Myth of "Outdated" Language and The Old-fashioned Language of the King James Version - practical questions about kjvo
Myth of "Outdated" Language
The Old-fashioned Language of the King James Version
The Old-fashioned Language of the King James Version
Its always amazing to hear a college educated person say, "I can’t understand the King James Bible with its "thee"s, "ye"s, and other archaic words."
There are thousands of believers in the Phillipines, where English is a second language, and they will not give up their King James Version Bibles. The same is true in many African countries and in Singapore.
A Christian lady told me about a home for retarded children here in the U.S. They tried using one of the modern bible versions for their school plays about the birth of the Saviour and His resurrection, but the kids could not remember their lines. Then they went back to the King James Bible and the kids recited their lines much more easily. The King James Bible is much easier to memorize and its words stick in the mind precisely because of the way it is written.
the textual issue will only be briefly mentioned in this article; there are many places to find out more about that. All Bibles are not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts. The NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, and the NASB use a different Greek text than the KJV; they don’t always agree with each other; and their Greek text differs from the KJV text by about 5000 words. There are 17 entire verses missing in the NIV new testament, and even more in the RSV and ESV.
Scores of times the NIV, ESV, Holman, and the NASB do not follow the Hebrew text, but use the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, or some other source. There are at least 40 examples where the NKJV does NOT follow the same Greek text as the KJV, and is different still from the NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB. None of these translations have the same meaning as the others in hundreds of verses. Which one then is God’s infallible word? I’m convinced it is the King James Bible.
There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJV, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.
He also shows many examples of words in the modern versions which most people would have to look up in a dictionary. Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.
abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.
It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."
Well, what about the New KJV [NKJV] ? Can you pass this vocabulary test even with a few of these "helpful hints"? Let's see.
The vocabulary of the [so-called] New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".
Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.
So you see, besides the very serious textual matter, the modern versions also have words hard to be understood. Try giving this list of words as a vocabulary test and see if your son or daughter, or even yourself gets a passing score.
There is a huge battle going on today about the Bible. We are headed for the falling away, the apostasy, which will occur before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and judgment. This is the most biblically ignorant generation of Americans ever, in spite of, or perhaps, BECAUSE OF the modern versions.
The explosion of multiple-choice, conflicting modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
There is no reason not to belied that the KJV is God’s preserved, complete, and inspired words. Choosing between a modern, up-to-date language Bible version that omits thousands of God inspired words from the New Testament (as do the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman), that rejects the Hebrew readings in numerous places, and that teaches false doctrine in several verses, or choose the old King James Version that has a few "archaic words" but teaches the whole truth of God in purity of doctrine, it is a no-brainer.
In keeping with the Christian's commitment to truth and in the interests of living our lives at a Higher standard, we will gladly and thankfully take the Holy Bible that God has set His mark of approval on like no other - the King James Version. If you don’t have one, get it, read it, believe it, memorize it and hid its words in your heart.
The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
The Bible itself - in many places - is not meant to be a book which can be easily understood, instantly - without any effort of any kind, or without spiritual understanding. Who can read through the minor prophets and not ask himself: "What is he talking about? What does this mean?" Yet there are many parts of the Bible that even a child can comprehend.
There is no particular reason to believe the Bible - for the sake of instant gratification - is supposed to be translated into contemporary street language, where the meaning of words is not taken seriously while slang is the order of the day. The English of the KJV 1611 was not written in "street language" even at that time.
According to Oxford University, and the PBS series 'The History of English':
William Shakespear used a total vocabulary of just over 24,000 words. In 2003 16,000 of those words are - supposedly - "obsolete".
Edgar Allen Poe used a total vocabulary of under 18,000 words. In 2003 9,550 of those words are "obsolete".
The King James Bible contains a total vocabulary of just over 6,000 words. In 2003 approximately 8 of those words are "obsolete".
Look at the divine pattern through history. We believe the Hebrew Old Testament was inspired by God. Yet the Jewish people in Israel today do not speak in the same Hebrew as is found in their scriptures, but they understand it. Not one of them would even consider "updating" the Hebrew text.
Most Bible critics I meet tell us we need to "go to the Hebrew and the Greek" to find out what God really said. This is so ironic. If we find a few old "archaic words" in the King James Bible that are hard to understand, they recommend instead that we learn Hebrew and Greek! Now, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Besides this, all of the translators behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places, so they reject these readings. Yet, even if we followed the Hebrew and Greek texts, we would then be learning hundreds and hundreds of "archaic words", because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not read as do modern Greek and Hebrew!
The same is true of the Greek Orthodox church. The Greek New Testament is not written in the same Greek that is spoken today in Greece, yet they understand it. None of those who believe it to be God's words are clamoring for a modern, up to date, "comic book" version.
God knew beforehand that languages would change and I believe He intended that His word would be placed in a form of language that would be different from that spoken on the street. God's Book is not supposed to read like people on the street talk. It never did.
The King James Version reads differently from any other book. It is not like a newspaper, nor is it meant to sound like one. The Bible is an ancient book filled with timeless wisdom. One cannot help but be impressed by the fact that this King James Version has been around for a long time; it reads differently than any other book; it speaks like no man does in the pulpit, on radio or television.
Those who read it do have to think about what it is saying. Often, one cannot just breeze through it like a tabloid magazine. When we slow down to think and actively meditate about what it says, God speaks to each reader.
There seem to be two attitudes towards the KJV - those who want to understand it and defend it, and those who want to criticize and attack it.
To illustrate some of the confusion being wrought today by the conflicting "bibles" let me give you a few examples from the modern versions. In Job 42:6 the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV says: “Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes”. The NASB says, “Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes.” The Holman CSB says: "Therefore I TAKE BACK MY WORDS, and repent..." There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".
In Exodus 26:14, “Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins". The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB has "PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "SEA COWS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS". The Holman says: "MANATEE SKINS". In the wilderness, badger's skins would be a difficult to come by, but how many porpoises (NASB) or sea cows (NIV) , or manatees (Holman) do you think they could have scrounged up?
In Exodus 14:25, The LORD troubled the host of the pursuing Egyptians and "TOOK OFF" their chariot wheels. The RV, ASV, NIV, NKJV all equal the KJB, but the NASB and Holman tells us, "He caused the chariot wheels TO SWERVE". My car wheels have at times swerved but they didn't come off. Not quite the same meaning, is it? The RSV and ESV say: "CLOGGING their chariot wheels" with a footnote that tells us "clogging" comes from the [so-called] LXX and the Syriac, but the Hebrew says "removing", like the KJV has.
In Deut. 33:25, "As thy days, so shall thy STRENGTH be." No matter what difficulties I may encounter, God will give me the strength to bear them and to go on. The NIV, NKJV, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Holman, and Spanish all agree with the KJV. The NASB has: "And according to your days, so shall YOUR LEISURELY WALK be." Did God ever promise us a leisurely walk? Not if we read the rest of the Bible, He didn't.
Is there a difference between an eagle and a vulture? In Matt. 24:28, "For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the EAGLES be gathered together." The RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young, RSV, and Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB have "vultures", yet it is a quote from Job 39:27-30 where it refers to eagles, even in the NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB! The NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB translate this same word as eagles in Rev. 4:7 and 12:14.
If someone said our national bird were the vulture, I think Americans would be a little upset; yet the NIV, Holman, ESV, and NASB think nothing of changing the eternal word of God, and few Christians seem to mind at all.
In Psalm 63:10 it says, "They shall be a portion for FOXES". This is the reading in the RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, Douay, and the NASB However the NKJV, Holman, and NIV have "jackals". This word is found 7 times in Hebrew and always translated as foxes by the KJB and NASB, yet the NKJV has foxes (as in Samson catching 300 of them) 6 times, but only here changed it to jackals. The NIV has foxes 4 times and jackals 3 times.
In 1 Kings 12:11 it says, "I will chastise you with SCORPIONS." The NASB, ESV and NIV agree with the KJB, but only the NKJV has "SCOURGES" here and even a footnote telling us it is literally "scorpions", while correctly translating it as scorpions in other passages. The Holman says: "I will discipline you with BARBED WHIPS" - Then it footnotes: Literally - scorpions.
Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The word correctly translated as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible; it is just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.
In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two English words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish" which is ixthus.
Jonah 1:17 refers to a great fish. The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined loosely as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a whale, think Wow is that a big fish! Until some pedantic type says No, that's a mammal.
God Himself has His own "scientific classifications" as listed in 1 Corinthians 15:39. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the word really means, the NKJV and Holman have "the great fish", the NIV has "the huge fish" while the NASB has "the sea monster"!
Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati, the St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, and the RSV of 1952. What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER? Again, the KJB is correct and the NKJV, Holman, NIV and NASB are not.
Those who don't believe any Bible, and more particularly the KJB, is the inspired word of God, frequently criticize the KJB for using words like "to let, prevent, suffer, and conversation". This is a bait and switch tactic, a smokescreen, and a poor excuse to get us to switch to a modern bible version which differs from the KJB both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses.
The verb "to let" is used in three ways in the KJB. "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind." "planted a vineyard. . .and let it out to husbandmen." The third example is the archaic use of to let meaning to withhold or to hinder.
There are still traces of this meaning today. Webster’s defines the noun "a let" as an obstacle, a hindrance, or a delay. In tennis if a ball hits the net, it is called a let ball. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way."
Not only does the KJB use the word "let" in the sense of to hinder or withhold, but so also do Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 has "will let" in the second part of the verse. Even the Revised Version uses "to let" in this sense in Isaiah 43:13.
Explaining terms - what is meant by "bait and switch" can be demonstrated where the new versions say - in effect "Let us clear up the confusion of the KJV and give you a modern rendering." But look at the NKJV, NIV, and NAS. They have updated the word "let" but all three have introduced a private interpretation into the passage by capitalizing certain words and not others (NKJV and NAS), or by adding words not found in any text (NIV).
The NKJV says, "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." Do you see how they have capitalized some of the "He"s and not others? They are forcing you to look at the passage in a certain way to understand its meaning. Yet there is a totally different way of looking at the passage, which is obscured by the new versions.
The NKJV also has changed the meaning of certain phrases in this chapter. Instead of "the day of Christ IS AT HAND" (v. 2) it says: "the day of Christ HAD COME". The NASB, ESV, NIV are worse with "the day of THE LORD has ALREADY COME". This changes the meaning of the passage.
Likewise the NKJV unites with the NASB, NIV, ESV in 2 Thessalonians 3:5 in changing "the Lord direct your hearts...into the patient waiting for Christ." So read the Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Webster, TMB, Bible in Basic English, and even the Living Bible. But the NKJV says: "direct your hearts into the patience of Christ", while the others make this the "steadfastness" or the "perseverance of Christ" or "Christ's endurance" (Holman), rather than the "patient waiting FOR Christ."
The word "to prevent" can have the meaning of to come before, to precede. The Oxford dictionary does not list this meaning as archaic. It is found in the 1936 Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company, the 1950 Douay Version, and in the Revised Version.
In Amos 9:10 it says, "the evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." The 1950 Douay reads like the KJB in Psalm 119:147-148, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried; I hoped in thy word, Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word."
The word can mean a "pre-event", something that happens before something else, and it is used in this way in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede, come before, a pre-event) them which are asleep."
Even when others criticize this word, they know what it means. It is easy to just explain the meaning of the word in this context, then you understand it, and let it stand as is in the KJB.
The word "suffer" is criticized as being archaic in Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
If you look at a dictionary, the word "suffer", meaning to allow or permit, is not archaic at all. Have we been so dumbed down that we think a word can have only one narrow meaning? The Revised Version, the ASV, Darby, Young’s, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Third millenium Bible, and the KJV 21st Century versions, all render this word as "suffer to come unto me."
April 2, 2003, a commentator on Fox News, in opposition to the war, stated that, "...it may be incumbent upon us to possibly SUFFER the presence of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq in order to maintain a buffer between the Sunnis and Shiites."
The Rocky Mountain News in 2003 said of a politician: "He does not suffer fools gladly, and Washington is full of fools."
Feb. 1989 editorial in the Dayton Daily News, Dayton Ohio, stated that the "...Soviets ESCHEW any and all international presence in ending the Afghan War...". Likewise in 2003 the Rocky Mountain News spoke of a baseball team member who ESCHEWED taking a lower salary", and that was in the Sports section!
Another example of "bait and switch" is the word “conversation”. This word used to mean the manner in which one deals with others in social intercourse and exchange. It is very close to the Greek word used, anastrefo, which means to turn back and forth with others; con-versation is literally to turn back and forth with others. It is now limited only to our speech, but our speech is also a great part of how we conduct ourselves with others. Simply explain the word in its context, and leave it at that.
The bait and switch comes in 2 Cor. 1:12-14, "For our REJOICING is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our CONVERSATION in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward . . . we are your REJOICING even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus."
But look what the NIV, NKJV, and NAS have done in this section. The NASB says: "For our PROUD CONFIDENCE is this. . .we have conducted ourselves in the world. . .we are your REASON TO BE PROUD as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus." The NKJV, Holman, and NIV have "boast" instead of "rejoicing"- there is a big difference.
Philippians 2:16 KJB "that I may REJOICE in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."
NASB: "in the day of Christ I may have REASON TO GLORY because I did not run in vain"
NIV, Holman CSB : "in order that I MAY BOAST in the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."
No one will have a reason to be proud or boasting in the day of the Lord Jesus; we will all be flat on our faces! Which is worse, using an old word like conversation and explaining its meaning, or introducing pride as a Christian virtue in the new versions?
If the Bible is our rule and standard for both faith and practice, let's follow its own example for dealing with "archaic " words. In 1 Samuel 9:9, we are told, "(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire 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)"
You see, God explained the meaning of a word, and then He continues to use the word again and again, once He has explained its meaning. See the verses that follow in 1 Samuel 9:11, and 19.
These are just a few of the many examples I could give, but they will perhaps give you something to think about. All bibles are not the same and God is not the author of confusion. God's message is complete and not contradictory. If I get conflicting messages from the different versions, they can't all be from God. Satan and man are the ones who pervert the Scriptures.
As we get nearer the end, when many shall depart from the faith, the falling away will occur, and men will give heed to doctrines of devils, do you suppose that is the time when the best bibles will be popularly read? When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8
If you want to find rest for your soul, peace of mind and confident faith in the words of the living God, read and believe the Holy Bible God has clearly put His mark on as being His infallible words - the King James Version.
For those who object to this article
I understand that If I object to this article, that I need to take certain steps:
1. I need to clearly understand for myself what is the specific basis of my objection
2. I need to remember that other people cannot read my mind and may not understand what I have a problem with, and I will need to be patient in explaining my objection.
3. I need to examine my own motives and decide what is pushing me or motivating me to respond about this article. If there is an issue of lack of accuracy, then I do need to bring this up.
But if the issue is that the article is accurate, then I need to understand how I should be responding to the parts that I already know and understand are true.
4. I need to be wise, so that I do not use my own lack of knowledge, as the basis for objecting too fast. There are many questions and much documentation that can be provided to those who may object. If I have a problem I can ask for this documentation, but I need to be sure and ask myself just what I am placing my SECURITY in, as a fellow Christian.
5. does the article upset me because it may be TRUE, and I am disturbed because I am finding that I have put my security in a Version of the Bible that either is NOT accurate or that was NOT accurately translated ?
6. does this mean that I may be in spiritual danger, and that I need to do much more research personally, for myself, and stop taking the word of some Pastors or leaders who are simply telling me NOT to worry about these issues, but to be warm and filled and go back to sleep ?
7. Do I need to undertand that even though some of these Pastors who "bless" all versions may have good intentions, that they may not have the gift of Biblical Discernment, and therefore they may not understand either their own need to do a great deal of personal research on this matter, so that they do not endanger the Congregation and individual Church members that they have been entrusted with ?
8. Is the church that I am going to either part of a denomination that now is Liberal or has turned its back on God or historic Christianity, or part of a group that is endorsing Unbliblical or Anti-Historic Practices such as Word of Faith or selling the Gospel by Trends such as using Church Consultants that are far more committed to Church NUMBER growth, and NOT the individual Spiritual Maturity of the Christians that are ALREADY there ?
____________________________________
The Real Question is what are you going to do with the information that was presented in this article.
Is the Information True ?
Is the Information Accurate ?
Is the Information documented ?
Do I - before God - have a responsibility if I am a Christian to accept and act on the information in this article ?
Am I comfortable in the knowledge, that some leaders under the guise of clarifying the text of the Bible, are actually changing that text, and changing MY understanding of what God wants to share with me through His Holy Word, the Old Testament and the New Testament ?
Do I understand that these "small" changes number from the hundreds to the THOUSANDS depending on which Modern Versions I use, and that these changes serve to cut away the clarity and the specific understanding found in the Greek New Testament, that these new modern versions are preventing me from understanding ?
Do I understand that most of these new Modern Versions were not developed because there was a genuine need, but because the teams of Bible Translators were Hired by PUBLISHING companies who are eager to make a profit on the Word of God, which remains the Number ONE bestseller every week of every year, and that these Publishers decided to cash in ?
Do I understand that the problem was that if these Bible Adjusters and Correctors did NOT make the changes that they chose to, that they would not be able to claim copyright protection, and therefore they would not be able to make a financial Profit from their new versions ?
Do I understand that there are Spiritual Forces that want to prevent me from having GREATER spiritual understanding about God, but that God himself is always in MORE of a hurry than I am, for Me to get to know HIM ?
Do I realize what my personal state of preparation will be, within me, when Islam becomes the Dominant Religion in the United States, as it is already in Europe, and how I will personally be required to defend my Faith, by argument and persuasion, using knowledge of the Bible and of History and of Christianity, and that God will rightly hold me accountable because I am claiming to be His Child and a personal follower of Jesus Christ ?
In view of these facts, should I try to set aside more time for the study of the Word of God, and more time for the study of History and the true history of the Christian Church, and to learn about how other Christians in the past, actually learned to have and to gain GREAT spiritual strength ?
If no one reaches out to help prepare me for the coming challenges, whose job is it STILL for me to be prepared to answer these challenges and questions ?
FREE Ebooks for your encouragement, consideration and learning (PDF) Page can be found here: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/free_ebooks_instant_downloads_pdf.htm
I Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts: and be ready always to give
an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
II Timothy 2: 15
Study to show thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
FREE For WINDOWS P.C. - MAC - VISTA - LINUX -
FREE EBOOKS
[
CFree
Ebooks
P
]
- DOWNLOAD
EBOOKS
IN PDF 
FORMAT
We would love to hear from you at our E Mail Address HERE