Bible version

[Steve]

Oh my goodness. LOL Will the real Steve please stand up? : :

The kJV is about the worst version that could possibly be used today, with its 800+ archaic, misleading, and completely different word meanings for today. It also uses very late and very poor manuscripts that were very hastily put together by Desederius Erasmus. They simply did not have access to the very early manuscripts and papyri that we have today, some dating back to the late first century. Whether some folks like it or not, the KJV is completely out of the running, and they are far behind while the rest of the world moves on.

I see all these version names being tossed around, but hardly anyone ever metions the LITV or YLT. Tsk, tsk. 8-)

Hi Vic! :-D How ah ya?

The LITV---renamed the King James 3---will be out later this year; it's had printing/publication problems---is a very good translation of the Textus Receptus in contemporary English.

The YLT(1862) is so woodenly literal, IMHO it is barely readable. There is supposedly a revision of this going on as I write. Again, this is from the Textus Receptus.

For those who are in to antiquated language, the Darby Translation is readily available. I forget the name of the distributor, but they are VERY well-made by Cambridge. I have one. It's small with really large, dark type. Very literal. 19th century English. Uses 'Jehovah' for the Divine Name in the OT.

The ASV of 1901 is published by Star Publications in Texas in Bonded and Genuine editions with an excellent, excellent dictionary/concordance in the back. Again, the language is antiquated, but the ASV is extremely literal. Uses 'Jehovah' for the Divine Name in the OT.

The World English Bible is available in hardcopy and is translated from the Majority Text. Only the NT is finished so far.

 

[Sothenes]

Lewis W,

The newer translations don't leave anything out. They differ in the manuscripts they use to translate from the original.

They use the older (and more accurate) manuscripts.


I am aware of verses like Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 and so on and so forth. It is much more likely that those verses were added in after the fact.

The fact of the Trinity doesn't stand on 1 John 5:7 alone. There are dozens and dozens of clear Scriptures in the NIV that state that Jesus is God.

They don't leave out anything? The mss used to translate the modern versions are from the corrupt line from Alexandria, Egypt...the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus primarily and these were the mss used by the unbelievers, Westcott and Hort who brought about the RSV of 1881 and ultimately, the versions on the market today. These mss didn't even agree with themselves, disagreeing over 3000 times in the Gospels alone. Would you trust a mss that came from the Vatican library (Vaticanus) or found in a trashcan at a monastery (Sinaiticus)?

The modern versions leave out quite a bit. Just a few examples...bold words not found in the NIV...

There were four manuscript families because believers went to the four corners of the earth. What you are saying is that because some believers apostised that the manuscripts that preceed some of them are in doubt?

 

[Vic C.]

The YLT(1862) is so woodenly literal, IMHO it is barely readable. There is supposedly a revision of this going on as I write. Again, this is from the Textus Receptus.

Steve, I have NO problem with it's strict literal and Elizabethian language. I see no need to revise it and I understand that revision was put on hold. The revision would undo what Robert Young was trying to accomplish; to keep it as literal as possible and not interject much thought into it. I prefer word for word interpretations. It (and the LITV) being from the TR is a plus for me. I wouldn't have it any other way. Also, it is public domain, as God intended His word to be. :

Hort and Westcott who? 8-)

 

[D46]

Is anyone so gullible that they would belileve the bible is suppose to read and have words like a grocery store tabloid or perhaps the daily newspaper? It's a spiritual book and reads like no other. Archaic words? I would say the NIV is a close second in "archaic words". Praetorium? who ever heard of that, yet that's what the NIV calls a common hall in Matthew 27:27. Or perhaps, "Satraps" in Ester 3:12. Anyone ever hear of a lieutenent being called that? Another argument goes down the drain of the "superiority" of todays corruptions.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance2.html

BTW-The King James has consistently outsold all others since its inception. It's for true Christians who want the real word of God and not some New Age version for kiddies who don't know any better and refuse the truth. The Geneva Bible was quoted by Shakespeare over 5,000 times, I'm told. The Geneva Bible was 90% Tyndales's work and was the forerunner of the King James which was 90-95% Tyndale. If I didn't have the King James, I would trust the Geneva or Tyndale's works more than any modern version.

 

[Steve]

The YLT(1862) is so woodenly literal, IMHO it is barely readable. There is supposedly a revision of this going on as I write. Again, this is from the Textus Receptus.

Steve, I have NO problem with it's strict literal and Elizabethian language. I see no need to revise it and I understand that revision was put on hold. The revision would undo what Robert Young was trying to accomplish; to keep it as literal as possible and not interject much thought into it. I prefer word for word interpretations. It (and the LITV) being from the TR is a plus for me. I wouldn't have it any other way. Also, it is public domain, as God intended His word to be. :

Hort and Westcott who? 8-)

I guess we can agree to disagree. :D

Westcott and Hort who? as you aptly put it, is indeed a truism. Today's Bible translators are WAY past Westcott and Hort. In fact, they are never even mentioned anymore in the translators community, and haven't been for many years. today's text is an eclectic one. So those fundamentalist brethren who are constantly grinding an axe about W & H are hopelessly out of date and out of touch. The ASV is the Westcott and Hort text. But, I would say from RSV> is not.

In fact, there is now underfoot a resurgance of the RSV! Cambridge will be reprinting Lindsell's old Harper Study Bible in 2007, and there are several more editions being re-released, among them is Cambridge's Brevire Reference Bible in French Morocco and paperback for the world market!!! I think it's a reaction to inclusive language.

 

[D46]

Westcott and Hort who? as you aptly put it, is indeed a truism. Today's Bible translators are WAY past Westcott and Hort. In fact, they are never even mentioned anymore in the translators community, and haven't been for many years. today's text is an eclectic one. So those fundamentalist brethren who are constantly grinding an axe about W & H are hopelessly out of date and out of touch. The ASV is the Westcott and Hort text. But, I would say from RSV> is not.

Anyone who believes Westcott and Hort had little to do with todays modern versions are out of touch with reality and know zilch about textual criticism. Whether they are mentioned by name or not is of little consequence as I've mentioned before, but has obviously went over everyone's head. Most do not even know what their theory was all about and seem to still not understand that their Greek text is the very basis, the foundation of the modern versions. ANY version after their Revised Version of 1881 bear their marks and their revised Greek text is still a mirror image used to translate the NIV, NASB, etc.

This is from "The King James Version Debate by D.A. Carson....

"The theories of Westcott and Hort are almost universally accepted today. It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out and added to the text. The vast majority of evangelical scholars hold that the basic textual theories of W-H were right and the church stands greatly in their debt."

How about the ASV? I have an NASB that in the very Preface indicates...."Recognizing the values of the ASV, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to update it by incorporating recent discoveries in Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it iinto more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the ASV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

The American Standard Version (1901) has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. A product of both British (W-H) and American scholarship, it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures. The New American Standard Bible has sought to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV."

Does this give any doubt about who is behind the modern version? If so, I also have a Scofield Study Bible (King James) that was woefully disappointing. The Text seems to be unaltered but it's the marginal notes and the Preface that bothered me and if I could, I'd return it for a refund. The Preface indicates...

",,,The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for over twenty seven years gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English Speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS and the labors in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tragelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have "cleared the Textus Receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of the text."

C.I Scofield 1901

This bible was bought about five years ago and by no means antiquated. Schofield's Preface still stands today and the same type of footnotes in the NIV, NASB, etc are in this bible. Does this leave any doubt as to how W-H have and still do, affect modern bibles? I think not. Do a little research and you can see how this all comes together.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/holland.htm#targ3

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/con ... V/toc.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbcdarks.htm

 

[Relic]

BTW-The King James has consistently outsold all others since its inception. It's for true Christians who want the real word of God and not some New Age version for kiddies who don't know any better and refuse the truth. ...

:smt023



You could say that again! :smt045


.

 

[holly67]

Is anyone so gullible that they would belileve the bible is suppose to read and have words like a grocery store tabloid or perhaps the daily newspaper? BTW-The King James has consistently outsold all others since its inception. It's for true Christians who want the real word of God and not some New Age version for kiddies who don't know any better and refuse the truth. The Geneva Bible was quoted by Shakespeare over 5,000 times, I'm told. The Geneva Bible was 90% Tyndales's work and was the forerunner of the King James which was 90-95% Tyndale. If I didn't have the King James, I would trust the Geneva or Tyndale's works more than any modern version.

Hello D46, let me say first I sincerly hope God is blessing your life.

Now,.. are you actually saying that because I use the NIV translation, that I am not a " true Christian"???, if you are, than shame on you.
Do you know how many people have heard the word of GOD through ,...
A BIBLE, whether it be KJ, ASV,, or NIV ,..and HAVE heard the TRUTH,
and accepted Jesus as their personal savior??? Who are you to be so ,so arrogant and judgmental??? to say that if a person doesn't use a particular translation,that they are " not a true Christian" It's insulting.
My parents alway's used KJ version because that's the one they were introduced to when they were being led on their road to salvation, but they now use both, KJ and NIV. My parent's have been saved for 27 years, and have wittnessed to more people than I can remember, if your comment's have any value ,..then am I supposed to believe ,now, that my parent's have been pretending all this time, and that every person they led to Christ,
are really NOT Christian???
And,.. did you ever stop to think about the fact that not everyone is as brilliant and intelligent as you?? Would you actually deny someone who could not "follow " a more "elegantly" literal version of the Bible, knowing the word of God and how to achieve salvation, when they would easily, be able to ,FAITHFULLY read a Bible that uses wording they could understand???
AND ,lastly,.. how could you dare compare the word of God to "A grocery store tabloid"?! It IS the word of God ,..whether or not YOU personally approve of that version OR NOT.

 

[D46]

Now,.. are you actually saying that because I use the NIV translation, that I am not a " true Christian"???, if you are, than shame on you.

I don't know where you got that from. First of all, it doesn't matter to me who reads what. I don't judge who's a Christian and who isn't nor did I imply that and if that's what you read into anything, you read wrong. My purpose was to show where and why the many translations came from and how many are corrupt. I don't back down from that as history and facts prove my point. Did you read any of the links I provided? Obviously not and many others won't. That's ok...it's for those that want to do a little research all their own. If you don't care who or what is behind you NIV version then continue to read it by all means.There's enough information already been given about this, not only here, but in other forums, and I see no reason to expound on it every few weeks.

And,.. did you ever stop to think about the fact that not everyone is as brilliant and intelligent as you?? Would you actually deny someone who could not "follow " a more "elegantly" literal version of the Bible, knowing the word of God and how to achieve salvation, when they would easily, be able to ,FAITHFULLY read a Bible that uses wording they could understand???

Again I have to say this, I'm certainly not brilliant, but; an eighth grader could understand the King James as my parents never did go past that due to war time needs and responsibilities and, they used it and nothing else. It's not a difficult book to read at all. If one can read and understand Shakespeare, Tennison and philosophers such as Plato, Socrates or perhaps the works of Dante's Divine Comedy, and we've all read that in hight school and/or college, I see no problem with reading and understanding any bible version. You usually don't need a dictionary or a thesaraus when reading a magazine or the newspaper but, you may have to get one out when reading other books.

BTW-I'm not comparing the bible to a "grocery store tabloid". You're misreading what I wrote. I said the bible can't be read like a grocery store tabloid because it's a spiritual book. In other words, according to the word of God, "...the natural man cannot discern the things of God, neither can he now them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14. One may have to get a bible dictionary or a Strongs Concordance now and then to do a bit of searching but, no big thing. Just trying to be helpful, holly, and implore people to just search for themselves the reasoning behind the various translations on the market today. They publishers don't have your best interest at heart.

 

[holly67]

If you had no judgemental intentions,then , I apologize,but the way you worded your opinions,it seemed, to me, to be just that.
But,..You indeed DID imply that anyone that didn't use the KJ version was not a "true Christian".

BTW-The King James has consistently outsold all others since its inception. It's for true Christians who want the real word of God and not some New Age version for kiddies ho don't know any better and refuse the truth. .

Isn't that what you wrote,how else should that sentence be understood ?

In the end I would hope that we both share the same prayers and hope,...that as many people come to know the love of Jesus as possible ....no matter what translation is used.

 

[kiwimac]

The KJV is an ok if dated translation. The more modern translations are better because more accurate with greater reliance on archaeological and historical MSS that the KJV translators had not access to.

As the KJV translators said (mind the Old Modern English)

Now to the later we answere: that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multi nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c.

A man may be counter a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

For what euer was perfect vnder the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priuiledged with the priuiledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?

Source: http://www.locksley.com/6696/kjv1611.htm

 

[D46]

I'm sure we do indeed share many of the same prayers and hopes, holly. I know I come across very adamant to many, but I do feel very strongly about bible versions because I've seen and read too much to doubt my findings. Suffice it to say, this is all I have to say on the matter. Just read from the following, check out the sources and come to your own conclusions...

In 1881, the English Revision Committee cast upon the world a New Greek Text and an English Bible which, in the words of one reviser contained "between eight and nine changes in every five verses, and in about every ten verses, three of these were made for critical purposes." The English Revised Version is generally acknowledged to be the predecessor to the New International Version, the New American Standard Version and other modern translations.

The Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament

In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published the Nestle Greek New Testament, which underlies the modern versions. Nestle followed the Hort and Westcott New Greek Text used for the English Revised Version and three other editions of the 1800’s. In 1950, Kurt Aland assumed ownership and the Nestle Text became the Nestle/Aland Text. The editing committee was comprised of Kurt Aland and Matthew Black, who were unbelievers, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini and two apostates, Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren. 37. Again, the question arises concerning the qualifications of those who translate or edit God’s Word. History provides clear evidence that the divinely inspired Word of God was often altered by men who received their inspiration from a source other than God.

The Protestant Reformation of 1517 released many from the unscriptural teachings of Roman Catholicism. However, since that historic period, Catholic theologians have quietly infiltrated revision committees in order to introduce their doctrines into Protestant Bibles. Gail Riplinger observes, "Since both the Catholic and "New" Protestant bibles are now based on the identical critical Greek texts (UBS/Nestles), which are based on the same 1% minority Greek Manuscripts (Vaticanus B), the Catholic doctrinal bend in the NIV and NASB and other ‘New’ bibles is substantial." 38.

The New American Standard Bible

The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, "In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed." Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface…I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…"When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended…I used to laugh with others…However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them . . . the deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

"Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…The finest leaders we have today…haven’t gone into it [the new versions’ use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn’t gone into it…that’s how easily one can be deceived…I’m going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things…You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct…100% correct…I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version. If you must stand against everyone else, stand." 39.

The New International Version

The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines "eclectic" as: "to select, to pick out, to choose -- 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems." According to Goddard, the members of the committee chose not to confine themselves to one printed text of ancient or modern writings, but to privately determine, based on their evidence, what readings are true or genuine. In addition to its primary selections, the NIV committee decided to include alternative readings in footnote form to acquaint the reader with other interpretations. And in some extended portions of Scripture, liberty was taken to introduce verses not well-attested by manuscript evidence. 40.

Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts. 41. In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as "Bibles." However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, "They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ." 42.

It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is "the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity." 43. Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort’s design. 44. This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text. Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. 45.

Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 46. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, 47. and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 48.

http://watch.pair.com/another.html

 

[Relic]

I didn't see anyone mention the Amplified bible in this thread so I thought I would add the changes made in that bible since some people think there is nothing wrong with the Amplified bible.

The Amplified Bible completely removes words in:


MATTHEW 5:44 (removes "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,")
MARK 7:8 (removes the last 15 words)
MARK 9:49 (removes "and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt")
MARK 10:21 (removes "take up the cross")
LUKE 4:18 (Removes 8 words)
LUKE 22:64 (Removes "they struck him on the face")
JOHN 8:59 (Removes the last 10 words)
JOHN 16:16 (Removes "because I go to the Father")
ACTS 7:30 (Removes "of the Lord" when concerning the angel. This gives way for a demonic angel, instead of strictly saying, "angel of the Lord")
ACTS 10:6 (Removes "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do")
ACTS 15:11 (Removes "Christ" which challenges the Deity of Jesus)
ROMANS 1:3 (Removes "Jesus Christ our Lord")
ROMANS 1:29 (Removes "fornication")
ROMANS 6:11 (Removes "our Lord")
ROMANS 11:6 (Removes last 18 words)
1 CORINTHIANS 5:7 (Removes "for us" where is states Christ is sacrificed)
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 (Removes "effeminate" from the list)
1 CORINTHIANS 10:28 (Removes last 10 words)
1 CORINTHIANS 16:22 (Removes "Jesus Christ" again attacking His deity)
GALATIANS 2:20 (Removes "nevertheless I live")
GALATIANS 3:1 (Removes "That ye should not obey the truth")
GALATIANS 6:15 (Removes "For in Christ" concerning circumcision and uncircumcision)
EPHESIANS 1:6 (Removes "accepted in the beloved")
EPHESIANS 5:30 (Removes "of his flesh, and of his bones")
COLOSSIANS 1:2 (Removes "and the Lord Jesus Christ")
COLOSSIANS 1:28 (Removes "Jesus")
1 THESSALONIANS 1:1 (Removes last 9 words)
1 THESSALONIANS 2:19 (Removes "Christ")
1 TIMOTHY 1:1 (Removes "Lord")
1 TIMOTHY 1:17 (Removes "wise" when saying The only Wise God. This takes away from God, Himself!)
1 TIMOTHY 4:12 (Removes "in spirit")
2 TIMOTHY 4:1 (Removes "the Lord")
HEBREWS 3:1 (Removes "Christ")
HEBREWS 10:34 (Removes "in heaven" AND changes the verb tense to past tense, causing readers to doubt that they still have something better in heaven.)
HEBREWS 11:11 (Removes "was delivered of a child")
1 PETER 2:2 (Removes "of the word" concerning the milk of the word)
1 PETER 5:11 (Removes "glory")
1 JOHN 3:16 (Removes "of God" when concerning the Love of God)
1 JOHN 5:13 (Removes last 13 words)
2 JOHN 1:3 (Removes "the Lord" yet again attacking the deity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
JUDE 1:25 (Removes "wise" as an attribute to God)
REVELATION 11:17 (Removes "and art to come" which also attacks Jesus' deity)
REVELATION 12:12 (Removes "inhabiters of" when talking of the troubles awaiting the people of the earth. Woe to the inhabiters, not just the earth)
REVELATION 20:9 (Removes "from God out of" )
REVELATION 20:12 (Removes "of them which are saved" which is an important notation because the verse does not speak to all nations as the Amplified implies)


There are numerous other verses that remove words. There are even numerous times that complete verses are removed. I didn't include many because I not listing those verses that words have been put into italics, brackets, and/or footnotes. Placing words in those, if you read the preface explaining the italics and brackets and footnotes, really makes a reader feel that those words are not the words of God, since they were moved or counted less important to be placed in the actual text.


Okay, I will give you a list of verses that either add or change word(s).


MATTHEW 6:27 (Adds "or to the span of his life" at the end)
MATTHEW 12:6 (Changes "one greater" to "something greater")
MATTHEW 12:40 (Changes "whale" to "sea monster")
MATTHEW 16:18 (Changes "hell" to "hades" which is defined as "underground abode of the dead according to mythology" So they are putting mythology with the Bible! The do this so many times!)
MATTHEW 19:17 (Changes "Thy callest thou me good" to "Why do you ask Me about the perfectly and essentially good?" This one changes the meaning completely! )
MARK 3:29 (Changes "eternal damnation" to "everlasting trespass" which denotes everlasting sin, changing the meaning)
MARK 12:40 (Changes "greater damnation" to "heavier [sentence of] condemnation" Damnation and condemnation have two different meanings. Thus this changes the meaning)
MARK 13:6 (Changes "I am Christ" to "I am [He]")
LUKE 16:23 (Changes once again "hell" into "hades")
JOHN 3:16 (Changes the meaning of "begotten" to "unique" by putting "unique" in parenthesis after "begotten." Clearly obvious due to it's other numerous uses, Begotten shows to mean to "give birth to," Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the only Son of God who was born physically. Others, Christians who are blessed to be called the sons of God, are not born that way, but rather come to be that by the grace of God through the precious blood of Jesus)
JOHN 5:29 (Changes "damnation" to "Judgment" changing the meaning)
JOHN 9:4 (Changes "I" to "We" changing the meaning again)
JOHN 14:2 (Changes "mansions" to "dwelling places" and this lessens the glory of what Jesus is building for us in heaven)
ACTS 17:16 (Changes "stirred" to "roused to anger")
ACTS 17:22 (Changes "superstitious" to "religious" which changes the meaning)
ACTS 17:29 (Changing "Godhead" to "Deity" and puts "The Godhead" in parenthesis, taking it out of the original text)
ACTS 19:35 (Changes "worshipper" to "guardian" which has a very different meaning)
ROMANS 1:25 (Changes "Changed" to "Exchanged" which changes the meaning)
ROMANS 14:10 (Changes "judgment seat of Christ" to "judgment seat of God")
ROMANS 15:19 (Changes "God" to "Holy Spirit")
1 CORINTHIANS 9:27 (Changes "castaway" to "become unfit")
1 CORINTHIANS 11:29 (Changes "damnation" to "a sentence")
1 CORINTHIANS 14:33 (Changes "author of confusion" to "a God of disorder" which does change the meaning)
2 CORINTHIANS 2:10 (Changes "person of Christ" to "in the presence [and with the approval] of Christ" changing the meaning of the verse)
2 CORINTHIANS 2:17 (Changes "corrupt" to "peddle" changing the meaning)
2 CORINTHIANS 11:6 (Changes "rude in speech" to "unskilled in speaking")
GALATIANS 5:4 (Changes "Christ is become of no effect to you" to "you are brought to nothing and so separated (severed) from Christ" which has a different meaning)
PHILIPPIANS 2:6 (Changes "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained" MAJOR change here is what is being said--this change completely turns the verse around. And an important verse at that!)
PHILIPPIANS 3:8 (Changes "dung" to "rubbish")
1 THESSALONIANS 5:22 (Changes "all appearance of evil" to "evil in whatever form or whatever kind it may be")
1 TIMOTHY 6:5 (Changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness or righteousness is a source of profit" And this changes the meaning )
1 TIMOTHY 6:19 (Changes "eternal life" to "that which is life indeed")
2 TIMOTHY 3:3 (Changes "of those that are good" to "good")
1 PETER 2:2 (Changes "grow thereby" to "grow unto [complete] salvation" which causes a reader to believe their salvation is something to grow into, and isn't even complete yet)
2 PETER 2:1 (Changes "damnable heresies" to "heretical doctrines (destructive heresies)" this changes the meaning)
REVELATION 2:13 (Changes "Satan's seat" to "where Satan sits enthroned" and this change gives lifts Satan up, gives him glory actually)
REVELATION 6:8 (Changes "hell" to "hades" once again)
REVELATION 8:13 (Changes "angel" to "eagle" which are two very different creatures!)
REVELATION 15:3 (Changes "King of saints" to "O Sovereign of the ages (King of the nations)" changing the meaning)
REVELATION 20:12 (Changes "God" to "throne")
REVELATION 20:13 (Changes "hell" to "hades")
REVELATION 20:14 (Changes "hell" to "hades" again)
REVELATION 22:14 (Changes "do his commandments" to "cleanse their garments")




Also, two other clear changes/additions that don't make sense and cause confusion:
The Amplified Bible calls the "leviathan" a crocodile! If you read the descriptions of the leviathan you will see attributes that don't go with a crocodile (even using the Amplified Bible's own verses):
Job 41
Verse 2 implies that none could put a rope around his nose, but herpetologists do it often to move or catch the crocodile.
Verse 13 says (Amplified Bible): "Who can strip off [the crocodile's] outer garment? . . . " And yet many apparently can being as there are alligator and crocodile skin apparels.
Verses 18-20 speaks how fire and sparks and such come out of the leviathan's mouth and throat, yet have you even heard of a crocodile doing that?
Verse 22 says the neck is the leviathan's strength, yet the tail is the main strength of a crocodile, even outdoing the muscles in it's jaw
Verse 25 speaks of the leviathan's, or crocodile as the Amplified states, ability to raise himself up . . . but a crocodile cannot do that. A Crocodile is on all fours at all times unless swimming.
So the Amplified Bible many times in Job Chapter 41 alone incorrectly places "crocodile" as another name for "leviathan"


The other one is Job Chapter 40, about the behemoth. The Amplified Bible names the behemoth as a hippopotamus. Let's look at verses to check that out, again using the Amplified Bible's own verses:
Verse 17 states that his tail is like a cedar tree. No hippopotamus has a tail like a cedar tree!
Verse 20: If the mountains brought the behemoth's food, where all the wild animals play, then surely the hippopotamus is not the behemoth for the hippopotamus is very territorial and would not eat "where all the wild animals play."
Verse 21 says the behemoth lies under lotus trees, but a hippopotamus doesn't go lying around underneath lotus trees.

source: http://members.aol.com/hisservant77/AmplifiedList.html

More on the changes the Amplified bible makes:
http://members.aol.com/hisservant77/Amplified.html


.

 

[Relic]

Ronald Reagan &
The King James Bible

The following transcript is one of Ronald Reagan's famous radio addresses. In this address (which aired September 6, 1977), Ronald Reagan, the great orator, eloquently gives his thoughts on the "Good News Bible" (also called the Good News for Modern Man and Today's English Version) in comparison to the Authorized Version or the King James Bible. emphasis added

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?


I'll be right back. . .

Writing in the journal "The Alternative", Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.

Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote "make the Bible more readable & understandable" unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, "For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper." He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language."

They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it's peak of richness & beauty.

Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, "the natural English of everyday adult conversation." I'm sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.

Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said "How forcible are right words!" [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying "Honest words are convincing." That's only for openers. There is the passage [Ecclesiastes 1:18], "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow". Is it really an improvement to say instead, "The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts."

In the New Testament, in Matthew, we read "The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way." [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, "Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready." It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.

The hauntingly beautiful Psalm 23:1-6 is the same in both versions, for a few words, "The Lord is my shepherd" but instead of continuing "I shall not want" we are supposed to say "I have everything I need."

The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words "Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" has become, "Don't be afraid! I am here with good news for you."

The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.

 aired September 6, 1977

“ Indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book.
~ Ronald Reagan ~

The King James Bible, Newsweek, Dec. 27, 1982 p.46 â€Â





source: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/reagan.html
.

 

[Steve]

BTW-The King James has consistently outsold all others since its inception. It's for true Christians who want the real word of God and not some New Age version for kiddies who don't know any better and refuse the truth. ...

:smt023



You could say that again! :smt045


.

That would be tragic if it weren't so funny. :

 

[Steve]

The modern versions of the Bible have not 'left out' anything.

The King James Version has ADDED to the Scriptures. personally, I don't want any added words or verses in the Scripture that really don't belong there; thus, it is the King James, and not the modern versions, which has twisted the Scriptures.

If anybody wants to read an outdated, arcane, archaic version of the Scriptures, you are more than welcome to do so. this is America. For the moment, anyway. So, knock yourselves out.

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.

 

[Relic]

The modern versions of the Bible have not 'left out' anything.

The King James Version has ADDED to the Scriptures. personally, I don't want any added words or verses in the Scripture that really don't belong there; thus, it is the King James, and not the modern versions, which has twisted the Scriptures.

If anybody wants to read an outdated, arcane, archaic version of the Scriptures, you are more than welcome to do so. this is America. For the moment, anyway. So, knock yourselves out.

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.

The modern versions of the Bible have not 'left out' anything.

The King James Version has ADDED to the Scriptures.

:o

Well then, you can knock yourselves out. :-?






By the way, the word of God is never outdated, arcane or archaic.


.

 

[Steve]

That is true. The Word of God is never outdated, archaic, or arcane.

The King James Version is, however.

 

[Relic]

That is true. The Word of God is never outdated, archaic, or arcane.

The King James Version is, however.

Only by your standards, Steve.

The King James Versions is not outdated! You dare act as if the King James Bible is to be replaced ? :smt018

I will never stop using the King James Bible. The publishers can continue to publish their many different new age versions. I'll pass thank you.


You keep your bible. I'll keep mine.
Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Relic]

.


Sorry Steve, I most definately agree with Solo and the others here .

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 336#248336

and D46
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 956#250956

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 156#250156

this link about the Amplified bible:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 035#251035

and of course, our late president Ronald Reagan
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 039#251039




But yes, Solo said it so well:

The kJV is about the worst version that could possibly be used today, with its 800+ archaic, misleading, and completely different word meanings for today. It also uses very late and very poor manuscripts that were very hastily put together by Desederius Erasmus. They simply did not have access to the very early manuscripts and papyri that we have today, some dating back to the late first century. Whether some folks like it or not, the KJV is completely out of the running, and they are far behind while the rest of the world moves on.

A profound lie. Amazing! :roll:

Fort accuracy one needs a formal equivalent translation, and that would be the NASB and the ESV. The HCSB is a good runner-up. The NRSV is a broadly literal translation, which is great vogue with the academic community. It overdoes the inclusive language. After much study, there IS reason to use inclusive language, so I do not protest it as much as I formerly did. The ESV uses it well, and even could be a bit more inclusive. The ESV Translation Committee is at work on a revision of the ESV, which should be out next year.

Your opinion of Hort and Westcott? Your opinion of the Textus Receptus? Your opinion on the Vulgate?

The TNIV is a HORRIBLE piece of work, and I do not recommend it to anybody.

Agreed! :D

There is a TNIV 2 coming out shortly, and hopefully, they have rectified a lot of the grossities that are inherent in this awful translation.

Don't hold your breath! :wink:

The New Jerusalem Bible is an excellent, excellent translation. It includes the Apocrypha, though. I have suggested to Thomas Nelson that they attempt to print the excellent New American Bible without the Apocrypha. They seemed interested. I also suggested to Zondervan that they re-release the Modern language Bible, also an excellent work.

Then you will make all of the New Agers, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox bunce mad!

There are Many fine translations available today, and the New Living Translation Second edition of 2004, is one of them. a very professionally done translation and very understandable.
There is NO perfect English translation, because all our copies are in Greek and Hebrew, and you cannot bring over all the idoms and the like into English. we do the best we can, as poor, imperfect human beings.

I dunno, the English speaking countries of the world have done more for the spreading of the Word of God, then any other.

To those people who TEAR DOWN the modern translations of the Bible:
YOU ARE SPEAKING ILL OF GOD'S WORD AND YOU NEED TO STOP IT.
Even the KJ translators stated that they were not producing a perfect work, and they looked forward to other and better translations, which we now have.

I find it sad that you will warn those that point out the problems with the modern translations of the Bible, that they are "speaking ill of God's word" and "to stop it", while you speak ill of God's Word in the KJV. :smt017

.