Why I Use the King James Version

191 responses to “Why I Use the King James Version”

1. johninnc | September 6, 2021 at 11:46 am |

   I should have added that there are a lot of Calvinists who are unaware they are Calvinists, because they don’t believe all 5 false tenets of Calvinism, but only 1-4 of them. Hence, the ongoing battles within groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

2. johninnc | September 6, 2021 at 12:49 am |

   DJ, I will touch on this, but I want to avoid a protracted discussion.

   Refuting any argument requires either refuting its premise(s) or proving that the ensuing argument form is invalid (illogical). Calvinism is an elaborate hoax, built on five interconnected false premises (tenets), that are each easily disproven by scripture. If any one of them fails, the whole system comes crashing down.

   So, a Calvinist may be able to “skirt the works issue,” but they can’t biblically skirt the issue that eternal life, not faith (or repentance) is the gift of God (Romans 6:23). A Calvinist may “skirt the works issue” by attributing works to God, but they can’t skirt the judgement seat of Christ, in which possible differential outcomes are described (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), or the admonition to be careful to maintain good works (Titus 3:8). A Calvinist may falsely assert that “a true Christian” will persevere in some undefined way, but the Bible says that a person need not look to life change for assurance of eternal life (John 5:24).

3. DJ | September 5, 2021 at 11:01 pm |

   John, are you still accepting comments on this page? Your last post (from 2019) involves a question I have been trying to answer for years. You are right that Calvinists and lordship salvationists generally hold to this doctrine of total depravity, that man is incapable of repenting of his sin. But in their view you must do it anyway, to be saved. If you succeed, they skirt the works issue by giving God all the credit for their efforts. In other words, it is all God’s work, not theirs, so it is still not of works, lest any man should boast! (Of course, if repentance from sin fails, it is man’s fault, not God’s…)

   The above sounds like a nonsensical semantic trick, like holding up an apple and calling it an orange. But how can I prove that Biblically? Right now, the only counter-argument I can come up with is “it doesn’t sound right.” Thanks for any insight you can provide.

4. johninnc | October 16, 2019 at 12:18 am |

   Phil, you may be right that the ESV is trying to load something else into the meaning of repentence.

   That is interesting, given that Calvinists, many of whom gravitate to the ESV, think that God decides who will believe in Jesus and who won’t. As such, in their distorted view, any repentance would come from God.

5. PhilR | October 15, 2019 at 11:49 pm |

   The ESV has managed to twist and distort the meaning of “repent.” From the search I did, they only use repent in the case of conversion to Christ. In the other verses I found in the OT and NT in the ESV they don’t use “repent.” They use “relent” or “change of mind” whether it is from God or man. I suspect the other modern versions do the same. Compare Matt 21:29 in the KJV with Matt 21:29 in the ESV. I suspect they are giving the word repent to mean something beyond simply changing ones mind–believing.
   In my search the KJV uses “repent” in all cases whether it involves coming to faith in Christ, or simply changing ones mind.

6. johninnc | October 15, 2019 at 7:28 pm |

   Helen, I agree that the commercial value of copyrighted versions is problematic. Error tends to sell much better than truth.

7. Helen | October 15, 2019 at 7:23 pm |

   I rely on the KJV too, and I’m so thankful that the KJV has been part of my life, even from a small child. My mum used to encourage me to read the bible as a child, and I did but didn’t understand it. It was only later into my thirties did I discover that this was the trusted KJV.

   The NIV just looks a horrible book to read. It’s layout is horrible, and it takes out Christ’s blood in Colossians 1:14. What an insult to Jesus Christ. It is the blood that gives us remission from sin.

   Modern versions are there to make money, plain and simple, and to ensure that something is copyright is it about 80 percent of the text has to change, so this is pretty scary when it comes to the word of God because these publishers are butchering God’s Holy Word, which He told us He would preserve.

   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever – Psalm 12:6-7

8. johninnc | October 15, 2019 at 4:21 pm |

   Phil, that is interesting context.

   It’s impossible for anyone to know whether or not someone who has worked on a given translation of the Bible has eternal life, but we do know that a proliferation of different translations opens the door for the introduction of error.

   We also know that certain versions (for example the ESV and the NIV) seem to be popular with groups that aren’t clear on the gospel.

9. PhilR | October 15, 2019 at 3:58 pm |

   I did some searching and found a website (I won’t mention it’s name here because of the TOS). But it stands boldly for the superiority of the KJV over modern translations. It says that the Textus Receptus was not just the work of Erasmus in the 1600’s; it is based on the historic chain of translation going back to the 4th and 5th Centuries AD and further back, the Majority Text. On the other hand, these modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text, and the modern versions were done by two non believers “heretics” who lived in the 1800’s.
   The site further says the men chosen for the KJV were believers, saved men who before they even began work on the KJV spent long hours in prayer and fasting looking to God to lead them in correctly translation.
   Compare this with the people who keep dropping version after version of modern translations on us based on the minority text, Alexandrian text. Were these people all believing saved Christians? I doubt it. Look at the number of verses that are omitted, compromised, corrupted in modern versions. Example, some versions replace the Virgin birth with “young woman.”;
   Studying the KJV you can tell you are getting the full rich Christian message. Modern versions can be ambiguous, and you feel like there is something missing. In my opinion, there are numerous things missing.
   Lastly, if it was just a matter of making the language of the KJV easy to understand that would not be that difficult. There has been a KJV in Modern English. but that was not good enough for these modern translators: the had to do a re do and use the Alexandrian minority text. Even the NKJV is NOT simply the KJV in modern English.

10. johninnc | October 4, 2019 at 5:47 pm |

    Phil, I have to wonder how many commercial, copyrighted versions of the Bible are prints of this world (pun intended), with periodic updates to keep them commercially viable, while also helping to foster the various “isms” out there.

11. PhilR | October 4, 2019 at 4:57 pm |

    Years back I used the NIV version, that is until I discovered to my shock they had omitted a number of verses from the Gospels and Acts. I don’t object when there is some uncertainty over whether a verse or passage may have been added or edited in later, and they will just leave the verse in with footnotes that some ancient texts are missing a verse or passage. But the NIV just omits and ignore them! There are other problems with the NIV such as the rewording of 1 John 5:7,8. Compare this with the same verses in the KJV.
    Imagine being in a Bible study and reading along and “oops” my NIV is missing some verses that others attending the Bible study have in their BIbles! Needless to say I quit using the NIV especially in Bible studies. But I was also shocked to see that the ESV continues the same practice of omitting verses or passages and not footnoting or otherwise explaining the sources. I assume that other modern versions omit these verse. ( I think their problem is with the Textus Receptus) I don’t know if the NKJV has done the same thing with these omission?
    What I know is this: the Bible I rely on is my Scofield KJV version.

12. Jerry Weinhausen | May 6, 2019 at 12:57 am |

    Hey, Phil! No worries about the length of your reply. If you have something to say, say it… I always say. :^)

    My Bible College instructor for Bible Study Methods class and then Bible Interpretation class was known for saying “The best study Bible is a reference Bible with wide margins but little else. He made a good point. His job was to equip us with tools to arrive at Biblically/Theologically sound conclusions in the study of the Scriptures and he was excellent at it. (Study Bibles were allowed but not pushed in the classroom or the bookstore.) My school is a three year IFCA Revised Dispensational technical institute with a preference for essentially literal translations. I would recommend the school without hesitation to anybody seeking training for ministry. Most of the teachers are seasoned pastors and missionaries; many with a M.Div who graduated from pre-mil, pre-trib, non-LS schools when they attended. BTW – They couldn’t be happier that MacArthur is no longer in the IFCA.

    I, too, am sensitive to fellow believers being entirely too reliant on Study Bible notes instead of doing the hard work of mining for precious truth. I’ve got a guy at church who brings a commentary to our study in Isaiah. Why? Do some background studies, word studies, etc., and bring those conclusions to the discussion. He’s a pretty smart guy. He really doesn’t need to bring the commentary with him. “We’re all in this together, guy. Nobody gets it right all the time.”

    The toughest teacher I had in school was an old-school SRB III user who insisted on it being the best Study Bible in print — even better than Ryrie. His Bible was beat up like a battered boxer after a 15 round slugfest. He received his training at Grace Theological Seminary during its best years. It was under his watch that I developed the fine eye of discernment. I could call other teachers by their first name because of my age. Not this one. He was Mr. B_____ and always will be.

    Have a good week, Phil.

13. PhilR | May 5, 2019 at 11:23 pm |

    Jerry, usually anyone who swears by the 1909 or 1917, both of which Scofield was still around, is saying Scofield would have disapproved of the modern Scofield non KJV’s. I have several editions of the SRB; 1909,1917, and a post 1967 New Scofield. I see no problems with the modern update except their using non literal versions, NIV or NLT. I read John Walvoord and a couple of other from DTS were on the revision committee in the 1960’s: at least they were dispensational. If it were revised today in 2019 who knows, the committee may have been pressured into including people from the LGBT stripe.
    I owe a lot of joy and comfort to Scofield for explaining how Christians are no longer under the law of Moses; that Christ, still under the law, was addressing the Jews in light of the coming promised Kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the Gospel accounts, not the coming church of both Jews and Gentiles that came to fruition under Paul, primarily. That the saved Christian is no longer under ANY of the law of Moses, including the ten commandments.(Romans 3; Gal 1 thru 3) He is instead under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who gives him a conscience towards what is right and wrong, tablets not of stone, but of the Spirit (2 Cor 3). That we are sealed and made fit for heaven the moment we believe the good news of the gospel of our salvation thru Christ. (Eph 1:13) So many modern churches and “teachers” end up co-mingling law and grace and try putting believers back under the law even though Christ at Calvary has freed them from the chains of legalism. This is why I have some heard teachers and pastors seem to give a pack seat to the SRB, and label its fans some sort of backward, unbending fundamentalists. Even Tony Evans seemed to suggest this hearing him once at a Promised Keepers Convention. I rarely see SRB’s or TCRB’s at churches, and this is at like some supposed grace only churches I have attended like Bible churches. People are like sheep and seem to what some “study Bible” where some “expert”, like Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, John MacArthur, RC Sproal, just to name a few, will explain it all FOR them, so they don’t have to do their own thinking and be the Berean; someone false gospel teacher like John MacArthur will explain it all for them. (Sure, I used Scofield’s notes and commentary, but I was a Berean enough to check him out to see it his doctrinal perspective was scriptural and correct.)
    I was in a Saturday night home Bible study in the late 1990’s that was primarily made up of members of what can describe as a John MacArthur praising, “Victory in Jesus” singing, “I repented of my sins and won the victory” (IOW, I won salvation, like an earned reward from Jesus) IFCA Bible Church. I think at the time we were studying 1 Samuel and a verse or passage came up for comment. Those who had study Bibles would give answers from their spoon-fed, study Bible commentary, like from the John MacArthur Study Bible. But one man had new TCRB and he said something like, “Well, there’s no real notes here except these cross references”.. This man didn’t seem to know how to use a Thompson and seemed to have little desire for learning to use the chain reference system, and he kept looking over to his friend with his John MacArthur study Bible for answers. At that time I was still using my 1909 Scofield with few notes on Samuel, and I was not quite as outspoken as I became later when I called the pastor of this IFCA church to tell him he could have his IFCA Bible Church and their faith plus works lordship salvation gospel according to John MacArthur. After I quit that IFCA church, I also called the man who was the leader of this home Bible study and told him I would no longer be attending it and why and thanked him for having me in his home.
    Thanks Jerry and all for you patience and time to read this, I sometimes tend to ramble on. My favorite Scofield is my leather 1917 revision. But I am beginning to think my new TCRB is maybe a gift from God. It was the only one left in the store, I guess just waiting for me to come along and buy it at a steal of a price for a bonded leather genuine Kirkbride Thompson CRB. Also, this ESV version uses ” confess Jesus is Lord” instead of “confess the Lord Jesus..” I don’t have a problem with that because Paul’s whole narrative Romans 9 thru 11 lamenting Israel as a whole not accepting Christ as Lord; they believed He died alright, but they did not believe he rose from the dead; so,they would not believe God raised him from the dead Thus, the message of Rom 10:9 was to unbelieving Israel, and not the Christian who already believed Christ died and rose and that He indeed was truly Lord and God.

    In closing, church goers want answers; the trouble is they want some famous personality like Joyce Meyers, Billy Graham, or John MacArthur to spoon feed them answers–the wrong ones–a false gospel.

14. Jerry Weinhausen | May 4, 2019 at 4:57 pm |

    Phil R – I agree with you about the TCRB and the Scofield Reference Bible being amongst the two best study/reference Bibles produced. I am happy to own a 1917 edition but with modern typeface and modern punctuation. Despite being classified as a “Hand Size” Bible, the leading is generous making it easy to read even at pulpit reading distance. I wish they came with ISBN printed on the inside or back cover so I could write a review for it. (I bought my 1917 used.) My wife & I used KJV Scofield III editions during Bible College but we have since sold them. Despite claims to the contrary, I did find some annotations and subject index references slightly altered. Perhaps they would have been improvements after developments in the study of theology but I wanted Scofield’s mind and thoughts exclusively. To alter the Scofield in any way is to introduce ambiguity as to whose thoughts they belong to — his or the editors.

    Tony Garland is a pure free-gracer who writes for spiritandtruth.org. Here’s a link to a Q & A on the TCRB:

    (Link removed by administrator)

15. PhilR | May 4, 2019 at 4:30 am |

    Thanks Jerry, I didn’t know what Dr. Thompson’s denomination was. The Methodist Episcopal Church was pretty conservative compared to the far left NEA loving bunch they are now. I know, I used to be a member of the UMC until I got good and sick of them. John Wesley would have rolled over in his grave to see the promiscuity that goes on there now.. Some of them even make jokes about people who profess to be eternally saved! But back to Thompson. I read somewhere that he pointed out either in the TCRB or one of his writings the church is in the OT, ( not sure what he meant, it just sounded covenant theology to me?)
    Back in the day around the early 1900’s, people may have read the Bible for themselves and were not so spoon-fed and drank the work your way to heaven cool-aide from the likes of J. MacArthur and Billy Graham, along with these millionaire “prosperity gospel” TV false teachers. There used to br actually leaders in the Methodist church who were Dispensational despite what Methodist doctrine taught. I think the man’s name was Harry Blackstone or something in the 1920’s or 1030’s who wrote “Jesus is Coming, God’s Hope for a Restless World” which I thought was pretty dispensational.
    I agree, the TCRB along with the Scofield Reference Bible may be the two best American produced reference/study Bibles. I’m not a KJV only person. I want a literal word for word translation, The KJV and NKJV may be the best, but the NASB and ESV are also supposed to be literal word for word translations. In any event, I know the Bible well enough that I am not going to be mislead down some legalist rabbit hole with a few errors in translation whether it’s ESV or NASB. And especially with the TCRB, I am able to compare differences in wording in different versions compared with the ESV. The main thing is getting acclimated to the chain reference scheme used in the TCRB, which takes some getting used to, if you know what I mean. The reference system in my Scofield Bible was much simpler and less extensive than the TCRB.

16. Jerry Weinhausen | May 3, 2019 at 11:24 pm |

    I’ve always considered the TCRB the king of study Bibles despite modern organization and content found in newer study editions. I have a leather-bound 4th edition TCRB in the KJV. (All this time I thought Dr. Thompson was a tow-the-line Methodist.) The only translation I would consider apart from the KJV for a TCRB is the NKJV. I wouldn’t mind seeing it in the Modern English Version too but I doubt it’ll ever come to pass. The MEV is translated out of the Masoretic for the OT and the TR for the NT. The translators did not consult all the other translations the KJV translators used.

    I hope yours gives you many years of service in service of the King.

17. johninnc | May 3, 2019 at 11:07 pm |

    Phil, that’s a good thought. Or, maybe they could shred them and recycle the paper. Since those guys taught/teach false gospels that never saved anyone, at least recycling could help “save the planet.”

18. PhilR | May 3, 2019 at 10:59 pm |

    John, if they have any of BG’s, JMac’s, or Spurgeon’s horror stories left over, I hope they don’t throw them in the dumpster where some homeless person could dive in and get a hold of any be deceived. Instead, maybe they will burn their left over inventory of these twisted “work-you-way-to-heaven” how to books. lol

19. PhilR | May 3, 2019 at 10:45 pm |

    One additional note I forgot: this Lifeway Christian Store I was told by a clerk was just liquidating their inventory. They are planning on becoming an online Christian store. I guess we can be unworldly, but we still seem to have to follow the world in mega bits.

20. johninnc | May 3, 2019 at 10:38 pm |

    Phil, I’m glad you were able to find something useful to you, and I’m also glad that the books by some of the false teachers you mentioned remained unsold.

21. PhilR | May 3, 2019 at 10:34 pm |

    I drove by our local Christian bookstore today on my way to the supermarket and noticed Lifeway Christian Store was having what sounded like a going out of business sale. I was looking for like a good modern version like the Scofield NKJV, or other one from grace only teachers. They had already been picked over, Bibles and everything, and there were a number of Bibles marked down like 25%. I noticed, however, that there were abundance of left over Charles Spurgeon Study Bibles, John MacArthur Study Bibles, David Jeremiah Study Bibles, Chuck Swindoll NLT version Bibles and lots and lots of Holman CSV Bibles, plus I noticed some Billy Graham books left over and the heretical John MacArthur’s books. (I thought, maybe this is a sign that people are starting to get the grace alone true gospel message without all the add on’s these celebraty preachers have dumped on us all these years!
    I happened to come across a Thompson Chain Reference Bible, 25% off. I had always wanted one. A grace only Bible study had one and he highly recommended it for someone who is well grounded in rightly dividing the word and the grace message that flows throughout Scripture, and want to learn more and expand and grow in God’s truth. But, I noticed this was the only Thompson available and it was an ESV version. Oh no, I thought red flag! A little about Thompson CRB’s: in case you are not familiar: Although Thompson who published this in about 1908 was covenant theology and not dispensational, he wanted a reference Bible that allowed the believer or seeker to discover, explore, and reveal the truths of God’s word through a system of cross references like word searches and topical searches. Other Bibles have done this, but not to the extent that the TCRB has done. And this Bible does not try to pound you with this or that doctrine or dogma: it lets you discover it through yours searching the scriptures. And I think it is better than using something like the cumbersome Strong’s by itself.
    As to this TCRB being an ESV, I discovered that where there is different wording in different versions like between the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, and so on. it will reference you to notes showing the differences in translation.
    I have always wanted a Thompson they are top quality designed to last, Smyth sewn so they don’t fall apart in a few year, and top quality leather or bonded leather. They are available in several versions including KJV and NKJV and ESV. But they are usually like $80 to $100 or more. And some custom made ones like $200 plus. This one on sale was $71 dollars with tax. I had to have it so I took the plunge and bought it.
    I don’t recommend Thompsons to the new believe or unbeliever to just try to tear through alone. Thompson, I understand, was non dispensational and promoted the idea that the church always existed even though the OT. And it sounded like he was opposing Darby and Scofield. I recommend the TCRB for the already saved grace believer who is able to clearly see the distinctions between law and grace, and the distinct roles of faith and works.
    Understand that this post is not some advertisement for a particular Bible, but it is for a believer using the tools of knowledge along with prayer and edification in our growing understanding of God’s unconditional love for us.

22. Benchap | March 24, 2016 at 8:55 pm |

    Nave, love your stance on Steven Anderson. Love that you can see through his false doctrine.

    However, please translate the Songs of Solomon from KJV into modern English. When you do, you will see one very clear error/inconsistency in the KJV translation. That is, the translators made a clear mistake. I did this about a year ago, and I now know that the KJV is not a perfect translation.

    It is, however, translated from the manuscripts that were duplicates of the originals. Thus it can be trusted, I assure you.

    Welcome, by the way.

23. johninnc | March 24, 2016 at 8:11 pm |

    Nave, see our statement of faith regarding the inerrancy of scripture in its original documents.

    We will not be entertaining a virulently KJV perfection discussion here.

    If you wish to have that discussion, you will have to do it elsewhere.

24. Nave Wilson | March 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm |

    “While the KJV is not perfect”

    Stop right there. The KJV is the perfect word of God for the English language. Any claimed ‘error’ it contains has been refuted. I couldn’t be a bible believer if i didn’t believe what i was reading was the perfect word of God for the English language. It is so important that you believe you are reading the inspired word of God, and not just a mere translation that might contain ‘errors’. This is why i’m unashamedly KJV only.

25. johninnc | January 23, 2016 at 2:50 pm |

    Jerry, thanks for your response.

    I understand, and will leave it to each person to determine what translations to use, and how.

    Regarding the Modern English Version, there is at least one verse that seems to depart significantly from the KJV, and the meanings could be interpreted to be starkly different.

    1 John 3:9 (MEV): Whoever has been born of God does not practice sin, for His seed remains in him. And he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.

    1 John 3:9 (KJV): Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

    My comment: “Cannot sin” and “cannot keep on sinning” seem different to me. The first connotes an impossibility of sin at all. The second connotes an impossibility of the ongoing pattern, or practice of sin. The MEV version could lend credence to the Calvinist/Lordship “salvation” tenet of perseverance of the saints, and its attendant fruit inspection.

26. Jerry Weinhausen | January 23, 2016 at 2:15 pm |

    I understand your trepidation. I was cautious too as I am bullish on the KJV. I have nine KJV Bibles in various study settings on my shelf and one more on the way in the mail. While we’ll never see the likes of the quality of learning that produced our Authorized version, the MEV does make a pretty good secondary read. (I’ve pre-ordered it for my Logos Bible Software collection.) I’ve run into translational choices in the MEV that I would have done differently but unlike many of the modern translations stemming from the minority text, this one rarely raises concerns or eyebrows. I’ve written back and forth with a RHMA missionary pastor who graduated from Ambassador Baptist College which uses the KJV exclusively in the classroom and from his pulpit. He’s put it to the test regarding some of the most critical passages in the NT. He said he found it a better translation that the NKJV in most places. Nothing will ever replace my KJB. I intend to teach from it when I complete schooling and in my internship. I just wanted to offer new information to keep the article current.

    A short but fine read regarding how we should regard how the Bible regards itself comes from the desk of Dr. Kevin Schaal, chairman of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, entitled “What is Loyalty to the Word?” Here’s a link to find it easily:

    (link removed by administrator)

    I hope and pray it blesses you as much as it did me and my wife.

    In Him,

    Jerry

27. johninnc | January 23, 2016 at 1:04 pm |

    Jerry, thanks for your comment.

    I am not personally familiar with the Modern English Version, but the doctrinal backgrounds of many of the editors give me pause – Southern Baptist, pentecostal/charismatic, United Church of Christ, and so on.

28. Jerry Weinhausen | January 23, 2016 at 1:02 am |

    The statement offered between points 5 & 6 of the article state that “the only major new Bible that has its New Testament based on the Textus Receptus is the New King James Version” is now outdated. The New Testament of the Modern English Version is also translated from the Textus Receptus. I find it a more satisfying read compared to the slough of new translations based on the Westcott & Hort/eclectic text.

29. johninnc | October 21, 2015 at 8:32 am |

    Rick, I won’t speak for Dr. Cucuzza, but the article mentions more reasons than simply the age of the translation.

30. Rick | October 21, 2015 at 12:15 am |

    Why don’t you use the Geneva Bible, since it’s an older authorized English translation?

31. Preston | September 1, 2015 at 8:50 am |

    James,

    I did the same a while back. i heard the “argument” so i decided to honestly look at the debate and research scripture in multiple versions..i was kind of shocked. The thing that really pushed me to the KJV?? I thought when did these other versions come out? I, of course googled each version, ALL but the RSV came out after 1950. I thought, why would this bible (KJV) be “good enough” for that long then ALL these other versions (there are many) start to be published; with ALL the differences; doing nothing but causing confusion.

    It was then, i thought, “I am sticking with the KJV”.

32. Journalistic Mistake | September 1, 2015 at 2:49 am |

    This may seem a bit extreme, but I don’t even trust reference Bibles (KJV or not). This is because I had a man try to teach me loss of salvation by appealing to the references. Worst part was I had just purchased three reference Bibles 😦 Now I don’t know what to do with them!

33. johninnc | August 31, 2015 at 10:11 pm |

    James, welcome and thanks for your comment.

    I think that Tom Cucuzza’s article was reasonable, balanced, and made a good case for the use of the KJV.

34. James Grant | August 31, 2015 at 10:03 pm |

    My family and I attend a KJV-priority/preferred church. Recently my Pastor ran a 3-month (!) lecture series on why he prefers the KJV. As an avid supporter of the ESV I was furious. Eventually I cooled off and became convicted of my poor attitude, so I sat down and over the course of probably a month I seriously looked at the issue by myself. I can easily see how some people can spend years tackling this issue, but I needed to make a discision either way. I now read the KJV, for many of the reasons stated in the above article. I do struggle with the language and sentence structure from time to time, but this has forced me to slow down and research verses which has been an unforseen bonus.

35. johninnc | April 21, 2015 at 9:31 am |

    Our friend Preston has written a new book, in which there is a chapter devoted to 1 John 3:9.

    Preston made the point that the ESV version of the Bible changes the meaning completely.

    KJV: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

    ESV: No one who is born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

    (Note: several other translations, including the NlV, the NLT, NAS, ISV, and NET Bible make errors similar to the ESV).

    We have discussed this verse in our “Difficult Verses” section. See below:

    Question: Does 1 John 3:9 teach that true believers do not continue to live a sinful lifestyle?

    Answer: No. 1 John 3:9 teaches that the new man (the regenerate nature) does not sin at all. The old man (the flesh nature) cannot be reformed, and is still sinful. The flesh nature may be subdued to the extent that we walk in the Spirit.

    I read several other commentaries, all of which garble this somehow.

    From Matthew Henry:

    Renouncing sin is the great proof of spiritual union with, continuance in, and saving knowledge of the Lord Christ.

    My comment: No it’s not. The great proof is whether or not one has believed in Jesus as his Savior.

    From “Pulpit Commentary”:

    Note that St. John does not say οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτεῖν,” cannot commit a sin,” but οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, “cannot be a sinner.” An act is different from a state of sin. This is an ideal to which every Christian is bound to aspire – inability to sin. But to some extent this ideal is a fact in the case of every true Christian. There are sins which to a good man are by God’s grace quite impossible.

    My comment: I don’t read Greek, but I think he’s nuts. Jesus is born of God and could not commit sin. If the new man (regenerated man) has sin, he cannot enter heaven. Who could ever go? What about Matthew 7:18: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit…” And, name five such sins that are impossible.

    From “Gill’s Exposition”:

    …and sometimes to Christ, who quickens whom he will, whose grace is implanted…
    
    …and such as are born of him are alive through him, the spirit of life entering into them, and live to God and upon Christ, and breathe after divine and spiritual things, and have their senses to discern them; they see, hear, feel, taste, and savour them; and desire the sincere milk of the word, for their nourishment and growth.; and have every grace implanted in them, as faith, hope, and love: and of every such an one it is said, he doth not commit sin; does not make it his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, give himself to it; he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation, but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or continue in it for that reason:
    
    …the new nature, or new man formed in the soul, is meant which seminally contains all grace in it, and which, like seed, springs up and gradually increases and always abides; and is pure and incorruptible, and neither sins itself, nor encourages sin, but opposes, checks, and prevents it:

    …for that which is born of God in him does, under the influence of the Spirit, power, and grace of God, preserve him from the temptations of Satan, the pollutions of the world, and the corruptions of his own heart; see 1 John 5:18; which the Vulgate Latin version there readers, “the generation of God”, meaning regeneration, or that which is born of God, “preserveth him”. This furnishes out a considerable argument for the perseverance of the saints.

    My comment: This contains all of the contradictions of Calvinism – from predestination (Christ quickens whom he will) to perseverance of the saints. This commentary is full of contradictions.

    From Charlie Bing:

    If believers abide in the sinless Christ, verse 9 says they cannot sin. Fellowship with Him never results in sin.

    My comment: Sorry Charlie! You are close, but the sinless nature of the new man is not conditional on anything. Only if “abiding in Christ” is equivalent to having accepted Jesus as Savior would this make any sense.

36. expreacherman | October 6, 2014 at 6:29 pm |

    Sue McIntyre

    In addition, I would be remiss if I did not mention that we here at ExPreacherMan have the brightest, most discerning free Grace commenters on the internet.

    Many have found themselves unable to locate a good free Grace preaching church. So, we offer this place of world-wide fellowship here in our little Oasis of Grace.

    We are happy you have joined us.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

37. expreacherman | October 6, 2014 at 4:14 pm |

    Sue McIntyre

    Welcome and thanks for you comment.

    I have retire one piece at a time… At 85 y/o, the ExP web site is probably my last stand but it will continue as usual with our faithful co-Administrator, John. He’s doing all the hard work now! Thanks John.

    The Lord is in charge of the final expiration date and we are patient and content until then.

    Philippians 4:11
    “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.”

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

38. Sue McIntyre | October 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm |

    Thank you for taking your time to share a lot of facts about the KJV Bible. My question is where in the Bible does it say a God called preacher comes with an expiration date? IE: RETIRED, EX-PREACHER (as you identify yourself)

39. expreacherman | May 14, 2014 at 8:26 pm |

    Joarge,

    Welcome to ExPreacherMan and thanks for your comment.

    Yes, as you have seen, we prefer the KJV for many reasons, among them and probably primarily is that the translators did not attempt to re-write theology as so many modern versions have done.

    Once understood, the KJV is easy to read and study in context with the right scriptural tools which do not contradict the salvation Gift of God and His Grace.

    We pray you will visit and comment regularly.

    In Jesus Christ eternally Jack

40. Joarge Stimpslen | May 14, 2014 at 2:19 pm |

    Thank you for sticking up for the KJV. It has gotten confusing with all the other translations. As we continue into the new millenium, the older style English isn’t always an easy read, but through a little extra study, just the way I believe God intended, the wisdom and truth is as clear as possible.

41. johninnc | February 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm |

    Brian, thanks for your comment.

    I use the KJV ALMOST exclusively. The problem with many of the other versions is that I can see obvious contradictions and subtle changes, some of which undermine the gospel itself.

    For example:

    Luke 13:3:

    NLT: Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God.

    KJV: I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

    Jonah 3:10:

    NIV: When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.

    KJV: And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

42. BrianB | February 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |

    For the longest time I was only listening to the other side of the argument, but after hearing both sides, I have recently turned back to using only the KJV If you want to label me a KJV Only person that is fine by me but I just wanted a standard Bible I could memorize an trust. I find that I can memorize verses much easier in the KJV and after seeing how distorted the other translations are it makes me sick to even think of them. Anyways I get the argument that the KJV uses archaic words, well so does Shakspeare’s plays but they still read them in the original old English in our schools so my point is if we respect the poet enough not to modernize the English in his plays shouldn’t we respect the Holy Bible even more. If someone has an issue with the meaning of a word just google it we have that option now a days and we should utilize it.

43. Daniel | February 12, 2013 at 7:58 am |

    Thanks for setting me straight there Tom and for pointing to where I can obtain that booklet, very helpful, thankyou.

44. Tom Cucuzza | February 12, 2013 at 7:39 am |

    Daniel,

    You misunderstood the NKJV article I quoted. It says that all the different Greek texts, the TR and all the others of the critical text group, fully agree on 85% of the text. The NKJV text is 100% TR. The booklet I mentioned is not a download from us because we do not own it. It can be obtained from Scripture Truth Book Company. They are only $1.00.

    Tom

45. Daniel R | February 12, 2013 at 12:33 am |

    Thanks Tom and all who replied. There is a lot of info for me here to digest with my limited knowledge on this topic of textual criticism (that’s what this topic is called right?). All I really know about this topic is that the Textus Receptus (TR) line of manuscripts are faithful to the originals and are preserved (and the only English Bible translation that uses TR 100% of the time is the KJV); on the other hand the Alexandrian, Sinaticus and Vinaticus line of manuscripts are all corrupted texts. Westcot and Hort (who were not even believers) have taken these corrupted texts and made a master manuscript in which most of all the new Bibles use for their translations. Is that the basic idea?

    Now from what Tom and everyone said here, I can only conclude that the KJV is the only reliable translation. From what I am understanding from what you said Tom, is that the NKJV only uses 85% of its NT from the TR and has confusing footnotes that refer to the ‘other’ corrupted manuscript texts. I can only conclude that from even that 1 verse in Mat 7:14 and the obvious LS inference that been pointed out here, says to me that I should run from the NKJV even if was 100% TR in the NT. The NJKV obviously has some problems.

    Are there any translations in English that are reliable other than the KJV? I know that free grace preacher Charlie Bing uses the NASB, is that ok? My question above is probably asked in vain and it seems that the KJV is the only thing that can be reliably recommended but do tell me if there is anything else.

    Blessings
    Daniel

    ps. Tom, in an earlier post you said that on your church there is resource you offer that has archaic word definitions for the KJV. It is a little booklet called: “A Bible Word List & Daily Reading Scheme” I looked on your church website at: http://northlandchurch.com/2011/
    but could not find it. Is there a link where that could be downloaded? I think that may be helpful.

46. expreacherman | February 11, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

    Abe,

    I use and prefer the 1611 Authorized KJV Bible, It is the best translation available but I think it is indeed a stretch to say that the translators of the documents leading up to the KJV were inspired and thus the KJV itself is now “inspired.”

    Yes, the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts were inspired by God (2 Peter 1:2). But those original texts were in turn eventually translated into English by men. The Lord has preserved His Word down through history and we should do all we can to likewise protect and preserve the original KJV.

    Here is the publishers flyleaf from my wife’s 1948 printing of the Authorized 1611 KJV Bible:

    “Translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.
    “Set forth in 1611 and commonly known as the King James Version”

    One’s opinion is OK but, with all due respect, it is uninspired opinion. 😎

    Let us call a truce on this “debate.”

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

47. john | February 11, 2013 at 9:20 pm |

    I think the KJV is the best translation in most cases.

    However, I agree with the author of the above article that the KJV is not perfect:

    “While the KJV is not perfect, it IS word for word.”

48. Abe | February 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm |

    Hey Sue! You know, I’m probably in the minority on this, but I’m not much of a Strong’s concordance guy, or even a lexicon guy. I know that might sound unscholarly, and I have done much study in the past with these materials. But when all is said and done, Strong’s is man’s words and definitions, and so I have to go with what the Lord presented in His Word.

    Compare Matthew 7:13 and 14, using only KJV in this exercise. The contrasting opposites. “Wide” and “broad” lead to destruction in verse 13. Then in verse 14, “strait” and “narrow”. Opposite points. 🙂

    Putting “difficult” in, changes the opposite function of Jesus’ words. And of course most of all, it throws a wrench in all the clear passages that present the Gospel as simple and not difficult. 🙂

    So I take Strong’s and lexicons and all those things, with a very big grain of salt. They are still man’s definitions and labors, and they can’t be placed alongside the Bible itself in terms of inspiration from God. I know you know that, but just my thoughts on it. 🙂

49. Expected Imminently | February 11, 2013 at 5:20 pm |

    Dear Abe
    I trust this isn’t seen as ‘nit-picking’ ; its just that I find delving into the original Greek so enticing, and you have managed to entice me over your comment. 😀
    “Matthew 7:14:
    NKJV: Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
    KJV: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
    Notice that what the NKJV calls “difficult”, the KJV simply calls “narrow”. Narrow is narrow. Narrow is not “difficult”. “Difficult” is, in my opinion, a lordship salvation inference”
    —

    Using Strongs, Vines and the TR original it says:-

    ‘stenos’ is the gate and ‘thlibo’ is the way.

    It seems to me that the NKJV use of ‘difficult’ for ‘thlibo’ is more apt than ‘narrow’? I find it interesting that one of the words used for the ‘tribulation’ is ‘thlipsis’ seemingly a close family member? Certainly the English ‘narrow’ is not ‘difficult’ but the Greek ‘thlibo’ sounds very difficult to me?

    Stenos – an adjective. Meaning 1) narrow, strait – to be straighted or groaning. From the root, sten – to groan. ‘narrow’ because it runs counter to natural inclinations and ‘the way’ is similarly characterized.

    Thlibo is the way – thlibo a verb Perfect, Passive, Paticiple – a completed, past, no repeat action received by the subject.
    To compress hard a metaphor for trouble, afflict distress to suffer affliction, to be troubled has ref to suffering due to pressing circumstances.
    1)to press (as grapes), press hard upon 2) a compressed way a) narrow straitened, contracted 3) metaph. to trouble, afflict, distress.

    I am grateful to be corrected! Wadda ya think?

    Sue

50. Abe | February 11, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

    I believe the KJV to be inspired simply because it comes from the Greek and Hebrew that were inspired. I believe that a perfect translation is just as inspired as the originals they came from, and the preservation of His Word is a promise from Him. 🙂 Just my personal thoughts, no debate intended. 🙂

51. Matt for Grace and Truth | February 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm |

    For many years, I read primarily the New King James Version. But over the past number of years, I almost always read the King James Version of the Bible. I believe that the KJV is a generally accurate, faithful, and reliable English language translation of the original language manuscripts, and that the English language reader can study and rely upon it confidence.

    But I do not believe that the KJV of the Bible were given by inspiration of God in the way that the original language (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) transcripts were.

    I am NOT KJV only, but KJV preferred. Furthermore, I tend to more strongly perceive God’s presence when I read the KVJ in comparison to other versions. I agree that the (what I believe a corrupted) Alexandrian text footnotes in the NKJV are distracting and can create doubt.

52. Tom Cucuzza | February 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm |

    Dear friends,

    Sorry it took me so long to get back to everyone on this. The following quote is from the front material of the NKJV: “In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the popup notes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text. “[1]

    From this I gather that the NKJV New Testament is taken from the TR. However, I am troubled by the footnotes in the N.T. from the “other” texts. By doing this, it calls into question the authority and accuracy of the TR text. In other words, are the variant readings right and the NKJV wrong, or is the NKJV right and the other texts wrong?

    Also, I personally am confused by the statements in the same section concerning the O.T. text. It seems that the O.T. text was taken from a different text than what was in the KJV, although someone criticized me on this when the article was originally posted. The NKJV quote about the O.T. is here:

    “The Old Testament Text

    The Hebrew Bible has come down to us through the scrupulous care of ancient scribes who copied the original text in successive generations. By the sixth century A.D. the scribes were succeeded by a group known as the Masoretes, who continued to preserve the sacred Scriptures for another five hundred years in a form known as the Masoretic Text. Babylonia, Palestine, and Tiberias were the main centers of Masoretic activity; but by the tenth century A.D. the Masoretes of Tiberias, led by the family of ben Asher, gained the ascendancy. Through subsequent editions, the ben Asher text became in the twelfth century the only recognized form of the Hebrew Scriptures.

    Daniel Bomberg printed the first Rabbinic Bible in 1516–17; that work was followed in 1524–25 by a second edition prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim and also published by Bomberg. The text of ben Chayyim was adopted in most subsequent Hebrew Bibles, including those used by the King James translators. The ben Chayyim text was also used for the first two editions of Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica of 1906 and 1912. In 1937 Paul Kahle published a third edition of Biblia Hebraica. This edition was based on the oldest dated manuscript of the ben Asher text, the Leningrad Manuscript B19a (A.D. 1008), which Kahle regarded as superior to that used by ben Chayyim.

    For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524–25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text.”

    So, can someone decipher this information? Is the NKJV O.T. based on the same text as the KJV O.T. ?

    Thanks.

    Tom Cucuzza

    [1] The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

53. Pearl | February 11, 2013 at 12:28 pm |

    Daniel said,

    “I have been told that it does not base its text off the Textus Receptus and the NKJV gets a bad rap by most people I know that are KJV only.”

    I believe you’re right. It’s been so long since I consulted any of the strictly KJ sources, mainly because they are so militant and have plenty of their own baggage, but now that you mention it, I don’t believe the NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus. I’ve also heard some preachers say that the Amplified is the next best thing to the original languages, but again, it isn’t based on the TR. The KJV is the only one.

    I could easily confirm by consulting my old sources, but a simple comparison, like the one Abe provided, is enough for me.

54. Abe | February 11, 2013 at 8:33 am |

    This is only my opinion, and nothing more than than. I still use the KJV over the NKJV, first because I believe the KJV to be perfect in all ways. Second, this one verse turned me away from the NKJV and to the KJV in the first place:

    Matthew 7:14:

    NKJV: Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

    KJV: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    Notice that what the NKJV calls “difficult”, the KJV simply calls “narrow”. Narrow is narrow. Narrow is not “difficult”. “Difficult” is, in my opinion, a lordship salvation inference.

    The KJV is perfect.

    The NKJV has a few problems, but the NIV has many more problems than the NKJV.

55. Daniel R | February 11, 2013 at 12:44 am |

    It says in the article above that:

    “The only major new Bible that has its New Testament based on the Textus Receptus is the New King James Version.”

    Is this really true? I am no textual criticism expert and so am trusting the knowledge of others who are more knowledgeable in this area than I so please confirm. I have been told that it does not base its text off the Textus Receptus and the NKJV gets a bad rap by most people I know that are KJV only.

    Anyway, do let me know if the NKJV is the next best to the KJV as I have tried to get my wife off the NIV but she finds reading the KJV really really difficult reading with the old words.
    regards
    Daniel

56. expreacherman | January 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm |

    Ross,

    Welcome — we appreciate your discerning of the terrible modern Bible translations.

    We also pray you understand and believe that God’s Salvation is only by Grace alone through Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

    Please read our article of explanation on Eternal Life For You:
    http://www.expreacherman.com/eternal-life-for-you/

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

57. Ross | January 1, 2013 at 10:05 am |

    I decided not to read Modern Bibles anymore and I just stay with studying the King James Version. Some Christians had tempted me not to read KJV Bibles and they told me Modern Bibles are better and easy to read. I think Satan and his demons are trying to burn all the old Bible Scriptures and to tempt people to trust new Bibles with twisted translations. Modern Bibles can be dangerous. I agree that many of those Catholics had made many mistakes, maybe one day they will change their minds. I never put Mary statues in home.

58. expreacherman | December 8, 2012 at 11:30 am |

    Ross,

    Welcome, we are happy to have you visit and comment.

    Protect those Bibles.. the old KJV’s will soon be very hard to come by.

    I pray you will have an opportunity to share with your Catholic friends, God’s Salvation, only by Grace alone through Faith alone in Jesus alone. I don’t think I have ever met a committed Catholic who has the absolute assurance that he is guaranteed to be Heaven bound by trusting Jesus Christ alone as Savior.. They usually mix works into their church’s concept of salvation, i.e. worship of Mary, confession of sins to their priest for forgiveness, worship of icons, Purgatory, etc.

    Here is a good article to share with them.. share the link or print it out for them, “Eternal Life For You”:
    http://www.expreacherman.wordpress.com/eternal-life-for-you/

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

59. Ross | December 8, 2012 at 10:24 am |

    I keep three King James Version Bibles, one of my KJV Bibles is about 200 years old!, and is slightly damaged. Yes it is a bit sad that things are changing in Christianity, I am a protestant but I still read the King James Version Bible as well I read Modern Bibles. And many of my friends are Catholics.

60. expreacherman | July 13, 2012 at 11:56 am |

    Bruce,

    Thanks for that clear, complete and concise explanation of SP’s questions about 1 John. Well done!

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

61. califgracer | July 12, 2012 at 11:58 pm |

    Hello SP,

    We’re glad that you joined us today. Regarding your questions about 1 John, keep in mind that John was unmistakeably writing to believers; he refers to the readers as “My little children,” “Brethren,” and “little children.” John in 1 John, just as James does in the book of James, addresses BELIEVERS about the QUALITY of their faith, NOT the reality of their faith.

    Refer to Gracelife.org, Gracenotes #37
    Interpreting 1 John no. 37 – Dr. Charlie Bing
    ——————————————————————————–
    Interpreting 1 John is troublesome to some because of statements that appear to be tests or conditions. The prevailing view among commentators is that the purpose of these tests is to determine if someone is saved eternally or not. Another view, not as common, is that the tests do not determine one’s eternal salvation, but one’s experience of fellowship with God. Are the tests of 1 John intended to examine one’s eternal relationship to God or examine one’s intimate fellowship with God? The answer has important ramifications for one’s understanding of the gospel and consequently, one’s assurance of salvation.

    The tests stated

    The tests are spread throughout the epistle. Here are some examples of the conditions stated in these tests:
    2:4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
    2:9 He who hates his brother is in darkness.
    3:8 He who sins is of the devil.
    3:10 Whoever does not practice righteousness or love his brother is not of God.
    3:14 He who does not love his brother abides in death.
    4:8 He who does not love does not know God.

    The purpose of the epistle

    Our understanding of the tests must agree with the purpose of the epistle. A number of times in 1 John we read “these things I [or we] write [or have written] to you…” (1:4; 2:1, 26; 5:13). It would be natural for any author to put the purpose statement for the entire book at the beginning (The references in 2:1, 26, and 5:13 seem to refer to what immediately precedes each of those statements). If so, then 1:4 declares that the purpose of the book is to bring the readers into the full joy of a shared fellowship with the apostles and with the Lord (1:3). Fellowship (literally “sharing”) refers not to the establishment of a relationship, but to growing more intimate in that relationship. In other words, John’s purpose is not to establish a new relationship, but to enhance an existing one. It seems obvious that the readers already had established a relationship with John and the apostles, just as they also had established a relationship with God. It appears John wrote to protect the readers’ experience of fellowship with him and his apostolic circle and with God because false teachers among them denied that the readers possessed eternal life (cf. 2:25- 26; 5:13), which of course would undermine any existing fellowship with the apostles and with God. The experiential tests then address the quality of this horizontal and vertical fellowship. But for assurance of their eternal life, John directs the readers to the promise and testimony of God (2:25; 5:9-12).

    The readers addressed

    The existing relationship of John to the readers and their relationship to God are demonstrated in how John addresses the readers in endearing Christian terms. He calls them little children (e.g., 2:1, 18), children whose sins are forgiven (2:12), children of God (3:1-2), and fathers (2:13-14). John also includes himself with the readers in their common Christian experience (“we” in 3:1, 2; 5:14, 19, 20). The readers also had the anointing from God (2:20, 27). They already had a relationship with God because they had believed in the Son of God (5:13). Even in the statement of some of the tests, the saved state of the readers is indicated by the use of the Christian designation “his brother” (e.g., 2:9; 3:10, 14, 15).

    A theological concern

    If John was making his readers’ conduct the test of their salvation, then there is an unavoidable theological problem in that faith alone in Christ alone would not be the condition for salvation. It would instead be faith in Christ plus confirmatory good conduct. This of course compromises the gospel of God’s free grace clearly taught in the Scriptures (Rom. 3:21-25, Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Salvation is either by grace through faith or it is by works, not by any mix of the two (Rom. 4:4-5; 11:6; 1 John 5:1) Salvation conditioned on tests of conduct destroys the possibility of one’s assurance of salvation. When we look at the tests, we recognize that none of us keeps them all, or keeps any of them perfectly. As long as that is true, then doubts will remain about whether we are saved or not. Doubts in any relationship are incompatible with deeper intimacy in that relationship. For example, intimacy in marriage is built on the security of unconditional love and acceptance which encourages each spouse to open up to know the other and to be known. If John were posing reasons to doubt one’s salvation, he would be defeating his purpose stated in 1:3-4 to enhance deeper fellowship with the apostles and with God.

    References to intimacy

    When one recognizes John’s purpose for writing, there is a rich reward. The epistle leads believers into a deeper more intimate knowledge of God. The terms which some regard as references to salvation (“in the light/in darkness, knows God/does not know God, of God/of the devil, abides in God/abides in death”) should better be seen as references to a source or an orientation rather than an absolute state. It describes believers experientially rather than positionally. The tests let the readers know whether they are growing toward God in intimacy or heading away from Him. A more detailed explanation of these references must await a future study.

    Conclusion

    The tests of 1 John address a believer’s experience. If properly understood, they lead the readers into a more intimate relationship with God Who is already known through their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The book’s purpose is not to establish their relationship with God, but to deepen the relationship that they already have. Taken in this way, 1 John does not lead believers into insecurity about their relationship to God, but enhances their desire to be more intimate with Him.

62. SP | July 12, 2012 at 10:46 am |

    Regarding- 9. I use the KJV because of the way the KJV deals with the unfortunate reality of sin in the life of the Christian

    The statement above and the verses listed afterward seem to indicate a belief that even after one has come to Jesus, crucified the old man, and walks in the spirit, that he will continue to sin? Perhaps I misunderstand?

    If not, and the verse in 1 John 1 is used to defend this belief then I need further clarification.

    It appears to me that in v. 6 John introduces the man that walks in darkness and v.7 is contrasted against the man who walks in the light.

    v. 8 refers back to the person who walks in darkness and deceives himself by saying he has no sin.

    v.9 refers to the person who walks in the light, and has rec’d forgiveness of our sins.

    v.10 back to the person who walks in darkness who says he has never sinned and his word is not in him.

    1st half of 2 v.1- saved- My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

    2nd half of 2.v.1- unsaved, to the man who walks in darkness but will acknowledge his sin- And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

    v.3- saved- And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

    v.4- unsaved- He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

    Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but it doesn’t seem to be saying that the Christian will sin, it actually does appear to be saying the opposite.

    faithful KJV reader

63. john | December 20, 2011 at 8:54 pm |

    Jack, good point on the English dictionary definitions.

64. ExPreacherMan | December 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm |

    John,

    Good point… I suppose those who use the word, “Condemned or cursed” could always say it was to be done “by their peers” and not mean condemned by God.. but even that is a stretch.
    “Consemned” is bad enough but the ones that preach “condemned to hell, damned, under a curse, or be a damned soul”..don’t leave much wiggle room, do they?

    However, we must say that a layman who just reads the KJV Bible without in depth study on Free Grace and Eternal Security could come away with a dire translation if they use only the English Dictionary which defines the word “accursed” as “under a curse; doomed; ill-fated, damnable; detestable”

    So we must encourage others to:
    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

65. john | December 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm |

    Jack, thanks for the additional information on translations. If any verse of any Bible translation contradicts salvation by Grace through faith in Christ alone, eternal security or assurance of eternal security, it cannot be reliable.

    The doctrines of Grace, eternal security and assurance are inextricably linked. Anyone preaching, teaching, reading or translating the Bible that does not believe or understand this is wasting time and worse, risks damaging souls.

    It is interesting that the mistranslation of this verse itself should draw the curse of which Paul warns.

66. ExPreacherMan | December 20, 2011 at 5:55 pm |

    Here is just a tad more interesting info on the misuse of the word “accursed” in Galatians 1:8-9 (especially when it is so egregiously mistranslated to “be eternally condemned” in several “newer” Bible versions. As we look at these we witness all sorts of contortions to make folks think they can lose their salvation.

    It is no wonder there is so much confusion among Bible readers when there are so many anti-Grace variations being promoted and sold, under the premise of being “easier to read and understand.”

    Here are translations of the word “accursed (anathema” from Galatians 1:8-9 gleaned from some of the “newer Bible versions” being pushed upon the public.

    NIV and the ESV which says, “let that person be condemned”

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English, “he would be damned;”

    God’s Word Translation “should be condemned to hell, even if he is one of us or an angel from heaven.”

    World English Bible, The Message, The New World Translation (JW), “let him be cursed.”

    The Common English Bible, “they should be under a curse!”

    Contemporary English Version, “I hope God will punish anyone who preaches anything different”

    Easy to Read Version (ERV), “Anyone who tells you another way to be saved should be condemned! ”

    Good News Translation, “may he be condemned to hell!”

    Phillips Translation, “any other Gospel than the one you have already heard be a damned soul! “). [This one surprised me.]

    In plain solid Free Grace Bible doctrine — we know that whoever this messenger may be — that his preaching a false message will never impact his salvation. If he is not saved — he is already condemned (John 3:18).. If he is a believer, he can never be lost/unsaved (John 10:28) — but must be set apart or be removed from believers. This “eternally condemned” threat is used (especially by all forms of LSers) as a method to intimidate their robots by suggestion that believers either never had it or will lose their salvation if they preach a false message — and that simply can never happen!!

    Eternal Life can NEVER be lost — it IS eternal.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

67. califgracer | December 19, 2011 at 9:04 pm |

    John and Jack,

    Excellent discussion on Galations 1:8. Thanks for your input on the NASB and on Rev. 22. When I was in seminary, we were required [forced] to use the NASB. I always thought that it was due to the fact that some of the faculty were on the original version-launching committee at the Lockman Foundation. I have to say that I never liked the translation. I call it “wooden” because I think that its verbage is stilted and does not flow easily. Still, I have found the NASB Exhaustive Concordance to be very helpful for Greek word studies.

    David, I appreciated your comments too! You take the right approach with starting with the Biblical declaration from John 10:27-30 that genuine salvation in Christ Jesus can never be lost. So from that presupposition we analyze Revelation 22:18-19 and Galatians 1:8. Very well said, thanks!

    Bruce

68. David Wyatt | December 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm |

    I’d like to throw in a quick, and no-doubt inadequate response to the question concerning any connection between Galatians 1:8 and Rev.22:18f. I believe the “curse” placed on one who is preaching a false gospel is not eternal damnation as is interpreted by the NIV, but rather a temporal one. The reason being, we are born under the curse of sin, being condemned already. If one preaches a false gospel being unsaved, this would mean that such a person has no hope of salvation. If it were a believer who became confused and began preaching a false gospel, which no doubt unfortunately often happens, then it would mean they lost their salvation which we also know is impossible, John 10:28. So, whether the text in Revelation 22 refers to any type of eternal condemnation I do not know, but I don’t believe Galatians 1:8 does. Of course, if an unsaved person never comes to Christ and continues preaching a false gospel, they no doubt will be eternally condemned, but they were already, preaching a false gospel did not cause it. (Jn.3:18). So, the KJV rendering of Gal.1:8 is correct, let him be “accursed.” OK, I said a whole bunch more than I planned! God Bless you all.

69. ExPreacherMan | December 19, 2011 at 11:46 am |

    Bruce,

    Good questions… But…

    I have no opinion on the NASB, having neither read nor studied it. I have heard some comments that the Lockman group who originated it was trying to be rather ecumenical.. But that is only hearsay.. no proof. Therefore I don’t feel qualified to answer.. I concentrate my studies on the KJV.. I simply don;t have the time or patience to study a line by line comparison. If I see an obvious error published I will usually check it out. I believe John’s comment is accurate.

    Re: your question about the connection between Galatians 1:8 and Revelation 22:18-19?

    I have no hard opinion or study comparing those verses — except we know that Eternal Life is eternal.. and, once obtained — and since God’s guarantee is absolute — Eternal life cannot be changed, nullified or removed.. We know — Eternal Life is not a concept but a God Given Fact.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

70. john | December 19, 2011 at 11:34 am |

    Bruce, your add-on question is a bit over my head. I noted the following foootnote to 22:19 from Net Bible:

    tc The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while “the tree” of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek mss, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators. (This textual problem is not discussed in NA27.)

71. john | December 19, 2011 at 11:21 am |

    Bruce, I don’t have an opinion on the NASB. In thinking about translations, I think about whether they are internally consistent. Neither NIV nor NLT is internally consistent. So, many of the so-called tensions and paradoxes that LS advocates contend are in the scriptures may have been introduced by poor translations.

72. califgracer | December 19, 2011 at 11:07 am |

    Add-on question:

    Do you see any connection between Galatians 1:8 and Revelation 22:18-19?

73. califgracer | December 19, 2011 at 10:59 am |

    Hi John and Jack,

    Very interesting study of “anathema.” You both made excellent points. I checked out the word in my NASB exhaustive concordance. It gives the definition, “that which is laid up, i.e. a votive offering:” And it gives the usages in the NASB as “cursed” (5 times) or “solemn” (1 time). The NASB seems to be in line with what you were quoting from the KJV. Do either of you have any opinion on the validity of the NASB as a usable modern translation?

    Bruce

74. ExPreacherMan | December 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

    John,

    Right again… No one is beyond redemption. Everyone is a mission field. The Lord never gives up on anyone until they die — and neither should we. Some have been so brain-dirtied that they will not hear the truth. ie:
    1 Timothy 4:2
    Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

    Their mind is seared and scarred by lies. As always, the only way to get through to them the pure, simple Gospel of God’s Grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

    We see some who of those who visit our site. They are militantly LS and refuse to listen to or acknowledge the Truth. We have found it necessary to remove some commenters because of their vile and inappropriate comments. But they are still welcome to read and study the Truth here. They are certainly not beyond redemption — and some of them may even be saved — but have become terribly twisted in their teaching.

    Great point!!

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

75. john | December 18, 2011 at 11:50 am |

    Jack, I think this is important as we think about evangelism opportunities. The LS purveyors are as deserving of God’s Grace as we are.

    Think about this logical conundrum, from an LS perspective:

    If they (LS advocates) think that we, who preach salvation by Grace through simple faith in Christ alone, are teaching a false gospel, their favored Bible translation of Galatians 1:8 would tell them that we are beyond redemption. This would also tell them that anyone who preaches anything other than their LS perversion of the gospel could not be saved. That would make the Great Commission kind of a “why bother”.

    My understanding of Galatians 1:8 would tell us that the mission field includes LS preachers, who are not beyond redemption.

76. ExPreacherMan | December 18, 2011 at 11:31 am |

    John,

    Good observation. They are different. Writers of the more modern “bibles” seem to express their own definitions and preconceived ideas as they write their interpretation of the Bible to suit their slanted teachings. And some are just plain duped.

    The English dictionary would support the false NIV or NetBible meaning of the word “accursed” as being”condemned eternally.” Just like the English dictionary misinterprets the word “repent” to mean “turn from sin.” Modern Bible writers take great liberties in using current or colloquial dictionary meanings of words. And then the error is promulgated with abandon from author to author.

    The Greek word for “accursed” is speaking of removing oneself or the other person from fellowship or association.
    It is similar to the English word “anathema” but it is from the root: anatithemai; a (religious) ban or excommunicated (thing or person) :- accused, anathema, curse,
    The NetBible, NIV and many others would imply that a true (but ignorant) believer could preach “another Gospel” and then lose his salvation — “be condemned to hell!”. Simply not true — otherwise God’s promise of “Eternal Life” would then be null and void. That is impossible!! A believer can NEVER be condemned to Hell. Sounds like just another LS trick to try and keep their folks in line by fear.

    That is why I study the KJV and avoid all the others.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

77. john | December 18, 2011 at 11:07 am |

    Continued thoughts on the above:

    If preaching is a work, then the NIV and Net Bible versions of this verse suggest that there is a specific work for which one should go to hell, even if he is a believer.

    Further, the Apostle Paul would be arguing against God’s will that all men might come to repentance (faith in Christ) – including those that are teaching false messages.

78. john | December 18, 2011 at 10:42 am |

    I just came across another verse that is starkly different in the different English translations – Galatians 1:8.

    KJV: “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”

    NIV: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

    Net Bible: “But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!”

    These translations seem different to me.

79. ExPreacherMan | December 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    Dear friends.

    FYI, we have just published a new and interesting article by our friend John.

    Helpful Sinners, Helpless Sinners and Help for Sinners

    In Christ eternally, Jack

80. ExPreacherMan | November 29, 2011 at 8:47 pm |

    Burning Lamp,

    Thanks for stopping in.. I enjoyed your observations and comments.

    I suppose the KJV-vs-all-others discussion will never be settled this side of Heaven.. The worst of all problems, however, are the newer paraphrases. One would not even know it is The Bible… probably because it isn’t.

    Please peruse our archives and newer posts.. We appreciate your stopping in.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

81. Burning Lamp | November 29, 2011 at 9:54 am |

    Sorry for the repetition. I had trouble with the comment format and it didn’t show some of the comment so I repeated it.

    I did want to add that evidence of God’s faithfulness to His plan of salvation, even in the dynamic equivalency and thought for thought, the basic verses of salvation come through even in the Catholic Bible.

    I have appreciated this discussion and am glad that I came upon this blog with such good commentary and comments.

82. Burning Lamp | November 29, 2011 at 9:49 am |

    I am a latecomer to this thread, but have a couple of things to add.
    Regarding the KJVO folks, there are some IB who are dogmatic about it and there are some who take a lighter approach. But the KJVO people I have had experience with almost make it a matter of doctrine and it is cultish.

    Some may not be aware of it, but for missionaries to Spanish-speaking countries the KJV cannot be used for translation due to the King’s English. We went on a mission trip once with some KJVO folks and they had a conniption and tried to use the KJ with a translator and it caused much confusion. A mission group I know who goes to Central America uses the NKJ and it works fine. They give out the Reina Valera.

    Personally, I find the “thees & thous” in the KJ distracting. I prefer the NKJ which I have yet to find not to be true to the KJ. It is a travesty to see the mutation of God’s Word – the wateringdown of the NLT, the distortions of the NIV and the downright heresy of The Message.

    Personally, I find the KJ and the thees and thous distracting. I am not opposed to the KJ, but I much prefer the NKJ which I have found to be true to the KJ.

83. ExPreacherMan | November 28, 2011 at 7:55 pm |

    Friends:

    I have just posted a new article which might interest you:
    Why a Good-Boy Bad-Boy Lordship “Salvation” is a Lie

    Why a “Good Boy – Bad Boy” Lordship “Salvation” Is a Lie

    
    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

84. ExPreacherMan | November 9, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

    Friends..

    Please continue posting here — but just a note to you who have not yet subscribed to receive notification of new posts.
    We have a new article:
    The Pope and Obama. Why has President Obama Not Condemned the Occupiers? Maybe there is a Reason.
    http://www.expreacherman.com/2011/11/09/the-pope-and-obama-why-has-president-obama-not-condemned-the-occupiers-maybe-there-is-a-reason/

    Thank You,

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

85. califgracer | November 6, 2011 at 10:51 am |

    Hi John,

    Thanks for those thoughts. The “Dave” that you quoted has been a contributor on ExPreacherman for several years. Maybe he will see this entry and comment.

    Bruce

86. john | November 6, 2011 at 9:43 am |

    Bruce, by the way, both my wife and I were taught in our SBC churches growing up that people who commit suicide go to Hell. We both never really understood why. Now we both know that the reason we didn’t understand it is because it is not true.

87. john | November 6, 2011 at 9:37 am |

    Bruce, this is very interesting. Particularly the LS artful dodge around Romans 4. As the old saying goes,some folks would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground to tell the truth. So, by their fruits you shall know them. Chan’s fruits include confused people who don’t understand the nature of God’s Grace. You laid this out very articulately in your review “Crazy Love”, which is excerpted below:

    “In Crazy Love, he (Chan) tells of many people from his congregation asking him questions like, “If I divorce my wife can I still go to heaven?” “Do I have to be baptized to be saved?” “If I commit suicide, can I still go to heaven?” It seems that Chan’s application of Lordship Salvation teaching to his own church has created such questioning doubts among his people.

    Blogger, Dave, responds to these quotations above: It is my opinion that the reason many people ask whether they can divorce and still go to
    heaven and so on is all due to a works-oriented gospel out there. Instead of grace teaching a person to deny all manner of unrighteousness, the church uses fear and hell instead and then their version of grace to add the cherry on top.

    The reasons for those type of questions has to do with the confusion that is out there today. Francis Chan should note that most Lordship people I know ask such questions as they live under the weight of guilt and not those that are free grace and have a KNOW-SO assurance. To me it is obvious that the god of LS is nothing more than a god that expects A’s instead of B’s. Their god is nothing more than a god of conditional love based on good behavior. It should be no wonder that these law bound, guilt suffering people will be asking such questions as what Francis Chan shared.”

    So, by their fruits you shall know them.

88. califgracer | November 6, 2011 at 1:56 am |

    John,

    Thanks for your kind thoughts.

    Regarding the verses that you cite, all of which clearly delineate salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, yes, LS advocates claim to believe those verses. But, of course, in order to force these verses to “fit” their preconceived thelogical schematic, they must redefine words or force false interpretations. In seminary we were warned against such false interpretation; it is called “eisogesis.”

    LS interpretation of verses:

    (For a detailed examination of these verses from Free Grace authors, I highly recommend the books, “The Faith that Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament,” by Dr. Fred Chay and John Correia, 2008, GraceLine, Inc., and “Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, by Dr. Charles Bing, 1991, by GraceLife Ministries [GraceLine and GraceLife Ministries can be found in the links on the right column on this site]).

    John 3:16; Acts 16:31: For the Lordship Salvation proponent, a straining in interpretation of “pisteuo,” “believeth,” is employed. The LS argument goes something like this, “When ‘pisteuo’ is used, it normally means that the nature of belief is continuous.” Hence, for the LS interpreter, “belief” must be ongoing and continuous to be genuine; therefore, if one’s faith does not continue visibly, it is deemed to be spurious faith or non-salvific faith. Of course these kinds of qualifications of faith or belief are unbiblical concoctions. Chay and Correia detail how the LS interpretation of “pisteuo” is not normative or valid. They cite several instances when this type of interpretation is actually preposterous, such as the present tense “divorces” (Matthew 5:32) does not mean divorces continually or over and over. Likewise, when Herod calls John the Baptist, literally, “the baptizing one,” present tense, he obviously did not mean that John was still baptizing, especially since John was ALREADY DEAD!

    In addition to the “continuous” interpretation, other LS commentators try to cram a lot of additional baggage into the word “believe.” Hence, to the LS (mis)interpreter of Scripture, “believe” may include, repenting expressed through selling possessions and giving to the poor; it could mean bearing fruit, the need for baptism, the response of publicly confessing Christ, or taking up a cross and following Jesus or hearing and keeping God’s word. To the die-hard LS advocate, all of the responses mentioned above are necessary components of a type of response that God demands of all of his followers. Listen to this answer from Dr. David Anderson from “The Nature of Faith,” p. 12:
    “No one argues that devotion to Christ and doing good works in His name cannot point to faith. They should. However, the definition of faith must carefully exclude any evidence of faith, because evidences are inherently inconclusive. . . . Although faith may produce obedience, never does obedience produce faith.”

    Ephesians 2:8-9 Clearly in these verses, “the gift” to which they refer is salvation! That is the normal straightforward interpretation. However, LS interpreters mistranslate the Greek to indicate that faith is the gift. The gender of the Greek simply will NOT ALLOW this misinterpretation. A. T. Robertson explains that “kai touto” (“and this” or “and that” KJV) is neuter, and so reflects the act of being saved by grace NOT to faith (“pistis,” which is feminine) as the gift.

    Romans 4:4-5; cf. Romans 11:6: Chief Lordship Salvation advocate, John MacArthur would probably place these texts in the “paradox” category. Charlie Bing, in his book, “Lordship Salvation,” pp.159-160, referring to MacArthur’s usage of the term “paradox” in relation to a salvation that MacArthur calls, “both free and costly,” quotes Butcher as saying that MacArthur’s statements present “a logical impossibility,” “a logical absurdity,” and they “portray a gospel of nonsense.” Bing elaborates, “The only sense in which salvation is costly is in the fact that Jesus Christ paid the supreme price, his life, for the sinner’s redemption. Unfortunately, this is not the focus of Lordship teaching, which finds cost in the human conditions for salvation. But to the sinner, salvation is absolutely free. If it were costly to him in any sense, then it could no longer be of grace and Christianity would take its place alongside the rest of the world’s religions.”

    Hope I didn’t over-elaborate.

    Blessings,

    Bruce

89. john | November 5, 2011 at 11:25 pm |

    And here is a toss up question: Do LS proponents believe John 3:16? Ephesians 2:8-9? Acts 16:31? Romans 4:4-5?

    These verses are pretty clear regarding the basis for justification (salvation from sin’s penalty).

    So, if the LS crowd thinks that someone needs to be promising future works (turning from sins or commitment) in order to be saved, they are denying clear scriptures. How would the denial of God’s clear word be consistent with “radical”, “crazy”, “total” commitment to Christ?

90. john | November 5, 2011 at 11:00 pm |

    Bruce, thanks for the addition and link. This is an excellent book review.

    I think it is interesting that someone, such as Chan, would write a book calling for total commitment to Christ, while at the same time garbling and confusing the Gospel. Wouldn’t confusing or perverting the Gospel be inconsistent with a total commitment to Christ?

    One cannot become a committed disciple of Christ until he is first a believer. In order to believe, he must read or hear the Gospel. What better plan of attack for the enemy than to pervert the Gospel!

    I echo your sentiment: “Why, OH WHY, do so many teachers/preachers/pastors want to make things so difficult for people to be saved?”

    Turning from sin for salvation makes no sense. How can one look to his behavior or promises of future behavior for assurance of salvation? This would make each person the arbiter of his own salvation. That is, each person would have to decide whether or not he had “done enough” to get to heaven. Since this is not a Biblical teaching, there are no Biblical quantification standards to how good is good enough. We would be back to being graded on a curve, rather than relying on imputed perfection offered by Grace through faith in Christ.

91. califgracer | November 5, 2011 at 10:22 pm |

    To read the entire book review from which the statements on Rev. 3 were excerpted, see:

    Click to access BookReview%20ofCrazyLove.pdf

92. califgracer | November 5, 2011 at 10:17 pm |

    John,

    Thanks for your most helpful comprehensive statements on repentance.
    Yes, Dr. Tom Cucuzza and Pastor Jack Weaver, as well as Dr. James Scudder, have all spoken and written on the need for a straightforward clear presentation of the gospel without muddying the waters through adding all of these precursors to salvation (repent of your sins, turn from your sins, etc). Why, OH WHY, do so many teachers/preachers/pastors want to make things so difficult for people to be saved? Acts 16:31 declares simply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”—so clear, so basic, so simple, yet so many miss it!

    At Dr. Scudder’s church in Illinois there is a huge banner accross one entire wall of the sanctuary which posts Ephesians 2:8-9 as a constant reminder of what it means to be saved: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.”

    About the only thing that I could possibly add to the fine discussion above about repentance is a change of mind, heart or direction in which believers may sometimes need to experience or embrace when they have strayed from fellowship with the Lord. I wrote about this type of repentance in a book review; this type of repentance is detailed in Revelation 3:

    “About to spit you out: The key word here is about [to], mello. It warns the Laodicean church to return to fellowship and service to God. It should not be seen as an immediate threat, rather as God’s loving call! It should especially not be viewed as a threat of losing one’s salvation or of never having been saved. Referring to mello, Marshall says, “As so often (see also ch. 1. 19, 2. 10), this verb does not necessarily connote imminence, but only simple futurity.” In fact two other uses of the term in Rev. 1:19 and 3:10, from John’s vantage point, speak of the far-distant future—the end times! Wretched, pitiful: meaning, distressed, miserable, suffering hardship—these are all conditions that the people brought upon themselves through complacency. Poor, blind, naked: The Laodiceans were poor and blind, clouded in thinking, interested in making a buck, failing to embrace the riches of spiritual blessings that Christ already lavished upon them when they became believers (see Eph. 1:7-8). Naked can mean, without clothing, lightly clad, without an outer garment, or without proper clothing. Rev. 3:18 entreats them to live befitting the spiritual heritage that they already possessed in Christ, looking forward to heaven one day. They’re called to heal their myopia and clothe the “nakedness” of self-assuredness. The phrase buy from me gold refined in the fire beckons enjoying the delights of relationship with God, referring to Isa. 55:1. In Rev. 3:4 Christ promises that one day in glory believers will walk with him, dressed in white. Rev. 3:19 refers unmistakably to believers: Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. Hebrews 12:6 calls those calls those disciplined by God sons, clearly, believers. Jesus calls the Laodicean church to repent, NOT FOR SALVATION, but for believers to get right with God, returning to blessing and fellowship with him. Rev. 3:20 gives an open invitation to return to a place of restored blessing, of communion. Jesus’ promise to dine with them is a rich Middle Eastern metaphor for having intimate fellowship with them. To him who overcomes in 3:21 is a common phrase in John’s writings meaning, in every case, a true believer!

    Bruce

93. David Wyatt | November 5, 2011 at 10:03 pm |

    Amen! So clear & Biblical. So many “invitations” focus on the need for change in us, & “no change, no Christ” instead of focusing on the Gospel & Christ, & how He saves us through His shed blood. The focus is all wrong from the start.

94. john | November 5, 2011 at 9:09 pm |

    We need clarity regarding the Gospel, not confusion. The “Way of Life” stuff is real confusing. Why not go with clear? The excerpt below mentions one of the counterfeits that Satan is using today (presumably to mislead people from understanding the Gospel clearly) is the misuse of the word “repent” See below, This is clear:

    From Northland Bible Baptist Church:

    (16) Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man may have and to accept God’s way of salvation. Repentance does not in any sense include a demand for a change of conduct before or after salvation. Matthew 21:32, Acts 20:21, 2 Corinthians 7:8-10, Eph 2:8-9, Rom 4:5, Rom 5:8, John 3:16-18, Gal 3:10-12, Acts 16:25-31, Rom 11:29.

    One of the counterfeits Satan is using today is the misuse of the word “repent”. To insist upon repentance that in any sense includes a demand for a change of conduct either toward God or man is to add an element of works or human merit to faith. Penance is payment for sin. Penitence is sorrow for sin. Works add something of self in turning from sin. But repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Nowhere does Scripture use the phrase “repent of sin” to be saved.

95. ExPreacherMan | November 5, 2011 at 7:43 pm |

    Yes, Jan
    Cloud says he is vehemently opposed to LS.

    However I agree with John.. If Cloud had only said “repentance SHOULD lead to a change of behavior” I would agree. The “will lead” statement is confusing.

    Some time ago I searched Cloud’s web site, “Way of Life” for a friend.. Just did it again today and found conflicting statements along with definitions of “repent” that were confusing at times.
    http://www.jrank.org/api/search/v2?key=cfa502d3e345d0ac72edc350181195b93e238620&q=repent&commit=Search
    There are 317 articles from which to choose — I scanned a few and his anti-LS teaching is good for the most part. One must read some of his articles on “repent.” They do seem conflicting at times. Cloud seem to imply that repent equals “turn from sin” for salvation and we know that is not Biblical.. (correct me if I’m wrong).

    Thanks again Jess and drop by any time.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

96. john | November 5, 2011 at 7:06 pm |

    Thanks Jan. I have encountered a lot of people who would assert that LS is false doctrine, but who would embrace perserverance of the saints. I don’t know what Cloud would say about it either, but I will probably stay away from his teaching, because he does not seem to have a clear understanding of Grace.

    LS is associated with promises of future works (such as turning from sins for salvation or making a personal commitment to Christ ) as a part of the salvation process, whereas the perserverance of the saints is associated with the fundamental axiom that genuine saving faith will always produce visible and lasting changes in behavior.

    Both LS and perserverance of the saints are perversions of the Gospel, because they attempt to introduce the promise of works (LS) or the evidence of works (perserverance of the saints) into the equation of salvation offered freely through by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

97. Pearl | November 5, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

    Hey John, I’m just now reading the first link you recommended to Jess called “Preaching the Gospel in its Accuracy” and have already found a very common mishap which he addresses:

    “When exhorting the believers to a worthy manner of life and service, there is no statement made that such truths have no application to the unsaved, the result is that the unsaved are encouraged to believe that they need only to adopt the outward manner of life of the Christian to be a Christian.”

    Ain’t it the truth?! Years ago, my husband was complaining to his aunt about an unsaved relative who constantly used the Lord’s name in vain, suggesting that he ought to say something to the relative about how offensive it was to hear. His aunt’s wise reply was simply “He doesn’t need correction. He needs Jesus Christ.”

    Okay…back to reading…

98. JanH | November 5, 2011 at 6:38 pm |

    If one were to ascribe to that, he would need to look to his behavior (works) as evidence of saving faith.

    I don’t know what Cloud would say about that, whether he would agree or disagree. I do know he is strongly opposed to LS, though.

    JanH

99. john | November 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |

    Jan, I don’t fully agree with the “leads to a change of behavior” view, if by that he means that a change of behavior is automatic. That is kind of a “perserverance of the saints” theology. If one were to ascribe to that, he would need to look to his behavior (works) as evidence of saving faith.

100. Jess | November 5, 2011 at 6:16 pm |

     Thank you all for your comments and for answering my questions. I will think over the things you have said. Some points I agree with readily, other points I’m not sure about. However, I do know God’s Word has all the answers, and that’s where my faith lies.
     Thanks again, and keep up the good work/writing on this blog.
     God bless!

101. JanH | November 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm |

     Jack-

     R.E. David Cloud: His view of repentance is that it is a change of mind that leads to a change of behavior. It would go: a change of mind (before salvation) that leads to a change of behavior (after salvation).

     He has written against LS and there is a very good article posted on D. A. Waite’s site by a Canadian Fundamentalist, whose name is escaping me at the moment, Mark Charlton I think (?) or something like that, called The Evil Fruits of Lordship Salvation. He tears LS apart and does a really good job of it too. The author mentions David Cloud and quotes him extensively at one point, and he says David Cloud is a member, or was sent out as a missionary of the church he attends. (Or something similar. He seems to know Cloud personally.)

     JanH

102. ExPreacherMan | November 5, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

     Well Jess,

     We must conclude, as John has so eloquently stated and I affirm, “repent of/for sin” is not a Biblical phrase or command.:

     “Repent of sins” for salvation is simply NOT in the Bible and is not a Biblical concept. It is a phrase made up by some preachers (for years) in order to cast guilt. Of course one may use “repent” in many contexts as long as it simply means “reconsider, think differently, a change of mind.” But the word has been so misused I would never do so without an explanation. If it should involve an action or work such as, I must “Repent (turn) from sin” then it frustrates God’s Grace and becomes Galatianism:
     I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21

     There is nothing in the Greek word for “repent” — “metanoeo” that would infer a sorrow or penitence for sin. If one insists on an un-Biblical requirement for “sorrow,” that would be leaning toward a more Catholic works concept than a free grace understanding of God’s Word. Some folks may be “sorry” for what they do and that may lead to a change of mind about Jesus being their Savior (repentance). We must remember however that all our sin has been completely paid for by Jesus when we believe He died on the Cross for our sins — there is nothing further we can do to secure our salvation and nothing separating us from our eternal standing IN Him forever. Our daily fellowship or state can be hampered by our daily sins but that is why the Lord provided 1 John 1:9, confession of our sins to Him to restore our fellowship with Him and our brothers in Christ.

     Further you said:
     Would you agree that this is part of salvation or would you say “repenting of sins” is something that would occur after salvation as part of sanctification?

     “Repenting of sins” is not a Biblical phrase, so the answer is “No.”

     Repentance and sorrow are not similar Biblical words and neither word needs the other to be effective.

     Jess, it is really simple. Grace is all of Jesus Christ none of ourselves. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

     Thanks for a great discussion.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

103. john | November 5, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

     Jess, I would heartily recommend that you read “Preaching the Gospel in its Accuracy” and “The Doctrine of Repentance in Relationship to Salvation” by Lewis S. Chafer. Links are below:

     Click to access download.aspx

     Click to access download.aspx

104. john | November 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

     Jess, the actual phrase “repent of your sins” never occurs in scripture.

     Below is from “The Gospel” by Ron Shea:
     WHAT SAVING REPENTANCE IS NOT:

     1. Saving repentance is not being sorry for your sins.
     2. Saving repentance is not turning from your sins or reforming your life.
     3. Saving repentance is not the willingness to turn your life over to God so that He can direct your path.

     Saving repentance has absolutely nothing to do with regretting your sins or resolving to turn from them. God is willing to save you just the way you are. The Bible says:

     While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

     WHAT SAVING REPENTANCE IS:

     The principle word for “repentance” is from the Greek noun “metanoia,” and the Greek verb “metanoeo.” Metanoia simply means “a change of mind.” When used in the context of eternal salvation, repentance is a change of mind about Jesus Christ, and His eternal divinity, His atoning death, His victorious resurrection, and His offer of eternal salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. On page 19 of The Gospel Booklet, the content of saving faith is summarized as follows:

     I. Man’s Need:
     i) Man is sinful, and his sins separate him from a Holy God.

     II. Salvation:
     i) God will declare a lost sinner “Not Guilty” of all his sins, past, present, and future; and
     ii) God offers a perishing man the gift of eternal life.

     III. The Requirement:

     i) Faith

     III (a) The Object of Saving Faith:
     Jesus Christ.

     III (b) (The content of Saving Faith):
     i) That Jesus is the eternal creator God;
     ii) That Jesus death paid in full for our sins;
     iii) That Jesus rose again from the dead; and
     iv) That Jesus offer of salvation is a gift apart from any work of man.

     If someone denies, or does not understand his need for salvation, he must repent. He must recognize his lost condition before his Creator, and the salvation offered by his Creator.

     If someone denies that Jesus is the one true God, he must repent. He must recognize that Jesus is not simply an exalted created being, or a god of a great pantheon of Gods, but the eternal Creator God.

     If someone believes that his relationship with God can be restored through any work of man, he must repent, and recognize that Jesus has paid the sin debt through His death on the cross, and that it is through Jesus alone that salvation can be found.

     It should come as no great surprise, therefore, that, in the context of salvation, we see the object of repentance directed to some of these very elements.

105. Jess | November 5, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

     Hi Jack,
     Thanks for your kind reply to my comment. I will do my best to stay warm up here! No snow yet, so that’s good :). I’ve read a lot of your writings here on repentance, and I agree with you that repentance is a change of mind about Jesus and His ability to save. However, I think repentance can also take into account an attitude of being sorry for our sin. For instance, I “repent of my sins” meaning “I’m sorry for the wrong things I have done, and recognize I need Christ’s forgiveness.” Would you agree that this is part of salvation or would you say “repenting of sins” is something that would occur after salvation as part of sanctification?

     I think a case can be from Scripture for not only a change in attitude towards Jesus and His ability to save, but a change in attitude towards one’s own sinfulness as well. Romans 3 and Romans 6 both clearly tell us that the problem with mankind is sin. That we need our sins forgiven. And that Jesus is the only One who can forgive sins. Is that not what grace is all about? Personally, I don’t see repentance of sin as adding works to salvation IF that repentance is understood to be a change in attitude toward sin. If we do not recognize our sinfulness as separating us from a holy God, we will never have need of a Saviour.

     I guess what i’m trying to say is perhaps repentance is twofold. One, a change in attitude toward Jesus and His ability to save. Two, a change in attitude toward our own sinfulness and a realization that we are lost, wicked sinners that cannot do anything to save ourselves from our sin.

     I’m 100% with you in that many Calvinists and LS advocates DO add works to grace. I’ve experienced it first hand. I totally agree that the Scripture does not demand we clean up our lives in order to be saved, and that many LS advocates greatly confuse salvation and sanctification. But, like I said, I don’t see a problem with “repent of your sins” when repentance is properly understood.

106. ExPreacherMan | November 5, 2011 at 9:41 am |

     Jess,

     Thanks for dropping in from way up North. It is great that you are appreciative of your KJV. You are in good company here.

     You mention David Cloud. He is a strong advocate of the KJV — but I would hesitate to use him as an example of good Bible doctrine in one area at least. If you examine his work carefully you will see that he misinterprets “repentance” as meaning to “turn from sin” and he often uses the words “repent of sin” as a requirement for salvation. The phrase “repent of sin” is simply not in the Bible and is terribly misunderstood by many folks. A very simple explanation: Repentance is not “turning from sin” but a change of mind about Jesus and His ability to save rather than our good works. The works of “turning from sin” to be saved are never mentioned in the Bible as God’s requirement for salvation. Such a position is adding works to God’s Free Grace Gift of Eternal Life.

     We have written extensively on clarifying the incorrect defining of the word “repent.” Use our search box for the word (upper right) and you will see our clear position from the Bible.

     The great IFB preacher Dr. Curtis Hudson and former editor of the “Sword of the Lord” newspaper expounded frequently on the error of those who misrepresent Biblical repentance as meaning “turn from sin.”

     Take care and keep warm in these wintry days ahead. We look forward to hearing from you again.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

107. Jess | November 4, 2011 at 10:14 pm |

     There’s some really interesting discussion in this thread. I’d like to comment on a couple of things.

     First, I’ve used the KJV since I could read. I’ll admit there was a lot that I didn’t understand as a child, but then a child doesn’t understand a lot of other things either! Now that I’m an adult, there’s still a lot about the Bible I don’t understand! After all, who is every going to completely understand everything God revealed to us in His Word! He’s God. We’re mere humans. But, we keep reading, studying, and learning all throughout our Christian lives. I find the argument that newer versions are easier to understand, and therefore, better quite annoying. God never commanded us to understand everything in the Bible, He just told us to read it.

     Second, I would definitely say I’m King James only, but not one of those crazy, extreme KJVOers. Sadly, those people have given a lot of other KJ users a really bad name. I believe it is possible to be King James only, and not be cultic or legalistic or whatever. This site definitely proves that! And there’s a lot more of us out here.

     Third, there was some discussion earlier about IFB churches. I appreciate Pastor Cucuzza’s comment encouraging us not to paint all IFB churches with the same brush, and to be cautious about our use of the word legalistic. He hit a lot of nails on the head in that comment. I go to an IFB church and attended an IFB Bible college. My IFB church is nothing like some of the negative descriptions given earlier, praise the Lord. I think it’s important to remember the I in IFB: Independent. All IFB churches are independent of any governing body, denomination, etc. Therefore, IFB simply cannot be painted with a broad brush. There is SO much variation of doctrine, practice, and belief within churches that claim an IFB label. I’ve experienced this personally, and there are certainly churches that go by IFB that my church would never fellowship with because they hold to false teaching.

     Anyhow, back to the main point of this thread. I love my KJV. I’m absolutely convinced that it is God’s Word for the english speaking people. I am even convinced that it has NO errors. I know other KJVers here may not necessarily agree with such a dogmatic position on the “no errors” thing, but that’s ok :). I’m not sure if this link will be approved (it’s ok if it isn’t), but David Cloud has some excellent and I believe balanced articles on the KJV at http://www.wayoflife.org for those who want to do further research, and he’s definitely not Calvinist or LS.

     Sorry this comment is so long and rambling… 🙂 God bless.

108. ExPreacherMan | November 3, 2011 at 11:31 am |

     To some of our readers who may not have subscribed to New Posts, Bruce has posted an amazing article on Calvinism you do not want to miss:
     “Calvinism’s “god” – All Loving or a Misanthrope”

     The God of Calvinism: Calvinism’s “god”: All Loving or a Misanthrope?

     In Christ eternally, Jack

109. ExPreacherMan | November 2, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

     Stone,

     Or should I address you as “Mike” another name we had to block because of bad doctrine?

     Let’s get something clear. I want you to keep something in mind. Yes, we do engage in Information Control as any discerning Christian should. We delete links to false teaching and teachers as well as block those who promote it.

     This web site is where we promote and discuss God’s Free Grace. We do not welcome purposeful lies, errors and false doctrine. For those who prefer false doctrine there are thousands of web pages on the internet that promote such.

     By going there, you are no longer under our “manipulative” control.

     I do pray you will come to realize what you promote is contrary to God’s Word. Your comments will be closely monitored and may be deleted.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

110. Stone | November 2, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

     Okay thank you Jack. Let’s get something clear. I am not recommending the teachings of Pastor David or Pinto. Pastor David agrees with you that LS is another gospel. The documentary is about the history of the Bible not LS. I was simply sharing a free resource on the history of the Bible with my brothers and sisters in the Lord. I want you to keep something in mind. Information Control – information enables people to make decisions; hiding information prevents sound decision making and leads to manipulation.

111. ExPreacherMan | November 2, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

     Thanks Eddy,

     Your research is accurate — and we appreciate it. Pinto is a false teacher, no doubt about it. See my note above to Stone about whey we would never recommend anything by Pinto..

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

112. ExPreacherMan | November 2, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

     Stone,

     Your recommendation of Pinto’s movie misses the point. Pinto and his teachings are the problem.. His movie may be great (I have no idea) but it is simply a magnet to draw folks into his false doctrine. I personally reject that.

     I likewise disagree with referencing Pastor David, (David Reagan – Lion and Lamb). He certainly teaches doctrine contrary to what we believe here. You might search Reagan out before you recommend such as him. If you agree with Pinto and Reagan, you disagree with God’s Holy Word.

     These quotes are from David Reagan on his numerous articles via his web sites. I will not put the links to false doctrine but surely one can search the Internet:

     Reagan:
     But I do believe in Holy Spirit baptism, just as I also believe in the gift of tongues. And I think the time is long overdue for us to do some serious teaching and preaching about both of these topics within Evangelical Christianity.
     […]
     Many Christians have quenched and grieved the Spirit within them because they have treated Him as an unwanted guest. This is due to the fact that many Christians have accepted Jesus as Savior but not as Lord.
     […]
     The Church began with a great outpouring of God’s Spirit (Acts 2). The Bible says that the Church Age will conclude with another great outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29). I believe we are in the midst of that “latter rain” right now.
     {Search the Internet for “David Reagan Holy Spirit Baptism”}

     In another article, Reagan is even more sympathetic to the terrible Pentecostal “Latter Rain” movement.
     {search the Internet for “David Reagan latter rain”}

     Reagan is simply a promoter who has a tiny modicum of good doctrine but enough blatant error to never recommend him or his teaching.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

113. Eddy | November 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

     Dear Jack and Jan,

     Christ Pinto has a web site named “Noise of Thunder Radio”. Just do a google search with that name and you will find the link. if you click on the ABOUT tab on the home page of that web site, you will find the “Our Beliefs” page listing their believes. I do not want to post the link here since I don’t think Jack will agree on his believes. Thank you Jan for warning us about Christ Printo. Christ Pinto is the founder of Adullam Films. There is another long article on the Adullam Films website with the title SALVATION. You will be able to find the link to the site by searching the name “Adulam Films”. Just click on the Salvation tab on the home page of that web site to load the article.

114. Stone | November 2, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

     Hi Jack,

     I appreciate and share your concern with LS. What you seem to be missing is that the content of this documentary is NOT promoting LS.

     Product Description

     A Lamp in the Dark is an exciting documentary that shows the intriguing history of the Bible. Enter into a world of saints and martyrs battling against spies, assassins, and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Through the Middle Ages, the popes and Inquisition forbade biblical translation, threatening imprisonment and death to those who disobeyed. Learn the lives of men like John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale and others, who hazarded their lives to communicate the Bible in languages people could understand. With the Fall of Constantinople, ancient Greek manuscripts came into Europe, and with them, the clear streams of understanding that would bring about the Protestant Reformation. But what is little known is that Rome launched a Counter Reformation with the intent of destroying all the works of the Reformers. Could this be the key to the “untold” history of the Bible? And is it possible that this ancient war on the Word of God continues to this day?

115. Pearl | November 2, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

     Let’s not forget Tom Cucuzza’s offer:

     On the Bible text issue, I have some resources I would recommend that are sensible and written with the right attitude. I would be glad to share the titles with you if you contact me through our website at:

     office@northlandchurch.com

116. Stone | November 2, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

     Hi Jack,

     The link to watch the video for free is posted on lion and lamb ministry website by a Pastor David. Here’s what Pastor David has to say about Lordship Salvation:

     “Now, John MacArthur, and company, and very subtly preaching a works/Grace mix…while they say out of one corner of their mouth that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, they then from the other corner of their mouth say that a person must commit to Christ as Lord of his life BEFORE he can be saved. This is pure double-speak, and don’t buy into it….These who willingly mix works and Grace, the Apostle Paul says, are accursed! THIS was the problem in Galatia. And the Apostle’s response was, right at the beginning of the Epistle.”

117. ExPreacherMan | November 2, 2011 at 11:51 am |

     Stone,

     Thanks for your thoughts.

     I knew nothing about Pinto until I started searching — and also a few of our web friends who were familiar with him and his Lordship “salvation” promotions gave their opinion. That’s enough for me. That review on Amazon could have been written by anyone (even Pinto himself) who has an LS axe to grind.

     And you said it would be appreciated by those, “who use the King James Version and do not hold to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church.”

     Wow, that’s a lot of folks. That could include Calvinists, Arminians, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, SDA, Lordship “Salvationists,” and many more — so many of whom pervert God’s Word for their own brand of “theology.”

     Therefore I will not recommend it because of Pinto’s reputation as an advocate of LS.

     In Christ eternally, Jack

118. Stone | November 2, 2011 at 11:27 am |

     Hi Jack,

     I don’t know anything about Pinto. I do know that the documentary will be appreciated by those who use the King James Version and do not hold to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church.

     The most helpful favorable review on Amazon:

     Most comprehensive, exhaustive, and scriptual film on the historicity of the Bible. This is the most comprehensive film regarding the history of the Bible that I have ever seen to date. This film is easy to follow and understand. It is constantly interjecting pictures and short dramatizations regarding the information being explained. The script is concise and at times compelling. This film leaves no stone unturned…..

119. ExPreacherMan | November 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm |

     Jan,

     Thanks for that info — I trust your judgment and discernment.

     Stone,
     I will remove those links..

     In Christ eternally, Jack

120. JanH | November 1, 2011 at 9:11 pm |

     I have heard of Christ Pinto and watched about 15 minutes of something he did once. He is ubber LS.

     JanH

121. ExPreacherMan | November 1, 2011 at 8:16 pm |

     Stone,

     Would you give us a little history about the producer Pinto, his faith, etc. My search of the internet hints that he may be Reformed/Calvinist.. I hesitate to put links on this Blog without some idea about their background.

     Thank you.

     In Christ eternally, Jack

122. Stone | November 1, 2011 at 7:02 pm |

     A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible – Full Version

     An Adullam Films Production
     Written and Directed by Christian J. Pinto
     Running Time: 3 Hours

     A Lamp in the Dark is an exciting documentary that shows the intriguing history of the Bible. I was able to watch most of this online. It froze up once and I also had to skip forward about 15 min durring the last third of the video. I don’t know anything about the ministry that is hosting this video.

     You can watch it here:
     {{ Link removed by Admin}}

     NOTE: The Untold History of the Bible – Based on the award winning documentary, “A Lamp in the Dark,” this newly edited version is about half the length of the three hour original. It has been designed as a concise witnessing tool, while preserving the vital insights and dramatic integrity of the original.
     {{Link removed by Admin}}

123. ExPreacherMan | October 31, 2011 at 8:29 pm |

     Marcee,

     Yes, King James was quite a rogue king but he has a legacy of authorizing the most used Bible in the world. Thanks for that link.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

124. Marcella | October 31, 2011 at 6:57 pm |

     Did you read about King James on that site, Jack?

     http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-james.html

     He had quite the life! I thought he wrote the King James Bible, but I see that he just authorized it.

     Marcella

125. ExPreacherMan | October 31, 2011 at 10:44 am |

     Marcee.

     Thanks for that history site about Tyndale. Interesting.

     In Christ eternally, Jack

126. Marcella | October 31, 2011 at 9:09 am |

     You all might find this to be interesting.

     http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

127. Tom Cucuzza | October 31, 2011 at 8:23 am |

     Jack and all,

     Thanks for all the good dialogue and response. It has been an encouragement to me as well. This is a great place and I enjoy reading it several times a week, even though I don’t always comment because of time restraints.

     Secure Forever in Christ,

     Tom

128. ExPreacherMan | October 30, 2011 at 9:38 pm |

     John,

     Thanks for your kind remarks — as you have seen, we try to have a great fellowship of believers here by:

     … speaking the truth in love, [and] may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: Ephesians 4:15

     And I keep trying for myself to:
     Let your [my] speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye [I] may know how ye [I] ought to answer every man. Colossians 4:6

     We are blessed to have Tom write this article then visit and comment.

     Tom, you have an open invitation to write what’s on your mind for our humble web site. Thanks for your comments.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

129. john | October 30, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

     Tom, thanks for this article and all of your great comments. If time permits, it would be great to have you hang out with us more often!

     Pearl, I thought the information as to reading levels was helpful. I know some geniuses who don’t seem to get it, no matter what the level. It reminds me of the show “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?”

     Marcee, it is good to compare everything we read, see or hear to the Truth of God’s Word. There is so much distortion out there!

     Jack, thanks for the wonderful ministry on this website. I get really excited when I see new people drop by.

130. Tom Cucuzza | October 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm |

     Jack and All,

     We get our tracts from Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church as well. They print them for us with our info on the back. It is a very effective tract. It is written in a way that if you have never led anyone to Christ, you can read it WITH the person and it will bring them to a point of trusting Christ. Very clear and logical.

     Tom

131. Tom Cucuzza | October 30, 2011 at 5:26 pm |

     Jan,

     Satan’s ways really never change. What did he use in Genesis 3:1? “….And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said….?”

     It all begins with getting people to doubt and question what God says. Introducing hundreds of Bible translations that differ from each other would be a great way to break things down in this regard. If they all differ, then what can we be sure of as to what God has really said?

     Then it leads to the rejection of what God says. Genesis 3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:” Adam and Eve took the bait and the rest is history!

     This takes us up to modern times. Paul, after writing down the great verses on the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) says this:

     2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
     2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
     3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
     4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

     We all know that there are no actual chapter divisions in the manuscripts. V.1 follows v.17 of chapter 3 perfectly. In other words, seeing the Bible is inspired and the very word of God which can save people (3:15), and grow us up as believers to be what God wants us to be…Preach the Word!

     Yet he states that the time would come (v.3) when people would not endure (put up with) sound doctrine, but would find teachers who would tell them what they want to hear. I believe we are living in those days, and it certainly would at least go back to the late 1800’s through today.

     So, is it an “end of the age thing”? I would say ‘Yes”!

132. ExPreacherMan | October 30, 2011 at 4:43 pm |

     Marcee,

     I think Pearl’s point is well taken.. that the KJV is understood by kids at an earlier age than other versions. Your criticism of her using that chart was unnecessarily harsh.

     We know the earliest version of the KJV was used as a text in public schools in the 1800s alongside McGuffy’s Reader.

     To all,

     The tract John quoted from Tom’s web site is a tract that he and I and many believers before us have used for years as a great witnessing tract. I find it one of the best witnessing tools.. The cover says, “Am I Going To Heaven”? When handed to a person it usually elicits a response if you ask them, :“Have you ever thought of that question before now?”

     Tom may have them for sale at his church web site or Dr. Jim Scudder has them for sale at Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church, home of the wonderful Annual Grace Conference. Contact them at: http://www.qrbbc.org/

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

133. Pearl | October 30, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

     “I’d never pluck anything from a false teacher and agree with it or consider it true.”

     Firstly, even a genuine false teacher is capable of uttering truths.

     Secondly, given that I never mentioned the source, I wonder how you can in good conscience label this person a false teacher.

     There are a great number of teachers and preachers with whom I strongly disagree on many points, but to whip around and accuse them as being false teachers is a very serious charge.

     Is John MacArthur a false teacher? Charles Spurgeon? Martin Luther? John Wesley? Charles Wesley?

     There are many who diligently fight against the LS heresy, as well as others heresies, and yet have the grace and humility to restrain from making damning pronouncements against those who advance the heresies. There is a difference between the two.

134. JanH | October 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

     Pastor Tom-

     Thanks for all that information.

     most of this stuff came in with what is called “higher criticism”

     This is exactly what I was wondering about as you had said previously that all this stuff happened around the turn of the century (1900), which was about the time everything started going kerflooey with evolution, higher criticism, esoteric teaching, etc. I was wondering if there was some sort of connection there.

     That then leads me to ask why the greater body of the church has allowed this to happen? Did they not see the connection? Or, rather, since we can look back, why has this not been dealt with? I mean, even if they could not see then where all that humanism was going to go, we can certainly see it now in hind sight. In times past, God used certain men or counsels to deal with major heresies and prove the content of orthodox Christianity, and so has preserved orthodoxy to this day, in spite of heresies continuing on. But that doesn’t seem to have happened here. The body is not united around orthodoxy but is completely divided. Do you think that might be an end of the age thing?

     JanH

135. john | October 30, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

     Marcella, I agree with your answer. I selected 9 as one of the incorrect answers, because I encounter so many people who are confused on that point. Please find below the answers to each of the questions:

     Answers: (Taken from the Bible)

     No. 1: Trying to keep the commandments cannot save us but shows we are sinners:

     “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” James 2:10

     No. 2: Being sorry for your sins, or confessing your sins cannot take away sin. The Bible says the penalty of sin is death. We all die physically, but we also deserve to die spiritually by spending eternity in Hell.

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

     No. 3,4: Doing your best is commendable. To turn from your sins and stop sinning is also very desirable (yet impossible). Will doing these things make you perfect? No. Heaven is a perfect place and you must be perfect to enter. The Bible says:

     “And there shall in no wise enter into it (Heaven) any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Revelation 21:27

     No. 5,6: No deeds, charity, contributions to churches, nor any good work by you, can take away your sins or save you. The Bible says:

     “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9

     No. 7: Water baptism and communion cannot pay for sins. They are for those who are already saved.

     “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us:..” Titus 3:5a

     So far it sounds quite bad: we are all sinners; we all deserve to go to Hell; Heaven is a perfect place; nothing we do can make us perfect. How then can we go to Heaven? The answer is found in God’s Word:

     “For He (God) hath made Him (Christ) to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21

     Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for all of our sins. He died FOR us. Only through Him can we have eternal life.

     What then must you do to go to Heaven?

     No. 8: Correct! By trusting in Jesus Christ as the one who died for your sins, you will receive everlasting life. Even though you may die physically, your soul will live forever in Heaven. Jesus Christ said:

     “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

     Jesus also said:

     “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me HATH (possesses now) everlasting life.” John 6:47

     The moment you trust Jesus Christ as your Savior, your sins will be forgiven, and you will receive God’s righteousness (perfection). This allows you to enter Heaven.

     “And by Him (Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Acts 13:39

     No. 9: Incorrect! You can do nothing to add to the finished work of Christ. By doing so, you are not trusting in Christ alone as your Savior but only as your helper. You cannot go to Heaven that way. You must completely forget about your good works and commitments as a means of saving you, and put your trust ONLY in the Savior – Jesus Christ.

     “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5

     Trusting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior is a one time decision in your life. The moment you believe in Christ, God will give you eternal life. Once you have believed, God accepts you as His child.

     “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” John 1:12

     God may discipline you when you disobey, but He will never cast you out of His family. You have eternal life which is secure. You can never lose it, neither can you forfeit it. God’s unconditional promise is that He will never take it away from you:

     “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.” John 10:28

     This is called eternal security. Serving the Lord is important, once you are saved. It brings God’s blessings and joy to your life. But if relied upon to get you to Heaven, it will not work. Salvation is ONLY by faith in Jesus Christ.

     No. 10: Friend, I cannot make you believe in Heaven or Hell. Maybe you don’t believe in it because you can’t see it. But neither can you see the air you breathe, yet without it you would die. Heaven is real! Hell is real! Why not investigate God’s Word?

     “He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

     John 3:18

     Right now, why not trust Jesus Christ as your Savior. He will save you for all eternity. You can also have the assurance that your sins are forgiven (past, present, and future). God has said it, and He cannot lie.

     “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life…” 1 John 5:13

     Jesus said:

     “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” John 6:37,39

136. Pearl | October 30, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

     Marcella,

     I think you’re misunderstanding me: none of them were translated with that intent, but merely when evaluated, those reading levels were assigned to them. The same could be done for any reading material, such as The New York Times.

137. Marcella | October 30, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

     Tom, thanks for the good information you provided. I use the 1611 version of the King James Bible.

     john, out of that list, #8 is the only one I would select.

     Pearl, that listing of Bible versions and the elementary school levels they were written as just doesn’t sit right with me. I’d never pluck anything from a false teacher and agree with it or consider it true. To assume that the Bible was written at a certain age level is despicable! Nowhere in the Bible does it even mention such a thing. The Bible was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit by mature adult believers. Of course, anyone can understand the Bible. To consider that it was written at a certain age level is completely preposterous! Yes, I’m angry that someone or some group would even consider evaluating the Holy Bible in such a nonsensical way! Unbelievable!

138. john | October 30, 2011 at 10:41 am |

     Tom, thanks for the references. Your church’s website has some great evangelical material on it. I just read “Am I Going to Heaven”. What a clear presentation! Especially number 9. I encounter so many people who seem to love the Lord and want to serve Him, but who also seem to think that those things are an essential part of saving faith. I hope you don’t mind that I have cut and pasted excerpts below :

     INSTRUCTIONS: Choose below what you think is necessary to get to Heaven.

     1. Obey God’s laws and commandments.
     2. Be sorry for your sins, and confess your sins.
     3. Sincerely do your best.
     4. Turn from your sins and stop sinning.
     5. Do good deeds.
     6. Give money to church or charity.
     7. Water baptism or Holy communion.
     8. Trust in Jesus Christ alone as your personal Savior.
     9. Trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior, and also serve Him.
     10. There is no Heaven or Hell

     No. 9: Incorrect! You can do nothing to add to the finished work of Christ. By doing so, you are not trusting in Christ alone as your Savior but only as your helper. You cannot go to Heaven that way. You must completely forget about your good works and commitments as a means of saving you, and put your trust ONLY in the Savior – Jesus Christ.

     “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5

     Trusting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior is a one time decision in your life. The moment you believe in Christ, God will give you eternal life. Once you have believed, God accepts you as His child.

     “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” John 1:12

139. Tom Cucuzza | October 30, 2011 at 9:56 am |

     Dear Friends,

     In light of this discussion, I wanted to mention a resource we offer at our church. It is a little booklet called :A Bible Word List & Daily Reading Scheme”. it is a booklet giving a list of words that people consider “outdated” in the KJV. It gives simple definitions or synonyms, and a few Bible references on where those words are used. it also has, as the title indicates, some reading plans. it is either 1 or 2 dollars. It is published through the Trinitarian Bible Society. ISBN is: 1 86228 259 5. It is small, measuring 5 3/4 ” by 4 1/4″.and about 1/16″ thick.

     Tom

140. Tom Cucuzza | October 30, 2011 at 9:48 am |

     Jan, In answer to your question about Westcott and Hort, the late Dr. Henry Morris had this to say:

     The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials and nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological liberals.
     Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as did those 19th century revisers. Schaff was twice tried for heresy by his denomination and taught at the very liberal Union Seminary. As chairman of the revision committee, Schaff not only was greatly influenced by Westcott and Hort, but also by the Unitarians Ezra Abbot and Joseph Thayer, of Harvard, as well as other liberals whom he placed on the committee.
     Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland) Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century. Since these are both supposedly older than the more than 5000 manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus, they were accepted as “better.” This was in spite of the fact that they frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Textus Receptus, and also contained many serious and obvious omissions. The Vatican manuscript, for example, leaves out most of Genesis as well as all of Revelation, in addition to the pastoral epistles of Paul, 33 psalms, and over a third of Hebrews.
     The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside and not used because of their numerous gross errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly and thus wore out sooner.
     The Sinaitic manuscript was reportedly rescued from a wastebasket in a monastery on Mount Sinai by another German evolutionist theologian, Friedrich Tischendorf. The Orthodox monks evidently had long since decided that the numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript had rendered it useless and had stored it away in some closet where it had remained unused for centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and vigorously as representing a more accurate text than the thousands of manuscripts supporting the traditional Byzantine text. Furthermore, he assumed that it came from about the fourth century, but he never found any actual proof that it dated earlier than the 12th century.

     Jan, most of this stuff came in with what is called “higher criticism”, which often is nothing more than intellectuals deciding that they will determine what is real biblical text and what isn’t.

     An interesting piece of info: We have a lady in our church who has her grandmother’s KJV Bible. There is no version name on the spine. The reason is that for hundreds of years there was only one Bible considered the “Bible”, and it was the KJV. Everyone who wasn’t a Catholic who bought a Bible bought the KJV, for that was what was offered. How things have changed and what confusion there is today!

     Tom

141. califgracer | October 29, 2011 at 10:59 pm |

     Thanks Tom and Pearl for your excellent responses on the children’s Bible issue.

     Pearl, I had never read that age comparison chart before; it was indeed fascinating!

142. Pearl | October 29, 2011 at 10:44 pm |

     Great question, Bruce! And I’m in complete agreement with Mr. Cucuzza’s response.

     As soon as my kids learned to read, we bought each child their own King James with their name embossed on the cover. No problems whatsoever.

     I don’t need to tell you all how extremist groups mix truth with error, and we know the KJ-ONLY crowd has its toxic factions, but into all their wayward talk was tilled very useful and interesting info which I have no doubt is true, specifically addressing reading levels for each version:

     The modern versions inserted multi-syllable words where KJ uses simple one-syllable words; the modern translations actually used more difficult words where the KJ uses very simple terms which even a very young child could grasp (comparison charts of bible verses were provided, very enlightening). Based on this info, reading levels were determined by an educational research group:

     NIV was at an 8th grade level
     NASB was 7th grade
     NKJ was 6th
     KJ was 5th grade level

     Fascinating!

143. Eddy | October 29, 2011 at 9:34 pm |

     Dear Tom,

     Thank’s for your excellent article on defending KJV. I am also very grateful to you for your giving us more data points on Independent Baptist.

     Eddy

144. Tom Cucuzza | October 29, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

     Hi Bruce. Good to hear from you! And thank you so much for your prayers. They mean a great deal.

     Concerning what Bible to give a young person-this may surprise you, but I would still get them a KJV. I see it as an investment in their future as a believer. Obviously there are other translations that are easier to read, but they can learn the KJV. While I DO sympathize with the learning curve involved, it isn’t as hard as people think it is.

     As an example of this, our Christian school uses the KJV from Preschool all the way through 12th grade. They learn to read the KJV just like any other book.

     While it reads differently than “street language”, it isn’t that they can’t understand it. Just like every other subject the students study, they have vocabulary words that they have to look up at times. Why not in the Bible? What is wrong with expanding one’s vocabulary? What we teach is if you come across a word you don’t understand, underline it in your Bible, look it up, and put a synonym in the margin. That way every time you see it you will know what it means.

     Some very strict KJV people would be “up in arms” right now because I have said this, or they would accuse me of changing the Word of God, but we both know that it wasn’t given in English to the apostles and Bible writers, but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. There was a time when there as no KJV. While we need to be careful with synonyms, a good place to go is Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, as well as some others.

     I think the key word in all this is STUDY. This takes some time and discipline, as you know very well as a good writer. Our 3 daughters all learned to read with the KJV as their Bible, and all of them are godly young women serving Christ today. By the way, they are still using the KJV. My wife and I both are educators and understand the issue first hand.

     While I am not a scholar of original languages, I do know that the NKJV’s Old Testament is based on a different Old Testament than the KJV’s. Therefore, the NKJV is not really “just an updated KJV”. In fairness, I do not know how much of the Old Testament text is changed using a different base text, so I will withhold any negative judgment. I do know there are some verses, such in Proverbs that have an entirely different meaning.

     I truly understand though what you are saying. You don’t want the child to get discouraged but encouraged when reading the Bible.

     There are some KJV Bibles that have alternate words in the margins or at the end of a verse, when an “archaic” word is used. These can be helpful at times.

     I didn’t mean to go on and on about this, but seeing you asked, I thought I would explain my thoughts. Take care.

     Tom

145. Tom Cucuzza | October 29, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

     Hi Marcella,

     The Textus Receptus means the “received text” and is what the KJV translation is based on, as far as the Greek goes. Hope this helps.

     Tom

146. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

     What is Textus Receptus? I’d never heard of it prior to seeing it here.

     “The Message”? What a mess! The Pastor uses it in my hometown church.

147. JanH | October 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

     …unknowing people assume it is right because it is in the “Bible”. They SHOULD be able to believe it, but sadly, it is false. They end up believing something that is false doctrine and then pass it on, not because THEY were confused, but because they believed false doctrine found in a “Bible”. As a result, they BECAME confused or stayed confused.

     This is a very good point and I think we see the same kind of thing on a broader scale today. I never thought to apply it to Bible translations, but it certainly fits.

     This whole generation has no idea what church/Christianity was only 20 or 30 years ago. It has changed MUCH since then and is almost unrecognizable from what it was when I was first saved. People being saved in this generation, especially if they are too young to remember anything else, do not know what they do not know. Therefore, to them, what they experience today is what the faith has always been. They just don’t know any different. I wonder how many of them have even ever heard a hymn, for example, let alone understand what’s in them?

     When I was a young Christian there were really only 4 main versions: KJ, NKJ, NAS, and NIV. I think there was also the New Living paraphrase. But there was not this cafeteria level of versions to chose from. It was easy to compare and contrast. But today you see people quoting verses that barely even sound like Scripture at all and you wonder what in the world they are talking about because you are sure there is no Bible verse that says THAT (whatever “THAT” happens to be). And you hardly know how to correct them because you don’t even know what verse they are supposedly siting, because they don’t put the reference in.

     I think it would be wise to do a side by side comparison of some of these neuvo Bibles with the King James (imagine The Message in that situation!) to see how they are really not confessing the same thing at all.

     Now, here is something I don’t know. Why was it decided that the W&H Greek manuscript (I forget what that’s called) needed to be brought into play after 400 years of the Textus Receptus? Was that when it was discovered or did something else happen?

     JanH

148. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

     Bruce, regarding FCS, big corporate takeovers,with a focus on profitability, doesn’t seem good or right. Some companies buy out businesses that are going bankrupt, closing or struggling to survive. They take over and gain more business from it. It’s all about money, money, money! Greed, power, greed! Their goal is the be #1 in the industry. Their god is their fame and wealth. Pity!

149. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 3:44 pm |

     Thanks for the great discussion here, everyone. I’m gleaning alot! Some of the Lutheran Churches I’ve been in use the ESV Bible, and I’ve noted how much it differs from the KJV. As I sat in one Lutheran Church last year while the Pastor was preaching from another version of the Bible, I wanted to scream, “That’s not what my Bible says!” because the Bible the Pastor was using was way different than the KJV. I don’t know what translation he was using, but I couldn’t help but think how it changed the meaning of the scriptures and how people can believe what the Bible says, false version and all, and think that it’s the truth.

     These are just my thoughts coming down in writing, but I wonder if some people think that it really doesn’t matter what version of the Bible they use because the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Therefore, it cannot be false or misleading. However, these rewritten versions (some call them perversions) are misleading and deceiving alot of people.

     The versions of the Bible that say, “A god,” rather than God sound New Age to me. The NIV leaves out hundreds of references to God and turns towards “god” in its writing. Yes, it also does leave out some verses that are in the KJV. It’s like the writers of the NIV have created a bible according to their standards, leaving out the true gospel and replacing it with a New Age mystical one, proclaiming “god” rather than God.

     I appreciate your writing on the KJV, Tom. Thank you!

150. califgracer | October 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm |

     Hi Tom,

     Wonderful to hear from you friend! Thanks for your article. I have two questions for you regarding versions of the Bible which are appropriate:

     First, what version of the Bible might you recommend for a young child? I recently gave an eight-year old girl (a cousin) a children’s picture illustrated NIV because the language of the KJV would be too difficult for her to understand. By the way, I made sure that it was an Old NIV (1984 edition). The 2011 version, which is still referred to as “The New International Version,” has thousands of new changes, many of which were designed to make the Bible references gender neutral. I believe that Zondervan has been underhanded in making these wholesale alterations without even changing the name of the translation.

     Second, what version might you recommend for a baby Christian, or for someone who is not able to readily read and understand the KJV? Is the New KJV a good alternative?

     Blessings Tom. I pray for you and Sue, for your family and for your church regularly.

     Bruce

151. Tom Cucuzza | October 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

     Jan,

     I have no doubt that you are right on this. Think about it- If something is falsely translated in a “Bible”, unknowing people assume it is right because it is in the “Bible”. They SHOULD be able to believe it, but sadly, it is false. They end up believing something that is false doctrine and then pass it on, not because THEY were confused, but because they believed false doctrine found in a “Bible”. As a result, they BECAME confused or stayed confused. In a different area, but a good example anyway, would be the New World Translation of the JW cult. In John 1 their “Bible” says the word was A god, instead of the word WAS God. What a difference. That’s why we must use, as much as possible, a word for word translation such as the KJV, trusted, tried, and true.

     Tom

152. ExPreacherMan | October 29, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

     Jan,

     If I happened to believe that there are Calvinist and LS conspiracies, I would say “Yes” to your observation simply because the KJV is time-tested true to Bible Doctrine, so they “push away from the KJ and for the ESV among (LS) Calvinists.”

     Hmmmmm I do think some conspiracies exist in the “religious” field. Some have the theory: “If the KJV Bible doesn’t fit my theology, then we re-write the Bible.”
     Not sure I can prove a conspiracy but it sure looks suspicious.
     Yet we see the eminent Bible Scholar Charles Ryrie using the ESV as his “ESV Ryrie Study Bible.” I have no answer for that one.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

153. ExPreacherMan | October 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

     John,

     Just a note, for readers unfamiliar with your article, “Tricks and Lies of Lordship Salvation and Other Perversions of Grace” here is the link:

     Lordship “Salvation” Deception: Tricks and Lies of Lordship “Salvation” and Other Perversions of Free Grace

     In Christ eternally, Jack

154. Tom Cucuzza | October 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

     John,

     I had not read the article ‘Tricks and Lies…” It is very good! Thanks for your excellent insights.

     Tom

155. JanH | October 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

     …the KJV is true to the doctrine of salvation by grace, eternal security, and other true doctrines more so than many other translations.

     I have wondered whether this is the main reason behind the push away from the KJ and for the ESV among (LS) Calvinists.

     JanH

156. Dr. Tom Cucuzza | October 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

     {{Subscribe to Comments}}

157. john | October 29, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

     Tom, thanks for your response. If you read the article on “Tricks and Lies of Lordship Salvation and Other Perversions of Grace”, you will see that I cited terrible errors in both NIV and NLT and that I much favor the KJV.

     By the way, I have tried using the plan of salvation section from your church’s statement of beliefs with members of a Bible study at work. The leader is mired in UMC/LS. Some of his responses were the inspiration for the article I mentioned above. My prayer is that one day he will have a better understanding of Grace.

158. califgracer | October 29, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

     Hi Marcella,

     You are correct about Family Christian Stores. I still shop there, rarely, and with much discernment. My daughter worked for them for a few years. Her store used to be an independent Christian book store called “The Fish.” But it was swallowed up by the mega-corporation that is only about making money. I know that this is the “American” way, but they will sell anything that loosely identifies itself as “Christian,” even biographies by politicians qualify. Most of the small independents have been pushed out of business years ago by the online sellers and FCS.

159. Tom Cucuzza | October 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

     John,
     Your point well taken. However, the KJV is true to the doctrine of salvation by grace, eternal security, and other true doctrines more so than many other translations. This was one of my reasons for using it. (See my article above.) Yes, many folks are very confused. But this is not related to the KJV. I believe they will be LESS confused in doctrine by using the KJV. Nevertheless, your point on a “majority view”, does stand by itself.

160. john | October 29, 2011 at 12:04 pm |

     Jack, I think the KJV is the best translation we have and I think Tom’s defense of it is appropriate.

     I guess I was just on my soapbox about great churches and great revivals – we need to take some of them with a grain of salt (think Spurgeon, Calvin, etc). That’s all!

     Like you said, people intent on twisting the scriptures will do it.

161. ExPreacherMan | October 29, 2011 at 11:56 am |

     John,

     Just a note — Maybe I misunderstood you, but I think Tom is defending the KJV per se, not excusing those who may have perverted it for 400 years. Some folks can take the clearest words of Scripture and twist them to meet their own foul theology of works (Lordship “salvation” among others).

     In Christ eternally, Jack

162. Pearl | October 29, 2011 at 11:41 am |

     Thank you, Mr. Cucuzza (and Jack), for further clarification and balance through your addendum, ending on lovely note of grace.

     Jan, the extreme sides of this debate certainly lack grace, don’t they?

     I look forward to perusing your link, Stone. (Alexander Scourby is hard to beat though. 😉 ) [Interesting trivia bit about him, btw: I always assumed he was from Britain, and even Dave Hunt’s catalog advertises him as being from there, but in fact, he’s from Brooklyn! I thought that was kinda funny myself…]

163. john | October 29, 2011 at 11:38 am |

     I think Tom’s reasoning is fairly compelling, with one possible exception.

     Tom said: “Personally, I have a very hard time believing that the church has used the “wrong, inferior text” for almost 400 years. No Bible translation has been as greatly used by God in church history as the KJV. It has been THE Bible for almost ¼ of the history of the church. In other words, for almost ¼ of 2000 years there has been ONE main Bible for the church.”

     Most of the mainline denominations have used the KJV in the past. But, they have been thoroughly confused for as far back as I can find. The fact that a majority of people in the “church” have used it for a long time is not compelling. Once I became enlightened to Free Grace, I was confused as to why almost all of the mainstream denominations teach LS, in one form or another. I don’t believe we can take comfort in the majority view of anything.

164. Stone | October 29, 2011 at 11:09 am |

     Free complete KJV dramatized audio bible or KJV New Testament non-dramatized available here:

     http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com

     Currently, Faith Comes By Hearing offers 590 languages, reaching more than 5 billion people in more than 185 countries.

165. JanH | October 29, 2011 at 11:08 am |

     Interesting comment thread going on here. Lots to say on this.

     I tried to look into the KJV issue and have just not been able to do so. Every time I start to read an article by the KJV guy (KJVO, usually, which seems to make a difference) my eyes glaze over after a couple of paragraphs. That verse from Psalms about God’s words being pure words somehow strikes a sour note with me when it is used in that context. I’m pretty sure He wasn’t using that concept to defend a Bible translation, per se but they seem to think that was the point.

     Having said that, I do love the KJV and am super grateful we have it. It is my fall back Bible. (I usually use the NKJ.) I am greatly distressed by the dissing it has gotten in more recent years and the apparent move to not only marginalize it, but discredit it altogether. From some ABKJV (Anything But the King James Version) people, I get the idea that they want it declared a bad Bible, and eradicated. These days, these people push the ESV. And you would not believe the insane interpretations I have heard and sorry, lame excuses for those interpretations on some passages from ABKJVers. It’s very very frustrating. In two sermons I have heard that I can think of right off the top of my head, the argument for the ESV interpretation was so poor, it was like the underlying assumption was, we can’t take the KJV on this because that would mean the KJV was right, so we need to come up with something that will defend this indefensible word here in this verse, and insist the KJ was wrong on this word in this verse because of this not at all necessary conclusion I am going to draw, even though it is can be clearly shown to be not at all necessary to draw my conclusion.

     And the KJ does need defending and is very defensible. I appreciate people like Cucuzza, who have very good, very well reasoned reasons for using the KJV. I can listen to someone like him and learn important things.

     As for the legalistic IFB churches, that is a shame. However, I have to agree it is true in many cases. I got a sermon from one of them once that was supposed to be on a Christian home. I was expecting the word to be exposited and to be instructed and edified thereby. That’s not what I got. I got a series of sort of random ravings on various things that had nothing to do with a Christian home, except in maybe the very loosest of terms, with the congregation making hoots and cat calls in the back ground (which was very disturbing). At one point the preacher, having gotten on a tangent, was talking about a conference he went to where he became convinced that if he did not promise God he would get rid of his TV as soon as he got home, God was going to kill him. He actually said God said that to him. That God said, “I’ll kill you if you don’t promise to get rid of the TV when you get home.” I’m not kidding. Nothing to do with KJV, but that was what he said. Needless to say, I wasn’t edified, though I was instructed somewhat. I don’t think all IFB churches are legalistic. But the ones that are do tear down the reputation of the rest of them.

     JanH

166. ExPreacherMan | October 29, 2011 at 11:06 am |

     Dear Friends, This a note I received from Tom Cucuzza this morning adding to this discussion, Jack
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Hello everyone!

     In my opinion, the translation issue will not be solved until Jesus comes back. Those who hold to the KJV believe that the eclectic text has taken parts of verses out of the Bible. (This is my position). The “eclectic” people believe that the KJV people have added to the Bible.

     What you have are two camps who believe their own positions deeply:

     1. Those who use the KJV. The term “KJV Only” has become an unfair label. Why? Because it is too broad a description. It is used to describe anyone who uses the KJV as their main Bible in ministry, to people who believe the KJV translation work itself is inspired so that even to look at a lexicon is wrong (heresy). The first group does not want to be linked in with the heretical group, but often times is, simply because they use the KJV. There is nothing wrong or cultic or ignorant to believe through research that the KJV is the best, in that it is true and accurate, but still a translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

     2. Those who use the eclectic text. This would be those who reject the KJV text and Textus Receptus and think that the TR is inferior because what they are using is said to be “older”. They think that “older” means better, which is a weak argument. Why is that a weak argument? Because something can be old because no one has used it. Take some antique furniture as an example. Some of it has lasted because it is extremely uncomfortable! 😉

     The reasons I gave in the article are practical. I am not an original language scholar. I can very much relate to what Pearl has written on the subject.

     I believe that it is an issue of text streams. There is the text stream that brought us the KJV over time. And there is the text stream that brought us the eclectic text. I hold to the KJV text stream.

     Personally, I have a very hard time believing that the church has used the “wrong, inferior text” for almost 400 years. No Bible translation has been as greatly used by God in church history as the KJV. It has been THE Bible for almost ¼ of the history of the church. In other words, for almost ¼ of 2000 years there has been ONE main Bible for the church.

     On the issue of Independent Baptists, I know some and many are kind, gracious, and love Christ. They serve Christ from the heart. They are not legalistic. But then there are those who ARE legalistic and mean spirited. This is true of people within any group, including Bible churches.

     Also, we have to be careful in throwing the term “legalistic” around for anyone who has different standards than we do, or standards we disagree with. “Legalism” is becoming a “catch all” phrase we use many times for anyone we disagree with. This is not to say that we should never use it. But legalism in it basic form is works for salvation.

     At its core in the Christian life, it is a self righteous attitude. It is confidence in self and self promotion, instead of Christ. It is a focus on comparing ourselves with others to promote ourselves. But we need to be careful that as we judge others, we are not judging their motives as to WHY they do what they do. When we do that we are actually becoming legalistic or self righteous ourselves.

     On the Bible text issue, I have some resources I would recommend that are sensible and written with the right attitude. I would be glad to share the titles with you if you contact me through our website at:

     office@northlandchurch.com

167. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 10:45 am |

     I also shop Amazon.com. Don’t go into their “Christian” discussion forums. Aetheists are in those and discussing strange things. They love to mock Christians and end up arguing with other aetheists.

168. Pearl | October 29, 2011 at 10:32 am |

     Speaking of “Christian” bookstores, I won’t do business with them either.

     I shop Amazon (what you see is what you get).

169. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 10:27 am |

     Someone mentioned Christianbook aka Christian Book Distributor. They sell false teachers’ merchandise and promote books by them. I used to order alot of things from Christian Book because they have affordable prices, but I stopped a few years ago after I saw them advertising Joyce Meyer, Randy Alcorn and others.

     Another one is Family Christian Stores, who promote Francis Chan. These are examples of businesses, who use “Christian” but promote false teaching.

     Pearl, thanks for the link to the online KJV. I have used Bible Gateway, but they have links to false teachers.

170. Pearl | October 29, 2011 at 10:06 am |

     One thing is sure: were it not for many preachers going back to the original languages and expounding on a certain word’s meaning, and how it was used (or not used) has long since demolished that “scholar” claim in my own mind. I can’t imagine not having that additional understanding. A perfectly good example is the word study on “repent” and its occurrence throughout the scriptures. Not knowing the original nuances gives a foothold for legalism.

171. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 8:48 am |

     Several people recommended the Independent Baptist Church to me as I was searching for a church to attend. I gave those people feedback after I visited the church, and a few of them said they didn’t know the things I said about that church, that they were legalistic, didn’t celebrate Christmas or Easter, etc., and the Pastor was preaching a false message.

     I visited a Missouri Lutheran Church, and they also tend to only fellowship with other MO Lutheran Churches. In fact, the Pastor said that if another MO Lutheran church had different doctrine and his church fellowshipped with that church, they would be unequally yoked. A person has to be a member of the MO Lutheran Church in order to take communion. I asked the Pastor if it was OK if I visited another church – not MO Lutheran – and took communion there. He laughed uncomfortably and said that if I did that, I would be agreeing with that church’s doctrine and teachings. That just didn’t make sense to me. The Lutheran Pastors also teach and believe that Jesus Christ is present in the communion elements. One Pastor told me that He is in and under the elements. No, Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven. He does not come to us in the communion elements!

172. Eddy | October 29, 2011 at 2:10 am |

     Pearl, Bruce, and Marcella,

     After reading all your testimonies I understand Independent Baptist much better. Thanks to you all. I have never been to any of the Independent Baptist churches, although I once thought of going. However, after listened to few of the sermons given by several Independent Baptist church preachers, I sensed they were rigid and lack of love. I was also uncomfortable with the fact that they are very exclusive. They tend to only fellowship with other Independent Baptist churches.

     Thanks again.

     Eddy

173. Marcella | October 29, 2011 at 12:22 am |

     I also only use the KJV Bible. I used to have a variety of other translations: NIV, RSV, and one endorsed by Skip Heitzig, and Amplified version, I think. I got rid of all of those after someone clued me in that these were false translations. I did some internet research and found it to be true. The publishers of the NIV also publish the Satanic bible. The NIV seems to be popular in the mainline denominational churches I’ve been in.

     I also have visited an Independent Baptist and a Fundamental Baptist Church, both KJV only, and very legalistic. The Fundamental was a Baptist Brider. The Independent Pastor used emotionalism to get people to respond to his altar call. That Pastor and his wife showed up at my house on an unannounced visit one night. I was caught off guard. They jokingly said I probably thought they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, and apologized for not telling me ahead of time that they planned on stopping by. They just made me so uncomfortable that I only allowed them into the entrance of my house and offered little conversation.

     On the use of “brother” and “sister,” the Pastors at the Fundamental Baptist church used those titles when speaking to each other. I visited an Apostolic church last year, and the Pastor’s wife was titled, “Lady.” I found out that after a person becomes a member of that church, they gain the titles “Sister” and “Brother.” Peculiar!

174. califgracer | October 28, 2011 at 11:50 pm |

     Pearl,

     I, too, visited a KJVO Independent Baptist in my town. I, also, noticed the very legalistic atmosphere. A bit cultic sounding too, as they called each other “brother” and “sister.” The baptismal service was formulaic and without feeling. The church regularly announces that any other Bible versions besides the KJV are to be put on the floor under one’s seat.

175. Pearl | October 28, 2011 at 11:33 pm |

     “…would they even bother to check the original meaning of the scripture which is written in Hebrew and Greek?”

     Good question, and I haven’t a clue! To be fair, I don’t believe they have a low opinion for the originals at all, just that one needn’t be a Greek/Hebrew scholar to understand the scriptures we now have in our tongue. That’s one thing I do recall now that you mention it: they have a very low opinion of “scholars” setting themselves up as the keepers of the “true” meaning of God’s word. If I recall correctly, they compare this to the Catholic priests knowing Latin, while the regular people are in ignorance.

     As for those churches, scary places to be sure! Talk about being “lords” over the flock! We visited a KJ-only Independent Baptist church once and just reading the material made available in the lobby to visitors was enough to convince us that those poor people were back in bondage. Mind you, that literature was meant to sound appealing!

176. Eddy | October 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm |

     Pearl,

     Thanks for helping me understand more on the “KJV Only” issue. Although I do not have any personal experience with those “KJV Only” folks, I do have the impression that they tends to be legalistic. If they are holding the believes that KJV is God inspired and is perfectly preserved, would they even bother to check the original meaning of the scripture which is written in Hebrew and Greek? If they are indeed ignoring the original scripture, they are basically saying that one who use KJV can throw the original scripture which is written in Greek and Hebrew out of the window. I also do not understand why some of the Independent Baptist churches hold the “KJV Only” position similar to the one you described.

     Eddy

177. Pearl | October 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm |

     …perhaps my using the term “odious” was too strong anyway (where’s a blushing emoticon when ya need one?).

     At least it gave me an opportunity to do some other link house-cleaning, over-looked and overdue.

178. ExPreacherMan | October 28, 2011 at 8:08 pm |

     About Wescott and Hort and Calvary Chapel:

     I just found confirmation on Blue Letter Bible site:
     “11. When searching through the Old Testament, this last scroll contains the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. While in the New Testament, this will contain the Greek version contained in the Wescott-Hort edition.
     http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/conc.cfm

     And the Blue Letter Bible IS in cooperation with or is a function of Calvary Chapel.
     http://www.blueletterbible.org/links.cfm

     Sorry for the confusion — I should have confirmed my statement to be accurate before commenting..

     In Christ eternally, Jack

179. ExPreacherMan | October 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm |

     Well folks,

     After making my charge about Blue Letter Bible using Wescott & Hort — I searched their site and could find nothing. Sooo.. I apologize that I made such a statement — but I am convinced I saw it there some time back.

     Last I heard it was a product of Calvary Chapel.

     I will continue to look for both.

     In Christ eternally, Jack

180. Pearl | October 28, 2011 at 6:44 pm |

     Hi Eddy,

     About a decade ago, I read plenty on the KJ-only controversy, and was persuaded to believe that claim, but I never considered myself a rigid adherent. Personally, understanding the whole manuscript argument causes my eyeballs roll back into my head. Merely learning the details of the conspiracy by liberal scholars (i.e. Wescott/Hort), together with a side-by-side comparison of verses was enough to make me a firm believer that the KJ was clearly the best (as for inspired, and without error, I cannot say). Sadly, I found a lot of hardliners to be extremely legalistic and even a little strange, a definite hindrance to letting the KJ just speak for itself.

     The reason they believe the KJ is without error is because each supposed “mistake” (they claim) has been identified as not being a mistake. They assert that God is perfectly capable of preserving His Word without error and back that claim with many verses, namely…

     “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6,7

     They take this verse quite literally, saying that the KJ version (1611) is the 7th translation from the original languages.

     Like Jack said, maybe a more learned person will take the time to add more info (hopefully without provoking an ugly debate).

181. john | October 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm |

     I am not an ardent KJV only guy, but I am cautious with other versions. Even with KJV, I have seen commentary on Net Bible that claims that certain verses in the KJV were either not in the original manuscripts or not consistently in all copies of the original manuscripts. According to Net Bible, for example, Acts 8:37 was “clearly not a part of the original text of Acts” and that John 7:53-8:11 (the woman caught in adultery) were not part of the “earliest and best manuscripts.”

     I have not done enough research, and would probably not be qualified to do it properly, to determine if there are any merits to these claims, or not.

182. ExPreacherMan | October 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm |

     Eddy,

     I have no idea why “KJV Only” folks believe as they do. Maybe one will visit and comment.

     In Christ eternally, Jack

183. ExPreacherMan | October 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm |

     Pearl, Great I never heard of that one. Looks good for simply the Word, (KJV).

     John,

     The “Shop” tab on Moyer’s site means they endorse and recommend the Christianbook Group which, BTW, is an outgrowth of “ACT111.org [which] was developed as a ministry outreach of EvanTell,” according to ChristianBook web site.

     I never have given Moyer a high grade for discernment. But like you say, wheat and chaff.. They are there to grab dollars.. Great for a business — but not for a Biblical Grace Bible ministry.

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

184. Eddy | October 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm |

     Dear Jack,

     Thanks for posting the article. I listened to Tom’s sermons every week. I’ve been using the Blue Letter Bible without knowing the definitions are by Westcott and Hort. Thanks for pointing that out. KJV is definitely the best translation and I only use KJV. However, I don’t understand why some of the KJV only people believe the KJV translation is without any error and is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

     Eddy

185. Pearl | October 28, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

     I found one…and it’s strictly the King James without a single commentary or on-line bookstore. Imagine that!!

     http://www.allonlinebible.com/

186. Pearl | October 28, 2011 at 4:54 pm |

     And did you know that the primary commentaries and definitions in the online Blue Letter Bible (a Calvary Chapel product) are by Westcott & Hort?

     Yikes! I didn’t know that! I have Blue Letter Bible listed beneath one of my categories. Do you know of another bible website with which I can replace that odious link?

187. john | October 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

     Jack, I didn’t mean to say that Moyer recommend them. His shopping site is “Powered By the Christianbook Group” They look like a chaff and wheat superstore.

188. ExPreacherMan | October 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm |

     John,

     Right about the NLT. It cannot even be classified as a “translation” but a bad paraphrase.

     I have never been a fan of Moyer’s literature (even though I admire his zeal) — Moyer appears at some very good Grace conferences, too. But this really shocks me about his recommendations. The forces of evil never stop, do they?

     In Jesus eternally, Jack

189. john | October 28, 2011 at 4:33 pm |

     As I mentioned in an earlier post, the NLT (“New Lordship Travesty”) is about the worst that I have seen. EvanTell, the Free Grace-oriented ministry run by Larry Moyer, has a “Shop” tab on its website that indiscriminately advertises an NLT Study Guide, “Crazy Love”, “Not a Fan”, books by Billy Graham, etc. I have no idea why they would do this.

190. ExPreacherMan | October 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

     Thanks Pearl, Good to hear from you.

     Yep, I figured you’d pick that out… And did you know that the primary commentaries and definitions in the online Blue Letter Bible (a Calvary Chapel product) are by Westcott & Hort? (Even though they do also give the Strong’s numbers). You wonder “Why W & H”?

     In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

191. Pearl | October 28, 2011 at 4:19 pm |

     Amen!

     Sometime ago, I read an article by Samuel Gipp on Wescott & Hort and their more obscure writings. Those men were downright hostile toward God and His Word.