Which translation and why?

[ahimsaman72]

1. It's filled with historical and scientific errors. Therefore, it is not infallible.

2. Changing pronouns from him to them or from him to child really isn't going to change the overall message in the text.

Woody

1. Where are these by the way? Just because people do not understand them or can't study doesn't mean they are wrong.

You can find them all over the internet in an instant. Some play nice, some don't. Here's one:

Atheism

2. Didn't point those out - How about:
Mic 5:2 - the everlasting has been changed to a variation tht includes "days" or "from ancient days." depending on which version. This says Jesus was not from everlasting - big change

Without my study tools, I would venture to guess this relates to the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek word "aeon" which can denote different periods or ages of time and can or cannot denote eternality. They are just using textual criticism to arrive at the best answer. Does this change YOUR mind about His eternality? Has it ever changed anyone's mind about His eternal nature? I doubt it.

Dan. 3:25 where "is like the Son of God." is changed to something like.."a son of the gods."

His appearance as a divine being still remains. The KJV translators intentionally placed this capital "Son" and "God" there because of their own bias. A critical view of the text that replaces this still gets the point across.

The above 2 should be sufficient but here is just one link of many which are out there.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/de ... rsions.htm

God bless

My friend, there are many places that deal with these issues. I'll state my case this way: I believe in limited inerrancy of Scriptures. Inerrancy for parts that pertain to faith and morals, and acceptance of errors in other areas. If you don't view it this way, that means that the scientific errors we can find can be attributed to the Holy Spirit, who is without error. So, you are attributing errors to the error-less. Is that the view of the Holy Spirit you want?

Anyone who adheres to strict inerrancy of the entire text has to deal with these problems.

Peace...

Woody

 

[JM]

Inerrancy for parts that pertain to faith and morals, and acceptance of errors in other areas. If you don't view it this way, that means that the scientific errors we can find can be attributed to the Holy Spirit, who is without error.

Do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?

Do you believe in the fall of man?

Do you believe sin is passed on thru Adam?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Inerrancy for parts that pertain to faith and morals, and acceptance of errors in other areas. If you don't view it this way, that means that the scientific errors we can find can be attributed to the Holy Spirit, who is without error.

Do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?

Do you believe in the fall of man?

Do you believe sin is passed on thru Adam?

Adam and Eve could be symbols only. I believe there was a man and woman in the beginning. Given that Adam's name means "mankind" and Eve's name means "life" or "life-giving", these could be proper names or representations of the first parents. Historically, they were probably real people.

The fall of man is a doctrine that is spoken of throughout the entire Bible, so yes, I would tend to believe in this fall of man. And with Tradition of the Church throughout the ages backing it up, it's a pretty sure bet.

According to the whole Bible, sin was passed on thru Adam, with Christ being the "new man" who redeems us. And, again, with Tradition of the Church believing this to be true, I would tend to agree.

I'm not sure what the last two questions have to do with anything, but I can certainly understand your first question and its historical significance to the discussion.

Peace...

Woody

 

[AVBunyan]

Adam and Eve could be symbols only. I believe there was a man and woman in the beginning. Given that Adam's name means "mankind" and Eve's name means "life" or "life-giving", these could be proper names or representations of the first parents. Historically, they were probably real people.

Woody - may I respectfully suggest that since it appears you believe very little and take very little in the scriptures to mean what they say they mean then throw out all scripture and follow your own thoughts and ways and in the mean time...grab a bottle, get drunk, stay drunk, and forget it for you have no hope with a belief like you have in the scriptures. :o

 

[cyberjosh]

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, “Welcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry’s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I’m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let’s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?â€Â

Bob, “Well, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn’t read Jesus wept but that “Jesus groaned.â€Â

Mary, “Interesting, you know the Greek word there for wept is ‘awahuu’ – I got this from Nestle.â€Â

Bill, “Wow, profound!â€Â

Bob, “But my version, The “Newest English Super Common Version†says grunt.â€Â

Jack, “You mean Jesus grunted?!?!â€Â

Mike: “My new “Authentic Expository Rendition†matches Vaticanus! And didn’t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: “Yes, they did – maybe they should have left it there.â€Â

Harry, “I have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, ‘awahooie’ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek – makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!â€Â

Elder Dim Whit, “I can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!â€Â

Bill, “Harry, where did you learn Greek?â€Â

Harry, “I don’t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, “How to Master Greek in 30 Days.â€Â

Martha, “Well, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned.â€Â

Martha, “You have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can’t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality.â€Â

AV, “What am I missing here – we are only talking about two words.â€Â

Harry, “Hush, AV, you’ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?â€Â

Elder Dim Whit, “Hush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can’t even speak English?
Now let’s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?â€Â

Mr. Brilliant, “My new updated ‘Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible’ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart.â€Â

Mary, “Oh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget – thanks Mr. Brilliant.â€Â

Mr. Brilliant, “By the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers.â€Â

Harry, “I still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word ‘awahooe’ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word ‘awahooe’.

AV, “But how do you decide who is right?â€Â

Mike, “AV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?â€Â

Nancy, “How do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?â€Â

Neal, “I found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor’s Center, oh I mean the ‘Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts’ and he says it is there.â€Â

Nancy, “Wow, could the archeologists read Greek?â€Â

Neal, “No, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions.â€Â

Elder Dim Whit, “Well, ths great – I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let’s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available.â€Â

Mary, “You are not coming next week are you AV?â€Â

AV, “No, I think I’ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful.â€Â

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! :smt043

That hurt!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

“You mean Jesus grunted?!?!â€Â

Priceless!!!! *Dies laughing again*

 

[ahimsaman72]

Adam and Eve could be symbols only. I believe there was a man and woman in the beginning. Given that Adam's name means "mankind" and Eve's name means "life" or "life-giving", these could be proper names or representations of the first parents. Historically, they were probably real people.

Woody - may I respectfully suggest that since it appears you believe very little and take very little in the scriptures to mean what they say they mean then throw out all scripture and follow your own thoughts and ways and in the mean time...grab a bottle, get drunk, stay drunk, and forget it for you have no hope with a belief like you have in the scriptures. :o

Respectfully, I used to believe every jot and tittle, but after critical analysis and extensive study in certain doctrines, I came to the conclusion that translations were faulty and certain doctrines that were false were added or translated into the Scriptures to support them. I don't throw Scripture wholesale. But, I do look at it and honor it for what it is, but do not give it the unlimited and uncritical respect you give it.

God doesn't need the Bible to save your soul my friend or mine. He didn't need it to save Moses, Elijah, David, John the Baptist, all the apostles, etc. None of these people had the New Testament but still will have made it to heaven. You should adjust your worldview to accept that God doesn't need you or your words in a book to fulfill his plans. Think about that.

The God you serve is way too small and impotent. If He sees fit to allow me entrance that's great. If not, I suppose there's not much I can do. The difference between me and you is that I would never tell you that have not hope as you have done me. You don't know that because you are not the judge and neither is your fallible interpretation of the very Bible you claim to know.

You are now on my ignore list. ;-)

Peace...

Woody

 

[JM]

God doesn't need the Bible to save your soul my friend or mine. He didn't need it to save Moses, Elijah, David, John the Baptist, all the apostles, etc.

Are you Roman Catholic or Orthodox? That's where you are headed with ideas like that. You then need an absolute authority...is it you...is it the Pope?

None of these people had the New Testament but still will have made it to heaven.

They are in Christ, abided with the revelation given thru the OT priesthood, and showed faith as evidence of salvation.

You should adjust your worldview to accept that God doesn't need you or your words in a book to fulfill his plans.

True in a way. God sends the reprobate to hell without them even knowing the word or hearing a preacher many times. But it's also false in a way. God sent us instructions, we are a NT priesthood that has been given instruction found within the Bible, continued revelation in the form of His word has ceased.

Think about that.

Keep up the good work AV!

 

[AVBunyan]

Respectfully, I used to believe every jot and tittle, but after critical analysis and extensive study in certain doctrines, I came to the conclusion that translations were faulty and certain doctrines that were false were added or translated into the Scriptures to support them. Woody

How sad - listen up folks... here is where "critical analsys" can get you.
Woody rejects the King James Bible and the starts questioning things such as whether Adam and Eve really existed and out of this he has no assurance of salvation.

How can one even know if Calvary is real once you use "critical analsys" to judge the scriptures? :o

No final authority, no bible you can trust in = no hope in any salvaton, just a "I hope God accepts me???"

I do not gloat over this - this is tragic. All you folks who question the scriptures have helped produce a bunch of "Woody's" out here today. You folks will give an account for stuff like this. :evil:

 

[ahimsaman72]

God doesn't need the Bible to save your soul my friend or mine. He didn't need it to save Moses, Elijah, David, John the Baptist, all the apostles, etc.

[quote:5510f]
Are you Roman Catholic or Orthodox? That's where you are headed with ideas like that. You then need an absolute authority...is it you...is it the Pope?

Neither, although I was close to converting to the Catholic Church.

None of these people had the New Testament but still will have made it to heaven.

They are in Christ, abided with the revelation given thru the OT priesthood, and showed faith as evidence of salvation.

They had faith and the priesthood actually.

You should adjust your worldview to accept that God doesn't need you or your words in a book to fulfill his plans.

True in a way. God sends the reprobate to hell without them even knowing the word or hearing a preacher many times. But it's also false in a way. God sent us instructions, we are a NT priesthood that has been given instruction found within the Bible, continued revelation in the form of His word has ceased.

Think about that.

Keep up the good work AV!

[/quote:5510f]
God doesn't do such a thing. That's a protestant theological error.

Woody

 

[ahimsaman72]

If God and his teachings exist only in the KJV, then we are in a sad state of affairs. That means God lives in a vacuum of archaic words and isn't real. If you only trust in this collection of Scriptures to point you to God, then you will only experience God in a limited way.

Has anyone ever used contemplation and meditation and sat with God in silence to see what God can reveal to them? If not, I would recommend trying.

Just a sidenote...for KJV 1611 folks, why don't you actually follow the first edition 1611 which included the deuterocanonicals? Why have those been pushed aside? Do you accept the deutero's? If not, stop using your "original" 1611.

Woody

 

[JM]

If God and his teachings exist only in the KJV, then we are in a sad state of affairs.

Who wrote that? AV keeps saying that the AV1611 has the full and complete revelation.

That means God lives in a vacuum of archaic words and isn't real.

The simple fact is, people don't want to work for anything nowadays, "we need to make it easlier for them." What ever happened to "study to shew thyself approved?" The Bible has lost it's effect in modern speach which is filled with slang.

If you only trust in this collection of Scriptures to point you to God, then you will only experience God in a limited way.

Who wrote that? We trust in God and the Bible as the fullness of revelation.

Has anyone ever used contemplation and meditation and sat with God in silence to see what God can reveal to them?

How can they believe without a preacher? [That's from the Bible!] The believer has access to God thru Christ Jesus, not thru human effort, or "4 noble truths."

If not, I would recommend trying.

The Bible tells us, "there are known who seek God."

Just a sidenote...for KJV 1611 folks, why don't you actually follow the first edition 1611 which included the deuterocanonicals?

Because they are "deuterocanonicals." Look up the word to see what it means.

Why have those been pushed aside? Do you accept the deutero's? If not, stop using your "original" 1611.

Woody

I have an AV with the deuterocanonical books. I also have a copy without the preface, should I stop using it as well?

:D

Isn't ahimsa a concept Gandhi taught? Luk 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Are you a quasi-Christian/Hindu? Just wondering why you picked that name.

jm

 

[AVBunyan]

If God and his teachings exist only in the KJV, then we are in a sad state of affairs.

Nowhere have I said that only in the AV - there is truth in the modern versions - the fundementals of the faith are there and many of the verses match the King James so yes, there is truth in those modern versions but...but...there is alsoa lot of false doctrine, leaven, and vile teachings in there also.

Again, with feeling - because you can find the fundementals in a newer version does that make it a Bible? :o

I believe a King James Bible that you can get at any Walmart for $5.95 contains everything one needs to know when it comes to spritiual truths and.... a whole lot more. 8-)

The King James is the book on spiritual life and the final authority on everything in the universe.

I did not say it contains lessons on how to get to the moon but...but it will determine whether you should be there or not.

God bless

 

[ahimsaman72]

If God and his teachings exist only in the KJV, then we are in a sad state of affairs.

Who wrote that? AV keeps saying that the AV1611 has the full and complete revelation.

That means God lives in a vacuum of archaic words and isn't real.

The simple fact is, people don't want to work for anything nowadays, "we need to make it easlier for them." What ever happened to "study to shew thyself approved?" The Bible has lost it's effect in modern speach which is filled with slang.

[quote:c075f]If you only trust in this collection of Scriptures to point you to God, then you will only experience God in a limited way.

Who wrote that? We trust in God and the Bible as the fullness of revelation.

Has anyone ever used contemplation and meditation and sat with God in silence to see what God can reveal to them?

How can they believe without a preacher? [That's from the Bible!] The believer has access to God thru Christ Jesus, not thru human effort, or "4 noble truths."

If not, I would recommend trying.

The Bible tells us, "there are known who seek God."

Just a sidenote...for KJV 1611 folks, why don't you actually follow the first edition 1611 which included the deuterocanonicals?

Because they are "deuterocanonicals." Look up the word to see what it means.

Why have those been pushed aside? Do you accept the deutero's? If not, stop using your "original" 1611.

Woody

I have an AV with the deuterocanonical books. I also have a copy without the preface, should I stop using it as well?

:D

Isn't ahimsa a concept Gandhi taught? Luk 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Are you a quasi-Christian/Hindu? Just wondering why you picked that name.

jm[/quote:c075f]
Hi jm,

"Deuterocanonical books is a term used in the Catholic Church to describe certain books and passages of the Bible which were disputed among Christians in the early church as to whether they belonged in the Canon, in contrast to the protocanonical books which were not disputed. In the Old Testament, the scriptural texts described as deuterocanonical were contained, most importantly, in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament most commonly used by early Christians, but they were not popular among the Hebrew Jews, who excluded them from the Hebrew version around the year 100 A.D. This exclusion contributed to debate in the early church about their classification as canonical texts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

Yes, I'm afraid I do know the definition. Most of the time, KJV only persons say "1611 only, 1611 only!" but most don't realize that the apocrypha they reject as Catholic heresy was included in their blessed 1611 version. I'm glad to see that you accept them. :bday:

Ahimsa is a concept from Indian thought that is basically "non-harming, non-violence". I have followed this belief for years. Briefly, I was born Southern Baptist, almost converted to Catholicism, went through Buddhism and have sought reconciliation lately with God and am returning to my Christian roots. That's why I picked that name. It is who I am regardless of my religion.

Don't you believe in not harming others?

You all assume I don't know Scriptures. :roll: I know them as well as anyone. I read the Bible over and over since I was a kid until a few years ago, taught Sunday School and lived the whole fundamentalist life. I'll go head to head any day with Bible thumpers.

And, you forget Christ's words, "Blessed are the peaceful, for they will be called the sons of God".

Don't you believe in non-harming?

Peace...

Woody

 

[Preacher Boy]

What I mean by that is that for a hundred years, the KJV has been a stumbling-block because people DO NOT understand it.

Romans 10:13-16
(13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(14) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
(15) And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
(16) But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
(3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
(4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

How are these scriptures from an AV of the bible a hinderance to a heathen?

They seem simple enough to me!

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, “Welcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry’s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I’m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let’s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?â€Â

Bob, “Well, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn’t read Jesus wept but that “Jesus groaned.â€Â

Mary, “Interesting, you know the Greek word there for wept is ‘awahuu’ – I got this from Nestle.â€Â

Bill, “Wow, profound!â€Â

Bob, “But my version, The “Newest English Super Common Version†says grunt.â€Â

Jack, “You mean Jesus grunted?!?!â€Â

Mike: “My new “Authentic Expository Rendition†matches Vaticanus! And didn’t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: “Yes, they did – maybe they should have left it there.â€Â

Harry, “I have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, ‘awahooie’ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek – makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!â€Â

Elder Dim Whit, “I can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!â€Â

Bill, “Harry, where did you learn Greek?â€Â

Harry, “I don’t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, “How to Master Greek in 30 Days.â€Â

Martha, “Well, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned.â€Â

Martha, “You have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can’t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality.â€Â

AV, “What am I missing here – we are only talking about two words.â€Â

Harry, “Hush, AV, you’ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?â€Â

Elder Dim Whit, “Hush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can’t even speak English?
Now let’s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?â€Â

Mr. Brilliant, “My new updated ‘Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible’ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart.â€Â

Mary, “Oh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget – thanks Mr. Brilliant.â€Â

Mr. Brilliant, “By the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers.â€Â

Harry, “I still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word ‘awahooe’ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word ‘awahooe’.

AV, “But how do you decide who is right?â€Â

Mike, “AV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?â€Â

Nancy, “How do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?â€Â

Neal, “I found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor’s Center, oh I mean the ‘Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts’ and he says it is there.â€Â

Nancy, “Wow, could the archeologists read Greek?â€Â

Neal, “No, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions.â€Â

Elder Dim Whit, “Well, that is great – I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let’s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available.â€Â

Mary, “You are not coming next week are you AV?â€Â

AV, “No, I think I’ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful.â€Â

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! :smt043

That hurt!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

“You mean Jesus grunted?!?!â€Â

Priceless!!!! *Dies laughing again*

: : : :

Thats an instant classic!

The simple fact is, people don't want to work for anything nowadays, "we need to make it easlier for them." What ever happened to "study to shew thyself approved?" The Bible has lost it's effect in modern speach which is filled with slang.

Thats some good solid preaching right there brother!!!!!





OK so as to getting back to the actual point of this thread...

I use the Authorized Version, KJV, KJB, The Ole' Black Book, The Holy Bible...etc

Reasons?

-Its the Book I grew up on and memorized.

-Its the choice of my fellow like minded believers.

-Its most hated by the liberals.

-Its got two great phrases that the modern bibles leave out!

(James 1:21 "...filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness..."
& Act 17:5 "...certain lewd fellows of the baser sort...") hehe


Rgeardless of the changing times, I'll just stick with the Best News for modern man and my truly living bible, and regardless of who authorized the translation, King James, it is still the Words of God.

He commands us to obey all His Words, so He must have preserved them for us to obey.

There has got to be one that we can stick too, Ill stick with mine!

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


Fight as we may...Psalms 119:89
(89) Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

I am looking forward to my saviour's face one day ill see!!

 

[jgredline]

For those who follow my posts know that I use the NKJV, ESV and the NASB.. When I used to teach the adult sunday School cLASS i used the KJV as it was what was most were familiar with .. When I started a Bible study at work, mostly for employes who really had very little exposer to the bible, I decided to use the NIV. I taught this class using the NIV for about 1 month. Some people lost interest and stopped coming. It went from about 5-6 guys to 2.. I was bothered by it and brought it before the Lord. It was during that time of prayer and fasting that the Lord revealed to me why. It turns out that the guys that left could not read or write beyond about 3rd grade level. So once this was revealed to me, again I prayed about it. I decided that I was going to teach them how to read and write. I am talking starting out with the very basics.
Nouns, verbs, conjunctions, etc.. I went out and purchased a case of Bibles in the NLT.. Yes this paraphrase is what I was to use as the text book that I would use to teach them both to read, write and teach them about the Lord Jesus Christ.. Well once the word got out that I was teaching adults how to read and write, I had about 15-18 people with as many as 25 at times.. Well through the teaching I had over 15 people come to Know and accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. I placed everyone in a church close to their home. This went on for about 3 years until I became very Ill..
That is also why I stopped teaching for A while. Because I got very sick. I thought I was going to go home, but the Lord had other plans for me. What, I don't know yet.
The point of this post is simply this.
The Lord will use what he needs to use to save whom he will save.
In this case he used a paraphrase to reach his sheep.
So when I see this KJV only stuff, I have to say to myself. Did not the Apostle Paul tell us to avoid foolish controversies..

 

[Spirit Driven]

Im going to be honest with you guys... I used to read the KJV of the Bible years ago, I was so terrified of God, I was put off Christianity altogether, like many others are.
Did not want to know about God .... period.

Later in my life however I had an experience with the Holy Spirit, which caught me completly off guard, and was not expected in my life.

In hindsight I now know that it was my turn to be called, or as scripture tells us drawn to the Son by the Father who sent him, but the experience itself gave me some insights into God, that I had never known before.

Today the KJV for me is a comparision, I make to other Bibles that are correctly translated, some of the translations in KJV are assinine to say the least.

Never have I seen a document so prejudicialy interpreted by doctrine instead of meaning, as the KJV.

It should be burnt in my opinion.

The English of that period is a beutifull language indeed and beutifull to read, why am I left with the feeling Satan was also aware of this.

There is absolutly no doubt in my mind at all, that the people who translated the KJV will be at the head of the Que at the Great White Throne Judgement, for tampering with Gods word..... no doubt in my mind about that at all.....


Grace and Peace to you all

 

[Steve]

Well!!!!!!! :D

I don't think the KJ is THAT bad, Spirit. I do indeed feel it has 'added' to the word of God in many places. It is not that the modern versions have 'left things out'; it is that the KJ as ADDED things, and who wants from a Bible that has added to the Word of God. Don't worry---in time it will fade away, just like the ASV, the Geneva, the Coverdale, et al.

Regarding the NLT, it is not a paraphrase. Although it was originally built upon the Living Bible, which was a paraphrase, the NLT is a Dynamic Equivalent translation. There are two editions of the NLT, the first from 1996, and the second edition of 2004. The Second Edition has vastly tightened things up. For what they did, the translators did a magnificent job on the NLT, but, it misses in quite a few places. It also uses inclusive language, which I personally do not appreciate.

What I tell people who find mistakes in their translation is this: there's a wonderful little invention called a ballpoint pen. You take that pen and draw a line through the incorrect word; e.g., the NIV's 'capstone', and write in the correct word, 'cornerstone.' VOILA! Problem solved.

 

[jgredline]

Steve
I respectfully disagree with what you said regarding the NLT.
It is a paraphrase.. People can say what they want but it is not a word for word.. If anything it would more word for thought like the NIV but even that would not be accrurate. Dynamic equivalent to me is a fancy word for paraphrase. What I have told my students is that the NLT is more like a commentary and a good one at that.. To use it with your KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, and you will come away with a rich understanding of the scriptures. No dought the translators did A good job with it, but should be left for those drinking milk..
Blessings, steve
Javier

 

[golfjack]

reply

What about the Amplified Version? I once went to a Preyspetarian Bible study, and they handed me a sheet that give all the reasons to use The KJV Only version. Also, they gave me verses that they say proves how one can lose their salvation. Needless to say, I never went back. Today, this church has split and become very liberal. They belong to the National Council of Churches, which to me is part of the Apostate church. One more comment: Does anyone use a thompson chain linc Bible KJV. version. I used this for study at Rhema.



May God bless, golfjack

 

[jgredline]

Golf
Personally I use the Thompson Chain referance bible.
I have it in the KJV, NASB AND NKJV..
i AGREE with you 100% on the pres, church.
As far as the amplified bible goes, I too have one of those and I like it. I really should refer to it more than I do, But I do think its a good translation.
IMO..
blessings,
Jg