I used to be majorly anti-NLT because it’s so paraphrased. But sometimes when I’m discussing a finer point of scripture with someone the NLT parahrases a verse the way the Spirit had been leading me to understand it. Sometimes there are subtleties in language that if we’re not very careful and discerning can lead us to misinterpret the Word of God. Sometimes looking at what more than one translation has to say can help that. That’s not to suggest that ‘all translations are equal’ or anything like that… I would NOT use NLT as my final authoritative version, but there are probably more than just one version that is useful.

Anyway, that’s just for you to consider personally, I don’t want to shove it down your throat. God bless.

I guess I need to clarify when I said I was “entitled to my own opinion.” I basically meant that my “opinion” is to choose the KJV. I should not have worded as such. As I read that, it did sound a bit harsh. My apologies.

And I need to share something with you. I called my and this subject came up and she basically told me that I was wrong in putting down other version and it was not place to judge them. “OUCH!”

So, how about, the KJV is the only bible for me. Believe it or not the Holy Ghost was nudging me on that. hee. I am receptive to my Father’s wishes, but being only human, I do fall short, as do we all.

I do tend too come on strong when it comes to the KJV, but so many people attack it and it bothers me. However, wasn’t I doing the same thing? Yep.

God bless you friend and thank you for your kind words.

I’m glad to hear that you are breaking my stereotype of KJV only churches. I guess it was foolish of me to assume your ideas about the KJV came from someone else.

I think the reason I was so upset is because you wrote:
“I have had many discussions regarding the KJV and I truly believe that it is the only bible,”

This suggests that the version I grew up on and am most comfortable, and ‘love’ is less than the KJV. I think we can relate on that because obviously you feel like your beloved version which you were raised on is under attack. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to attack you or the version you choose. The KJV is an awesome version, and considering it’s age, it’s pretty amazing how accurate it is.

However, Leticia, I think I objectively disprooved your arguments for the KJV’s accuracy. I’m not trying to say that it’s totally inaccurate, but I really think you should consider whether a more moderate stance is appropriate here. Is the KJV the ‘only bible?’ or is it only one of the numerous valid translations, in contrast to some which are largely questionable?

Also, you wrote:
“I may have come on too strong in my convictions over the KJV, but I am entitled to my opinion.”

Leticia, if I were to challenge the validity of this precept, would I be too harsh? Please, look past my poor attitude and seek the Truth if it may be found. And I don’t say this to say that you in particular do not have the Truth. You profess the Lord Jesus Christ, so I take you at your word. But look at the statement quoted, are we really entitled to our opinions? Perhaps to an extent we must allow for differing convictions and trust in the Holy Ghost to correct any misconceptions, but think about this moral, ponder it deeply, see if it is a virtue from God or not. I don’t challenge you on this issue because it is pertinent to the validity of the KJV or the supremacy of the KJV, but I challenge you on this issue because I see these phrases, this one especially, passed around in the Church very often, as though we never think about the implications of our beliefs.

I will say this thing and I am done. I am a Christian and I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. And I do have the Holy Ghost as my constant companion and guide.

I may have come on too strong in my convictions over the KJV, but I am entitled to my opinion. And if I see or read any discrepancies or errors in the other versions, I will speak up. Only through the blood can our sins be forgiven, if a new believer reads a bible that leaves out the Blood of Jesus, how are they supposed to know?

Furthermore, my church is not just a KJV church, my pastor reads from the Amplified and NKJV and other versions.

I grew up with this version, I trust this version and I do not have any problems understanding it.

Regardless what I say about what I have found in comparison to other versions. You have already concluded that I am not following the Holy Ghost etc. And I am not going to defend my faith or my relationship with my Savior.

Leticia Writes:
As you recall I mentioned that King James appointed Hebrew and Greek scholars (who were belivers) to write the authorized version. And this bible to this day is the only bible in circulation that is not copywrited.

Please Leticia, visit this link and see what it says about what versions are copywrited.
http://www.christnotes.org/hel.....leVersions

And for the record, the KJV is not copywrited simply because it is older than copywrite law, not because it’s writers, having the option to copywrite their work, chose to make it public domain to uphold an ethical standard.

Leticia Writes:
In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!…”
The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, “How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn…” The new versions change “Lucifer” to “morning star.” According to Revelation 22:16, the “morning star” is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please, I invite you to look to the roots of the name, ‘lucifer’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Also, it’s 1966 in the Strong’s Concordance. Check it in the Hebrew… morning star is actually a more accurate translation than ‘lucifer’.

Furthermore, you suggest that the new verisons change ‘lucifer’ to ‘morning star’ they do not change ‘lucifer’ at all, in fact, they take the original Hebrew word, which I will transliterate to “haylale” and they translate it to mean ‘morning star’ which is accurate according to Strong’s, though I admit I haven’t done a great deal of study into that word. Now, the greek word translated ‘morning star’ in Revelation 22:16, which I emphasize is Greek and not Hebrew (two languages which are VASTLY different from each other,) is 3720 in Strong’s, and has more reference to Venus, and being bright in the morning sky, than it does specifically to the ‘morning star’. But the important thing to understand here is that ‘morning star’ is not specifically a holy title, but is more of a descriptive name.

And I’m sorry, is it just me or did you just imply that Satan himself spawned/authored the ‘new verisons?’ You sound too much like the catholic church, clinging to the latin volgate. How dare you? Do you even know what you are saying? I myself found Christ, in part by the testimony of the NIV. Jesus Himself said, “Any house divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or houseld divided against itself will not stand. If satan drives out satan, he is divided against himself. How can this kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Holy Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Therefore, if the NIV is the work of satan, it is not the work of God and no good can come of it. So was I saved by the testimony of satan or by the testimony of God? Many come to Christ by the NIV because it is not the translation itself but the Word of God it translates that bears witness to His power.

Bring your numerous examples, it will be a trifle that Truth be revealed. If anyone has a leg to stand on, speaking of translations, it is the autographs, not the KJV.

What Isaiah is referring to by calling satan the morning star or the son of the morning, or lucifer, is not a proper name as we understand in modern English, but he is referring to lucifer’s former glory as the chief angel in the Kingdom of God before his fall from grace. Lucifer was the angel of light and he was the most high angel… this is, of course, foundational to our understanding of sin at large. Lucifer was so magnificent that he thought he could be the Most High. But only God is the Most High. Therefore, lucifer made himself an enemy of God and took as many angels with him as he could. Now he spends his days roaming the earth seeking humans he may devour, or convince that his own ways are better than those of he Most High God.

As for your reference in Colossians? Let’s goto the original text. I can’t write Greek characters, as far as I know, within this text editor. But my interlinear, translating word for word, reads “in whom (we have) the redemption the forgiveness (of the) sins” The parenthesis are mine, they connotate that two English words are used to translate one Greek word. There is nothing that remotely speaks of “through His blood” in the original Greek transcripts. So… maybe you should examine your prescious KJV a little more closely. You are obviously starting with the prejudice that the KJV is the best and most accurate translation available. Your arguments always assume that the KJV is right and that the newer translations are adulterating it. However, in the two examples you cited, it is clear that the KJV is less accurate than the NIV!

Look, I don’t know who is teaching you this slop, but you better stop listening to what they say and start listening to the Holy Spirit. It’s obvious to anyone who uses their mind that to believe that the KJV is the only version is not an idea that comes from God, but an idea that comes from man. So I suggest that you seriously consider where your ideas about the KJV actually come from. Isn’t it true that you attend a KJV only church? Isn’t it true that all your understanding of why the KJV is better than the new translations is founded on what people have told you and not on what you have actually researched?

I don’t want to berate you so much, but you leave me with no choice. There is no way to tell you the objective Truth and still maintain a polite front. To maintain such a polite aire I would have to compromise intellectual and spiritual Truth.

Arthur and Jess, Shakespeare’s books have the original text on the left-side and the translation on the right. I have not found a book that has it all in modern English. I wanted to clarify that. If I am mistaken, please let me know. So, why not do the same with the KJV? Why make up an entirely new bible? And why are we seeing so many of them popping up? Joyce Meyer actually has her own bible out in amplified form with her notations etc.

As you recall I mentioned that King James appointed Hebrew and Greek scholars (who were belivers) to write the authorized version. And this bible to this day is the only bible in circulation that is not copywrited. That says a lot to me. I agree that there are some changes but not errors that KJV should have, that is vast difference.

Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, “In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:”
The NIV reads, “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words “THROUGH HIS BLOOD” out.

One more.

In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!…”
The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, “How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn…” The new versions change “Lucifer” to “morning star.” According to Revelation 22:16, the “morning star” is the Lord Jesus Christ.
THE MESSAGE: 12What a comedown this, O Babylon!
Daystar! Son of Dawn!
Flat on your face in the underworld mud,
you, famous for flattening nations!

I have many more examples, and this is why I have chosen the KJV as my favorite and I consider the best.