God first. This shows the King James Version Bible to be correct, and the modern translations to be in error. Matthew 9:13 states "For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Version leave out "to repentance." The Textus Receptus states, "μετανοιαν." According to the Perschbacher's Greek lexicon, one finds the word is an accusative noun with a definition of "to repentance." The King James translates these two verses correctly. One may wonder why these verses are so important. The King James clarifies what kind of kingdom, or more specifically which kingdom one should seek first, the kingdom of God. The other verse explains Jesus does not just call out to sinners, but calls them to salvation through repentance.
In the King James Version Bible, Matthew 16:3 shows Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites, whereas modern translations including the New American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version, take out the phrase where Jesus calls them hypocrites. The Greek Bible contains the word "υποκριται." The Greek lexicon explains this word to be a vocative noun meaning "hypocrites." As a vocative, the noun renames those the speaker, in this case Jesus, is speaking to. Taking this out of the Bible raises one's view of the Pharisees to whom Jesus was referring. Matthew 18:11 states, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost," yet the Revised Standard Version takes this verse out completely, and the New American Stand Version places a footnote which teaches most old versions omit the verse. This footnote remains a lie. The entire message of salvation continues to be under attack by the newer versions.
Luke 2:33 states, "And Joseph and his mother," in the King James Version Bible. Modern versions, such as the New International Version, the New Century Version, the New American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version, state, "his father and his mother." This serious contradiction teaches Joseph to be the father of Jesus, which does not harmonize with the rest of the New Testament. The Textus Receptus states very clearly, "ιωσηφ" which means Joseph. The name "Joseph" here exists in the Word of God in the Greek, and so translators should translate it as such into the English Bible, and certainly not "father." A very similar contradiction occurs in Luke 2:43 where the modern versions change "Joseph and his mother" to "His parents." These verses and others attack the virgin birth of Christ, thus attacking a doctrine true churches have held for centuries.
One place where the false translations and perversions of the Bible in English attempt to defend their position occurs in Luke 4:4. Jesus explained to Satan that men are to live not only by bread, but "by every word of God." The Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New International Version, the New Century Version and the Living Bible all remove "every word of God." By removing this phrase, they attempt to strengthen their argument of every word not being important, but rather the general ideas and thoughts being important.
In the King James Version and the Textus Receptus, Luke 4:8 states Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan," proving even saved men can follow Satan. The modern translations remove this entire phrase, thus taking away the important doctrine taught by this verse. John 6:47 in the King James Version and the Received Text states, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." The New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version and the New Century Version omit "on me." By removing this, one removes the doctrine of salvation resting in belief in Christ for eternal life. The Bible clearly teaches, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19). While it is true "For by grace are ye saved through faith…" (Ephesians 2:8-9), one must place his faith in Jesus, according to John 14:6.
Acts 24:15 states, "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." The New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the Living Bible all remove "of the dead." The Greek text which God's people called the Received Text, which men received as God's Word, uses the phrase "αναστασιν μελλειν εσεσθαι νεκρωνν." According to the lexicon, the final word in this phrase is a genitive adjective and in this sentence it lies in the substantive position. In this case, one finds the genitive to be a possessive genitive and mean the resurrection "belonging to the dead ones." This phrase gives hope for those who may pass away before Jesus returns. The resurrection will take place for those who have passed away before the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4). The newer versions attack this doctrine by removing this prepositional phrase.
Another serious problem with modern versions lies in the fact they remove the word "blood" in many places. Jesus, himself, stated men must partake of His blood to go to Heaven when he said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53). Colossians 1:14 also states "We have redemption through his blood." The New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Century Version all remove the phrase "through his blood." This attack on Received Text takes away one of the most important doctrines in the Bible. Later the Bible teaches, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22). Modern versions attack the doctrine of the blood of Jesus being necessary to remit sins.
Though probably not as important as the doctrine of the blood of Christ and its involvement in remission of sin, false versions remove many other important Bible teachings in the modern English translations. "Perverse disputings of men and corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself" (1 Timothy 6:5). In the Textus Receptus, one finds the phrase "αφιστασο απο των τοιουτων." The word "withdraw" in this verse stands as a present imperative. Paul gave the command to Timothy in the second-person singular form. The command also used an ablative preposition to show how to withdraw. The translation literally means "at this present time, you withdraw yourself away from such ones." Modern versions attack this doctrine which Paul so strongly gave to Timothy as an imperative verb.
One biblical teaching rests in Hebrews 10:34. "For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance." The New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Century Version and the New American Standard Version all remove the phrase "in heaven." This would teach men possibly have a better substance and possession on earth. A preacher could preach to his congregation if they will serve God and give their money, God will give them more money on earth. The Textus Receptus and the King James Version's complete static equivalence translation of it show clearly a saints inheritance stays in Heaven.
Finally, one error which nearly every modern translation makes occurs not as a textual error. II Timothy 2:15 contains this error. In this particular case, the United Bible Society Text, the Nestle Aland Text, the Wescott and Hort Text and the Textus Receptus all state the same words "σπουδασον σεαυτον δοκιμον παραστησαι τω θεω" A translator can render this either "Do diligence to present yourself approved to God" or "study to show yourself approved unto God." The King James translators were extremely talented and skilled in translating. They lived in 1611 AD, and so they lived closer to the time of the Kione Greek in which the writers penned the original autographs. This means they most likely had some knowledge about the language which has been lost until now. They correctly chose the phrase "study" for 2 Timothy 2:15. Nearly every modern English translation chose not to use the only command in the New Testament to study God's Word, but changed it, including the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, the Living Bible, the New Century Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
By studying the plethora of differences between the King James Version Bible and modern versions, one will find most of the modern versions of the Bibles usually agree with one another in most every place of disagreement with the Textus Receptus. The new versions attack doctrines of Christ, including seeking the kingdom of God, Jesus calling sinners to repent, the hypocrisy of a Pharisee-like attitude, the virgin birth of Jesus, the importance of every word of God, the fact that the children of God can take an attitude of Satan, belief on Christ for salvation, the resurrection of the dead, remission of sins by Christ's blood, withdrawing from ungodly men, heavenly treasures and the need to study God's Word.
Modern translations attack many other doctrines as well, including the Son of Man coming to save the lost, the second coming of Christ, the Lordship of Christ, Christ's ascension into Heaven, Christ going to the Father, the false religions' fights against God, God's warning against lying, Christ being the Creator, purifying one's soul by obedience with the Spirit, Christ's suffering for us, Christ's eternalness, the redeemed standing before God at His throne, a voice in Revelation coming out of the temple in Heaven as opposed to the temple on earth, the dead standing before God and all nations of the saved taking part of the new earth as opposed to all nations. According to a website that researches and documents changes in modern Bible versions, modern versions take away between 7 and 25 entire Bible verses, and also omit between 2,285 and 6,985 words from the New Testament. One must decide which Bible they believe to be God's Word, whether it be a new Bible which attacks Godly doctrines or that which God's churches have received as His word for centuries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like what Bro. Wendell Butte has written here, both part 1 and 2. I like the title of this article on "Why I Prefer The King James Version"
ReplyDeleteI also want to thank Bro. JamesCharles for his comments: Which to me are of great value.
I do not consider myself a "King James Only" but rather a "King James Preferred" person. I use the King James Version in both preaching and teaching. I believe that the use of other versions will tend to confuse our people and cause some to distrust the Inspired Word of God.
In my writing I make the following statement or "disclaimer" about the use of other versions:
"Use of other versions of the Bible other than the King James Version does not mean approval of the entire version by this writer. But rather it means that the translation of a particular verse was examined by the writer and found to be true to the Greek text(s) and versions available to him (to the best of his understanding and knowledge)."
The Greek Text that I rely on in the final analysis is the Textus Receptus of which the King James is based. The text from which a version is translated is of utmost importance. We do not have the originals but we do have thousands of manuscripts from which to rely upon. By that I means, of course, the translators have these available to them.
I was raised up on the King James Version and as someone has stated it has been reliable for almost 400 years. The excuse that it is to hard to understand is really thin. I am not a Greek scholar by any means (I have studied Greek and Hebrew at LBC and MBS and have used it some). I have said that to say this, any one can pickup a Strong's or Young's or Vines and learn the meanings of the English words used in the KJV. (And, of course, there are today available many helps from Bible software programs.)
So my recommendation to English reading and speaking people is to stay with the King James Version and for the reasons as mentioned by Bro. Wendell Butte and by Bro. JamesCharles
jll2, Gillette, WY
I wrote my thesis concerning the Textus Receptus and the KJV. I learned a lot. I'd encourage anyone who has ANY questions to study this subject out in depth from both perspectives, and then compare the arguments with the Scripture. Whichever side the Scripture takes, you should also.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I prefer KJV. Psalms 12:6-7, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:25 teach God preserved His words (not thoughts) from generation to generation. B/C the Textus Receptus was the only Word available to many people for the majority of time since the Bible was completed, then either...
A. God preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus (AKA: Majority Text or Byzantine Text) from one generation to the next.
or
B. God lied, did not preserve His Word to each generation, and we should not trust the Bible at all.
Since the KJV is the ONLY static equivalence translation (AKA: Perfect equivalence, Formal Equivalence, Complete Equivalence) of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text I know of, then I could never recommend another version to build one's life upon. We must live by "every word" that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
If someone else would make another proper static equivalence translation of the MR and TR, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever. I'm pretty sure most of us whom people label "KJ Only" agree with this. We aren't opposed to another translation. We are opposed to translating from something that isn't God's Word, and we are opposed to translating improperly, no matter what text it is.
The new translations are inaccurate on geography about the place Bathabara. Conmpare John 1:28 KJV to others (NKJV doesn't know which is right-footnoted some manuscripts say Bethany to cover both ways)and others say Bethany. Both places cannot be right. One is true and the other is a lie. I want the true one, the KJV.
ReplyDeleteTo Bro. James Charles:
ReplyDeleteYou said you wrote a thesis concerning the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
Do you have copies that can be purchased? If so Let me know. I would very much like to read the whole thing, if possible. When I read your comments I could tell you had spend a great deal of time in study on the subject. You can e-mail me. Just look me up in the ABA Book. And thanks.
jll2, Gillette, WY
Brother Bishop, Interestingly enough, we studied the place of Bethbara in Harmony of the Gospels with Brother Wager. I think we agreed (due to other places in the Bible) there are actually two or more of them, one on the south end and eastern side of the Jordan in John 1 (beyond it from the Canaan land side) and the other on the north end of the Jordan (just below the Sea of Galilee) as shown in John 10:40, John 11:3, John 11:6 and John 11:17. This makes sense, since the word means something like River-crossing or house of a fording.
ReplyDeleteI am agreeing with you, I just wanted to give you a bit of information just in case you have not yet studied that particular place out.
Brother Looney, Would you prefer I send you one via email? If so, email me at CalvaryYouth@live.com and I can send you a copy. The thesis was limited in words, so I couldn't cover everything I wanted. I was only able to cover as much as 25,000 words allowed.
I did study a part of it, however, which I haven't found in other books. I went to the public library and spent a great deal of time reading books about King James himself, the English succession from Henry VII to James I, and the English life during that time period. Again, I didn't get to cover it all, but it was EXTREMELY interesting. I'll be glad to send you a copy to your email if you'll email me requesting a copy.