Amust read and why we need the King James

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

Kerry

Guest
#1
This is notes taken from a speech given in 1969 by Dr. Richard Day and you should read the whole thing. I have always been leery of new bible translations and this is why.

BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS...THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL HAVE TO GO Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down,the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don't need it.

CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."

"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!" Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.

This is taken from a speech given in 1969, If you read a modrern day translation. Please refer it back to the King James.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#2
Kerry, it seems more to me that the complete and utter acceptance of theistic evolution in many churches around the world (but definitely Australia, UK etc. and to a lesser extent, the US has been ushered in by the very shepherds that were meant to help train the sheep in their walk with Christ. I struggle with the KJV, I think there are far better translations and I don't believe most modern Bibles have changed the word/spirit of the message. We do need to be discerning, absolutely but I don't think the KJV is the answer.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#3
Well tin, You see the intent of these Globalist as far back as 1969. You can search Dr. Richard day and read the whole thing it gets much worse.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#4
by the way these are notes taken from recordings of the speech, they didn't have internet in 1969

Okay thees dogone ads have got to go I can't even see what I'm typing..
 
L

LT

Guest
#5
discernment is key.

Just like a banker knows a counterfeit bill immediately, just because of familiarity with the material,
so a Spirit-led Believer knows a counterfeit because the Truth resides within them.

The more we know the Word, the more we recognize Truth, and discern the lies.

I don't agree that the KJV is the source of Truth,
but that God's Word and Truth pierces through the linguistic failures of any translation, for those who have the Spirit.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
#6
Please read James White's book "The King James Controversy" for a balanced approach and a very scriptural, as well as references to the original languages on this topic.

There are so many other factors that have caused apostasy, the prime ones being Hollywood and the mass media. Reading any version of the Bible can bring you to Christ!
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#7
Good article Kerry. Everything is going right along as planned.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#8
I'm not against new translations, I am just saying be careful. If you've noticed that in the past 20 some odd years new translations are popping up everywhere. It seems that the King James has become a reference, like the Septuagint or codex. People now days tend to shy away from the king James to a more modern English bible. That's all well and good, but check it with the KJ and the strong' s.

I can just imagine what is being taught in our higher universities in bible classes at such schools as Harvard and Yale and Princeton. My father never thought that evolution would be taught as fact in our schools but yet it is.

Don't take any new translation given in the past 30 years as the gospel truth. You have people such as Dr. Richard Day up to no good.
 
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#9
My father never thought that evolution would be taught as fact in our schools but yet it is.
The theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology supported by staggering bodies of corroborating evidence from multiple fields of inquiry. It has every right to be taught in schools as a scientific fact, because it is a fact from the perspective of science. The inflated, exhausted "controversy" concerning evolution is a matter of politics and religion. Nothing more.

If theistic evolution is the solution to the purported disparity between the Bible and modern science, and if such an answer doesn't blatantly conflict with your theology, I see no reason why it shouldn't be fully supported.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#10
The theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology supported by staggering bodies of corroborating evidence from multiple fields of inquiry. It has every right to be taught in schools as a scientific fact, because it is a fact from the perspective of science. The inflated, exhausted "controversy" concerning evolution is a matter of politics and religion. Nothing more.

If theistic evolution is the solution to the purported disparity between the Bible and modern science, and if such an answer doesn't blatantly conflict with your theology, I see no reason why it shouldn't be fully supported.
Haha! That was great! Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#11
The theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology supported by staggering bodies of corroborating evidence from multiple fields of inquiry. It has every right to be taught in schools as a scientific fact, because it is a fact from the perspective of science. The inflated, exhausted "controversy" concerning evolution is a matter of politics and religion. Nothing more.

If theistic evolution is the solution to the purported disparity between the Bible and modern science, and if such an answer doesn't blatantly conflict with your theology, I see no reason why it shouldn't be fully supported.
Where is the Link? Still missing? It will stay missing. Because it does not exist.
 
Dec 16, 2013
174
4
18
#12
The theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology supported by staggering bodies of corroborating evidence from multiple fields of inquiry. It has every right to be taught in schools as a scientific fact, because it is a fact from the perspective of science. The inflated, exhausted "controversy" concerning evolution is a matter of politics and religion. Nothing more.

If theistic evolution is the solution to the purported disparity between the Bible and modern science, and if such an answer doesn't blatantly conflict with your theology, I see no reason why it shouldn't be fully supported.
Usually I wouldn't even bother to get into the semantics of why evolution is a false doctrine. But let's pretend momentarily that I'm an atheist and I don't have the creationist outlook on life that I have. I'll show you from the perspective of an atheist why evolution is a groundless and baseless "theory", and certainly not a fact. The arrogance by the way of that comment, in calling evolution a fact... is astounding to me.

Anyways,

1.) Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

It wasn't that long ago when scientists believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

2.) DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. Cells do not mutate on their own.

3.) Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.


I'll leave it at that for now, these are three huge problems and gaps in the "theory" of evolution. Again, I've said this before to you, and I mean no offense in what I say, but before you defend a position so adamantly I think it's important that you first be aware of the facts. You're fastened onto these initial concepts you've adopted as your own and I think it's a dangerous thing to call evolution a fact when it has no evidence to support it's senselessness whatsoever.

The simple fact of the matter is, the building does not exist without a builder, and a garden cannot be without planters. That is the simplest way it can possibly be explained. Creation IS fact. Evolution is dependent on chance and time, which chance and time are filled to the brim with uncertainties, and anomalies that are not measurable or testable in any way shape or form.
 
Last edited:
K

Kerry

Guest
#13
But back to the subject everyone.

Is it just me or are we being attacked by ads. Other web sites don't do this just CC. Whats up. Do I have bug or does the website have a bug
 
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#14
Haha! That was great! Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.
You're free to present valid evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution as it currently stands in lieu of a sarcastic, spiteful admission of willful ignorance.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#15
Do you know how much fanciful storytelling goes on in evolutionary science? It's ridiculous. Makes the Grimm Fairy-tales seem plausible in comparison! Yes, believing in the Christian God takes great faith, but the alternative takes far greater faith.
 
L

LT

Guest
#16
THE DERAILS ARE REAL!
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#17
You're free to present valid evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution as it currently stands in lieu of a sarcastic, spiteful admission of willful ignorance.
Oh, please! Am I being sarcastic? Yes. Am I being spiteful and displaying willful ignorance? Absolutely not.
 
2

2Thewaters

Guest
#18
This is total Jesuit propaganda
Catholics dont follow ANY of the king james at all...

Changing words in the king james original is what the church of england did.
Catholicism also will not come down
it will take over the world as revelation says...

total error...
there will only be a few who keep the commandments
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
#20
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."

"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!" Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.

This is taken from a speech given in 1969, If you read a modrern day translation. Please refer it back to the King James.


Amen brother Kerry. Thank you for sharing sir. God bless :)