Clinton Post

[clinton_post]

Hello, I'm Clinton Post.  I am a 1611 AV user.  I use the reprint of the 1611 that was done in 1833 with the Apocrypha.  I believe the KJV is the true word God preserved in the English Language for English speaking people.  I do believe if other Bibles are done in English and is comprised of the same meaning and context of the KJV, then it is also the word of God.  I don't believe there has been a pure bible done as such, yet. 

My walk has been a mixed-up one.  I have been finding that I don't feel comfortable in many of the churches I have tried attending in the San Diego area.  I'm to the beliefe that the way we are doing church seems unbiblical for some reason.  I also like to listen to Steven Anderson, but don't agree with some of his teachings.  It seems like everyone today seems to be off on their beliefs and is very disturbing to me.  I'm trying to figure it all out. 

I started with the KJV in 2002/2003.  I didn't see that Jesus was God in the flesh until November of 2005.  I switched to the ESV in 2011, because the Church I attended used it and was anit-KJV.  I did not know there was an issue with the Bible Translations until 2015.  It shook my world and foundation.  But God recentered me to the KJV and I have been studying this issue ever since then.  God has showed me through answered prayers, dreams, and events that have happened that the KJV/1611 is His Word. 

[Jeanne]

Hi Clinton,

First of all, i need to apologise for looking at the title of your thread and assuming at first that this was going to be a political post rather than an introduction.

As I mentioned to two other new-comers to this forum a few days ago, I have not read anything in your introduction about coming to repentance (grief and godly sorrow for wrongdoing) in your introduction. I referred both of them to these teachings, as I would also ask you to read:

https://http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/repent.php

https://http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php

You should also check out the teaching that was done on the 1611 vs. 1769 versions of the KJV Bible. The only thing that was done in 1763 was to remove the Apocrypha (which was never part of the Hebrew Scriptures to begin with) and to fix over 400 printing press errors, including the omission of whole lines of text. Yes, the editors went back and compared the printed version to the actual written manuscripts that were submitted by the translators. Oh, and they also standardised the spelling, since the same word is spelled several different ways in the 1611.

At one time, I, too, thought the 1611 to be a superior version, though I still thought the 1769 to be easier to read.

https://http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kj1769.php

You are correct that the way 'church' is done in this modern age bears little resemblance to what a New Testament church looked like in the first century and there are numerous articles on the website addressing the reasons why this is so. I may not agree 100% with everything Chris says and teaches, but his teachings are the closest to being aligned with the Bible as I have found. I do know that he spends many hours each day studying to make sure that what he teaches is as accurate as he can possibly make it and that he will readily correct himself if it can be shown that he is in error.

There's also a whole section of the website titled Wolves in Costume that goes into the various false doctrines taught by people claiming to be of Christ who are not and Steven Anderson is just the latest to be covered in that section. He is a scoffer and a railer (who falsely claims that repentance is NOT necessary for salvation) and the Bible tells us to steer clear of those people.

[clinton_post]

One cannot trust Christ for salvation if they don't know why they need to be saved.  So yes, I'm sorrowed from my past sins.  But it is weird to think that I had to repent of every sin I ever committed, like a list.  I can't remember everything I ever did, but God knows and knows my heart. 

I am very aware of the printing errors in the 1611.  I have updated my Bible to include the ones I know.  I do find it interesting and love using it.  The side notes from the translators are helpful.  They actually connect verses in the Apocrypha and the OT/NT.  Though I won't say that the Apoch...  is inspired scripture.  I do think it is beneficial to read and does have information that is worth knowing, in my opinion.  For instance, it lets you know what Urim and Thummim is. 

Another interesting note in the 1611, 2Cor4:4 has God in all caps instead of today's reading of god.  I think it makes it really clear that the God of this world is God not satan.  And that Romans 1 says that God gives people over to a reprobate mind for their wicked ways and not acknowledging God.  Which is connected to 2Cor4:4.  I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense.

I also love the spelling.  For instance today there is a lie in our Bibles.  John 3:16, the word beLIEve instead of the spelling beleeue.  It is interesting that the spelling changed.  Though there is evidence that the beLIEf was used in 2John heading.  So they chose not use that spelling for the actual text.  I find that interesting.  Wiches cast spells, so spelling may have a ryhme and reason to it.  Go-Spell.  Anyways, that is some strange stuff, but I don't hold to it like I do the Bible itself. 

[Timothy]

But it is weird to think that I had to repent of every sin I ever committed, like a list.  I can't remember everything I ever did, but God knows and knows my heart.

Who said you had to remember every specific sin you ever did? When the prodigal son came back to his father in repentance saying he was not worthy to be called his son, he didn't list out everything he did and say "I repent of this thing and that thing and that other thing..." as if going through a list of specific sins he committed. But he came simply understanding that he was a sinner, so much so that he was not worthy to be called a son.

Typically when someone over complicates things like that, they do it to justify something or make an excuse for it. Very much like how the lawyer did to Jesus.

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

The lawyer made it more complicated that it actually was as a way to justify himself from loving his neighbor as himself. I'm not saying that you are trying to justify yourself, but it does make me wonder why you said that you had to repent of every single sin because there is a specific philosophy on this matter that caused you to say it that way and I'm curious to know what you think about it. As far as I know, everyone in our church here has never had to say that they repented of every sin they've ever done, only that they have repented to God and do repent when they understand that they messed up.

I've heard preachers say, "Nobody has ever repented of ALL their sins to be saved." And their conclusion has always been that you don't have to repent to be saved. And I've seen it go so far that some will even say that when Jesus preached for men to "repent and believe the gospel" that Jesus preached an entirely different gospel than the apostles. And they say the gospel Jesus preached was only for the Jews.

But they don't understand that their own arguments conflict with God's nature. It's unlike God to be so unmerciful to tell anyone to repent of every single sin ever done when they don't even fully understand what all sins they have committed, then turn around and hold that against them when they don't do what they can't do! In order to repent of all sins ever done in a list, you first have to have full understanding of God's Word which is impossible without His Holy Spirit to teach it to us.

I can't imagine anyone sitting down and saying "God. I repent of that time I stole that pack of gum from the convenience store. I also repent of that time I took my brother's favorite toy. I also repent of last week when I stole that $20 from my co-worker's purse." But I can see someone saying, "God be merciful to me a thief."

It's hard to believe that someone ever sat down and said, "God. I'm sorry I lied to my mother that time, and I'm sorry I lied to my dad that one time, and then again a week later..." But it's perfectly conceivable to imagine someone saying, "God be merciful to me a liar."

All the publican had to do was say "God be merciful to me a sinner".

Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

He knew he was guilty of all the law, because he failed to keep one point of it and he, at least, understood that much. So he came to God in repentance and faith and left for home justified. To say that you "had to" repent of every sin "like a list" and then say that you didn't do it is strange. I can't make sense of it. Can you explain more?

[Jeanne]

I don't know what kind of conspiracy theory type 'ministries' you've been listening to, but you're reading WAY too much into the common use of the English language. There are differences in spelling between British English and American English, but there's no difference in the meanings of the words so affected. The definitions of certain words have also changed in subtle ways over the centuries, which is why we mainly consult Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary when we want to clarify the meaning of these words. I think old Noah had already realised by that time that the language was changing and he based the definitions of the words on their usage in the King James Bible. He is by no means infallible, either, and the best way to determine the meaning of a particular word is still to use the context in which it is written, but the 1828 dictionary is definitely helpful if you happen to run across a word that you are completely unfamiliar with.

[clinton_post]

What I meant by saying it is weird... is that when I was a young believer, I would stress thinking that there maybe a sin I forgot to repent of, that God wasn't going to forgive me over that.  So I would try to remember every detail of my life.  But as I studied the scriptures and had brethern and sisters to guide me as well, some guiding me to the wrong way, I realized the Christ paid for them all and I need to repent (feel sorrow) for being a sinner in need of Christ to save me.  Not that repentance meant that I would never sin again, for I fail all the time.  I need more victory than losses.  LOL  I need to allow Christ to live through me.

As for the conspiracy....  Well, I was just pointing out the differences and found I really like the spelling in the 1611.  I do believe there could be something to it, but won't make that issue that divides or force it upon anyone.  The most important thing when it comes to the text, is that we are using the KJV.  In a way, the translators used the way they spelled certain words as if it was like a form of highlighting.  Showing you what is important.  It's pretty neat, but I don't think it is inspiration above what was originally written in the Greek, Hebrew, or whatever.

[strangersmind]

I too discover that there is something to the spelling. Even in the kjv today still has some of the spelling. Books at that time 1611 normally spelled words same. The 1611 bible is so different. One day I noticed in are modern kjb that some of spelling was never fix. So I pray and ask and seek, then one day I noticed that the strange spelling for certain woods that are the same are always talking about same thing. Like the word noe in bible is found 3 times 1 to show who noe is and last 2 telling us it will be like in his day before the end of the world.

I try long age to get people to listen to what I discovered but they won't have any of it.

[Jeanne]

Billy, names of people were spelled (and pronounced) differently in Hebrew and Greek. Noah was his Hebrew name, whereas Noe was his name in Greek. Same with Isaiah/Esaias, Elijah/Elias and others. I don't know of any words outside of the names of people that are different in the NT than they were in the OT, so you seem to be stressing over something simple, too, that should not cause confusion.

[anvilhauler]

I too discover that there is something to the spelling. Even in the kjv today still has some of the spelling. Books at that time 1611 normally spelled words same. The 1611 bible is so different. One day I noticed in are modern kjb that some of spelling was never fix. So I pray and ask and seek, then one day I noticed that the strange spelling for certain woods that are the same are always talking about same thing. Like the word noe in bible is found 3 times 1 to show who noe is and last 2 telling us it will be like in his day before the end of the world.

I try long age to get people to listen to what I discovered but they won't have any of it.

In one of the previous versions of the forum there was a man who made a comment that fairly well explained the situation of the various spellings in the King James Version (KJV) and that was if we read the Introduction to the Bible the translators have explained why there are different spellings.  Although this particular person eventually got banned from the forum back then, what he wrote was quite correct with regards to this.

[clinton_post]

I will have to reread the Translators to the Reader to reverify the spelling information.  Interesting.

[strangersmind]

It is not just names of people where I have found this. So why not use the same name as one they use in old testament? It is a very interesting thing because some words that are spelled different that are found seem to always parallel with each other. It is not just spelling but how things are worded. It is why long ago I say mark of beast is gold or money.

My question is have you ever look up the spelling in bible for yourself? You clame there is a built-in dictionary so why not a built-in parallel?

Side note I do not teach this because I can't trust myself if I am seeing it way it should. No one seems to want to take time to go over what I find in this church group.

[clinton_post]

I get what you're saying.  The 1611 has Japhath going on to the Ark and he came off as Iaphath.  I find it neat and love all the spelling.  But like I said, it can't be more inspired than the original inspiration God provided the author.  Check out these videos from my friend Howard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-T6JZe38k4  he's got more on youtube.

[Timothy]

What I meant by saying it is weird... is that when I was a young believer, I would stress thinking that there maybe a sin I forgot to repent of, that God wasn't going to forgive me over that.  So I would try to remember every detail of my life.  But as I studied the scriptures and had brethern and sisters to guide me as well, some guiding me to the wrong way, I realized the Christ paid for them all and I need to repent (feel sorrow) for being a sinner in need of Christ to save me.  Not that repentance meant that I would never sin again, for I fail all the time.  I need more victory than losses.  LOL  I need to allow Christ to live through me.

Originally you made it sound like you believed something strange, that you had to repent of every sin you ever did to be saved. Jeanne already gave you the link to the repentance teaching. I think you would benefit from that if you would read it when you have a chance to.

There was another thing you said before:

Another interesting note in the 1611, 2Cor4:4 has God in all caps instead of today's reading of god.  I think it makes it really clear that the God of this world is God not satan.  And that Romans 1 says that God gives people over to a reprobate mind for their wicked ways and not acknowledging God.  Which is connected to 2Cor4:4.  I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense.

When you read 2 Corinthians 4, you can tell the "god of this world" is talking about someone else. If it were referring to God (capital 'G') then it would just say "God hath blinded". But it says "the god of this world" as if talking about another. Also, in the same sentence when it says "who is the image of God", it should say "who is the image of Him" if what you believe is correct. But it doesn't which would mean the 'god of this world' is talking about someone else.

2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Before Jesus was crucified, he prayed to the Father in John 14 and said:

John 14:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

If God is 'the god of this world' in 2 Corinthains 4, then it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to say that Christians are not of the world and that the world would hate us. But the world hates us because the world hates God. When it's understood that Satan is the god of this world, then it makes perfect sense why the world hates us.

I also love the spelling.  For instance today there is a lie in our Bibles.  John 3:16, the word beLIEve instead of the spelling beleeue.  It is interesting that the spelling changed.  Though there is evidence that the beLIEf was used in 2John heading.  So they chose not use that spelling for the actual text.  I find that interesting.  Wiches cast spells, so spelling may have a ryhme and reason to it.  Go-Spell.  Anyways, that is some strange stuff, but I don't hold to it like I do the Bible itself.

So you are claiming that there is a lie in the Bible because "believe" is spelled a certain way because witches cast spells? So, without any proof to back it up, witches have infiltrated the King James Bible translation to cast unknown spells that affects us how? Honestly. What significance is there behind anything you and Billy are saying? If witches are doing these things to do something, then what is it they are doing? Why does it matter how things are spelled? There has to be a reason behind these things. You can't just say "Gospel is sorta spelled like 'Go-Spell', therefore witches."

Clinton, I can tell you don't study very much. If this argument is the best you can come up with, you obviously don't have the reverence for the Word of God that a Christian aught to have. A studious Christian with a love of the truth would not make claims like you have based entirely on conjecture. They back up what they say. And the way you end it by saying "Anyways" as if it's just some trivial thing to talk about concerns me. If you're looking for a book club or a conspiracy theory group, you're in the wrong place. We take the Word of God seriously here.

[anvilhauler]

I get what you're saying.  The 1611 has Japhath going on to the Ark and he came off as Iaphath.  I find it neat and love all the spelling.  But like I said, it can't be more inspired than the original inspiration God provided the author.  Check out these videos from my friend Howard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-T6JZe38k4  he's got more on youtube.

Rather than posting a link to a Youtube video for everyone to watch, if you have a valid claim to make then the correct procedure would be for you to watch the video yourself and make notes and do the background study and then clearly and concisely present your findings for consideration and critique.

From what I have seen over the years, the various spellings in the Bible is another excellent means of separating the sheep from the goats and gives an indication to the church elders and others of who to be very weary of. 

It shouldn't be too difficult a thing to have faith that God has placed a correct and fully understandable copy of His word in to the hands of man.

[anvilhauler]

I get what you're saying.  The 1611 has Japhath going on to the Ark and he came off as Iaphath.  I find it neat and love all the spelling.  But like I said, it can't be more inspired than the original inspiration God provided the author.  Check out these videos from my friend Howard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-T6JZe38k4  he's got more on youtube.

Rather than posting a link to a Youtube video for everyone to watch, if you have a valid claim to make then the correct procedure would be for you to watch the video yourself and make notes and do the background study and then clearly and concisely present your findings for consideration and critique.

From what I have seen over the years, the various spellings in the Bible is another excellent means of separating the sheep from the goats and gives an indication to the church elders and others of who to be very weary of. 

It shouldn't be too difficult a thing to have faith that God has placed a correct and fully understandable copy of His word in to the hands of man.

Looking at that again I think I could have worded it much better.  No offence intended in any way.

[Jeanne]

Kevin, I didn't see anything wrong with what you posted and I'm glad you said it.

[hashed]

I get what you're saying.  The 1611 has Japhath going on to the Ark and he came off as Iaphath.

In that period the I and J were used differently than today. The same goes for U and V.
Jesus was around 1600 often spelled as Iesus.

This is actually a non-issue. You cannot read old texts and apply the spelling rules of today.

In this case I can actually only find the word Iapheth.
Can you post some references of where you found the words Japhath  and Iaphath?

[hashed]

So why not use the same name as one they use in old testament?

If they would (try to) do that, it would mean they would give their own interpretation to the translation. The goal was a literal translation.

[hashed]

I too discover that there is something to the spelling. Even in the kjv today still has some of the spelling. Books at that time 1611 normally spelled words same. The 1611 bible is so different. One day I noticed in are modern kjb that some of spelling was never fix.

In the Dutch translation of 1637 words were also not always spelled consistently. One of the reasons was there was not a single uniform language for the whole country. The language was still developing.
Also sometimes characters were added for lay-out reasons, to make it fit nicely on the page.
The same could apply to the English.

[Jeanne]

I get what you're saying.  The 1611 has Japhath going on to the Ark and he came off as Iaphath.

In that period the I and J were used differently than today. The same goes for U and V.
Jesus was around 1600 often spelled as Iesus.

This is actually a non-issue. You cannot read old texts and apply the spelling rules of today.

In this case I can actually only find the word Iapheth.
Can you post some references of where you found the words Japhath  and Iaphath?

Genesis 6:10 And Noah begate three sonnes: Sem, Ham, and Iapheth.

Genesis 7:13 In the selfe same day entred Noah, and Sem, and Ham, and Iapheth, the sonnes of Noah, and Noahs wife, and the three wiues of his sonnes with them, into the Arke,

It should be noted that these verses were taken from the online version of the 1611 KJB but my print version spells the name 'Japheth'. The same holds true for the name 'Jared' in Genesis 5:15-20; it's spelled 'Jared' in the print version and 'Iared' in the online version. So that raises the question of why the online version changed the spelling from the print version. Gee, were they trying to make some effort at consistency, too?

Genesis 9:18 And the sonnes of Noah that went forth of the Arke, were Shem, and Ham, and Iaphet: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

So it wasn't just Japheth's name that changed, but so did Shem's.

Now note the beginning of Chapter 9:

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah, and his sonnes, and said vnto them, Bee fruitfull and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the feare of you, & the dread of you shall be vpon euery beast of the earth, and vpon euery fowle of the aire, vpon all that mooueth vpon the earth, and vpon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they deliuered.

3 Euery mouing thing that liueth, shalbe meat for you; euen as the greene herbe haue I giuen you all things.

The word 'be' is spelled (or spelt in British/Australian English) 'bee' in verse 1 but 'be' in verse 2. You also have 'shall be' in verse 2 but 'shalbe' in verse 3. Do these words mean different things just because they have different spellings? No. It just means that spelling is not consistent or that they didn't think it needed to be consistent.

You could also make a big deal out of the fact that the word 'and' is spelled out in some places but '&' is used in others but why bother? They both mean the same thing.

Now, Billy, you made a comment that 'Books at that time 1611 normally spelled words the same.' How do you know that? How many books from that time period have you read? And I mean printed in that time period. I realise Shakespeare is also from around that time but how do you know that the modern versions printed today are the same as the originals? They could have had the same types of inconsistent spelling as the Bible did, but you'd never know it if you didn't have an old copy to compare it to.

The point is, if spelling isn't even consistent from one verse to the next, why should you expect names in the OT to be the same in the NT, especially if the source languages are different? To me, it just goes to prove that they didn't consider spelling to be any big deal back then and I don't think we should consider their lack of consideration to be a big deal, either.

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Clinton, if you prefer the 1611 because you like the old inconsistent spelling, go for it. Nothing wrong with that as long as you have the printing errors corrected and have all the text. Just don't go trying to make an issue of it.