Bible version

[D46]

One would be hard pressed to take an NIV and ward off a JW with a butter knife in their hand instead of a sword. Why? Because they read almost identical. Some JW's have used the NIV in place of their corrupt bible from what I've read because of the similarities. Check the similarities out yourself. Go ahead...make my day!!

I will never touch it, though. I have studied too long about this issue and have read the ignorant, uninformed KJVO enthusiasts too much (I have most of their printed garbage) to sit here and agree with the KJO twaddle.

You can't handle the truth. Anyone who claims to have studied as long as you and have no more discernment than what is displayed, is "dumber than a bag of hammers". So, why callest me ignorant? Play with your beads and eat your Jesus cookie and come back in about 10 years after you've learned something.

 

[D46]

Sorry...must have been something I had for dinner!! Now, back on track again.

One of the primary advertising gimmicks used to sell modern English translations is that they will be easier to understand for the potential customers. The customer, having been assured that he/she cannot possibly understand the "old archaic" King James gratefully purchases the modern English Bible and unknowingly condemns themself to a life of biblical ignorance. Modern English translations may be easier to read but they are not easier to understand.
Let's look at the equation in simple terms. If the "archaic" language and the "thee's" and "thou's" of the King James Bible really do hamper the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in communicating His message to the Christians, then several things should be true of one or all of the raft of modern English translations on the Bible market today.
1. If modern English translations, such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Version, and Today's English Version were easier to understand, then the Holy Spirit's message to the Christian would flow freer and accomplish greater spiritual victories in the lives of God's people on an individual basis. Yet it is sadly evident that this is not happening.
In fact it is only too evident to any objective observer that today's Christians are more worldly and less dedicated to Jesus Christ than their nineteenth or even early twentieth century counterparts who were raised on and read the King James Bible. Surely a Bible that was "easier to understand" would have dramatically increased successes in battling sin, worldliness and carnality, but this JUST HAS NOT HAPPENED.
2. Secondly, if the modern English translations were really easier to understand then I believe God would show a little more gratitude for them by using at least one to spark a major revival in this nation.
It is elementary to see that if the "old archaic" King James Bible has been hampering the desired work of the Holy Spirit, then God should be eager to bless the use of any translation that would be easier for His people to understand.
Again, it is all too obvious that no mass spiritual awakening of any kind has been initiated by any one of today's modern translations. Today's modern translations haven't been able to spark a revival in a Christian school, let alone expected to close a bar.
In fact, since the arrival of our modern English translations, beginning with the ASV of 1901, America has seen:
1. God and prayer kicked out of our public school
2. Abortion on demand legalized
3. Homosexuality accepted nationally as an "alternate life style"
4, In home pornography via TV and VCR
5. Child kidnapping and pornography running rampant
6. Dope has become an epidemic
7. Satanisrn is on the rise
If this is considered a "revival" then let's turn back to the King James to STOP it.
In fact, the ONLY scale used to claim success for a new translation is how well it sells. This depraved Madison Avenue sales system should set alarms ringing in the Christian. Instead, deluded by television, they dutifully nod and remark that, "It must be good, everybody's buying one."
Is there any "good" coming from modern translations? Surely. The publishing companies are making millions.
Today American Christians are spiritually anemic. They turn instead to their favorite "Bible psychologist" for help rather than Scripture. America as a whole is as morally decayed as Sodom and Gomorrah. (Ezekiel 16:49).
Where is the spiritual help and hope that an "easier to understand" translation should bring'?
Instead, perhaps we are in this desperate condition because of those very translations.

 

[D46]

We hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria [known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text,] and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt [known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text.] The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. [Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.]

The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy [Col. 2:8,] and allegorical foolishness [not believing God's word literally.] The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:

Egypt and Alexandria

1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife [Genesis 12:10-13.]
2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave [Genesis 37:36.]
3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt [Genesis 50:25.]
4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt [Exodus 12:12.]
5. God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" [Exodus 20:4.]
6. God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" [Deuteronomy 4:20.]
7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt [Deuteronomy 17:16,] so why should we look there for a Bible?
8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help [Jeremiah 42:13-19.]
9. God plans to punish Egypt [Jeremiah 46:25.]
10. God calls His Son out of Egypt [Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15.]
11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom [Revelation 11:8.]
12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen [Acts 6:9; 7:54-60.]
13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine [Acts 18:24-26.]
14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .

Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great [a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8.] Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen [185-254 A.D..]

QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy [I Corinthians 1:22; Romans 1:22; Genesis 3:5; Colossians 2:8; I Corinthians 8:1,] why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?

Antioch

1. Upon it's first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon [Acts 6:3-5.] Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?
2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.
3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch [Acts 11:20-21.]
4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year [Acts 11:26.]
5. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch [Acts 11:26.]
6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem [Acts 11:27-30.]
7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch [Acts 13:1-3.]
8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church [Acts 14:19-26; 15:35.]
9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch [Acts 15:19-23, 30,] because Antioch was the home base.
10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine [Galatians 2:11.] Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had it's on sea port and more than it's share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base." Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews [Jerusalem and Judaea] and the Gentiles [Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc] that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it's geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.

So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.

 

[Steve]

One would be hard pressed to take an NIV and ward off a JW with a butter knife in their hand instead of a sword. Why? Because they read almost identical. Some JW's have used the NIV in place of their corrupt bible from what I've read because of the similarities. Check the similarities out yourself. Go ahead...make my day!!

I will never touch it, though. I have studied too long about this issue and have read the ignorant, uninformed KJVO enthusiasts too much (I have most of their printed garbage) to sit here and agree with the KJO twaddle.

You can't handle the truth. Anyone who claims to have studied as long as you and have no more discernment than what is displayed, is "dumber than a bag of hammers". So, why callest me ignorant? Play with your beads and eat your Jesus cookie and come back in about 10 years after you've learned something.

First of all, sfacheem, I am NOT Roman Catholic. So peddle your own preconceived ideas back into the seventeenth centurywhere the rest of your thought is centered. Have a nice day.

 

[Vic C.]

... First of all, sfacheem, I am NOT Roman Catholic. So peddle your own preconceived ideas back into the seventeenth centurywhere the rest of your thought is centered. Have a nice day.

Ok, both of you, take a break.

Steve, remember I'm Italian and I know words, even if they are misspelled.
So try not to be a "dolore nella parte posteriore". : :

 

[Steve]

... First of all, sfacheem, I am NOT Roman Catholic. So peddle your own preconceived ideas back into the seventeenth centurywhere the rest of your thought is centered. Have a nice day.

Ok, both of you, take a break.

Steve, remember I'm Italian and I know words, even if they are misspelled.
So try not to be a "dolore nella parte posteriore". : :

Oy! : and :

 

[Steve]

When I registered here, I couldnt find my version on your lists. I was wondering if your forum would add the Revised Standard Version to the listings (RSV). I dont know what half those versions are anyway, but I find the RSV to have one of the best translations according to my research. The Douey Rheims is also a very good one. Alot like the King James, but I dont use that and I doubt many people do... except my friend who is a BIBLE NUT!!!

Now that's my version of choice; the 1946 RSV. I've been very down on the NRSV. It just doesn't work for me.

You will be happy to know that Cambridge will be reprinting the old RSV Harper Study Bible in 2007. They already do the Brevier Reference Bible in burgundy and black French Morocco, and a paperback for world distribution. I am predicting a resurgance of the RSV as a backlash to the inclusive language agenda. Except for a very few spots, the RSV is an excellent translation.

 

[D46]

Vic-As we use to say in the Army..."it ain't no big gig"!! I was just aggravating Steve, who by the way, fooled me with the avatar. Would have sworn that was Catholic. Anyway, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans and Orthodox all partake of the eucharist so, how's a guy to know? But, that's neither here nor there.

I'm constantly appalled at the people who seem to think the King James is as hard as a chemistry book to read and follow. When I was a teenager, I don't recall knowing anyone in our church that was a college graduate and many didn't even finish high school. Yet, they sat under the teaching, preaching and reading from the King James and I don't remember anyone making a great deal over the way it was written. God can lead anyone to him with ANY bible version, I don't deny that. That was not my point on this topic. However, after someone sees the corruptions of the modern versions with their own eyes and reads of the reasoning of and the mss behind them and still accepts them....well-what can I say.

 

[gingercat]

Vic-As we use to say in the Army..."it ain't no big gig"!! I was just aggravating Steve, who by the way, fooled me with the avatar. Would have sworn that was Catholic. Anyway, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans and Orthodox all partake of the eucharist so, how's a guy to know? But, that's neither here nor there.

I'm constantly appalled at the people who seem to think the King James is as hard as a chemistry book to read and follow. When I was a teenager, I don't recall knowing anyone in our church that was a college graduate and many didn't even finish high school. Yet, they sat under the teaching, preaching and reading from the King James and I don't remember anyone making a great deal over the way it was written. God can lead anyone to him with ANY bible version, I don't deny that. That was not my point on this topic. However, after someone sees the corruptions of the modern versions with their own eyes and reads of the reasoning of and the mss behind them and still accepts them....well-what can I say.

hi, D46,

So far I have not seen much of a difference in the versions of the basics. It seems that we have many many Bible scholars in the churches and they have knowledge but they are not practicing what they are studying. It is well known that most churchegoers are not committed Christians. We are not precticing our knowledge if we are not committed Christians. Does it really matter which version is superior or not if we are not practicing what we read ?

It seems that most of us are NT time pharisees and lawyers; many scholars but no workers.

 

[D46]

hi, D46,

So far I have not seen much of a difference in the versions of the basics. It seems that we have many many Bible scholars in the churches and they have knowledge but they are not practicing what they are studying. It is well known that most churchegoers are not committed Christians. We are not precticing our knowledge if we are not committed Christians. Does it really matter which version is superior or not if we are not practicing what we read ?

It seems that most of us are NT time pharisees and lawyers; many scholars but no workers.

Hitomi-The differences are as day and night. What if you got on an airline and the pilot knew the basics of flying but had only spent 10 hours of actual fly time. Want to go from New York to Germany with him? After all, it's 7 hours by jet from N.Y. to Frankfurt. How about if you had a brain tumor and your neurosurgeon didn't finish med school but knew the basics of a medulla or cerebellum? Doesn't make sense to put faith in that does it? Nor does it make sense to put faith and trust in something you know isn't the "whole story", so to speak. We're not talking about the fields being white for harvest and there's no one to go into the fields...there will always be and always has been counterfeit Christians. They're like hypocrits, they're everywhere and in every structure of society. It does matter what you read and regardless of that, you can study an RSV, Living Bible, NAB or a King James and still be just as wordly, just as carnal and hypocritical reading either...makes little difference.

I've used this analogy before and will repeat it here once more. Just because you have a container that is 99% water and only 1% arsenic, you will still be 100% dead if you drink it.

 

[gingercat]

D,

I would like to change Bible versions if it really makes that big of a differnce. What are the difference you think that is a big deal? Are you sure that they are so different that it is heresy? Aren't the basics the same?

I can understand NKJV. It that bad too?

I give you good example of that have no significantce in the understanding of the Bible. For instance, I dont know if the Holy Spirit is a person or not from the Bible. It is no big deal to me either way. Many people fight over it. As long as we know that Jesus is Son of God and we need Him for salvation, and He wants us to repent and accept Him as a Lord and Savior.

 

[D46]

D,

I would like to change Bible versions if it really makes that big of a differnce. What are the difference you think that is a big deal? Are you sure that they are so different that it is heresy? Aren't the basics the same?

I can understand NKJV. It that bad too?

I give you good example of that have no significantce in the understanding of the Bible. For instance, I dont know if the Holy Spirit is a person or not from the Bible. It is no big deal to me either way. Many people fight over it. As long as we know that Jesus is Son of God and we need Him for salvation, and He wants us to repent and accept Him as a Lord and Savior.

I think the differences are a big deal if you consider how thousands of words and so many verses are left out. To me, that is heresy of the highest order to alter the word of God. We are warned three times in the bible about changing God's word and that should be a sufficient reminder. Ever notice how a NIV, NASB, etc., are much thinner than a King James? The reason is, they leave out over 6,000 words and either omit or alter over 100 verses. Do you want a bible that doesn't "tell it all?". Satan won't alter the bible in every passage as he would soon be found out. So, what they take away from one verse, they will usually leave in a similar verse as to not alert the reader. I'm at work and can't go into specifics but, it's all there for anyone to see. Remember, Satan is a master deceiver and the very first to cast doubt about the word of God...he still is causing all this confusion and the translators are picking up questioning god's word where Satan left off. He must be proud of them.

The NKJV is not a "NEW King James Version". It is not a King James bible at all although they lead you to believe that only the "Thee's, Thou's, Thine, Ye's", etc., have been eliminated. That's a lie. I was sorely disappointed in the NKJV as I even bought one back around 1990 and upon just a little verification, saw the differences. I still have that bible but don't use it anymore. I'd be happy to provide some links if interested so you can see for yourself when I get home. Again, in no way will I suggest anyone is going to Hell or cannot be saved using another bible, but; why study from a bible that's not complete and true to God's word when we have one that is?

 

[Steve]

D,

I would like to change Bible versions if it really makes that big of a differnce. What are the difference you think that is a big deal? Are you sure that they are so different that it is heresy? Aren't the basics the same?

I can understand NKJV. It that bad too?

I give you good example of that have no significantce in the understanding of the Bible. For instance, I dont know if the Holy Spirit is a person or not from the Bible. It is no big deal to me either way. Many people fight over it. As long as we know that Jesus is Son of God and we need Him for salvation, and He wants us to repent and accept Him as a Lord and Savior.

Hi Ging

The NKJV is a much better translation of the Textus Receptus than is the King James Version. So, if you HAVE to use an English Bible translated from those very late and quickly assembled and inferior manuscripts, the NKJV is a good choice. There are also available the Easy Reading KJV and the Modern KJV. The KJV3 will be available later in the year from Christian Literature World. The King James has over 800 words that have changed meaning and/or are just archaic. It has not been the best selling Bible now for about 10 years. Please do remember that the King James Version has added to the Scriptures in many places. It is not that the 'modern' Bibles have subtracted from the Word of God. We now have access to many, many more manuscripts and papyri than were available to the King James translators, and in some cases, are within perhaps 50 years of the autographa. The earliest manuscripts support the 'Critical Text' of today's Bibles, and NOT the KJV.

Having studied the issues for 10+ years, and having friends in the Bible translating community and in academia, what is being recommended are the ESV, the NASB, the HCSB.

The academic community is pretty strong on the NRSV and say it's the best thing going. I'm not that crazy nuts over inclusive language, though. But, the best Bible is one that is read.

 

[D46]

Hitomi-The NKJV is a counterfeit of the true King James...bottom line. I have one and I know. How do I know this? Consider the following...one of many examples.

King James Version

Acts 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

New King James Version

Acts 3:25 - You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities.

In the KJV, we find that Jesus is God's Son. In the NKJV, we find that He is God's servant. These are clearly not the same! The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant." So which one is correct here?

The solution is simple: look at the context in which it is used. In English, we have many words that can have more than one meaning. If a translator, going from English to another language, came across the word "bear," he would have a choice of meanings. But, it wouldn't take rocket science to figure out which one to use.

If the passage described a man with a heavy burden, the translator would understand that the man is going to "bear," or "carry" the burden. If, on the other hand, the passage described a hairy beast climbing a tree, the translator would understand the correct meaning here applies to a forest-dwelling animal that will eat nearly anything it finds. It's not really very hard.

Now look at the Bible passage above. What is being discussed?

* "children of the prophets"
* "covenant which God made with our fathers"
* "in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

It's clear, isn't it? The passage is talking about "children," and "fathers" and "seed." The word "pais" means "son." But the New King James translators chose "servant." Why? They were not alone. The New World Translation, created by the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus, translated this word "servant" also. So do the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

Could it be that these modern translators disagree that "pais" can be translated "son?" No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as "boy," "child" or "son" in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as "son" in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

Moreover, the NKJV claims to make the KJV "much clearer" by updating "obsolete words". How about that "obsolete word" hell? The NKJV removed the word hell 23 times!! And, they make it much clearer by replacing hell with Hades and Sheol. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Hades is "the underground abode of the dead in GREEK METHOLOGY!! Hades in not necessarily a place of torment or terror like hell. The Assyrilan Hades is an abode of blessedness with "silver skies called Happy Fields". Give me a break. Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is more "up to date" than hell?

Words like "damned or "damnation" is NOT in the NKJV They make it more clearer by replacing it with "condemn". Condemned may not be very serious-damned is eternal!!

Alright, how about in Genesis 22:8 where the NKJV makes Eve a "helper comparable to him" instead of a helper or help meet. Worse yet, in Romans 1:18 the NKJV changes "hold the truth" to surpress the truth. I'd say that's quite a difference wouldn't you. But, no surprise. So we find "surpress the truth" also in the NIV, NASB, NRSV and RSV.

The variations are to numerous to mention here but, consider the facts. The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times, God and Heaven over 50 times, and the total of words it removes/changes is over 20,000 words.

So the NKJV is not new...it has the many changes that the NIV, NASV and RSV, etc., already have. It assuredly is NOT a King James Bible."

I challenged Thomas Nelson on these alterations and also on that strange symbol they use to have on the front ot their NKJV bible. It was an interwoven triad of three sixes(6's) which is an old Gnostic symbol used on the cover of not only the earlier NKJV bibles, but also, on "The Aquarian Conspiracy", "The Craft Companion", by Dorothy Morrison (witch) and is shown in "Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated." Nelson, of course, tried to explainin the symbol away by saying this symbol stood for the trinity but, since much ado was made about the symbol, they no longer use it. So, it seems I wasn't the only one who questioned it.

Bottom line-Get a King James Bible, learn to read it as it's no more antiquated in words than the NIV. I've posted before some of the odd if not archaic words used in the NIV and how they were more difficult to underestand than the same verse in the King James. For instance, ever hear of the word "satraps" or Praetorium"? That's what the NIV calls lieutenants and a common hall used in Ezra 8:36, Ester 3:12 and Matthew 27:27 of the King James, respectively. Oddly enough, so does the NKJV. So, that argument is null and void. Nelson's claim that "Nothing has been changed..." is a lie.

 

[Solo]

Here is a great online Bible tool.

http://unbound.biola.edu/

 

[D46]

one of the best software programs available is Sword Searcher. It has the KJV, KJVSL (a strongs definition with the Greek word), KJ2000, Darby's Translation, KJ16(the actual 1611 version),even the TR (Textus Receptus) if you read Greek, Tyndales Translation, Wycliff's Translation, Young's Literal Translation, the ASV even. Also with this program you get the Strong's Greek definitions and Hebrew dictionary Webster's, Rightly Dividing the Word, and much more. A great piece of software!!

If Hitomi is interested, I have another copy of this I bought as a 2 for 1deal and would be happy to send it to her free as I don't need but one. The KJ2000 would be good for her if the Thee's, Ye's etc., cause her problems with the English as they aren't there. It's almost a "true" NEW King James without the fallacies of Nelson's copy.

PM me, Hitomi, if you think it would help you.

One parting last thought about the Thee's, Thine's, Thou's, and Ye's used in the King James.

"And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." (Exodus 4:15)

These words of God, spoken to Moses concerning the mission he and his brother Aaron were to undertake at Pharaoh's palace are one of numerous examples in Scripture where the King James translation uses several different forms of the second-person pronoun. In this one verse, we see the words "thou," "thy," "you," and "ye," all fulfilling this function. Most modern translations would translate this sentence: "You shall speak to him ...and I will be with your mouth,... and will teach you what you shall do." Why would the King James translators use four different forms of the pronoun when only "you" and "your" are used in modem versions?

The fact is that the Elizabethan-age English was able to make much finer distinctions than modem English. That is, "thou," "thee," "thy," and "thine," were used for the second person singular, whereas "ye," "you," "your," and "yours" were the corresponding words for the plural. Different words also were used for subject, object, and possessive modifier, as is still true for first and third-person pronouns.

In our text, God was telling Moses that he (Moses) was to speak to Aaron, and that He (God) would then teach both of them, not just Moses, what they were to do. This distinction is clear in the King James English, but not in modern English. This is one of numerous examples where such fine points in the King James language are lost in modern translations.

In the Lord's Prayer, for example, "Yours is the kingdom" could suggest that many will possess the kingdom, where "thine is the kingdom" clearly recognizes one God alone. Clear words are important for clear meanings, and Jesus said, "My words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

The translators of the new Bible versions know the above facts, that's no secret, but; they are so dishonest they are unwilling to tell us the facts. They are willing to tell lies, in order to destroy the KJV. That is their goal and may they be rewarded according to their works.

 

[D46]

Looooool...Calvinist? What in the world made you think that? I don't believe in all his T.U.L.I.P doctrines and don't believe in Predestination or limited atonement. Too, he thought too much of Augustine to be someone I would follow.Anyway, here's a link to that Sword Searcher software if you or anyone else is interested.Glad you decided on the King James. Wish I were there to help. I don't think you'll have many problems with it.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/

 

[Steve]

The King James Version Is NOT the final authority. NO English Bible is. The authority is the Greek and Hebrew. NOT an outdated English revision completed in 1611 and revised some 16 times. I find this almost-worship of the KJV ridiculous and untenable.

I like to UNDERSTAND the Scriptures when I read them. Not having to be shtuck using an English dictionary to define Jacobean terms that are hundreds of years obsolete. Ridiculous!

 

[Steve]

The King James Version Is NOT the final authority. NO English Bible is. The authority is the Greek and Hebrew. NOT an outdated English revision completed in 1611 and revised some 16 times. I find this almost-worship of the KJV ridiculous and untenable.

I like to UNDERSTAND the Scriptures when I read them. Not having to be shtuck using an English dictionary to define Jacobean terms that are hundreds of years obsolete. Ridiculous!

I have someone whom I truly respect: he uses KJV and I have been reading NIV for 7 years. The most of the interpretaion are the same. I decided to use KJV to avoid arguments. Some nitpick if I quote the NIV.

sincerely

Hi Ging.
My church 'officially' uses the KJV. When I am assigned to read on a particular Sunday, I use the RSV, NAS, or ESV. I have made it quite clear to them that I have little use for the KJV and refuse to use it. The people are always appreciative when I read, cuz they can understand the Scriptures, which is my main thrust.

I don't care for the NIV. I am more trusting of the NLT than the NIV.

If anyone complains(which is rare) that they don't like what I am using, I tell them to get over it.

It is a truism that most people ESPECIALLY in the Church, are extremely opposed to any type of change, and have to be led, kicking and screaming, to embrace something new. Our church is extremely conservative liturgically, and I am now pushing to get rid of the 1928 Prayer Book with its antiquated language into something more modern, keeping the '28 for those who wish it, at an early service. I actually got the altar turned around one Sunday, but it will take time. I am far from 'liberal,' but some things need to change, among which are antiquated Bible versions and Prayer Books. We now have electricity and computers and the like. So why in the world should we pray to God
and read His Word in language we cannot understand? We wont as long as Steve is on the Liturgical Commission.

The KJV is the Word of God. Let me make that clear. But I think what we have today is 1000 times better, and 1000 times more accurate. I personally have no use for the KJV except on the shelf in my library, to consult from time to time. But, to use it as a daily Bible to read or study from?? No way, Jose. But, the best Bible is the one that is read. People have gotten saved via the NWT, which is probably the worst one out here.

 

[D46]

The King James Version Is NOT the final authority. NO English Bible is. The authority is the Greek and Hebrew. NOT an outdated English revision completed in 1611 and revised some 16 times. I find this almost-worship of the KJV ridiculous and untenable.

Sorry but we don't have the original Greek or Hebrew these days. Some can't understand English much less Greek or Hebrew. I do wish you would do some research before you start making ludicrous and deceitful statement like this. You again prove your lack of knowledge.

If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisors are just trying to justify their sins!

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.

Keep in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). So if some textual know-it-all walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks, "So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?", I simply state that I have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version. The Textus Receptus hasn't been revised or altered. How many times has the NIV and all the rest been REVISED? Four, six times. Last account I had the Nestle/Aland text was up to it's 27th revision from the 23rd not many years back.

So, stop leadilng people astray with something you obviously know very little about. Read your JW bible where they "peddle" the word of God instead of corrupt it. No wonder they chose the word peddle so they wouldn't be concerned about corrupting it.

2 Corinthians 2:17(KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

(NIV, NWT, etc) Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.

If you were to get up in most churches I know with a smart- alec tone about you won't read this or that, they'd have you out of there before you could yell for Westcott and Hort! Such arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance of the bible corruptions.