ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Translation Of The Bible

Which translation of the Bible do you prefer? King James, or others? Why do you prefer it?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Reba on 8/15/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



"Dishonest and evasive."
About what? The fact is that Greber's translation had no connection with the translation of the NWT nor was it ever consulted. It was simply listed along with other versions which similarly translated Jn.1:1. That's it. The Boogey man has left the building.

Whatever knowledge the WTS initially had about Greber's weird connection with the 'spirit world' they have stated:

"This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1...The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)" WT 4/1/1983 pg. 31
---scott on 8/22/11


"Dishonest and evasive." (2)

Criticizing JWs for citing Greber is hypocritical. Scholars have used Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the NT", Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your Bible Wisely).

The NIV used Dr. Virginia Mollenkott as a consultant throughout its creation. Her book, Sensuous Spirituality, discusses her spirit guide and contact with her dead mother. She admits using Tarot cards and the I Ching.

Older versions like the KJV/NKJV have links to scholars who were involved in the occult in their textual ancestry. For example, Origen's OT, the Hexapla makes use of texts by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All were Gnostic occultists.
---scott on 8/22/11


Scott,

Once again, dishonest and evasive.

Willa,

John 20: 28 reads 'Ho theos mou'. That is, THE GOD of me. That is, Thomas calls Jesus THE GOD of me.

For the life of me I can't even understand the point you're making. John 1:1 has nothing to do with this discussion.

Why would Thomas call Jesus THE God if Jesus isn't The God?

Scott/Willa,

If the absence of the article at John 1:1 doesn't prove Jesus is God almighty (and that is the only issue at stake here), then its inclusion at John 20: 28 must finally prove he is. You guys can't have it both ways, logically speaking.
---marc on 8/22/11


"John 1:1c. (2)

"The Logos was with God and the Logos was divine".
The Bible A New Translation, James Moffatt, 1935.


"The Word was with God and the Word was divine".
An American Translation, Smith & Goodspeed, 1939.


"Word was divine".
The Original NT, Schonfield, 1984.

"Divine" = God?

"Divine"
is used in the footnotes for Genesis 18:2-8 and Gen. 1:26 in the highly trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed.: The three angels are "divine beings" and...

..."the plural us (our) probably refers to the divine beings who compose God's heavenly court. (1 Ki. 22:19, Job 1:6)."
---scott on 8/22/11


Willa, is it also correct to translate John 20:28 as "Thomas said to him, My Lord and a god?"

As I see it translating John 1:1 as "a god" is but an attempt to construct a doctrine upon two words.

Scripture interprets Scripture. Its meaning does not hang upon a verse, let alone two words.

What does the flow of Scripture from John's Gospel alone say: Jesus claims to be God (John 8:58), others recognize Him as God (20:28), eternal and preexistant (1:15,30, 3:31), self-existent (1:4, 5:26), omnipresent (1:47-49), omniscient (2:25,16:30, 21:17), omnipotent (1:3,2:19,11:1-44), sovereign (5:21,22,27-29, 10:18)Creator of everything (1:3) the theme of the entire OT 5:39,40.
---Warwick on 8/22/11




Scott, if you send the only son you loved so much to die, would you say he had the same nature as you? He couldn't have a dog's or cows nature, but your own. And if he died by been submissive wouldn't that tell you he honored your request? If he didn't he would be rebelling against you.
Hear God's Word,
"For what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, in sending Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to be a sacrifice for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
Jesus was submissive to the Father in the flesh the reason He never sinned. "He that does not believe God, has made Him a liar, because he does not believe the record that God gave of His Son"
---Mark_V. on 8/22/11


Marc,

I would like to point out that before the KJV, in John 1:1 it was used and not he. Do you see a doctrinal bias in translation of a word? It continues to this day. You choose the translation that fits your doctrine and all others are "not of God". I do not agree with Scott that Jesus was preexistent in any physical form, only in Gods mind, but concerning this verse, a god is a legitimate translation according to grammar.
---willa5568 on 8/21/11


"I've been dealing with JWs for over 35 years." Marc

Wow, and I thought I was a slow learner.

I've been dealing with Baptists, Pentecostals and Catholics for over 35 years. Guess we're even.
---scott on 8/21/11


I like the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible a lot, excluding the Apocrypha which is NonScripture. And I like it over other English translations because it is a more accurate word-by-word translation than other English versions.
---Eloy on 8/21/11


char on 8/20/11. Amen!
What else IS there? All else pales, and the things of this world grow strangely dim...It's ALL about Him!
---Chria9396 on 8/21/11




//Funny how history repeats itself.---scott on 8/20/11//

Agreed.

Man can spend time studying the debates of men and their translations or
Spend time learning the Word of God confirmed by God Himself.

God defines Hiimself through His Word written and spoken-
Down to each letter.

His Word in flesh?
His expressed image to man.

There is only One God.
Y'hvah, defined as Savior to mankind down to each letter.
Y'sha-God is Savior.

This is a choice.
---char on 8/20/11


\\For your information, I was the one that mentioned "Cum Priviligio."\\

I already knew you did. But I didn't now if YOU knew what it meant.

||The Puritans called the KJV the devil's bible and continued to use the Geneva Bible.||

**The Archbishop of Canterbury also made 14 changes to the KJV that outraged the KJV translators.**

I've mentioned these things myself several times on these blogs.

++I'm now officially excommunicated by KJV-onlyites.++

I don't think the KJV dropped down out of heaven, but I don't think it wafted up from hell, either.

There are no such things as masonic handshakes.

You are free to use any translation that you please.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 8/20/11


Gordon //But, I feel that a BETTER modernized King James could be produced if "they" would just do it!

You are obviously unaware that there has been many attempts to modernize the archaic 1611 King James Bible.

Consider if you wish - Modern King James Version, the King James 21, the King James 2000, the Defined King James Bible, the Literal King James, and the TMB - all based on the same basic Greek and Hebrew sources.

However, there are those who go to churches that preach that the only true version is the 1611 King James. They, however, are a dying breed as it is hard to ignore the scholarship of Bible translators.
---leej on 8/20/11


Scott,

Why do you dishonestly avoid the fact that The Watchtower, on its own admission, looked for support from a Bible which was translated by the help of demons. Quoting comments about Wycliffe is a tactic from someone who knows they can't stay on the point and address it but has decided to throw up mud, anything, to distract others.

Scott, I've been dealing with JWs for over 35 years. I know you're taught to be evasive like this but it doesn't stop it being recognised for what it is: dishonest, lacking in courage and intellectual substance.

But of course, since you're told you are God's only mouthpiece on earth and his only source of salvation you can try anything, including evasive lies.
---Marc on 8/20/11


I use the NASB, it is the MOST accurate.

AVOID THE KJV AT ALL COSTS!

It is not a Bible but a revision of an Anglican bible. The KJV is FULL of errors, and is the MOST inaccurate. Itself was revised 7++ times then tossed out and completely replaced in 1878 by the Brits.

It remained in the U.S. and has a cult following now. Mainly because Yanks are impressed with OLE English (THEES/THOUS) thinking its the way God talks (LOL!).

The Brits were never impressed with this obsolete language and tossed it.

It was NEVER authorized by King James!
Does not contain ANY of the new discoveries (DSS) or translations for over 400yrs.
---John on 8/20/11


The Archbishop of Canterbury also made 14 changes to the KJV that outraged the KJV translators.

I'm now officially excommunicated by KJV-onlyites...

An honour!!!
---Protestant on 8/20/11

Ha, i personally think you do good to warn others to investigate themselves. The KJV cannot hide what GOD wants revealed.....for a searcher. Yes it is has error and men tried to guide the doctrinal direction. So? They are not smarter than GOD. I found the pitiful attempts of men long dead and laughed at their foolishness.
It is actually a testament of further proof....when one compares their attempts to conceal or climp in another way with GOD's witnesses, hidden right in front of their eyes. Like to todays doctrines.
---Trav on 8/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


I prefer KJV, but it is just based on tradition. Not that I have foundit to be better than any other
---Francis on 8/21/11


//The very Words ABBA-Father define Gods Word sent to His creation.//"Representation of the Heavens" declare His Word. Without God sending His Word to mankind-we would not know Him. Without being taught of God His Word we will not receive His Truth.
Rev 22:13
Is 44:6
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts, I am the first, and I am the last, and [beside me there is no God].

Beside me there is no God.

You can spend time debating translation or just Let Him confirm His Word.

Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
---char on 8/21/11


"And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. and He laid His right hand upon me, saying, 'Do not be afraid, I am the first and the last, and the living One, and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.'" Rev 1:17-18
The Very Word "El" defines strenght and authority. The pictorgraph is an ox head for strenght and is the letter aleph. The second pictographic script is a shepherds staff representing authority and is the letter Lamed. Meaning: strength and authority---"the mighty one."

God gave us His Word as Shepherd to His Sheep.
Y'sha-God is Salvation
Only His Word will save.
---char on 8/21/11


"John 1:1c. (1)

It is both naive and shortsighted to suggest that bible translators who recognize(d) the significance of the missing article at John 1:1c were wrong to reflect this in their translations.

Many notable translators understood that the familiar "and the Word was God" rendering simply ignores the specific and meaningful language used by John.

"The Logos was with God and the Logos was divine"
The Bible A New Translation, James Moffatt, 1935.

"The Word was with God and The Word was divine."
The Original New Testament, Hough J. Schonfield, 1984.

"And God of a sort the Word was."
The NT, (German), Ludwig Thimme, 1919.
---scott on 8/20/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


"Demonically-inspired "Bible". Marc

Funny how history repeats itself.

Regarding John Wycliffe (and his English translation, about 1350 A.D.)

"That pestilent wretch, the son of the old serpent, the forerunner of anti-christ, who had completed his iniquity by inventing a new translation of the Scriptures." Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury
---scott on 8/20/11


\\BTW-- did you know that Latin phrase means, in effect, copyright?\\

For your information, I was the one that mentioned "Cum Priviligio."

\\I checked "The Great Site." Their 1782 Philadelphia KJV could hardly be the "Bible of the American Revolution," as it was over in 1781. That say a lot for their historical trustworthiness.\\

Did you know that George Washington provided copies of this to every member of the Revolution army (which disbanded before its publication), with a congressional endorsement in the front?

The Puritans called the KJV the devil's bible and continued to use the Geneva Bible.

Hallelujah!
---Protestant on 8/20/11


\\By J.S.

Do you think ''J.S.'' means "Francis Bacon"?\\

The 1611 KJV has the works of pagan Rosicrucians and Freemasons all over it. It's a conspiracy. King James was a very wicked king... his own words, "I'll make them conform themselves, or else harry them out of the land."

The sound religious leaders back in those days, however, recognized these symbols and rejected the KJV immediately.

The Masonic handshakes in the KJV Genealogy section are very obvious.

The KJV translators were drunkards and gluttonous. The Archbishop of Canterbury also made 14 changes to the KJV that outraged the KJV translators.

I'm now officially excommunicated by KJV-onlyites...

An honour!!!
---Protestant on 8/20/11


Jer36:2Ex17:14,Deut 27:3-8,Deut31:19,Neh9:38,Ez24:2
Ex31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, [written with the finger of God].
God did not leave Himself without a witness.
Rom1:18-20Ps19
The Heavens declare the golory of GOD...

When learning the Ancient Hebrew each letter defines Him and witnessed in the Constellations [Mazzaroth] with the message[Orignal ancient names] before corrupted.
Rom10:18
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Learn them or not.
---char on 8/20/11


Send a Free Thinking of You Ecard


I most prefer the King James Version. I do think it's the most accurate. Sure, it has some archaic words, but, Dictionaries exist to explain them, if needed. I love the British English, anyhow. But, I feel that a BETTER modernized King James could be produced if "they" would just do it! I also like "The SCRIPTURES", which is a Messianic Bible. The same Canonical Scriptures, but, it uses the Hebrew Names of the Bible Characters and Places, rather than the English ones. Other (modern) Versions are good, too. But, KJV is the best for me, at this time.
---Gordon on 8/20/11


\\By J.S.\\

Do you think "J.S." means "Francis Bacon"?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/19/11


\\Cum Priviligio"

This is the original 1611 KJV.\\

That's the one I have.

BTW-- did you know that Latin phrase means, in effect, copyright?

I checked "The Great Site." Their 1782 Philadelphia KJV could hardly be the "Bible of the American Revolution," as it was over in 1781.

That say a lot for their historical trustworthiness.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/19/11


\\Protestant, I have a facsimile of the 1611 KJV, and there is NO genealogy section in it.\\

Wrong.

If you have a facsmile of the 1611 KJV, there's Genealogies included.

Allow me the privilege to refresh your memory. It's titled, "The Genealogies recorded in the sacred scriptures, according to every family and tribe. With the Line of our Saviour Iesus Christ Observed from Adam, to the blessed virgin Mary.

By J.S.

Cum Priviligio"

This is the original 1611 KJV.

\\And what do you mean by "GREAT SITE?"\\

Exactly that!
---Protestant on 8/19/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


WOW, a JW who quotes (misrepresents actually) a non-JW. about Kurt Aland, as theologian, he helped critical translation by installing categories of NT manuscripts. this scedule very important in modern translations, is never concidered to be infallible "was classifying NT txts in Categories (except Matthew and Marc)
other thologians explain this system. "According to Comfort it is "a good example of what Kurt and Barbara Aland call "normal" (i.e. a relatively accurate text manifesting a normal amount of error and idiosyncrasy)".
---andy3996 on 8/19/11


Scott,

Since you have not bothered to refute me, your silence proves that you and The Watchtower prefer to follow a man who listened to and followed the instructions of demons. And then you use his demonically-inspired "Bible" as evidence that your translation at John 1:1 is on the money.
---Marc on 8/19/11


char, "The Proto-Semitic language was written orginally with pictographs (picture writing).Each letter represent an idea. Each Hebrew word describes an action that expresses the nomadic journeys of the Hebrews through the wilderness
Y'Hvah choose this language culture,action and Function for a reason.
Without understanding this- Translation is a translation by a different culture lacking the understanding and subject. Our modern languages which are product of a Greco-Roman world where abstract words are abundant-and not Hebraic." All new to me, but intriguing. Thank you. Look forward to more.
---chria9396 on 8/19/11


i worked with a coptic for three years. he would be very upset if he ever was referred to as a god.
---aka on 8/18/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


\\The GREAT SITE has the original 1611 KJV (facsimile copy).\\

Protestant, I have a facsimile of the 1611 KJV, and there is NO genealogy section in it.

Though pages for family records (births, baptism, deaths, weddings, and the like) were common in many editions of the Bible, not only the KJV, such are NOT in the original 1611.

And what do you mean by "GREAT SITE"?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/18/11


"The Coptic language does NOT have an indefinite article, this was gratuitously inserted by the translator?" Cluny

Actually, unlike Greek, Sahidic Coptic Does have an indefinite article, and it is employed at John 1:1c.

"The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt."

The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts, Pg 200
---scott on 8/18/11


If the original 1611 KJV does not have the "Genealogy Section", then it ABSOLUTELY is not the original 1611 KJV (the KJV advertisers tend to lie).

The GREAT SITE has the original 1611 KJV (facsimile copy).
---Protestant on 8/18/11


In the Beginning was the Word...

//The very Words ABBA-Father define Gods Word sent to His creation.
A-Aleph is B-beyt
Aleph is leader/strenght
Beyt is tabernacle/House also defined "In" -"within".
Those taught and learned from God come/draw to His Word.
Jesus Christ, Hebrew:Y'sha-God is Saviour.
Jn1:1-14,Jn6:45,Jn6:45
We cry ABBA Father.
The Word draws/dwells within//
{form another posting]
---char on 8/18/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


That's the problem with translations- A God. John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God.(NOT "a" God)
John 17:3- And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, & Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
"a" implies any God. The one & true God states He is the only true God. One little word change makes a BIG difference in the translation.
---Reba on 8/18/11


\\"And (a) God was the word"
The Coptic Version of the New Testament, George William Horner, 1911.\\

Is it worth pointing out that the Coptic Church does indeed believe that the Son is of the same essence/substance as the Father?

And that the Coptic language does NOT have an indefinite article, this was gratuitously inserted by the translator?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/18/11


Scott,

A little detective work will lead you to understand that a large percentage of these renderings are from Unitarian sources. The majority of the others were well before modern scholarly projects established the qualitative aspect argument i.e. theos en ho logos works adjectivally. As Julius Mantey stated in a letter to The Watchtower, it emphasises Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. Yet others lend no support to your case.

So, Scott, answer the question I asked and don't be so evasive: Why did The Watchtower use and advertise a Bible translation from a man who was known to have gotten his translation from demons?
---Marc on 8/18/11


"Speaking of Translations" Marc (2)

"And (a) God was the word"
The Coptic Version of the New Testament, George William Horner, 1911.

"And was a god"
Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German Biblical studies periodical, with articles in various languages), J.N. Jannaris, 1901.

"The Word was a God"
The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, James L. Tomanec, 1958.

"And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Das Evagelium nach Johnnes, (German), Siegfried Schulz, 1975.

"And the Logos was a god"
The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore, published by the translator, 1828
---scott on 8/18/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


It's important when reading the Bible in Hebrew, English or any other lauguage, read through the eyes and mind of the Hebrew culture. The Proto-Semitic language was written orginally with pictographs (picture writing).Each letter represent an idea. Each Hebrew word describes an action that expresses the nomadic journeys of the Hebrews through the wilderness
Y'Hvah choose this language culture,action and Function for a reason.
Without understanding this- Translation is a translation by a different culture lacking the understanding and subject. Our modern languages which are product of a Greco-Roman world where abstract words are abundant-and not Hebraic.
Ex31:18 [written with the finger of God].Holy Spirit teaches- Learn them or you not.
---char on 8/18/11


\\I noticed that you didn't challenge my statements about Freemason Francis Bacon. \\

Yes, I did, when I said the rest of your history is wrong.

\\It's a fact that Freemason Francis Bacon placed the mason handshakes in the Genealogy section of the 1611 KJV.\\

There is NO "genealogy section" of the 1611 KJV, because I have a reprint of it, and it contains so such thing. Consequently there are no "masonic handshakes" (and there are no such things, btw) therein.

However, nobody is requiring you to use the KJV in any recension.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 8/18/11


Jer36:2
Write the word I have spoken
Ex17:14,Deut 27:3-8,Deut31:19,Neh9:38,Ez24:2
Ex31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, [written with the finger of God].
(Bereshiyt1:1-(Book of all beginnings)
Inbeginning God created et (an untranslatable word used to indicate "a definite direct object is next" and a abbreviation for the Aleph-Beyt created before the heavens and the earth, [ written Letters]are the ancient "building block" of all creation
They define YHvh before His Word Was uttered by His living Voice
Jn1:1 In the beginning was the Word...Is 55:11So shall my word be that goeth forth [Out Of My Mouth]...
---char on 8/18/11


Marc:

The correctness of a translation depends on how accurately it translates the words given, not on who translates it or how. If someone tells me 2+2 is four, I check their math, not thier pedigree.
---StrongAxe on 8/18/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


"Speaking of Translations" Marc (1)

"And a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible, Robert Young

"And the Word was a god"
The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated by Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694.

"And the Word was a god"
The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808.

"The Word was a God"
The New Testament In Greek and English, Abner Kneeland, 1822.

"As a god the Command was"
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament, Herman Heinfetter, 1863.
---scott on 8/18/11


See my posting on the Blog entitled, "Are Bibles Today Biblical".
---Eloy on 8/18/11


Scott,

Speaking of translations, can you explain why The Watchtower supported the use of Johannes Greber's New Testament which was translated by him communicating with spiritual beings? The Watchtower knew all the time that Greber acted as a spiritual medium who was communicating with demons and approved of it. See The Watchtower 2/15/56 p. 111, 2/15/62 p. 554 & 4/15/76 p. 231 & Aid to Bible Understanding WBTS, 1969 p. 1134.

It's interesting that Greber's demons translated John 1:1 as 'And the Word was a god'. So, Scott, wouldn't it make sense to reject a demonic translation and hold that the correct (i.e. non-demonically) translation is 'And the Word was God'?
---Marc on 8/18/11


the TOD or popularly called the oecomenical bible is a very good translation, but is everywhere refused because it tends to disagree with everyone idea upon the truth.
very difficult to find, i myself need to go to a library who ghot this book by chance. they refuse of course to lend it.
---andy3996 on 8/18/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


protestant, no one is going to challenge you. This blog is getting more stupid everytime I read it. Show me in the King James bible where the mason handshake is found. I am intrigued by this. I said I was not going to respond to this blog but here I am got caught off guard.
---shira3877 on 8/17/11


\\As for the rest, your history is wrong.\\

I noticed that you didn't challenge my statements about Freemason Francis Bacon.

It's a fact that Freemason Francis Bacon placed the mason handshakes in the Genealogy section of the 1611 KJV.
---Protestant on 8/17/11


\\The Church of England wrote the KJV to persecute the Protestants.\\

But the Church of England was and is protestant, Protestant.

Didn't you know that?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/17/11


]]i like the TOD for this reason, it tries to find union between all the "accepted" ancient copies,[[

Forgive me, andy. What is the TOD?

I'm not familiar with that acronym--or probably version.

Tell us more.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/17/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


it appears that some agree with muslims that our scriptures became corrupted. BEWARE.
Cluny I did like your first post, that's why i like your first post, and i realise that also what you said in the second is good. personally i discovered, that "wrong translations" are non-existant except when we talk about translations made to refute other translations. i like the TOD for this reason, it tries to find union between all the "accepted" ancient copies, both orhodox,Caththolic, protestant and even "modern church theologians worked toghether to find a translation trustworthy, and interdenominal .
to say that the KJV was written with wrong motives does not nessecarely indicate that it was a wrong translation.
---andy3996 on 8/17/11


\\Yes, the inspired Word of God did come from heaven.\\

I'm not arguing that the Word of God came from heaven in a metaphorical sense.

But the KJV did NOT, and you cannot prove that it did, and seem to be resentful that you are expected to back up your claim.

**The original 1611 KJV has mason handshakes in the Genealogy section.**

Wrong. I have a reprint of the 1611 KJV (which is not the version that most people have, btw). There's nothing masonic in it, nor does hit have a "genealogy section".

Now, there are printings of the KJV with all sorts of extraneous stuff added. Could you be talking about one of these editions?

As for the rest, your history is wrong.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/17/11


Shira3877
//God inspired it because men don't have the ability to put things in words like the king James is written.//
--shira3877
What about Shakespeare? KJV and Shakespeare used the same language in the 1600's. When do you go up to a friend and say "How thou hath a fullsome morning, I beseech thee to cometh to thine dwelling today." Look I can write beautiful and poetic that means it was inspired by God (not really). What did I just say? Nothing wrong with KJV just not my language.
---Scott1 on 8/17/11


Protestant:

Can you corroborate any of that? Can you point out to any part of the King James Version that can be used to persecute protestants in a way that cannot be done with previous translations?
---StrongAxe on 8/17/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


aka-all versions are just versions of the true Word.
Maybe,BUT, when any version leaves out the virgin birth, the blood & other important fundamentals of the TRUE WORD, then it's no longer another version, it's a per-version(perversion) of the true Word. We all have to be careful to know the difference between another way of saying the same things & a perversion of what is the true,God ordained & written by inspiration Word of God.REV.22:18-19 & DEU. 4:2
---Reba on 8/17/11


[Written with the finger of God]

agreed.

all versions are just versions of the true Word.
---aka on 8/16/11


\\But a group leader says New American Standard is the most accurate, if I remember right.\\

The New American Standard NT is a scrupulously accurate translation of the Alexandrian text, which is the wrong text, that is, not the received text.

Whether the Textus Receptus is more trustworthy than the Alexandrian Text (itself an umbrella term) is of course debatable.

But the TR IS the traditional text of the Orthodox Church.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/16/11


The KJV is the most wicked translation in all of history.

The original 1611 KJV has mason handshakes in the Genealogy section.

Freemason Francis Bacon was involved.

The Church of England wrote the KJV to persecute the Protestants. It's just a historical fact.

The pilgrims and New England Puritans came to North America while King James was still king (and in charge of the Church of England). The Church of England was persecuting and imprisoning them!
---Protestant on 8/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


cluny, cluny, do wish you were a little brighter. I have a copy of the original 1611 with the apocraphy. Yes, the inspired Word of God did come from heaven. Now, it may have fallen but if it did, it was surely on God's men who had theirs ears open. My attitude is staunch toward the KJV, only because I am aware of the changes men have made in revised versions. I will not respond to you concerning this blog ever again or probably any other blog. I pray God will open your eyes.
---shira3877 on 8/16/11


Good question reba,
Ex31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, [written with the finger of God].
[Written with the finger of God]

God confirms His Word-down to each letter.

Holy Spirit teaches
1Cor2 (all)
The spurious messiah will come and deceive many.Mar 13 (All):Vs17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

God defines Himself within His Word down to each letter.
His instructions:
Jer36:2
Write the word I have spoken
Ex17:14,Deut 27:3-8,Deut31:19,Neh9:38,Ez24:2
---char on 8/16/11


presumably then, shira, the translators were lying when they wrote the preface?
---alan8566_of_uk on 8/16/11


\\ It actually did come from heaven.\\

There's no point in arguing with superstition.

What evidence do you have that the KJV dropped down from heaven?

And if it did, then why do you reject the Apocrypha, which was part of the original 1611 KJV?

Notice, btw, I'm saying NOTHING against the KJV itself, but only about a silly attitude towards it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


I have been using my New King James, because I understood that this is close enough to more modern Bibles and also to the earlier King James. So, in any church, I can have a Bible close enough to follow what they are reading.

But a group leader says New American Standard is the most accurate, if I remember right. But I asked people in the group which each one uses . . . and . . . mine is close enough to everyone (c: lolololololol
---Bill_willa6989 on 8/16/11


Shira, It actually did come from heaven. I can give you many many verses that will educate you on what has been left out of the "men made" bibles.
with all due respect sister, however the translators of the KJV had noble intentions, most other bible translators had the same noble intentions. of course there is something about the KJV which makes it cherised then again,that should not blind people.
by the way, if KJV came from heaven what version is most original?
---andy3996 on 8/16/11


Reba, I'm with Christan on this one. What he said is very true. "It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63).
For Jesus did know from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. Therefore He said to them that no one can come to Him unless it has been granted by His Father.
No one has the originals Scriptures, everyone has to use some form of translation. But it is the Spirit which reveals the Truth.
---Mark_V. on 8/16/11


NBG i grew up with, (dutch 1951 translation).
NIV because its comprehensive without loosing itself in explenatory translation.
TEV because it explains what i donot ghet quick
KJV and NKJV because of its poetical value, i donot like the RSAV, because it confuses at times (only my idea, so donot start to defend you'll experience it differently, deffenately)Bible of Jerusalem because of it's attempt to obtain accuracy
---andy3996 on 8/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


cluny, you just keep showing your ignorance. If you were as well read as you think, you would know where the King James bible came from. It actually did come from heaven. I can give you many many verses that will educate you on what has been left out of the "men made" bibles. Of course you and others will ignore what I just said and newer versions will keep appearing and men will keep buying. If you go into a store for a King James bible, it is always in the back on the bottom shelf and I must say you may find 4 or 5 and no more. Look at other versions and there are shelf upon top of shelf full of them.
---shira3877 on 8/16/11


"There's about 25 English Translated Versions of the Holy Bible available out there." Christan

Actually, there are over 100 English translations in complete form and many others in partial form. How 'available' all of them are is perhaps another story.

You can find this 'list of English Bible translations' on Wikipedia.
---scott on 8/16/11


If one has "ears to hear", any translation seems to get the message accross. The Holy Spirit does the rest.
---jody on 8/15/11


I personally prefer the KJV, NKJV, and Orthodox Study Bible.

The NT in all three are the only English versions based on the Received Text. The OT of the OSB is the full LXX text. And the NKJV has LXX variants at least mentioned in footnotes.

\\ "men" have come up with all these translations \\

And who do you think came up with the KJV? It didn't drop down out of heaven already written.

Even if it did, it has had several major revisions, the last two being 1769 and 1904.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/15/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


There's about 25 English Translated Versions of the Holy Bible available out there. Not to even mention the different languages. Therefore, what should be more important when we read the Holy Bible (regardless of the version one reads) is, are we being lead and guided by the Holy Spirit? If not, you are merely just reading a book like you will read a novel.

"It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
---christan on 8/15/11


I like the KJV and even more the NKJV.

I use the Amplified as well as the Living Bible for study aides.

I don't like the KJV's usage of the same word for different meanings.

World (oikoumene) in John 3:16 refers to inhabitants of the earth.

World (kosmos) in Matt 13:35 refers to the earth.

World (aion) in 2 Tim 4:10 refers to a particular age or period in time.

But over all I enjoy the KJV's poetic use of old English.

Paul
---paul on 8/15/11


If I had to choose only one translation, it would be the NASB. But I prefer to use several including ESV, NKJV, NRSV and others.

There is a doctrinal slant in the interpretation of some verses in every version, which is why it is a good idea to compare.
---James_L on 8/15/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.