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

Version Of The Bible

What version of the bible do you use for personal home study/worship? Does this differ from the one used in your church? Do you ever compare several versions to gain help or clarity on a verse or word?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Rita_H on 1/26/14
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



//Presently there's only one edition of the OSB, though you can get simply the NT (which itself is the NKJV with Orthodox notes). There are different bindings: bonded leather, red leather, and hardback.//

So you simply take a NKJV and add your own doctrine. Thats impressive.
---michael_e on 2/12/14


==There were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling==

There were also changes in punctuation, substitution of words ("impossible" for "unpossible"), getting rid of the differences between "he" and "she" Bibles. The list goes on.

In one verse alone, "By grace ye are saved...." there are 8 changes in spelling and punctuation. We know that the placement of a comma can invert the meaning of a sentence. (At least, those who have taken elementary school grammar do.)

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/11/14


\\Which edition do you use?
---michael_e on 2/11/14\\

Presently there's only one edition of the OSB, though you can get simply the NT (which itself is the NKJV with Orthodox notes). There are different bindings: bonded leather, red leather, and hardback.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/11/14


//The only full English Bible you can get with the OT based on the LXX and the NT based on the Received Text is the Orthodox Study Bible.//
Which edition do you use?
---michael_e on 2/11/14


\\So are you saying the text from which the NIV was translated was/is corrupt? So that would also make the NIV corrupt also, huh?\\

Yes, the Orthodox Church considers the MT corrupt. The LXX is based on an older Hebrew text than the MT.

\\I thought the NIV was supposed to make it easier to understand what God has said. you know, eaiser to read.\\

I'm not particularly fond of the NIV. I have more confidence in the NASB. However, even its OT is based on the NT.

The only full English Bible you can get with the OT based on the LXX and the NT based on the Received Text is the Orthodox Study Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/11/14




grandma, thanks I had just never heard of that. I know much software is available but never heard it called that. you did help me to understand this. rita is wallowing in self pity because I didn't say anything to her except try to understand.
---shira4368 on 2/11/14


So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?---michael_eon 2/10/14

We all see and read and translate and edit through a glass, darkly. The one true God and the One true church .... the Alpha and the Omega ... share one thing in common...

the One Truth ...

the incorruptible not put together by corruptible man.
---aka on 2/10/14


Shira, on finding your latest 'offering' here this morning (especially the last 16 words) I now realise what your problem is and I just feel so very, very sorry for you.

Over and out.
---Rita_H on 2/11/14


"This is because the Masoretic Text, from which the NIV is translated, says "alma," or young woman."
Cluny

OK, I'll play along...
So are you saying the text from which the NIV was translated was/is corrupt? So that would also make the NIV corrupt also, huh?

Did I say that? Or, did it just sound like I said that?

I thought the NIV was supposed to make it easier to understand what God has said. you know, eaiser to read.

With the "Duh" factor removed, could there be a difference between a young woman and a virgin. This involves an attack on the Diety of Christ.
---Elder on 2/11/14


Shira: "Biblesoft" is not a "soft Bible." It is not a Bible at all. It is a Bible software package that Rita once owned. She used it as a Bible study tool. It is called "Biblesoft" because that is short for Bible software. This is why I suggested the website Biblegateway for her.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion you may have.
---Grandma on 2/11/14




//Or why should just ONE translation in particular be the exception?//
There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, yet many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
---michael_e on 2/10/14


Cluny, let me ask you a simple question. Do you feel yourself to be mentally superior to all others or is this just my perception of you? If I am wrong, please do not hesitate to correct me.
---trey on 2/10/14


rita, maybe you get offended easily. my intent was different than you perceive. if I got offended at the ones who have insulted me, I would tuck my tail and go home. cluny, markv, Christian and others have insulted me. everything I say cluny comes back and argues. markv and Christian say I serve a false god and markv has even told me I wasn't saved....like he thinks he knows if Im saved or not. get over it, forget it, its gone and over. one thing you can tell me about soft bible. I don't understand what soft bible is.
---shira4368 on 2/10/14


ll translations of the Bible, including the KJV, are works of human skill, knowledge, and effort.One thing the Bible makes strikingly clear in any translation is that mere human beings have done NOTHING for God and gotten it 100% right.Why should translating the Bible be exempt from this principle?Or why should just ONE translation in particular be the exception?Glory to Jesus Christ!---Clunyon 2/9/14

very good post! Everybody....notice that cluny said ALL. he is not being biased.
---aka on 2/10/14


Thank you Grandma - I shall look up BibleGateway, it's sounds very useful.

Thank you Mark V, I am glad that you can understand what I am actually saying and realise why I feel offended when misquoted. People should be prepared to come forward and say "sorry, I misunderstood what you meant" or words to that effect but pride gets in the way and people will not back down once they start such disagreements.

I am now going to leave this subject alone and if others wish to remain ignorant - regarding what I said - that is their choice.

Every blessing.
---Rita_H on 2/10/14


\\Cluny, you criticize the KJV, \\

Wrong.

I don't criticize the KJV.

I criticize an ATTITUDE towards it.

But I don't expect you to be able to get the difference.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/10/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


Cluny, you criticize the KJV, and I understand that because of who you are. You stated that the KJV has errors. The errors you speak of are errors in spelling, etc. They are not errors in doctrine. There is a huge difference. The modern versions change words to change the meaning of scriptures. I'm sure you'll argue this, since that is your modus operandi.
---trey on 2/10/14


\\Like the NIV young woman and the KJV virgin
that gave birth to Jesus. There is a difference.\\

This is because the Masoretic Text, from which the NIV is translated, says "alma," or young woman.

However, the LXX, which is based on an older Hebrew text than that MT, says "parthenos", which means "virgo intacta."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/9/14


Speaking of Bible software, I like to use Biblegateway. It's a website, which is a Bible search engine. You can enter any scripture passage, word of phrase, and it will give you all of the hits from those. It also allows you to use any Bible translation, including foreign languages. It's a wonderful Bible study tool. It's also available as an App for a iPhone and iPad.
---Grandma on 2/9/14


All translations of the Bible, including the KJV, are works of human skill, knowledge, and effort.

One thing the Bible makes strikingly clear in any translation is that mere human beings have done NOTHING for God and gotten it 100% right.

Why should translating the Bible be exempt from this principle?

Or why should just ONE translation in particular be the exception?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/9/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Rita, you did not do anything wrong. You are correct, you were speaking of a software, not a soft Bible. It makes a big difference when someone misquotes you. That has happened to me so many times, I have to respond that I never said such things. It changes the whole message you are trying to convey. I believe when people do that, they are trying to some how slander you in front of the world who get on line.
Sometimes people do make mistakes and misquote you, but normally they apologize when they see their error.
Some who answer, answer with terrible words against you, that they could not possibly be saved. We know that the gospel Truth makes many enemies, it penetrates the heart.
---Mark_V. on 2/10/14


Elder just Google Biblesoft and you 'might' just understand why I don't like being misquoted as calling it soft bible when I did not do so. It is a wonderful bible study help with masses of information.

Shira seems to be using the word 'soft' in an offensive way. There was never any need to transpose the words but by doing so it appears to make the term look foolish.

I'm guessing you have not read my earlier entries about this so I suggest you scroll down and do so.
---Rita_H on 2/9/14


There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
If you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why not correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?
---michael_e on 2/9/14


rita, you are the one who mentioned soft bible. I said Ive never heard that before. I already believed it was a web site. my question is do you think the web site is justified saying the soft bible is to be believed over God?
---shira4368 on 2/9/14


Send a Free Smiles & Hugs Ecard


Rita, it disturbs you that you say Biblesoft and Shira says soft bible. I don't understand why that bothers you.

The NIV changed what the KJV said and that doesn't bother you. Like the NIV young woman and the KJV virgin
that gave birth to Jesus. There is a difference.
---Elder on 2/9/14


Shira - WHY are you insisting on using the term 'soft bible' when I NEVER used those words. As I have already said, I referred to a computer disc which can be bought to help with bible study - the name of which is BIBLESOFT (because it is 'soft'ware for a computer.

Your responses are becoming more unpleasant with each one you post AND deliberately choosing to MISunderstand what I actually said.

If you are not prepared to look up what Biblesoft is why are you continuing this conversation????
---Rita_H on 2/9/14


//the niv is very corrupt no matter how you say it, its still corrupt.//

How so? Specially where?

I am curious, did you discover your opinion on your own, or are you taking someone else's perspective?
---Rod4Him on 2/9/14


cluny, I got soft bible from rita and if you will scroll down you can see it too. Ive never heard of soft bible.
---shira4368 on 2/9/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


==There were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling==

In other words, the KJV has errors.

shira, what do you mean by "soft bible"?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/8/14


rita, that is a good idea. you did say the kjv is corrupt as told by "soft bible". I did wonder who put "soft bible" in a place that condemned kjv. the niv is very corrupt no matter how you say it, its still corrupt.
---shira4368 on 2/8/14


"soft bible" so true and all others "not". Shira I don't recall saying these words. It is never a good idea to read only part of what another person says.

I'll use my resources (that particular one I no longer have as I have already stated) and you use yours. That is the way it should be for now.
---Rita_H on 2/8/14


Shira I would be grateful if you would cease mis-quoting me by using the term 'soft bible' when I actually used the name 'Biblesoft'. Think of the name 'Microsoft' and you might understand that it is a Computer programme for help with the studying of the bible.

Perhaps you could quote YOUR source which shows that the NIV is the most 'corrupt' bible - your words not mine. Be careful to not leave yourself open to being sued by the publisher though.
---Rita_H on 2/8/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


rita, why is your source "soft bible" so true and all others "not"? the niv is indeed the most corrupt bible ever.
---shira4368 on 2/8/14


There were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are being deceitful. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations don't start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). Which KJ Bible do you have, the 1611, 1629,1638,1762, or the 1769?", simply a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
---michael_e on 2/7/14


I've used different versions.

However, no version in and of itself can save or prevent salvation. To say if one uses a particular version they cannot be saved is limiting God and is similar to thinking any particular denomination alone saves or condemns. God can and does as He wills. He has the ability to take one who has used a poor translation and correct, just as He has the ability to draw one out of a "church" with wrong doctrine(s).
---chria9396 on 2/7/14


I doubt very much the NIV is the worst. It is not the best but I have a lot more problems with the New English and Good News Bible.

The phrase gender Bible is in reference to some translation who instead of using men as referring to people uses the word people. So as to make the Bible more gender neutral. It also has GOD the parent if I remember correctly.

That does not upset me.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/6/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


\\the niv I one of the most corrupt of all bibles except the gender bible for sodomites
---shira4368 on 2/3/14\\

What do you mean by "the gender bible," shira?

Do you have any idea?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/5/14


//Often, names did not get transliterated between languages. Else, Saul would still be Saul, not Paul. Peter would still be Peter, not Cephas.//

True, but it is still interesting. I guess James is the son of Isaac. :-)

The Greek, shira.

BTW, any translation includes interpretation in the process, reflecting the interpreter's paradigm.
---Rod4Him on 2/3/14


Shira where do I say anything about soft bible? Re read the post to which you refer and might I suggest you Google the words WHICH I ACTUALLY DID USE. You might learn something.
---Rita_H on 2/3/14


James 1:1
KJV: James, a servant of God...
NKJV: James, a bondservant of God...
NLT: This letter is from James, a slave of God...
NIV: James, a servant of God...
ESV: James, a servant of God...
NASB: James, a bond-servant of God...
Etc.
Often, names did not get transliterated between languages. Else, Saul would still be Saul, not Paul. Peter would still be Peter, not Cephas.
---micha9344 on 2/3/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


\\ God's Word will always prevail even tho many have abandon the king james bible. only a few still cherish the good old kjv.\\

Which "good old KJV", shira?

The 1611 with the Apocrypha?

The 1769 revision by the Church of England with the Apocrypha?

The 1904 revision by the American Bible Society normalized to American spellings with the Apocrypha?

Or the modern printings that omit the Apocrypha?

And whatever did God's people do BEFORE 1611?

(BTW, I'm saying NOTHING against the KJV as such, but merely criticizing an attitude towards it.)

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/14


rod4him: please tell me where you get your information that James is really Jacob.
---shira4368 on 2/3/14


The KJV is incorrect in Psalm 12:6-7.
So all versions are wrong except KJV?

The KJV is also wrong calling the book of James, James. It's Jacob.
---Rod4Him on 2/3/14


the niv I one of the most corrupt of all bibles except the gender bible for sodomites
---shira4368 on 2/3/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


From the time of the Apostles words in the Bible have been changed. If fact some of the words dictated by the Apostles to Amamenses where changed by them and were never entered in the Apostles words from the beginning. It was not an unusual practice at the time.
---Darlene_1 on 2/3/14


rita, all the added words in the kjv is in italics. the perverted versions have left out many things in order to take the deity out of Christ. what is soft bible? God's Word will always prevail even tho many have abandon the king james bible. only a few still cherish the good old kjv.
---shira4368 on 2/3/14


"The KJV tells us God intends to preserve His WORDS forever."
-What makes you think "them" is talking about His Words in v6 rather than the oppressed poor in v5?
"Notice how new versions treat this promise by making you think the context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:"
-Where do you get the idea of His people rather than the oppressed poor?
Don't you think the other versions better explain the context than you?
Can you give us some examples that would support your interpretation of v7 as opposed to those other translations?
BTW, this is v7 in NIV:
You, LORD, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,
---micha9344 on 2/3/14


Nana, thank you for that link. It will be useful but I realise that I did not make myself clear. The facility I had showed the verses as they were in the ORIGINAL languages then showed the LITERAL translations.

Checking this way showed that whole sentences have been added by the writers of KJV and coded 9999 (by Biblesoft) stating that these had been added and are not in original manuscripts. These are the ones removed by the NIV translators which should mean that NIV is the more accurate.

I personally use many versions to study but do wish that some would not refer to KJV as 'the original' and as being 'perfect'. It is neither but I am glad that I have it and I use it plus many others.
---Rita_H on 2/3/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


Rita,

In Google search type John 3:5 Biblehub
---Nana on 2/2/14


I used to have something on my computer called Biblesoft whereby I could check various versions and do a lot of bible study that way. One thing I found was that, in many cases, when I looked up verses in KJV which people accused the NIV of omitting, it showed that those words did not appear in the original. (Original meaning whatever the KJV had used to create the KJV).

All that the NIV had done was REMOVE WHAT HAD BEEN ADDED.

I've lost that facility on my computer but hope to buy it again (but it's expensive).
---Rita_H on 2/2/14


\\Cluny, Is the Orthodox Church's official Greek text final authority for the OT too?
---1st_cliff on 1/31/14\\

Yes, namely the LXX (Septuagint). It was the OT used by the first generation of Gentiles. The OT quotes in the NT are mostly from the LXX, even when it differs from the Masoretic text.

The LXX dates from about 2 centuries BEFORE Christ, and is based on an older Hebrew text than the MT, which was not stabilized until the 1100's.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/14


Cluny, Is the Orthodox Church's official Greek text final authority for the OT too?
---1st_cliff on 1/31/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


I use the KJV and personally find the niv, nip and tuck versions make confusion when comparing the beginning and the end of Psalm 12.
---Nana on 1/30/14


If all versions are not accurate as some say here, what do you use for doctrinal differences. what do you base you doctrine on?
---shira4368 on 1/30/14


//Which versions are you quoting?//
Mainly niv,nasb and nsrv
Here is another example
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The KJV tells us God intends to preserve His WORDS forever. Notice how new versions treat this promise by making you think the context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:
niv -you will keep us safe
nasb- Thou wilt preserve him
nrsv-You, O Lord, will protect us
---michael_e on 1/30/14


michael_e:

You said: Amazing how we made it so long without "modern revelations"

The same is doubly true for the KJV - Christianity did perfectly well and fine without it for more than 80% of its existence. By your own argument, we should similarly toss the KJV out as a fresh new wannabee, compared to other more established versions that had been around centuries longer.
---StrongAxe on 1/29/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


\\//Please give specific examples.//
Just a few examples due to space.\\

Which versions are you quoting?

\\Incidentally what do you use?\\

For ordinary purposes, KJV and NKJV and OSB.

But in all questionable cases, the Orthodox Church's official Greek text is final and authoritative.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/29/14


Mat 1:25(NASB)but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and he called His name Jesus.
Would not a virgin bring forth a first-born?
Does it need to be reiterated?
If you are looking at paraphrase Bibles, you will not see word-for-word, but the concept is there.
I have a good idea this is true for the other examples as well.
---micha9344 on 1/29/14


//Please give specific examples.//
Just a few examples due to space.
Incidentally what do you use?
Matt 1:25 her firstborn son consistently omitted.
Matt 17:21 & 23:14 omitted
Matt 24:36 nor the Son added.
John 1:27 is preferred before me omitted,
John 6:47 he that believeth John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10 , Christ calling to the Father instead of my Father, as in KJV.
I Cor 5:7 for us omitted, affecting the doctrine of the death of Christ by suggesting He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily for us Heb 1:3 omits the words by Himself from the phrase: When He had by Himself purged our sins. Col 1:14 through His blood omitted, taking away the necessity of shedding of blood for redemption.

.
---michael_e on 1/29/14


\\... from which the new perversions come.\\

I would hardly call them "perversions."

However, these "oldest texts" are in amazingly good condition.

When you don't use a book (Bible or otherwise), it doesn't get worn.

A wise Orthodox bishop suggested that the reasons these MSS are in such good condition is that they were not used because they were recognized as being defective.

However, there are only THREE major NT passages that are affected (Mark 16:9-ff, John 8, and I John 5:7). The doctrines these disputed passages teach are supported elsewhere in the NT.

However, for the Orthodox Church, the Textus Receptus/Byzantine is the authoritative text.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/29/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Rita, I normally use the New King James, and my church uses the same Bible. Yet when studying if I find a passage that gives me trouble, I check the passage with four other Bibles I have, then the Word Study Bible to look up the words. Then to make sure I have the correct interpretation, I go to the commentaries which I have, four of them. God gifted many individuals to help us with His Word. Plus there is enough help out there for a person who is passionate enough to do the work.
---Mark_V. on 1/29/14


Amazing how we made it so long without "modern revelations"
We hear a lot of talk about original, older or more authoritative manuscripts, but no one mentions the origin of these manuscripts or where they are now. It's an established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our KJV comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come.
---michael_e on 1/28/14


\\I use the KJV, because
In modern versions numerous verses have been changed or omitted in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith.\\

Please give specific examples.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/28/14


michael_e:

You said: In modern versions numerous verses have been changed or omitted in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are subtle, they still provide objective evidence which convicts new versions of perverting Gods Word

Such differences are frequently because some modern versions are based on different manuscripts - ones scholars now believe are more reliable than ones used for earlier versions.

So the question becomes - why do you think the older versions are MORE accurate? Perhaps it's the older ones that are LESS accurate, so faith in "basic truths" derived from those verses may be in error. Not that they're necessarily wrong, just not present in the scriptures.
---StrongAxe on 1/28/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."John 16:13,14

The promise by Christ is simple, "he will guide you into all truth". Question becomes, do you trust in yourself to understand or believe in the Word or are you led by the Spirit?

Afterall, Christ declared, "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 1/28/14


I use the KJV, because
In modern versions numerous verses have been changed or omitted in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are subtle, they still provide objective evidence which convicts new versions of perverting Gods Word
---michael_e on 1/28/14


the kjv and esv mainly.

I look for doctrinal bias in all of them that I read. I use concordances to learn roots.

I like Esword.

I use the Spirit for clarification of the words and use the Word for the Truth.
---aka on 1/28/14


KJV version is my main Bible but I use other versions sometimes for clarity.
---Adetunji on 1/28/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


I use the KJV (1769 - Cambridge Edition).
---trey on 1/27/14


The new revised versions bibles Are Corrupted by theologians - scholars - philosophers associated with here Rev.17 v's 4 - 6

Who do you think wrote the original KJV in 16XX. theologians - scholars - philosophers. By the way the original KJV had "Thou shaw covet thy neigbors wife" by accident leaving the not our. Scholars just discovered an original 16XX in Scotland at a little church due to the known errors in the printing of the KJV.
---Scott1 on 1/27/14


\\The Old Standard K.J.V. Bible.\\

Do you mean the original 1611 with the Apocrypha?

Or the 1769 revision by the Church of England?

Or the 1904 recension by ABS normalized to American spellings?

Please be specific, as there have been several version of the KJV.

BTW, the KJV was translated by theologians who believed in the Trinity and infant baptism. Did you know that?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/27/14


I use the NIV for church, and study. I also have a parallel Bible, with the KJV, NASB, and Amplified translations. My church uses the ESV.
---Grandma on 1/27/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


I use the King James Version for personal reading and church along with the New King James Bible.

For studying in I use a number of different version including the New American Standard Version and Amplified.
---Samuelbb7 on 1/27/14


The Old Standard K.J.V. Bible.

The new revised versions bibles Are Corrupted by theologians - scholars - philosophers associated with here Rev.17 v's 4 - 6, they have been edited - altered - changed & words taken out, trying to make God say what He does Not say.
---Lawrence on 1/27/14


Hello,Sis.Rita,all respect.
King James ( old worn) my favorite)

& talk'n Bible portuquese-N.T
(Joao Almeida)recent like KB
KJ, Spanish -R. Valera 1960 word'
K.J. & International Bible concordense- USE alot! .

Mostly,I like KJ read some things get another KJB really my best! Study
---Lidia4796 on 1/26/14


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