Mark Burnett says 'weird things happened' on 'The Bible' set

Be careful, this is a trick question. You will have to appeal to an extra-biblical authority.

No, I don't think so. Let me start by sharing some scripture.

Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Next,

James 4:4, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

That being said, the opposite is true, friendship with God will make us an enemy of the world. Next,

John 16:33, "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Lastly,

2nd Timothy 3:12, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

Now the short history lesson. The manuscripts that would form the basis of the modern English Bible, specifically the King James 1611, originated in Antioch after the time of Christ and Apostles. The Pehsitta (AD150), the Old Latin Vulgate (AD157) (This is not the Latin Vulgate the Roman Catholic church uses), and the Italic Bible (AD157) are some of the early Bibles produced in this era.

When the RCC was formed in the third to fourth century (no, Peter wasn't the first Pope so don't even try to argue that point, the Roman Emperor Constantine became the first pope in 313 AD) it started persecuting believers who would not follow their teachings or submit to the Pope. The RCC also tried to destroy as many manuscripts/bibles, referred to as the "Traditional Text," that were not sanctioned by the church, but many were not found or destroyed. These manuscripts formed an unbroken succession from the time of the Apostles up until the time the first English Bibles were produced.

These manuscripts represented the majority of Greek manuscripts (about 95% overall) which agreed with each other and had been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries until modern times. They were the inerrant, perfectly preserved versions of the "Word of God," and it was from these manuscripts that the early English speaking Bibles were produced.

Bibles such as the Geneva, the Bishops, the Coverdale and yes, the King James were all translated using the Traditional Text, or as it was to become known after Erasmus, Textus Receptus.

Almost every other Bible produced after the 1611 King James used corrupted manuscripts as the basis for their translation; specifically, the Vaticanus and/or the Sinaiticus. These two manuscripts are horrible translations, and truth be told they don't even agree with each other.

Matter of fact, the Sinaiticus wasn't even a translation. A man named Constantine Simonidies claimed that he created the Codex Sinaiticus in 1839. He had meant for the manuscript to be a gift for the Emperor of Russia. It was found to be of such inferior quality that it never made it to the Emperor, was scraped and used as fuel for a stove until Constantin von Tischendorf found it and mistook it for an "ancient" manuscript older than those that compromised the Textus Receptus.

So, all that being said, I will answer your question. Which Bible should be used? The King James of course. It's the only reliable version of the Word of God out there, built upon the English Bibles that predated it and the Traditional Text, or Textus Receptus.

My reasoning? 1). First, the facts as stated above. 2). Second, I trust a version of God's version that born out of persecution of God's saints like Tyndale, Coverdale and Wycliffe just to name a few, over Bibles that are produced to do nothing else but to try and distort and destroy the King James. Those men were murdered by a tyrannical regime out to destroy God's true church and that itself is proof enough of their work. 3). Third, the revival that hit the globe was final proof that these martyrs "hit the nail on the head" with their work and the Bible(s) it produced.

And do you believe in simplifying the Bible for the young?

No, I do not.

However, after having said that, I will say this: if the pastors and teachers in a church cannot correctly teach the Word of God to the young, then they have no business pastoring or teaching.

It is the duty of church leaders and teachers to take God's Word, and, well, 2nd Timothy says it clearly enough,

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If the kids aren't learning, then the leaders aren't doing their job, pure and simple. No simplification of the Word is necessary, kids are smart and they will quickly pick up on it if they are taught correctly.

2nd Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

2nd Peter 1:21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

It's not the man that is infallible, it's that man, moved by the Holy Ghost, became a vassal, which allowed and infallible God to write and say what He desired, not what the fallible man desired. It's something we will never truly understand until we are in His presence.

In addition, Jesus told us His word will never pass away." He used "fallible" man to preserve His "infallible" Word until it could be made into an "infallible" translation that all could read and understand. That fact that an evil organization tried to destroy it, and is still trying to do so, only lends credence to it's infallibility.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.