Home / Christian Website Hosting / Christian Domain Names / Christian Search Engine
Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers

Christian Message Boards


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Christian Message Boards   » Miscellaneous   » General Discussion   » What if you're not?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: What if you're not?
Gadgetere
Community Member
Member # 16198

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gadgetere     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Well there is no sense in answering the rest of your nubbins.

I had to look that up.
quote:
Webster's Definition of nubbin.
1 : something (such as an ear of corn) that is small for its kind, stunted, undeveloped, or imperfect.

Is that how you meant it? I would never say something like that, it's disrespectful. When we embody verses like Eph4:15, "speak the truth in love", we promote fellowship and spiritual maturity among brothers, we honor He whom we serve, and we recognize there is only one Savior and none of us are Him.

No one has taken the trouble you did to speak about the NASB -- for that I thank you. I chose it because it gets some passages like 1Cor12:29-30 right (the Greek construct with "Me", is a negative question presuming only an answer of "No"). NASB translates, "All are not appostles, are they? All do not speak in tongues, do they?" While KJV says, "Are all apostles? Do all speak in tongues?"

quote:
1. Theological Reasons

Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Revised Standard Version)

The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V. translation of this verse. The word used in the original Hebrew has long been understood to mean specifically a virgin in this context, and is incorrectly rendered "young woman" by the R.S.V. To make matters worse, this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the Revised Standard Version, but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No fundamentalist Christian would accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the R.S.V.

My NASB clearly says "virgin" in Isaiah7:14.

quote:
2. Textual Reasons

Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than 100 new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

When the reader comes to John 7:53 - 8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this:

"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."

Okay, but it's still included.

quote:
Something similar is done to the great commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, and what the new versions are saying, is that a large amount of the New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new textual theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) Every man needs every word of God! A man's needs will not be met unless he has received "every word" that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). With that promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved throughout the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation!

So-called "textual criticism" is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions than one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guess work and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James.
3. Philosophical Reasons

Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus said we need! The King James Version is what scholars call "formal equivalence" to the original text. Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The "dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern idiom. Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want a "formal equivalence" translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures. In other words, he was putting the Bible into his own words. When a pastor reads John 3:16 to his congregation Sunday morning, that is one thing. When he rephrases it in his own words in order to explain what the verse means, that is another thing. Preachers make it clear when they are reading God's Word and when they are paraphrasing it. It's acceptable to paraphrase the Scripture in explaining it, but it is unacceptable to confuse the paraphrase with the actual Word! The Living Bible is not a Bible; it is Dr. Taylor's paraphrase of the Bible. Please keep in mind the distinction. Sadly, the result of Dr. Taylor's paraphrasing was not always very helpful, even though he claims to hold "a rigid evangelical position" in his theology. For example, in I Samuel 20:30, he introduced vile profanity into Holy Writ without warrant from the original text!

The very popular New International Version is a "dynamic equivalence" translation. Its "rival" among "conservative" modern versions is the New American Standard Bible, which is a "formal equivalency" translation (but of the new text). The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means. Experts will say that all translation involves some interpretation, even when this is not the object of the translators. However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers of a new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words.

Advertising for the New International Version has often included references to the translation of Job 36:33. Promoters of the N.I.V. ask us which version we would rather read.

"The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (King James Version)

"His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach." (New International Version)

Without question, the N.I.V. reading is clearer. However, which translation represents more accurately the meaning of the Hebrew words in this verse? The truth is that this is a hard verse to read and understand in Hebrew as well as in the King James Version! Any good technical commentary will tell you this. the New International makes it clearer than the original Hebrew! Actually, the N.I.V. interprets for us what the translation committee thinks the passage means, rather than what it says. The King James Version tells us what it says and leaves to us, as much as possible, the business of interpreting what it means. This is an important distinction. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the Priesthood of Believers calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions.
4. Cultural Reasons

Proverbs 22:28 says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."

In the spirit of the fifth commandment, we are to honor the traditions given to us by the previous generations of our people. Of course, if such tradition contradicts Scripture, we are to reject it in favor of what the Bible says. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)

We never elevate tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture. But we should give our forefathers "the benefit of the doubt." We should also be careful to preserve all we can that is truly Christian about our culture.

The King James Version of the Bible has played an important and unique role in the development of American culture. It could be said that the foundation of our society was Holy Scripture. The theology of the Bible influenced the ideas behind our Constitution. The language of the King James Bible was scattered throughout our early literature. The revivals that formed and changed our culture resulted from the preaching of Bible texts. For many years, Americans knew a certain amount of Scripture by heart. Many or most could quote at least part of the Twenty-third Psalm, and recognize the Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount when quoted. But now the influence of the Bible has waned significantly. One reason for the decline of Biblical influence has been the loss of a standard version of the Bible.

For most of our first two hundred years as a nation, the King James Version was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called "modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued to be the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. With the demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without a standard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-third Psalm any more? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The question always arises, "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation's spiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few have understood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed to the decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern for our country' future, if for no other reason! Why should conservative Christians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards that made our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded against change by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"?

I have no complaint against the KJV, except when it errs in places like not fully conveying "me" (may) 1Cor12:29-30, and Jn6:67 -- KJB "will you also go away?" NASB "You do not want to go away also, do you?" It's a negative question that expects only an answer of "no", NASB conveys the Greek.

(Nevertheless, Peter treats it as a real question, and responds in Jn6:68 saying essentially of course they won't leave, they know He's the Messiah.)

So it's puzzling why both KJV and NASB get James2:14 wrong, "That faith (which has no good works) can NOT save you, CAN it!" NASB renders it, "Can that faith save him?" And KJV "can faith save him?" Clearly the KJV is worse than NASB.
quote:
5. Practical Reasons

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.

We also find the use of italics in the old Bible a great help. The translators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language. The new translations do not do this. We appreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know what was added and what was original, and are disappointed that modern translators have let us down in this area.

The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. The King James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not have them. The reader determines where a quotation begins and ends by the context, and by all other means of interpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us the luxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because they have inserted quote marks according to the translators' interpretations of the various passages. John 1:15-18 and 3:27-36 present examples of places in the Bible where the length of the quotation is a matter of interpretation.

Such features make the King James Version the most helpful translation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the "New King James," which is translated from the traditional texts, denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, and the absence of quotation marks.

For all of these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative, Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as their standard text. The new versions present too many problems and simply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for so long. Let's stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it will move us from clarity to confusion, from authority to anarchy, from faith to doubt. May we never make such a move!

https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/flanders-whykjv.html

Again, I have no problem using KJV; there are places where translation-wise it is superior to NASB --- it renders the conditional in Heb12:7 while NASB does not. It was absolutely a conditional statement.

quote:
American Standard Version Exposed!

I am writing this webpage simply to warn you about the American Standard Version (ASV) Bible, it has serious problems! I am going to share with you some of my observations about the American Standard Version of the Bible:

Christ as Creator attacked in Colossians 1:16 - Colossians 1:16 in the King James Bible reads, "For by him were all things created..." Notice that ALL things were created BY the Lord Jesus Christ. If you'll take a quick look at the ASV, you'll find that "BY" has been changed to "IN." This is no subtle difference. The Jehovah Witnesses false religion deny that Jesus is Almighty God, they believe that God created all things "IN" Christ; but not "BY" Christ Himself in His own Godhead power. It is a grave danger to translate this verse as the ASV has done. Jesus Christ is the Creator! Jesus was not created, but He did create all things. John 1;1-3 will affirm this! I am very leery of any publication that speaks of creation occurring "through" or "in" Christ. The issue is over the deity of Jesus Christ. As God Almighty, Jesus created ALL things by the very Word of His mouth (2nd Peter 3:5)!

My copy of NASB clearly says "by".

quote:
Trinity attacked in 1st John 5:7 - The ASV attacks the Godhead by removing 1st John 5:7. The ASV reads, "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible; the word "Godhead" most certainly is (see Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9). Only the King James retains the CORRECT translation of 1st John 5:7. I bought a Textus Receptus years ago for about $80. The Textus Receptus (or "received text") are the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which the King James translators accepted as inspired by God. I looked in my Textus Receptus and was satisfied to find 1st John 5:7. Don't let anyone tell you that 1st John 5:7 is not in the Greek, I'm looking at it in front of me!
Seems your point is valid, NASB says "are in agreement". Yet, Jn10:33 says Jesus and the Father are "one", and the footnote says "one in essence".

quote:
Changes confess “faults” to confess “sins” in James 5:16 - James 5:16 in the ASV makes a horrible change. The ASV reads, "Confess therefore your sins one to another..." The KJB reads, "Confess your faults one to another..." We are never to confess our SINS to anyone except God alone (1st Timothy 2:5). The ASV is catering to the Catholics who believe that they must confess their sins to a priest. Of course, this is sheer heresy. We are never to confess our sins to a minister or priest, who are saturated with sins themselves! The Bible tells us to confess our FAULTS to one another, NOT sins. A fault may be coming to work cranky or perhaps lacking understanding when under pressure. We all have faults. Ephesians 4:30-32 commands us to be "kind, tenderhearted and forgiving to one another." We should be nice to people, but don't disclose anything which could come back to haunt you. We should let people know that we have feet of clay, but never show anyone your feet! Only God needs to know our sins, not man.

Blood of Jesus is removed from Colossians 1:14 - Colossians 1:14 contains a vicious attack on the blood of Christ, it is REMOVED completely. The ASV reads, "in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." However, the KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" Did you see that phrase "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" that they removed? How wicked for anyone to diminish and corrupt the Word of God. All modern translations woefully attack Christ's deity and the blood of Christ.

Yes, and "blood" is removed in the NASB. I may cite that in my book.

quote:
Acts 12:4 wrongly changes “Easter” to “Passover” - Acts 12:4 contains heresy in the ASV. The ASV reads, "...intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people..." The KJB reads correctly, "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Which is it, Passover or Easter? Passover is a sacred holyday, instituted by God for Israel. Easter is a pagan festival. They both cannot be correct! The King James Bible is very accurate. Notice in Acts 12:2 that is was already the "days of unleavened bread." Leviticus 23:5,6 clearly teaches that the Passover day fell upon the 14th day of the first month. The feast of unleavened bread began on the 15th day of the first month. So there is no way Acts 12:4 could be the Passover if the days of unleavened bread were already taking place in Acts 12:2. The King James Translators knew what they were doing.

Deity of Christ attacked in 1st Timothy 3:16 - 1st Timothy 3:16 in the ASV reads, "...He who was manifested in the flesh..." The KJB correctly reads, "...God was manifest in the flesh..." Why would anyone removed "God" to be replaced with "He." This Scripture directly teaches that God became flesh in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV is even worse, reducing this precious Scripture down to "...He was revealed in a body..." It is sacrilegious blasphemy!

Deity of Christ attacked in Philippians 2:6 - Philippians 2:6 should be sufficient in itself to make you mad enough to burn your American Standard Version. The ASV reads a shocking, "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped." So the ASV says that Jesus couldn't grasp being equal with God. Let's look at the King James Bible which reads, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

I was aware of that problem. Ever read the "New World Translation" of Philip2:6? It's far worse -- says something like, "Jesus gave no thought to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God" -- clearly conveying He never intended to present Himself as equal. Oh yes He did!

quote:
Big difference huh! Jesus was equal with God in every way because He is Almighty God. The ASV (as well as ALL modern translations) attacks Christ's deity in numerous places. The ASV may not be as bad as the NIV, but they were BOTH cut from the SAME cloth (i.e., the same corrupt Greek text). Danger!

Christ as Creator attacked in John 1:3 - John 1:3 has a subtle, but detrimental change. The ASV reads, "All things were made through him..." The KJB reads, "All things were made by him..." It may not seem like a big deal unless you understand that the Jehovah Witnesses (and other false religions) don't believe that Jesus created the world in His own power. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is as omnipotent (i.e., all powerful) as God the Father, for He is God the Father (Isaiah 9:6; Colossians 2:9; Revelation 1:8). Jesus solely created the universe. All the power of the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ (John 3:34). So God didn't create anything "through" Jesus; but rather, ALL THINGS were made "BY" Jesus, Who is Almighty God.

That's right. And JW's also say "through". But while they worded John1 as "all things came into being through him" (little "H"), they changed Col1:16-17 adding the word, "OTHER".

"All other things came into being through him". So Jehovah (not Jesus) created Jesus, and then Jehovah created all other things through Jesus. It's fun to get them to interact with Rev1:8, "He who died and came to life is the First and the Last" --- they have no choice but to admit this is Jesus, but choke up when asked about Rev20:18, JEHOVAH is the First and Last, there are not two "Firsts" and "Lasts" (so too Isaiah 44:6). All they can do is say, "....uhhhhmmmm...."

quote:
Exhortation to “study” removed from Bible - 2nd Timothy 2:15 in the ASV reads, "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God..." The KJB reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God..." The word "study" is much more direct and clear than to simply say "give diligence." Of all the Bible versions sold on the market today, only the King James commands us to STUDY! Of course, greedy heretics don't want you to study your Bible. For centuries, Catholics have been discouraged from studying the Bible. The Vatican wants you to be stupid enough to allow your priest to fill your head with vain traditions and lies of the devil. You had better study! Jesus commanded us in John 5:39... SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES!!! Of course, if you have an ASV then you have no command to study do you?

There are many, many, more problems with the ASV, I hope you will throw away your counterfeit bible and use only the trustworthy King James Bible.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/american_standard_version_expose.htm
[Cool] [/QB]

Well, the text I've written makes no errors on the verses it cites, it would be a major rework to replace all citations. It will be sufficient to add a note about some of these errors, and encourage readers to "use other translations like King James". I already stated that KJV correctly renders the conditional in Heb12:7 while NASB does not.

All this said --- you have not answered the question, WildB. What one word sums up Christianity? Your friend walks up to you and asks, "What is 'born again'? Why did the veil tear? What was Jesus about? What is salvation? What's different between Christianity and all other views?"

You can answer him completely with one word, and he'll completely understand. What's the word?

It's not "faith/belief"; everyone believes something, and James says mere belief is not enough -- Jms2:19.

It's not "love" -- that is part of the answer, but he won't understand. What is it ABOUT "love" that Jesus accomplished?

What's the word?

Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2021  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917

Icon 6 posted      Profile for WildB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gadgetere:
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
The King James Version remains the most accurate version of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.

Hi, WildB!

I like the New American Standard, it's closer to original Greek.

Well there is no sense in answering the rest of your nubbins.

Why We Use The King James Version of the Bible.

1. Theological Reasons

Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Revised Standard Version)

The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V. translation of this verse. The word used in the original Hebrew has long been understood to mean specifically a virgin in this context, and is incorrectly rendered "young woman" by the R.S.V. To make matters worse, this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the Revised Standard Version, but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No fundamentalist Christian would accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the R.S.V.

The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo-orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death" in many New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Phillips translation and the the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox religionists. For this reason, we will not use them.
2. Textual Reasons

Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than 100 new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

When the reader comes to John 7:53 - 8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this:

"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."

Something similar is done to the great commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, and what the new versions are saying, is that a large amount of the New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new textual theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) Every man needs every word of God! A man's needs will not be met unless he has received "every word" that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). With that promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved throughout the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation!

So-called "textual criticism" is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions than one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guess work and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James.
3. Philosophical Reasons

Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus said we need! The King James Version is what scholars call "formal equivalence" to the original text. Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The "dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern idiom. Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want a "formal equivalence" translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures. In other words, he was putting the Bible into his own words. When a pastor reads John 3:16 to his congregation Sunday morning, that is one thing. When he rephrases it in his own words in order to explain what the verse means, that is another thing. Preachers make it clear when they are reading God's Word and when they are paraphrasing it. It's acceptable to paraphrase the Scripture in explaining it, but it is unacceptable to confuse the paraphrase with the actual Word! The Living Bible is not a Bible; it is Dr. Taylor's paraphrase of the Bible. Please keep in mind the distinction. Sadly, the result of Dr. Taylor's paraphrasing was not always very helpful, even though he claims to hold "a rigid evangelical position" in his theology. For example, in I Samuel 20:30, he introduced vile profanity into Holy Writ without warrant from the original text!

The very popular New International Version is a "dynamic equivalence" translation. Its "rival" among "conservative" modern versions is the New American Standard Bible, which is a "formal equivalency" translation (but of the new text). The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means. Experts will say that all translation involves some interpretation, even when this is not the object of the translators. However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers of a new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words.

Advertising for the New International Version has often included references to the translation of Job 36:33. Promoters of the N.I.V. ask us which version we would rather read.

"The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (King James Version)

"His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach." (New International Version)

Without question, the N.I.V. reading is clearer. However, which translation represents more accurately the meaning of the Hebrew words in this verse? The truth is that this is a hard verse to read and understand in Hebrew as well as in the King James Version! Any good technical commentary will tell you this. the New International makes it clearer than the original Hebrew! Actually, the N.I.V. interprets for us what the translation committee thinks the passage means, rather than what it says. The King James Version tells us what it says and leaves to us, as much as possible, the business of interpreting what it means. This is an important distinction. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the Priesthood of Believers calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions.
4. Cultural Reasons

Proverbs 22:28 says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."

In the spirit of the fifth commandment, we are to honor the traditions given to us by the previous generations of our people. Of course, if such tradition contradicts Scripture, we are to reject it in favor of what the Bible says. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)

We never elevate tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture. But we should give our forefathers "the benefit of the doubt." We should also be careful to preserve all we can that is truly Christian about our culture.

The King James Version of the Bible has played an important and unique role in the development of American culture. It could be said that the foundation of our society was Holy Scripture. The theology of the Bible influenced the ideas behind our Constitution. The language of the King James Bible was scattered throughout our early literature. The revivals that formed and changed our culture resulted from the preaching of Bible texts. For many years, Americans knew a certain amount of Scripture by heart. Many or most could quote at least part of the Twenty-third Psalm, and recognize the Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount when quoted. But now the influence of the Bible has waned significantly. One reason for the decline of Biblical influence has been the loss of a standard version of the Bible.

For most of our first two hundred years as a nation, the King James Version was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called "modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued to be the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. With the demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without a standard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-third Psalm any more? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The question always arises, "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation's spiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few have understood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed to the decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern for our country' future, if for no other reason! Why should conservative Christians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards that made our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded against change by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"?
5. Practical Reasons

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.

We also find the use of italics in the old Bible a great help. The translators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language. The new translations do not do this. We appreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know what was added and what was original, and are disappointed that modern translators have let us down in this area.

The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. The King James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not have them. The reader determines where a quotation begins and ends by the context, and by all other means of interpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us the luxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because they have inserted quote marks according to the translators' interpretations of the various passages. John 1:15-18 and 3:27-36 present examples of places in the Bible where the length of the quotation is a matter of interpretation.

Such features make the King James Version the most helpful translation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the "New King James," which is translated from the traditional texts, denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, and the absence of quotation marks.

For all of these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative, Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as their standard text. The new versions present too many problems and simply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for so long. Let's stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it will move us from clarity to confusion, from authority to anarchy, from faith to doubt. May we never make such a move!

https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/flanders-whykjv.html

American Standard Version Exposed!

I am writing this webpage simply to warn you about the American Standard Version (ASV) Bible, it has serious problems! I am going to share with you some of my observations about the American Standard Version of the Bible:

Christ as Creator attacked in Colossians 1:16 - Colossians 1:16 in the King James Bible reads, "For by him were all things created..." Notice that ALL things were created BY the Lord Jesus Christ. If you'll take a quick look at the ASV, you'll find that "BY" has been changed to "IN." This is no subtle difference. The Jehovah Witnesses false religion deny that Jesus is Almighty God, they believe that God created all things "IN" Christ; but not "BY" Christ Himself in His own Godhead power. It is a grave danger to translate this verse as the ASV has done. Jesus Christ is the Creator! Jesus was not created, but He did create all things. John 1;1-3 will affirm this! I am very leery of any publication that speaks of creation occurring "through" or "in" Christ. The issue is over the deity of Jesus Christ. As God Almighty, Jesus created ALL things by the very Word of His mouth (2nd Peter 3:5)!

Trinity attacked in 1st John 5:7 - The ASV attacks the Godhead by removing 1st John 5:7. The ASV reads, "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible; the word "Godhead" most certainly is (see Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9). Only the King James retains the CORRECT translation of 1st John 5:7. I bought a Textus Receptus years ago for about $80. The Textus Receptus (or "received text") are the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which the King James translators accepted as inspired by God. I looked in my Textus Receptus and was satisfied to find 1st John 5:7. Don't let anyone tell you that 1st John 5:7 is not in the Greek, I'm looking at it in front of me!

Changes confess “faults” to confess “sins” in James 5:16 - James 5:16 in the ASV makes a horrible change. The ASV reads, "Confess therefore your sins one to another..." The KJB reads, "Confess your faults one to another..." We are never to confess our SINS to anyone except God alone (1st Timothy 2:5). The ASV is catering to the Catholics who believe that they must confess their sins to a priest. Of course, this is sheer heresy. We are never to confess our sins to a minister or priest, who are saturated with sins themselves! The Bible tells us to confess our FAULTS to one another, NOT sins. A fault may be coming to work cranky or perhaps lacking understanding when under pressure. We all have faults. Ephesians 4:30-32 commands us to be "kind, tenderhearted and forgiving to one another." We should be nice to people, but don't disclose anything which could come back to haunt you. We should let people know that we have feet of clay, but never show anyone your feet! Only God needs to know our sins, not man.

Blood of Jesus is removed from Colossians 1:14 - Colossians 1:14 contains a vicious attack on the blood of Christ, it is REMOVED completely. The ASV reads, "in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." However, the KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" Did you see that phrase "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" that they removed? How wicked for anyone to diminish and corrupt the Word of God. All modern translations woefully attack Christ's deity and the blood of Christ.

Acts 12:4 wrongly changes “Easter” to “Passover” - Acts 12:4 contains heresy in the ASV. The ASV reads, "...intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people..." The KJB reads correctly, "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Which is it, Passover or Easter? Passover is a sacred holyday, instituted by God for Israel. Easter is a pagan festival. They both cannot be correct! The King James Bible is very accurate. Notice in Acts 12:2 that is was already the "days of unleavened bread." Leviticus 23:5,6 clearly teaches that the Passover day fell upon the 14th day of the first month. The feast of unleavened bread began on the 15th day of the first month. So there is no way Acts 12:4 could be the Passover if the days of unleavened bread were already taking place in Acts 12:2. The King James Translators knew what they were doing.

Deity of Christ attacked in 1st Timothy 3:16 - 1st Timothy 3:16 in the ASV reads, "...He who was manifested in the flesh..." The KJB correctly reads, "...God was manifest in the flesh..." Why would anyone removed "God" to be replaced with "He." This Scripture directly teaches that God became flesh in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV is even worse, reducing this precious Scripture down to "...He was revealed in a body..." It is sacrilegious blasphemy!

Deity of Christ attacked in Philippians 2:6 - Philippians 2:6 should be sufficient in itself to make you mad enough to burn your American Standard Version. The ASV reads a shocking, "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped." So the ASV says that Jesus couldn't grasp being equal with God. Let's look at the King James Bible which reads, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Big difference huh! Jesus was equal with God in every way because He is Almighty God. The ASV (as well as ALL modern translations) attacks Christ's deity in numerous places. The ASV may not be as bad as the NIV, but they were BOTH cut from the SAME cloth (i.e., the same corrupt Greek text). Danger!

Christ as Creator attacked in John 1:3 - John 1:3 has a subtle, but detrimental change. The ASV reads, "All things were made through him..." The KJB reads, "All things were made by him..." It may not seem like a big deal unless you understand that the Jehovah Witnesses (and other false religions) don't believe that Jesus created the world in His own power. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is as omnipotent (i.e., all powerful) as God the Father, for He is God the Father (Isaiah 9:6; Colossians 2:9; Revelation 1:8). Jesus solely created the universe. All the power of the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ (John 3:34). So God didn't create anything "through" Jesus; but rather, ALL THINGS were made "BY" Jesus, Who is Almighty God.

Exhortation to “study” removed from Bible - 2nd Timothy 2:15 in the ASV reads, "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God..." The KJB reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God..." The word "study" is much more direct and clear than to simply say "give diligence." Of all the Bible versions sold on the market today, only the King James commands us to STUDY! Of course, greedy heretics don't want you to study your Bible. For centuries, Catholics have been discouraged from studying the Bible. The Vatican wants you to be stupid enough to allow your priest to fill your head with vain traditions and lies of the devil. You had better study! Jesus commanded us in John 5:39... SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES!!! Of course, if you have an ASV then you have no command to study do you?

There are many, many, more problems with the ASV, I hope you will throw away your counterfeit bible and use only the trustworthy King James Bible.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/american_standard_version_expose.htm
[Cool]

--------------------
That is all.....

Posts: 8186 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gadgetere
Community Member
Member # 16198

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gadgetere     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
The King James Version remains the most accurate version of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.

Hi, WildB!

I like the New American Standard, it's closer to original Greek. The differences between Textus Receptus and Nestle seem minor; "truly escaped" (ontos apopheugo) in 2Pet2:18 vs "barely escaped" (oligos apopheugo), and "counted worthy" (Kataxioo) vs "have strength" (katischuo --- both have "ekpheugo" flee-away-from) for two examples. King James better renders the conditional in Hebrews12:7, "IF we submit to God's discipline, THEN He treats us as sons". They all get James2:14 wrong, the "me-dunamai" construct should be translated, "That faith (which produces no works) can NOT save you, can it!"

quote:
Salvation is only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for sin (John 3:16; Romans 5:8-9; 6:23; 8:33-34; 1 Timothy 2:5; Titus 3:5).
And yet, we must be careful what "faith" means --- while Luke records Acts16:31 "believe and you will be saved", we must recognize James in 2:19 says, "You believe in one God, but even demons believe and shudder." It's not mere belief that saves, but something more...

(And we must establish if God receives volitional faith from us, or if He sovereignly installs faith IN us. Which fits Acts17:26-31?)

quote:
All those who have repented and have truly trusted Christ for salvation are eternally secure (Romans 8:1).
Well, yes --- however, that passage is followed by, "If we walk after the flesh (to satisfy its lusts), we must die; but if by the Spirit we put to death the flesh, we will live." Eternally secure from God's side, but "if we are faithless (and perish!) yet He remains faithful". Hebrews3 warns "take care brethren lest you be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from God"!

What do you think of Romans11:18-23?

quote:
Personal holiness is the fruits of salvation (Galatians 5:22-23).
That's completely right --- all our righteousness is as "filthy rags" (the word in Isaiah is much worse than "filthy rags"). It's all His righteousness clothing us; Isaiah 61:10.

quote:
The Holy Spirit is active in the world today, as well as in the life of the believer, gifting and equipping the saints for their ministries (John 14:16; Acts 1:8).
It's deeper than that; when we "receive the Spirit", He is a real person, and He actually indwells the believer. There is no second "baptism-of-the-Spirit", it's one event -- as Peter says in Acts10:14-15, "they received the Spirit just as we did after believing".

quote:
There is a literal Heaven and a literal Hell (John 14:2; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10).
The Scriptures are to be dispensationally interpreted.

All Christians, living or dead, will be glorified and translated to Heaven before the Great Tribulation begins (1 Corinthians 15:51-53; Colossians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 5:1-5).

Not wanting to derail this thread (perhaps we can start a new thread) --- 2Thess2:1-3 says the Tribulation is well underway (the lawless one takes his place in the temple), and we are not yet gathered; His coming and our gathering (simple conjunction "kai-and"), is the same event. There is only one "Second Coming". Jerry Jenkins tried to argue once on the LBMB, but failed. Ironically, in Luke17 the taken ones are the wicked (verse 37 they are "thrown to vultures"). The wicked are taken exactly as Noah's Flood and Lot's firestorm took wicked men. It is the LEFT BEHIND that are the righteous! We really need to be spiritually strong for whatever happens; and no one will argue with that.
[Smile]

(Also, 1Thess4:15 says "the living shall not precede the dead, the dead will be raised (raptured!) first" --- but in Rev20:4-6 the First Resurrection is at the end of the Tribulation. Tim LaHaye tried to invent a "staged rapture" to answer this, two stages separated by seven years --- but that still has a lot of dead-people (Trib martyrs!) preceding the living! That's not what it says.)

If people here are "Pre-Trib", then let's open a thread and discuss these verses; we should be able to expose what the Apostles and Jesus really said, so that we can't just walk away with different opinions ("agree-to-disagree").

quote:
God’s promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the Millennium (Kingdom Age) (Ezekiel 36; Isaiah 2:1-4; 11; 55:12-13).

Jesus Christ will reign from Jerusalem for one thousand years (Matthew 24:30; Revelation 20:1-6; Isaiah 65:17-25).

The unsaved will be judged and receive eternal judgment for sins at the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).[/i]

God is still on the throne … and prayer changes things.


How to be Born Again


The Sinner: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The Problem: “Jesus answered … Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

The Sentence: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

The Saviour: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

The Solution: “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).

The Timing: “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).

Your Acceptance of God’s Gift: If you really believe that Jesus Christ took your place in judgment for your sins on the Cross, you can pray the following prayer.

The Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, be merciful to me a sinner. I do now receive you as my personal Lord and Saviour.

The Result: If you sincerely prayed the above prayer, you are now born again! (John 3:3).

Salvation is considerably more. What do you think about John17:3? John conspicuously writes, "Ginosko" --- it is an intimate husband-and-wife knowledge!

quote:
Welcome to God’s Family: “Therefore if any man [or woman] be in Christ, he [or she] is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

VERY good! And now we get closer to what salvation is! What does it mean to be "a new creation"?

Consider Galatians 2:20 --- "I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the One who loved me and delivered Himself up for me."

I no longer live, Christ lives in me --- is that a "hopeful some-day ideal", or is it central and critical?

Some have said "salvation is like when a woman is pregnant; she either IS, or is NOT -- she cannot be 'partly pregnant'."

Bottom line -- someone walks up to any of us and says, "What is salvation? What is BORN AGAIN? What did Jesus do, what did the Cross accomplish, why did the veil tear? What's it all mean?"

And we can answer in one word, and the asker will completely understand. What's the word?

Some say, "Faith" -- no, not just any faith saves, James2:19.

Some say, "love" -- that's closer, but your inquiring friend will say, "I love my wife, I love my dog, I love my truck! What is it about love?"

Why exactly did Jesus die on the Cross? What did He accomplish?

Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2021  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917

Icon 18 posted      Profile for WildB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gadgetere:


What is this thing we call "salvation"? Why do we belong to Christianity, rather than another belief? What's the difference?

How do we avoid such a terrifying event like in Matt7:21-23? What do we have to DO???

Statement of Faith,

The Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God (Deuteronomy 8:3; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

The King James Version remains the most accurate version of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.

One God is revealed in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

Every person (except Jesus Christ) was or is born a sinner under the judgment of death (Romans 3:10; 3:23; 5:12).

Salvation is only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for sin (John 3:16; Romans 5:8-9; 6:23; 8:33-34; 1 Timothy 2:5; Titus 3:5).

All those who have repented and have truly trusted Christ for salvation are eternally secure (Romans 8:1).

Personal holiness is the fruits of salvation (Galatians 5:22-23).

The Holy Spirit is active in the world today, as well as in the life of the believer, gifting and equipping the saints for their ministries (John 14:16; Acts 1:8).

There is a literal Heaven and a literal Hell (John 14:2; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10).
The Scriptures are to be dispensationally interpreted.

All Christians, living or dead, will be glorified and translated to Heaven before the Great Tribulation begins (1 Corinthians 15:51-53; Colossians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 5:1-5).

God’s promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the Millennium (Kingdom Age) (Ezekiel 36; Isaiah 2:1-4; 11; 55:12-13).

Jesus Christ will reign from Jerusalem for one thousand years (Matthew 24:30; Revelation 20:1-6; Isaiah 65:17-25).

The unsaved will be judged and receive eternal judgment for sins at the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).


God is still on the throne … and prayer changes things.


How to be Born Again


The Sinner: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The Problem: “Jesus answered … Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

The Sentence: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

The Saviour: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

The Solution: “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).

The Timing: “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).

Your Acceptance of God’s Gift: If you really believe that Jesus Christ took your place in judgment for your sins on the Cross, you can pray the following prayer.

The Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, be merciful to me a sinner. I do now receive you as my personal Lord and Saviour.

The Result: If you sincerely prayed the above prayer, you are now born again! (John 3:3).

Welcome to God’s Family: “Therefore if any man [or woman] be in Christ, he [or she] is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

https://www.swrc.com/


[Bible]

--------------------
That is all.....

Posts: 8186 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gadgetere
Community Member
Member # 16198

Icon 20 posted      Profile for Gadgetere     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Imagine you're walking up to the podium to preach; you smile and the congregation smiles back. You ask, "How many of you are SAVED, bound for Heaven?" Every hand raises!

"That's wonderful, excellent!" But then you look down, then up, and frown.

"...what if you're not?"

In Matt7:21-23 are people who rush to Jesus at His return, their arms spread wide in excited greeting! But Jesus says, "Oh no you don't, I don't know you! Depart from Me, you PRACTICE WICKEDNESS!"

What? But -- but -- we cast out demons, prophesied, did mighty works! We sang in the CHOIR! We did visitation, gave to the needy! How could You not know us?!?!

[Confused]

In Rev3:14-22 are those who THINK they are rich, but do not know they are poor, blind, miserable, wretched, naked! I think if I were any of those things I would KNOW it! But these do not! They are LUKEWARM -- they'd be more reachable if they were COLD! Jesus will vomit them from His mouth!

[Eek!]

How could they not know they were unsaved in Rev3, or in Matt7? Could they be any of us? What must we do to be saved? Do we do anything, or did Jesus do it all? What's the difference between the sheep and the goats?

What is this thing we call "salvation"? Why do we belong to Christianity, rather than another belief? What's the difference?

How do we avoid such a terrifying event like in Matt7:21-23? What do we have to DO???

Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2021  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Christian Visual Media | Privacy Statement



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0