this seems true... but i'm not sure i need a 2nd opinion

Post by **_Anonymous** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:21 am

well... Dr. Kent Hovind an awesome baptist preacher/ creation scientist said in one of his seminars that if you really want to be serious bible student read the kjv because the other new translations are false, at first that sounded a little sketchy to me but he kept talking and explained, so i'll try to explain what he said the best i can,

there was a cult in egypt ( i really wish i remembered the date) who were like the jehovahs witnesses and they had gotten the entire new testament and changed a lot of the pro-trinity verses, such as in 1st john where it talks about "all three agree", so supposedly the cult died out and the manuscripts were on papyrus scrolls and werent worn out, and so the manuscripts the new testament kjv was translated from were the "real" ones and since they were the ones the christians used they were worn out and i guess recently the new alexandrian scrolls were found and they were in better condition so they use those in with the new versions, i can kind of tell when i read my nkjv all of the places where it says at the footnotes "NU text reads" it is usually something that has to do with "Lord Jesus" and "God in Christ" and i think in ephesians there is a place where it says "submit to one another in the fear of Christ" and then the NU text says God, in the little manuscript info section at the front of bibles it does talk about the alexandrian manuscripts, and sometimes in the footnotes it says "more recent manuscripts say:"

so i'm not sure i was curious if you've heard this before or if you have some info on it.

also he said all the times he debates with people about contradictions in the bible the contradictions can only be found in the newer versions of the bible and not in the king james version.

God bless you steve

Post by **_mattrose** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:10 am

I believe Dr. Hovind is overstating his case

I've done a fair amount of study on the KJV-only debate. I believe the best book on the subject is James R. White's 'KJV Only Controversy.' It would be worth your time to pick it up, and it's a quick read.

The KJV is a very good translation of the Bible, but it is not alone.

Many KJV-only advocates accuse the newer translations of 'taking things out' of God's Word, but thoughtful examination will reveal that, in many of these cases, it's the KJV that 'added' to the text.

All that sounds 'bad,' but it's seldom a big deal. Sometimes the KJV will say 'The Lord Jesus Christ' when the original probably only said 'Jesus Christ' or 'The Lord Jesus.'

No doctrine is left out in the NASB or NIV.

Plus, there are some serious shortcomings to the KJV in some passages

The KJV translators themselves said that much is to be gained by studying various translations. Good advice.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:50 am

yeah they did say to read other translations, but the question is are the new translations from the true manuscripts and not changed, there is another book called "new age bible versions" by Gail Riplinger, and it was a 6 year exhaustive study she did, it is really interesting. i personally like the new translations, but that doesnt matter, i just want the truth.

Post by **_KeithB** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:42 pm

I haven't read any of the KJV only books, but from articles, teachers etc. my understanding is that the KJV is a great translation and Some (and I use this term very strictly) some of the more modern day versions are very good also.

These modern translations use different, earlier manuscripts than the 'received text' that the KJV translators used. From what I have heard and read, these other manuscripts while differing in some words and language pretty much line up with the theology and basic doctrines of the KJV texts. The KJV only people would probably disagree with that.

I have also heard negative rumors about these newer text translators and their personal lives and theologies.

What I personally see is that people come to an understanding of salvation and have great personal growth reading the NIV, NKJV, NASB, RSV (and others), I personally wouldn't question these versions but some I would question some of these newer paraphrase, thought for thought type English versions. They are so watered down - if I read a verse from them I have to say to myself "Does the Bible really say that?!?" and then go check my NAS or KJV.

My own personal opinion is learn more about the Hebrew and Greek and use some good language dictionaries when teaching and studying. Also, stick to a word for word translation that is used by good Bible teachers (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV etc.)

Just my 2 cents.

God bless,
Keith

Post by **_JD** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:31 pm

Hi guys. I have read James R. White's book The King James Only Controversy and found it to be even handed. He wades through and crystallizes much of the information (and misinformation) on the subject. He dedicates a part of his online ministry to to the topic. http://aomin.org/kjvo.html

Here, he also responds to Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions.

I hope this helps...

JD

Post by **_mattrose** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:25 pm

devin wrote: there is another book called "new age bible versions" by Gail Riplinger, and it was a 6 year exhaustive study she did, it is really interesting.

I heard a debate between James White and Gail Riplinger. She really got blown out of the water. She just had a lot of facts wrong. She was exposed badly.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:36 pm

thanks fellas, your info is very profitable to me
God bless, dev

Post by **_Some Partial-Pret guy** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:29 pm

Devin,
Also see this:

http://www.equip.org/free/DK115.pdf

God bless!

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:29 pm

No one "changed" the only "trinity verse" in the King James Bible, namely
I John 5:6

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Rather this verse was ADDED.

According to Greek expert Henry Alford D.D., no Greek manuscripts previous to the beginning of the Sixteenth Century contained these words!

Alford also stated that NONE of the Greek Fathers used this text, even when writing in support of the Trinity.

The fact that Kent Hovind appears not to be honest about this text, makes the rest of his writing suspect.

It seems that some copyist had written the words as a commentary of parallel construction to verse 8, and a later medieval copyist placed it right into the text.

I possess transcripts of ALL Greek papyri of the New Testament that were made before 325 A.D. The text just didn't exist. The apostle John didn't write it.

The fact that