Fake KJV Bibles Coming Out
Did any of you know that there are fake Bibles being circulated that are stamped "King James Version?" Altered: Leviticus 17-18, Romans 1, Titus, Genesis and Revelation changed translations in Greek and Hebrew. Items in the Torah and Tanakh are also changed!
Join Our Christian Dating and Take The False Teachers Bible Quiz
---Carol on 3/14/06
Helpful Blog Vote (4)
|
|
I just read on the JW's site all about how their bible was written and how they have written their own kjv and hebrew bible..no doubt it is written to support their cultish belief..interesting too how Nathan Knorr and Franz and nephew wrote their bible full of errors, then call the kjv a bible written by pagans..Russell their founder was pagan..and bult Beth Sarim for Jacob etc lol.has anyone seen Jacob,Isaach etc???? let me know please |
|
---josh on 5/26/08 |
Carol, since we have not seen any of these, can you please say how those passages have been changed.
Thanks |
|
---alan_of_uK on 5/13/08 |
Are there enough christians out there who are "well-read" in their Bibles to even notice? |
|
---tommy3007 on 7/29/07 |
Jack ... Tofurabby is correct on the matter of copyright.
The thing becomes copyright because of the amendments or additions made to it. I have a Thompson's KJV study bible which is copyright 1988 |
|
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/30/06 |
Jack, the KJV has no copyright... you have a version where a publisher has added illustrations and probably notes or references. That would be copyrightable I would assume... but not the KJV itself. It is free to be reproduced. Many publishers do add things like study notes so they can add a copyright to their specific additions. |
|
---tofurabby on 8/30/06 |
** Did any of you know that there are fake Bibles being circulated that are stamped "King James Version?" Altered:**
Et reliqua.
There are for the most part 2 versions of the KJV in circulation: one the English recension of 1769, the other the American Bible Society version of 1904, normalized according to American spellings.
Printing errors and variants have kept people who keep up with such things busy and happy for hours. |
|
---Jack on 8/30/06 |
**Does anyone have a 1611 that has the added words in italics?**
I have a reprint of the 1611 KJV that has some of such phrases in italics, but this was not a consistent use until the 1769 recension.
The Apocrypha was part of ALL major English Bibles up through the ERV of 1881 and RSV of 1952. The first major English version to omit it was the New American Standard Version of the 1960's. Rather late in the day, don't you think? |
|
---Jack on 8/30/06 |
** greetings,carol, there are not any copyright laws protecting the bible and has never been.**
Not true.
The KJV is still under Crown Copyright in the UK, according to the notice in a beautifully illustrated KJV Gospel Book from England I have.
It's being under copyright in the UK is why it could not be printed in North America until AFTER the Revolution. |
|
---Jack on 8/30/06 |
The original 1st edition did not have italics. It used a smaller typeface, unboldened and different font for the inserted words. |
|
---tofurabby on 8/30/06 |
The reasons assigned by the KJV translators for not admitting the Apocryphal books as inspired Scriptures are:
1. none were written in Hebrew (exclusive language used by OT authors)
2. none have claims for inspiration
3. never acknowledged by the Jewish church
4. contain contradictions to themselves and other canonical scriptures
5. include doctrinal variances from canonical scriptures.
6. teaches immoral practices (lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incarnation) |
|
---tofurabby on 8/30/06 |
greetings,carol, there are not any copyright laws protecting the bible and has never been.international copyright law did not become effective until 1955.the question is, who is holding a holy bible?the reader who becomes comfortable with the pages therein will eventually claim this new bible is the word of God and it is as others is, divinly inspired by the hand of God.what bible is an unedited specimen of authenticity?considering there is a multitude of various versions,what is the truth? |
|
---earl on 8/30/06 |
Does anyone have a 1611 that has the added words in italics? My 1611 doesn't and thus the added words and phrases are considered Scripture. My newer edition KJV does have added words in italics thus changing the entire meaning of verses. Which KJV is correct? |
|
---john on 8/30/06 |
In the preface the transaltors of the KJV included the Apocrypha when they stated they translated the holy manuscripts the best they could. I can see no evidence indicating that they were not in agreement with the Apocrypha. Does anyone have any credible evidence that the translators didn't want the Apocrypha in there in the first place? As far as I can see from history it was included, as Scripture, in all KJV from 1611 to around 1900. So how can anyone say there have been no changes? |
|
---john on 8/30/06 |
The KJV has no copyright. Another myth to go along with the major revisions. Spelling changes... hardly a revision. Tell me, how did the NIV spell the words in these scriptures: Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24 (they did a little more than change spelling... oh, I'm sorry, and punctuation) |
|
---tofurabby on 8/30/06 |
carol, this is just another ploy to attack the KJV bible and owners of KJVs as it is the most popular bible which has 99% of the original...the rest of the modern ones are full of errors and some texts missing...yes, they are easily understood but watch out for the errors..you can easily be deceived |
|
---jana on 8/30/06 |
Jack I'm in U.K. and have umpteen KJV bibles. Not one of them has the Apocrypha. The KJV is not copyright here but other versions such as N.I.V. are copyright. |
|
---M.P. on 5/15/06 |
Jack, It is public domain here. The apocrypha was removed in the late 1880's. The origninal translators did not want to include them, but were forced which is why they separated them from the old and new testament rather than mixing them in like the catholic bible. In the end, it doesnt matter to me if you have a bible that includes it or not (but I believe those books have many errors). I would like to have a 1611 reproduction but they are to expensive. |
|
---chris on 5/14/06 |
Notice:
"Carol" started this 3/14/06 and has never supplied any facts about the allegations made, despite requests to do so. |
|
---John_T on 5/14/06 |
obviously the producers of "fake Bibles" are not taking seriously God's prophetic warning within the Holy Scriptures themself, not to add or to take away from God's words, else God will add to him the plagues written in the Scripture and remove him from the book of life and the holy city. |
|
---Eloy on 5/14/06 |
Chris--I'm curious to know who this "they" is you say removed the Apocrypha. Since readings from it form part of daily Morning and Evening prayer in the Church of England, and the Church of England still holds the KJV under Crown Copyright, it's illegal in the UK to print a KJV that does NOT have the Apocrypha.
I won't have a mangled KJV in my house. All my copies of the KJV are complete ones. |
|
---Jack on 5/14/06 |
Jack, The KJV revisions were just as you stated ... spelling changes. It is still word for word. They did remove the apocrapha which they didnt want to have in there to begin with. Hardly anything that destroys its legitimacy.
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darknesse was vpon the face of the deepe... |
|
---chris on 5/12/06 |
My sources say 4 English revisions and one American revision, as I described.
The point is the King James Bible "as originally writeen" doesn't exist because the first printed edition had around 12 changes ordered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the fair copy delivered to the printer was lost long since. |
|
---Jack on 5/12/06 |
Jack, I think there are acctually 7 revisions to the KJV. Each one justified and none changing any scriptural context, mainly cosmetics. as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. :) |
|
---chris on 5/10/06 |
Bob, the Living Bible is a paraphrase of the American STandard Version of 1901, NOT the KJV. Read its own preface! (The New Living Bible is something entirely different.)
As a paraphrase, it's basically a glorified Bible story book. |
|
---Jack on 5/10/06 |
A lot of people don't know that the KJV has had 5 major revisions.
The last revision in England was in 1769.
The American Bible Society published a recension normalized according to American spellings.
There is a reprint of the original 1611 KJV by Thomas Nelson. In one verse, Ephesians 2:8, there are 11 changes in spelling in punctuation compared with KJV versions readily available today. |
|
---Jack on 5/10/06 |
danie
Thanks for the good guess work, most likely, you are right. Unfortunately, Carol has not responded since the original post.
Your comment makes the thread morph into the KJV only debate area. That will be an interesting, though often rehashed discussion. |
|
---John_T on 3/27/06 |
John_T and others: I've been doing some searching, and think Carol (or whomever she listend to) may have the "21st Century KJV Bible" (or "KJV21") in mind; only a guess though. IOW, she got her info from someone merely complaining about another version using 'KJV' as part of its title... not trying to pass itself off as some kind of 'replica' of any original edition. So, the conclusion would be: Any Bible that isn't exactly like KJV, she's been led to call 'fake' (maybe the NKJV?). |
|
---danie9374 on 3/27/06 |
Carol:
Are you still reading this thread?
No one here wants to "scare you" rather, we want to get facts so that we can deal with the issue you present. |
|
---John_T on 3/26/06 |
Donna, The Living Bible is a paraphrased version of the time tested KJV of scriptures, some verses are combined, Word changes, etc are so noted.
It helped in my early years. I now use a Scofield Reference Bible [30+ years] without red ink [knowing the inks meaning] as The Lord impressed into my spirit man [Jn.10:1-'5']. 'He's' never been wrong yet though, 'I' erred as a baby christian in my zeal. A wise pastor said "study your bible". Now God's Word speaks for me [II Tim.2:16, Heb.1:1-3]. |
|
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 3/22/06 |
I thought the troll lived under the rickety-rackety bridge. An unpleasant character, but he ended up by being kicked away by Big Billy Goat Gruff |
|
---alan_of_uK on 3/21/06 |
When I was a child a troll was a character in a fairy story. He lived under a bridge and everyone was afraid to cross it. Three billy goats featured in the story also but I forget what happened except that they tricked the troll in some way so that they were able to cross the bridge. From where did this new use of the word come? My version is much better. |
|
---emg on 3/21/06 |
A troll is a person who starts a thread, gets people upset, and does not respond. The troll gets a kick out of outhers fighting, thus the description.
I referred ONLY to this thread, not others, so what Daniel said is partially accurate. She may not be a true troll, but her absence here, and refusal to provide proof (asked for twice) of her allegations made me suspicious. |
|
---John_T on 3/21/06 |
John_T AND ALL others: I should have mentioned that my comments were based on LOOKING UP "Carol"'s last posts and noting the dates! If you click on your own name to get a page of last 10 posts, you can enter someone else's name at the very end of the URL; so that's how I looked up "Carol." Of course, that's no guarantee it's the same person in this post, but seems like it. What has 'Carol' done elsewhere led you to think she's trolling? |
|
---danie9374 on 3/20/06 |
What is a troll? And what is "troll-like" behavior. This is a new term to me. |
|
---Donna2277 on 3/20/06 |
danie: Since when is truth rude? I described her behavior and absence as troll-like behavior. That is not being rude, nor name calling; it is observing the obvious.
I also notice she still has not responded to the legitimate questions of me, or another, asking for proof.
I do agree that she may be misinformed, just like those people who write about FCC petitions and atheists. That is why we asked for proof. I see nothing wrong with that, or describing things. |
|
---John_T on 3/20/06 |
Carol: Please message me with any specifics about what you stated; I'd like to know more details of where you got this information!
John_T: From what little "Carol" has written at CN, what you said is rather rude! Do we know if she's here all the time? I doubt it! Also seems she's upset about what someone told her; not trolling, prob. only misinformed. |
|
---danie9374 on 3/17/06 |
I have found read several bibles, I use on a daily bases is KJV in Thompson-Chain Reference. I have found out in my experience that I prefer the KJV-T-C-R (what I stated above). I understand it better than the others. People will always change the bible so it will fit into their lifestyles. |
|
---Rebecca_D on 3/16/06 |
Yes The Living Bible is a paraphrase. It is T.L.B. that got me interested in reading the bible thoroughly. I soon grew out of that version but I'm very glad that I bought one. |
|
---emg on 3/16/06 |
Carol: Are you being serious? You make an accusation, but provide no proof, despite being asked for it. Nor have you responded. That seems to be similar to the behavior of a troll.
The rest of us: There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect translation. Unless we can read Hebrew and Greek, we MUST trust godly scholars.
BTW The KJV is taken from some of the most unreliable manuscripts, yet it is highly accurate. No one reads the 1611 version, most KJVs are retranslations from 1750s(?) |
|
---John_T on 3/15/06 |
John, I will stay with the 1611 but I doubt if I will be quiet, especially when I read a corrupt perversion version. |
|
---shira on 3/15/06 |
john, I have a copy of the KJV, published in 1640, before the changes were introduced.
There are no major changes between the 1640 and one I purchased in 1978. The changes are mostly in the realm of language use, the KJV was a very earthy translation, as was th original, and mostly the cleanup was along the lines of traditional Victorian usage, urine replace the more common pee for example. |
|
---mike6553 on 3/15/06 |
[2] We're not even sure which of the TWO different 'first editions' of the KJV to call original, but as others have pointed out, both of them and MANY many editions afterwards all have variations in them! It seems this is the first time you've heard there are differences between most Greek (and much lesser extent, Hebrew) manuscripts! I'd be glad to answer any specific questions you may have about this. |
|
---Daniel on 3/15/06 |
[1] Carol, It appears you were listening to someone else and/who got things mixed up! "Tanakh" (or "TaNaCh") is a word Jews use to refer to the whole Hebrew Scriptures; not part of it! It stands for "_T_orah" (the Law; first 5 books), "_N_evi'im" (the Prophets) and "_K_etuvim" (the Writings). What do you mean by "items"? As to "fake," that could mean just about anything depending upon how critical you want to get! [CONT.] |
|
---Daniel on 3/15/06 |
Bob6748--I thought "the Living Bible" was a paraphrase, not a translation. Am I thinking of the wrong book? |
|
---Donna on 3/15/06 |
'Easier to understand is not more accurate.' True but nor are the difficult to understand ones necessarily. Just look at how many times you find, in some versions, the words "These verses are not found in the original text" Some of the modern versions have simply removed those added verses making them, I would have thought, more accurate. |
|
---emg on 3/15/06 |
Shira. If you have a copy of the opriginal 1611 you would not have to read very far to see there are literally thousands of changes. Words, phrases,spelling, puncuations,etc. I agree with you that the context has not changed. But the context of this new version probably hasn't changed either. People get all upset about this new one when in fact they are reading new ones all the time. Those who are 1611 fans should go back to the 1611 or keep quiet. |
|
---john on 3/15/06 |
I've always preferred the original KJV bible with the thee's, tho's, thou's & a good bible dictionary/concordance. God speak's to individuals today [Heb.1:1-3] in line with His scriptures.
A lot of reputable Christians quote sciptures that "check" my spirit. Easier to understand is not more accurate.
Tyndale's Living bible is an exellent, easy to understand, & accurate, most word changes are in brackets. Just be careful. When in doubt, throw them out [Gal.5:9]. |
|
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 3/15/06 |
I have a copy of the original 1611 version of KJ. The reading is old English, but it is not different in context than my King James. |
|
---shira on 3/15/06 |
Who is the publisher? What is the ISBN Number? What is the copyright and publication date.
Is it some form of original language parallel Bible as most KJV don't contain Greek Hebrew text. Read the Preface of the edition, if there is a translation committee associated with it It will usually tell what their agenda is. If it is a parrallel Bible what Greek and Hebrew source text are used. |
|
---notlaw99 on 3/14/06 |
The K.J.V. has been modified many times since 1611. I doubt that any of us has the real 1611 version. Every time it's changed people get upset. The newer K.J.V. are much better than the originals. I am not in agreement with changes that are false but I am in agreement with changes that better explain the truth. |
|
---john on 3/14/06 |
The great deception is underway. The true Bible says so. The signs are all here. Prepare, prepare, prepare. |
|
---Lynn on 3/14/06 |
Just asking for information...did the changes involve a word or two? Were whole passages changed in meaning? What sort of changes were they? |
|
---Donna on 3/14/06 |
|
|
|
