# The King James Version vs. The NIV



## habersham hammer (Sep 6, 2007)

Men are trying to pervert the word of God :

Jer. 23:36 And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.(KJV)

This generation has a hunger for perversion.

Webster, defines "pervert" as : 

1. to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true

2. to twist the meaning or sense of : misinterpret.

This is exactly what the *N*on *I*nspired *V*ersion does!

Do not take my word for it please check out my references for yourself and you'll find this to be true.

Remember, you can plead ignorance until you know better, but after the truth has been revealed unto you, you must accept it or reject it.

1 - The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

1 Timothy 3:16,  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.(KJV)

The King James Bible says plainly , "God was manifest in the flesh".

The NIV version reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "God" to "He". "He appeared in a body"?
Everyone has "appeared in a body"!This verse perverts the truth concerning the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is another example : Compare the two in Philippians 2:6

2 - The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

Luke 2:33 , And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him (KJV)

The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The CHILD'S FATHER"?  Was Joseph Jesus' father? NO, a thousand times NO!!! See how the NIV perverts the virgin birth.Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, therefore God was his father.Jesus had no earthly father.The devil has always fought the virgin birth.

3 - The NIV removes the Blood of Jesus Christ!

Colossians 1:14,  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sinsKJV)

The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." This perversion (NIV) rips out the precious words  "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD".

4 - The NIV perverts John 3:16!

5 - The NIV removes and perverts the place of helllllll!

In the New Testament the NIV zaps out the word 9 times.

6 - The NIV "completely takes out" 17 verses!

(Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14) (Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28) (Luke 17:36, 23:17) (John 5:4) (Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29) (Romans 16:24) (1 John 5:7)

Here's a very small sampling of words and portions that have been removed in the NIV! Check it out!!

Matthew 6:13, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 19:9, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:21, take up the cross

Luke 4:4, but by every word of God.

I could go on and on and on and on with "several" more verses that have had portions and or phrases removed, out of the NIV.

However, I would be here a long time.


*I hope this has been a help, I have no ax to grind , just want to get the truth out.

The King James Bible - The bible God uses and the bible the Devil hates!!


----------



## Festus (Sep 6, 2007)

Interesting.  But have you gone back to see if the KJV perverts the books that were used in making it?


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 6, 2007)

*...*



Festus said:


> Interesting. But have you gone back to see if the KJV perverts the books that were used in making it?


 

 Great question...I have always wondered that myself...I have also always wondered about the books of the Bible that were omitted from the KJV...


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 6, 2007)

From a previous thread...





FX Jenkins said:


> Another question that we should ask ourselves, why has the KJV only been around for 400 years...Surely God didn't give his people an inferior inspiration prior to 1611...and again, this in no way descredits the KJV...I use it extensively...and I don't think its wrong to use it exclusivley...I just don't think you can improve upon the origional when the Author was God....


----------



## toddboucher (Sep 6, 2007)

I used to be KJV only, i read all the books which supported it. Then I meet my wife and she loved the AMP verison. This opened my study to just look at others now I not talking about the paraphrase bibles (message and others). But I started looking at both the NASB and the NIV. Most people compare these translation to KJV which is wrong. Both the KJV and the NIV must be compared to original scripture manascripts. Most feel when looked at it this way The NIV holds it own. The big problem most have with the niv is a few time it uses the words he instead of God and blood was missing a few times. But to look at the other side there's places where Niv uses the blood and God and the KJV doesn't. I think the NIV has passed the test of time as a solid translation. 

I like the KJV for my personal study mostly because the Strong's and greek and hebrew study tools are made for KJV which make it easier for me.

I think you may have started something, lets get it moving.

At home I have books from both sides I'll list them tomorrow so if others are interested in it they can research it for themself.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 6, 2007)

KJV


----------



## Lum (Sep 6, 2007)

Great post habersham hammer!!!!!!

I think to say other books were left out of the bible is to questions God's perfect word.  God inspired every word that is written in the bible.  He also placed each book where it needed to be.  I will take God for his word and not what man thinks was God's word.  

I feel most of the translations of the bible out there today undermind God.  He planly says that anyman that adds to or takes away from the word that his name would be taken out of the Lambs Book of Life.  

Each person will have to answer to God for their choices.  I am a KJV man not because any person told me that was the one for me to use.  I feel that is the one God intended for us to use and that is good enough for me.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Sep 6, 2007)

I study the KJV and the NIV. Both are perfectly acceptable Bibles to me.

Questions for the KJV only folks: 

Must people of other languages use the English version?

If you accept a Spanish, Greek, German, etc. interpretation of the Word, why must English speaking folks use the old English of the KJV?

If the NIV was tested against some of the oldest manuscripts available and was determined to be a more accurate interpretaion than the KJV, would you accept it?


----------



## Lum (Sep 6, 2007)

I do not feel the NIV was a God inspired translation.

The KJV was translated in 1611 and has been used since.  Then all the sudden in 1966 we needed a translation for "easy reading?"  People had been reading the other versions fine for all those years.  They just used that to throw their hand in God's word.  There are over 200 differences between the NIV and the KJV.  I don't think anything God inspired would cause the conflict the NIV does.  Especially taking out the blood, foot noting the blood, and calling Joseph, Jesus' father.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 6, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> If the NIV was tested against some of the oldest manuscripts available and was determined to be a more accurate interpretaion than the KJV, would you accept it?




I could not say it would have to be AFTER much prayer and study.


----------



## Lum (Sep 6, 2007)

Also I don't think if the NIV was God inspired men would be making suggestions for a revisions in 1973, 1978, 1983.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 6, 2007)

ya'll have got to be kidding- all of the translations are just that translations of the original text translated from the best sources that were available during the time in which  it was being translated - used together with serious study and prayer and help from the Spirit of God they are all profitable for use in study

While I am not about to get in a peeing contest over the Word of God I will give a small rebuttal

Your example of verses being left out such as Matthew 17:21 & 23:14 are not found in the earliest dated manuscripts(this is important because the earlier the date of the manuscript the closer it is to the original) 

The translators of the NIV left these verses out for a reason. If you will go and study the history behind these translations as well as do some study of textual criticism you will see that this is true. It would also help to at least get a grasp on the original languages so you could do some studying from the Greek and Hebrew texts as this would help to understand the use of language and why some words may have been "left out" 

I could go on and on and on but I got a feeling that nobody is listening

Although if you are the KJV nor the NIV was inspired by God - the original texts were inspired by God- the REST OF THEM ARE TRANSLATIONS OF THE ORINGINAL TEXT- that we don't have in their original forms


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 6, 2007)

BTW - The NASB is the most literal translation of the best manuscripts that are available


----------



## deerstand (Sep 6, 2007)

the books you refer to being left out , from the dead sea scrolls??  ever wonder why god hid them for so long??  some of you guys that question the KJV should go back and read up on the men chosen by king james to translate the hebrew. they were divided  into different groups to translate different books, yet books from  the new and old testiments point towards each other.  more important could be the poeple not asked or allowed to translate. years ago i read the book on the history of the KJV and its tanslation, very interesting reading. i have to say i personally believe the KJV translation is absolutely inspired by god.
 and i do not trust any version that removes the blood, everything in the old and new testimate points towards the cross, the whole purpose of the cross IS THE BLOOD


----------



## Lum (Sep 6, 2007)

How do we know that to be true JMHarris?


----------



## Lum (Sep 6, 2007)

deerstand, I agree. 

Men just think they are smarter than God.  That is what is wrong with our country today.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 6, 2007)

How do we know what to be true? Have you been to seminary Lum?


----------



## Lum (Sep 6, 2007)

I am currently attending an Independant Baptist Seminary.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 6, 2007)

OK well dig carefully and have fun


----------



## leroy (Sep 6, 2007)

I like the NIV at times but I have a KJ also. I like to study them both


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 6, 2007)

Lum said:


> I have researched and I have also spoken to the President fo the Seminary I attend.  He is also a firm believer of the 1611 KJV.
> 
> His name is Dr. Jimmy Hayes of Andersonville Theological Seminary.  He is a doctrant graduate of Liberty University under Jerry Fallwell.



OK so we just agree to disagree on the subject, but I'd look farther than Dr. Hayes before I make all my decisions


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 6, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> no offense, but to get a good grip on the contextual meanings, requires going back to the original hebrew and greek and hashing it out.  not easy, mistakes are possible, and disagreements with other interpreters are sure to result.  but life does go on.
> 
> the simple solution is to take the word as written, in whatever version, and hold one's breath until the other readers agree with your interpretation.



Yep!


----------



## FishFanatic (Sep 6, 2007)

This debate about the KJV and NIV absolutely blows my mind.  I laughed at the differences pointed out....you gotta be kidding!  The point was made in the NIV version.  I ask those who claim that the KJV is the only Bible that is legit.....HOW BIG IS YOUR GOD????   Do you actually think that the same God that ensured His word made it 1966 years would decide to just throw the Word to the wolves for no apparent reason?  Cmon....people are getting saved and forming a relationship with Christ from these new versions.  Are you saying their relationship is not real?   Don't you think if God wanted me to read KJV only, he would convict me at some point while I'm reading the NIV?  There is no conspiracy folks!  I know many people....even we Christians love to roll around in a good conspiracy theory, like a dog loves to roll in crap.  For those who say that I will have to answer to God for reading something other than the KJV.......I think that you will have to answer to God for delving into such minor and insignificant details that do nothing for His kingdom!


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 6, 2007)

Jmike said:


> I laugh everytime i hear someone say....well the 1611 is inspired and the NIV isnt....or someone say- The KJV IS the only real true Word of God.


 
But we all know that God stopped working on this planet in 1611.........

I feel your pain JM Harris, I started plenty of times to enter this thread, but it appears that there is no voice of reason or authority greater than the voice of the KJV fanatics on this thread.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 6, 2007)

*...*



Lum said:


> Men just think they are smarter than God. That is what is wrong with our country today.


 
Yep...you are right on that one...we often hear "high and mighty holier than thous" butcher the Word of God with their man-made interpretations of the Bible and such and then use this "supposed" divine knowledge to judge others around them...happens in churches all across the country every Sunday*...


*this statement intentionally not assigned a denomination...


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 6, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> *this statement intentionally not assigned a denomination...


 
Chicken......


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 6, 2007)

deerstand said:


> the books you refer to being left out , from the dead sea scrolls?? ever wonder why god hid them for so long??


 
God hid them?!?...get outta here...I thought it was some really divine Jewish men that had an agenda... 

As for the KJV the NIV or whatever they are all still interpretations/translations by man.  There could be and probably are mistakes in any version out there.

I like the NIV because it uses sentence structures and such that flow more in line with that of American English thus making it somewhat easy to understand (like the Word of God will ever be easy to understand...I learn something new about it everyday)


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 6, 2007)

*...*



60Grit said:


> Chicken......


 
Hey man...not chicken...just well trained after particpation in a few threads that have been on here lately...


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 6, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Hey man...not chicken...just well trained after particpation in a few threads that have been on here lately...


 
Good, about another month and we'll have you tamed down to where that little lady of yours can get you to heel and sit.......


----------



## FishFanatic (Sep 6, 2007)

Jmike said:


> I laugh everytime i hear someone say....well the 1611 is inspired and the NIV isnt....or someone say- The KJV IS the only real true Word of God.
> Please people...lets not make Christians look anymore ignorant than some of us already make them.
> It's already been said several times in this thread- that the KJV is a translation just like the others are. We can argue which is the closest to the original- but like others have stated there are some translations that are truer to the original texts than the KJV is. I know thats hard for "traditionalists" to wrap their minds around- but its truth. But heck- keep on arguing and fussing about it- keep turning non-Christians off to the faith that we so passionately believe in and desire them to follow- Keep on making the church look like it can't agree on something as important as THE WORD OF GOD- keep making us look divided- And know that when you decide to be dogmatic on certain traditions that you are possibly turning someone off from the greatest Gift known to man- the Gift of Salvation.
> I mean- heck yeah- sign me up to be a part of a belief system that has divided so many people, and so many institutions over things that are not ESSENTIALS....that sounds like my kind of movement.



Good post.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 6, 2007)

*...*



60Grit said:


> Good, about another month and we'll have you tamed down to where that little lady of yours can get you to heel and sit.......


 
man...when she says jump, I already say how high...

I still say all interpretations of the Bible are subject to and contain errors...even the KJV ...I guess I will burn for that one...


----------



## crackerdave (Sep 6, 2007)

O.K. - I read every post.That entitles me to my two cent's worth,does it not?
The leaders of my church say KJV. I study NIV and KJV. I take a KJV to church to keep the peace.  Simple.


----------



## SnowHunter (Sep 6, 2007)

heck I just read the NIV, cuz after readin all yalls jibber jabber all day I gotta make sure I read something easily understandable


----------



## SBG (Sep 6, 2007)

I am a King James exclusive...not a KJ only. I have yet to see a need to use another version. 

One thing I might suggest for anyone that really is interested in studying the origins of any translation, is to do so prayerfully. Honestly, a comparison of the NIV vs. the KJV is futile...the two were derived from completely different original texts.


----------



## crackerdave (Sep 6, 2007)

YES!


----------



## PWalls (Sep 6, 2007)

Just now getting here.

I have a KJV, a NKJV and a NASB.

I love the KJV, like the NKJV and do some occasional studying with the NASB.

I do not own a NIV. Not fond of that particular version.

So I am not strictly KJV only, but I am not too far from it.


----------



## packrat (Sep 6, 2007)

*kjv/niv*

I'm a King James man myself, but if people would spend as much time reading either version as they as they spend fueding over them, a whole lot less people would be going to heck. No offense to anyone & I do appreciate the opinions. Go into the Word of God with a prayer of understanding and no matter how many times you read it things will be revealed that you never seen the first time.


----------



## Festus (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow...all that I can say after reading through many of these post is that some of you really need to study....... *on your own*.   God gave us a mind for a reason.   

A good place to start would be to learn a little history about the bible itself.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/


----------



## jneil (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, at least people don't get executed anymore for having the "wrong" Bible.


----------



## Buck Only (Sep 7, 2007)

jneil said:


> Well, at least people don't get executed anymore for having the "wrong" Bible.



I bet if some folks had a say they would.


----------



## SBG (Sep 7, 2007)

Festus said:


> Wow...all that I can say after reading through many of these post is that some of you really need to study....... *on your own*.   God gave us a mind for a reason.
> 
> A good place to start would be to learn a little history about the bible itself.
> 
> http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/



Thanks for the link...there is a lot of disputable statements there though. When researching topics like this, you have to consider the source and try and discern whether there is an agenda of the website owner.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 7, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> How do we know what to be true? Have you been to seminary Lum?



Why should it matter?


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 7, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> OK so we just agree to disagree on the subject, but I'd look farther than Dr. Hayes before I make all my decisions



only need to look as far as the spirit of God not ANY man.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 7, 2007)

60Grit said:


> or authority greater than the voice of the KJV fanatics on this thread.



Fanatics???? 


I think those that are not accepting of whats in a man or womans heart is a fanatic. KJV is in my heart thats what God revelates to my soul it is the CLOSEST that we have to the True word.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 7, 2007)

packrat said:


> I'm a King James man myself, but if people would spend as much time reading either version as they as they spend fueding over them, a whole lot less people would be going to heck. No offense to anyone & I do appreciate the opinions. Go into the Word of God with a prayer of understanding and no matter how many times you read it things will be revealed that you never seen the first time.



I hear you my friend


----------



## Lum (Sep 7, 2007)

That is right Branchminnow.  I sent a PM for that response.  No need to reply openly to that one.  

Man doesn't tell which bible to read and study.  I read the KJV because that is the only one God has told me to read.  I have looked at the others but God only let me look and told me to leave them alone.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

packrat said:


> but if people would spend as much time reading either version as they as they spend fueding over them, a whole lot less people would be going to heck.



I wanted to say this yesterday, but then I got to thinking, this is a spiritual debate forum and in so far as we discuss these issues w/ love and respect for each other, as brothers and sisters in Christ...I think this is an appropriate venue for that...Just as Jesus debated the scriptures in the synagogue as a young man...

On the same token I wholeheartedly agree that better time could be spent reading, studying, and spreading the Gospel..But I think its good for folks to figure out why they believe what they do, and not just because thats what they grew up hearing..

And as I've said many times on here, I've got no problem with folks using the KJV exclusively, I just think its incorrect to suggest all over Versions are inferior, and the comment at the bottom of the starting thread, "KJV-the bible that God uses" puts God in a box...when in fact God uses the *Holy Bible*, in many languages and versions...



Festus said:


> Interesting.  But have you gone back to see if the KJV perverts the books that were used in making it?



Festus made the most valid point in the second post to say that using the "perversion" logic as suggested, would lend that the KJV is a perversion of the texts pen'd by Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc... those boys were not English..

For those that did a little research...you also found that in 1604 Dr John Rainolds "moved (inspired) his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixth were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original."

Technically you could say John Rainolds inspired King James to pay for the KJVersion.  Thankfully Gods inspiration superceeds both these men.  

I believe the word of God is living and sharper than a two edged sword and that power is not limited to the KJV..to say its acceptable for you..wonderful...but we are not the great white hope...and to slap a KJV and say this is the only acceptable bible is the kind of thing that turns so many away from Christianity...

But I say all this with in kindness...


----------



## Festus (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> Thanks for the link...there is a lot of disputable statements there though. When researching topics like this, you have to consider the source and try and discern whether there is an agenda of the website owner.




I agree with you 100%.  We all should study and listen to differing opinions before forming our own.   That's one of the reasons I enjoy this forum.   I try to keep an open mind here even though it's not always easy to do so.


----------



## toddboucher (Sep 7, 2007)

I have a question: My KJV bible on my desk was revised in 1991 is this no good also. I found once a copy of a 1611 bible to be honest I cauldn't read it well.

Goto this link to read Ps 23 in the 1611 format
www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm


----------



## addictedtodeer (Sep 7, 2007)

I just think people need to do a genuine history lesson on the KJV. History of the English Bible.
_
One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. _

IMO if you truly want to stand on the "first complete modern" English Bible you've got to use the Geneva Bible (the one the puritans brought with them to America).

I've got a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible, it's great a little hard to read (boy is it against the papacy).

For incomplete Bibles before the KJV you've got Wycliffe and Tyndale. Our current KJV is not even based on the 1611 version "_all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611_". 

God preserves his word, God can even use a Bible for hundreds of years to His glory that was meant at the beginning to silence protestantism.

IMO the big issue is are we making translations out to be idols?  
Are we actually saying that God can only speak through one translation...wasn't that what happened in 500AD when the RCC banned all translations but the Latin Vulgate? Do we really want to imitate that?


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks Addictedtodeer
This is why God warns us not to let traditions of man void the word of God..


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 7, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> only need to look as far as the spirit of God not ANY man.



Do you think that if somone read the NIV, learned from it, grew from, and was better able to understand it, that the spirit of God is not talking to them as well?


----------



## THREEJAYS (Sep 7, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> the original texts were inspired by God- the REST OF THEM ARE TRANSLATIONS OF THE ORINGINAL TEXT- that we don't have in their original forms



I will Amen this


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

The NIV, KJV and the NKJV are all fine versions of the Bible. The KJV uses pronouns for God and Jesus as well and has not perverted the Word of God.

The most important thing is to let the Holy Spirit help you interpret the Word, and let scripture interpret scripture.

But, if you need help, go here and translate the original Greek and Hebrew yourself.

www.searchgodsword.com


----------



## alvishere (Sep 7, 2007)

They are many different Translation/Versions of the Bible other than NIV and KJV.
  They go anywhere from Paraphrase bibles ,Study Bibles to the New World Translation.
   My Question is ...Are all Translations accurate enough for one to stay with one version of the bible and Is assured that he will might not be mislead away from the true word of God? 
  If you think some versions are not inspired from God's word....How do you decide where to draw the line of what accurate and whats not???


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

alvishere said:


> They are many different Translation/Versions of the Bible other than NIV and KJV.
> They go anywhere from Paraphrase bibles ,Study Bibles to the New World Translation.
> My Question is ...Are all Translations accurate enough for one to stay with one version of the bible and Is assured that he will might not be mislead away from the true word of God?
> If you think some versions are not inspired from God's word....How do you decide where to draw the line of what accurate and whats not???



I would stick for a word for word translation like the KJV, NKJV or the NIV. I tend to stay away from paraphrased translations like the living Bible, but if someone has a hard time reading the ones above, and will read the living Bible, more power to him. The key is reading and praying.

www.searchgodsword.com
www.blueletterbible.com

are both excellent sources.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

Good point Alvishere...some "versions" are way out in left field with their attempt to incorporate slang and paraphrase...but I think the baseline translations such as the NIV, ESV, and KJV, and a few others, are accurate and  in fact literal does not always mean accurate when it comes to culture and language, thus an accurate translation is one that retains the origional phrasal, grammatical, and idiomatic meanings..and as others have said, prayer is fundamental...


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Now the Good as New:
> 
> "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."
> 
> ...



Thats great as long at you put a footnote in there that says "as provided within the institution of Holy Matrimony..

But I don't think the GAN is going to be widely accepted as biblically accurate..


----------



## leroy (Sep 7, 2007)

rangerdave said:


> O.K. - I read every post.That entitles me to my two cent's worth,does it not?
> The leaders of my church say KJV. I study NIV and KJV. I take a KJV to church to keep the peace.  Simple.



Your Church instructs people as to what version they have to use at Church?


----------



## Flash (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> Honestly, a comparison of the NIV vs. the KJV is futile...the two were derived from completely different original texts.



 That makes a difference

  Why are some copyrighted?? Could it be $$$$$$

 I heard a few say (don't know if it's true) over the years  there hasn't been any great revivals under the preaching of any modern english translations other than the KJV.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> Honestly, a comparison of the NIV vs. the KJV is futile...the two were derived from completely different original texts.



Do what????


----------



## SBG (Sep 7, 2007)

farmasis said:


> Do what????



The KJB and the NIV were translated from completely different texts.


----------



## SBG (Sep 7, 2007)

leroy said:


> Your Church instructs people as to what version they have to use at Church?



Ours does.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> I have a question: My KJV bible on my desk was revised in 1991 is this no good also. I found once a copy of a 1611 bible to be honest I cauldn't read it well.
> 
> Goto this link to read Ps 23 in the 1611 format
> www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm



Thats a fair question I havn't seen addressed..but is it the KJV, the NKJV, the UKJV, MKJV, or the 21st CenturyKJV? and Im not familiar with the KJB, that must be a new one...

This list is still pretty short..

(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions

    * KJV
    * (DKJB) Defined King James Bible
          o DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
          o DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud 
    * (KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
    * (KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
          o KJV21 review 
    * (KJ2000) King James 2000
    * (LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)

    * (MKJV) Modern King James Version
    * (NKJV) New King James Version
        (RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review 
    * (RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
    * (TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
    * (UKJV) Updated King James Version


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> The KJB and the NIV were translated from completely different texts.



and those texts were translated from what? The original hebrew and greek manuscripts.

There is little difference in the early manuscripts.

I use the New King's James Version myself.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Where did they get those?



The apostles and prophets.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nobody has laid a hand on the originals they only have copies that are older than others therefore making them closer to the originals because they had been copied by hand less


----------



## SBG (Sep 7, 2007)

farmasis said:


> and those texts were translated from what? The original hebrew and greek manuscripts.
> 
> There is little difference in the early manuscripts.
> 
> I use the New King's James Version myself.



There are considerable differences between the two early manuscripts. One is much more reliable and true to the originals.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Where did they get those?



Oh great...it was complicated enough just with us hillbilly baptists...now here comes the Pope...

just kidding everyone...We're all Gods children if Jesus is in our heart


----------



## alvishere (Sep 7, 2007)

I found this Conclusion on one of the links that was posted earlier.
 "The KJV is a good translation, but it is not perfect. It is outdated. There are better modern translations that make the Bible easier to read and understand. "

  The last part of that statement seams to be the main reason most would prefer the NIV to KJV

 My belief is the understanding of the Holy Word comes thru the spirit, I was taught Pray for understanding before you read the Word of God and he will reveal  his word to you as it pertains to your life.
  Which brings us to "Mans" understanding of Gods Word.
  Have you ever seen someone that was very well educated but did not have God in his life....If you ask him to interpret what the Word says....Could He???


----------



## Festus (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> There are considerable differences between the two early manuscripts. One is much more reliable and true to the originals.



Curious...how do you know this?


----------



## SBG (Sep 7, 2007)

Festus said:


> Curious...how do you know this?



I researched it rather extensively.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> to get the word out there as quickly as possible.  stress on those scribes must have been almost unspeakable.





Genesis

﻿1:1 בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על-פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על-פני המים



1:3 ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי-אור

1:4 וירא אלהים את-האור כי-טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך

1:5 ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילה ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום אחד

1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים

1:7 ויעש אלהים את-הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע ויהי-כן

1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שמים ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום שני

1:9 ויאמר אלהים יקוו המים מתחת השמים אל-מקום אחד ותראה היבשה ויהי-כן

1:10 ויקרא אלהים ליבשה ארץ ולמקוה המים קרא ימים וירא אלהים כי-טוב

1:11 ויאמר אלהים תדשא הארץ דשא עשב מזריע זרע עץ פרי עשה פרי למינו אשר זרעו-בו על-הארץ ויהי-כן

1:12 ותוצא הארץ דשא עשב מזריע זרע למינהו ועץ עשה-פרי אשר זרעו-בו למינהו וירא אלהים כי-טוב

1:13 ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום שלישי

1:14 ויאמר אלהים יהי מארת ברקיע השמים להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה והיו לאתת ולמועדים ולימים ושנים

1:15 והיו למאורת ברקיע השמים להאיר על-הארץ ויהי-כן

1:16 ויעש אלהים את-שני המארת הגדלים את-המאור הגדל לממשלת היום ואת-המאור הקטן לממשלת הלילה ואת הכוכבים

1:17 ויתן אתם אלהים ברקיע השמים להאיר על-הארץ

1:18 ולמשל ביום ובלילה ולהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך וירא אלהים כי-טוב

1:19 ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום רביעי

1:20 ויאמר אלהים ישרצו המים שרץ נפש חיה ועוף יעופף על-הארץ על-פני רקיע השמים

1:21 ויברא אלהים את-התנינם הגדלים ואת כל-נפש החיה הרמשת אשר שרצו המים למינהם ואת כל-עוף כנף למינהו וירא אלהים כי-טוב

1: ....Oh forget it my hand hurts...


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 7, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> i'll bet once you got that part down about writing from right to left, and starting at the end of the book, everything else became a bit easier?



As evident in this thread...I think things got a whole lot harder....including some heads... 

Peace ya'll...and take your Holy Bible with you and read some..while your setting in the deer stand tomorrow morning...


----------



## leroy (Sep 7, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> Do you think that if somone read the NIV, learned from it, grew from, and was better able to understand it, that the spirit of God is not talking to them as well?



Id like to see some responses to this question? I have both and read and study from both and sometimes things are a little clearer using the NIV. But I do not want my Church to dictate to me what version I have to use. For the ones that do what happens if someone in the congregation sees you following along in a NIV Bible are you kicked out, put on probation.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> I researched it rather extensively.



Can you give us an example?


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 7, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> Do you think that if somone read the NIV, learned from it, grew from, and was better able to understand it, that the spirit of God is not talking to them as well?



Scripture talks about (at least in the KJV) judge not lest ye be judged by the same judgement.


I judge no man NOR his salvation NOR his belief. BUT donot expect me to accept anything other than the gospel that is preached out of the KJV it IS what convicted my soul and it is the way I found grace! And many more who have sat under the drippings of the gospel that came out of KJV has worked for many years BEFORE ANYTHING else, as my dad always said "if it aint broke son there aint no need in fixin' it"


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 7, 2007)

leroy said:


> Your Church instructs people as to what version they have to use at Church?



Whats wrong with a church making rules to enforce what they believe?


----------



## alvishere (Sep 7, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> Scripture talks about (at least in the KJV) judge not lest ye be judged by the same judgement.
> 
> 
> I judge no man NOR his salvation NOR his belief. BUT donot expect me to accept anything other than the gospel that is preached out of the KJV it IS what convicted my soul and it is the way I found grace! And many more who have sat under the drippings of the gospel that came out of KJV has worked for many years BEFORE ANYTHING else, as my dad always said "if it aint broke son there aint no need in fixin' it"


Very Well put!!


----------



## Lum (Sep 7, 2007)

Branchminnow, nice post.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 7, 2007)

> Why are some copyrighted?? Could it be $$$$$$



All of the modern versions are copyrighted.  This is done more to protect the integrity of the work than for profit.



Without a  copyright, I could take a version of The Bible, reprint it with my own interspersions, and market it as "25-06's New and Really Revised Version".



I'm curious why no one has discussed the Revised Standard Version, which contains most of the language and imagery of the KJV in a more modern form?


----------



## PWalls (Sep 7, 2007)

It is my understanding that the KJV is not copyrighted. All the other translations are.

You can download free software off the net with the KJV without any problems.


----------



## leroy (Sep 7, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> Whats wrong with a church making rules to enforce what they believe?



Nothing, I just dont see it getting down to regulating the version of the Bible that you HAVE to use inside the Church. Having an opinion is one thing but to come down and demand that be the only version is another.


----------



## leroy (Sep 7, 2007)

SBG said:


> Ours does.



What do you do if someone is seen reading from a different version. Are they reprimanded?


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> the KJV it IS what convicted my soul



The Holy Spirit convicted mine.

So, I would I get a pass for the New King James Version or would I have to enter heaven by a back gate?

Seriously, the Word of God was spoken and translated into Greek, Herbew and Aramaic. Who is to say (including a church) that one English translation is better than another? I will stick with reading a version that I can understand, and let my prayers, meditation, study and the Holy Spirit reveal what it means.


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Sep 7, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> Whats wrong with a church making rules to enforce what they believe?



Nothing at all I've been a member of a spirit filled church for years and yea we're just a buncha ol hard heads.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 7, 2007)

*...*



FX Jenkins said:


> Genesis
> 
> ﻿1:1 בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
> 
> ...


 
 Forum rules say you are to provide an English translation of anything posted in a foreign language...

What will we call it...the FXJV


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 7, 2007)

*...*



Branchminnow said:


> Scripture talks about (at least in the KJV) judge not lest ye be judged by the same judgement.
> 
> 
> I judge no man NOR his salvation NOR his belief. BUT donot expect me to accept anything other than the gospel that is preached out of the KJV it IS what convicted my soul and it is the way I found grace! And many more who have sat under the drippings of the gospel that came out of KJV has worked for many years BEFORE ANYTHING else, as my dad always said "if it aint broke son there aint no need in fixin' it"


 
Good post Branchminnow...especially on not judging another man and I can attest to that given our phone conversation a while back...you were a true gentleman and very smart about Christianity and religion as well as honest and straight up which is very respectible but more importantly you heard what I had to say as well and did not offer any criticism...

One question though...obviously given the proliferation of Christianity before the illustrious King James came along it would seem the Bible must have been working and people were getting the word indicating that it was not "broke"...so why did he fix it?

I have always wondered what prompted him to commission such a task after so many centuries following Christ dying for our sins...

Any thoughts...


----------



## Flash (Sep 7, 2007)

Copyrighted?

 But I thought it was GOD's word, not man's to make money on.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 8, 2007)

leroy said:


> Id like to see some responses to this question? I have both and read and study from both and sometimes things are a little clearer using the NIV. But I do not want my Church to dictate to me what version I have to use. For the ones that do what happens if someone in the congregation sees you following along in a NIV Bible are you kicked out, put on probation.



That being the case (KJV readers vs other texts) then only very few christians world wide are in tune!?  I think not. Cause very few christians world wide read the KJV. What about reading scripture in Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, French, Espaniol, Iroquoi, Arabic etc.... Even within the span of yrs regards a single language, language is dynamic and ever changin as to form and meanings. It is a good thing that the Spirit is dynamic as well and can keep up with the weaknesses of man's  physical and spiritual complaints no matter the versions or styles he utters.

It is said that of the three great chinese religions Confucious(spelling) teaches the importance of social responsiblility, Budism(spelling) teaches of great compation and Taousism(spelling) teaches how to integrate spiritual values within our daily lives. Christianity does this all in one shot regardless of versions of scripture.

What effect does being saved have on an illiterate people or individual? Their relationships are not with text or versions of.


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 8, 2007)

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html



http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31



http://www.tniv.com/about/history.htm


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

farmasis said:


> Can you give us an example?



Of what?


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

leroy said:


> What do you do if someone is seen reading from a different version. Are they reprimanded?




Of course not. 

My church's position is that there will only be one version of the Bible used in teaching and in the pulpit. We also encourage the members to use the same Bible in their personal devotion times. We do not check for Bible versions at the door and turn people away if they do not have an AV.


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Good post Branchminnow...especially on not judging another man and I can attest to that given our phone conversation a while back...you were a true gentleman and very smart about Christianity and religion as well as honest and straight up which is very respectible but more importantly you heard what I had to say as well and did not offer any criticism...
> 
> One question though...obviously given the proliferation of Christianity before the illustrious King James came along it would seem the Bible must have been working and people were getting the word indicating that it was not "broke"...so why did he fix it?
> 
> ...




There were requests made of King James to commision another version due to the anti-catholic tone of the Geneva Bible.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



SBG said:


> There were requests made of King James to commision another version due to the anti-catholic tone of the Geneva Bible.


 
So if I read this correctly then what you are saying is that the KJV (the Bible used by most of the "supposed" religions that ARE anti-Catholic in tone) was commissioned to  help decrease anti-Catholic tone?  Ironic indeed...

Thanks for the info...I will research that out of curiousity...


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 8, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> So if I read this correctly then what you are saying is that the KJV (the Bible used by most of the "supposed" religions that ARE anti-Catholic in tone) was commissioned to help decrease anti-Catholic tone?  Ironic indeed...
> 
> Thanks for the info...I will research that out of curiousity...


 
Read my links bro'. It'll shed a little light into that confusion...


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



60Grit said:


> Read my links bro'. It'll shed a little light into that confusion...


 
Interesting info...one interesting point is that the manner in which the new Bible was commissioned was very similar to the deals that the President cuts with Congress here in the US  so I guess we could say it was a political thing...that first link describes the Kings maneuverings and such to keep both the Conformists and the Puritans happy...(now those are two groups that I would have loved to have thumbed my nose at...:biggrin: ...except back then they would have murdered me "in the name of God" for it )


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> So if I read this correctly then what you are saying is that the KJV (the Bible used by most of the "supposed" religions that ARE anti-Catholic in tone) was commissioned to  help decrease anti-Catholic tone?  Ironic indeed...
> 
> Thanks for the info...I will research that out of curiousity...




I guess you could call it ironic...I tend to think of it as showing their true fruit.

It is kinda like how the U.S. Constitution has been rationalized.


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

Lot of reading at this link...Good info.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern.htm


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



SBG said:


> I guess you could call it ironic...I tend to think of it as showing their true fruit.
> 
> It is kinda like how the U.S. Constitution has been rationalized.


 
Well...I do not know about fruit unless we are talking sour grapes but it could certainly be taken as showing the true colors of the men that rewrote the Bible for KJ (to serve a political agenda it would seem)...and that is for sure...but we have seen those true colors through the ages in all walks of life...

I agree with you on the Constitution...it has been drug through the mud, twisted and contorted in every way imaginable and used to allow some horrible abominations since the day it was written...and I say that in regards to both directions of the pendulum...on the one hand it has been interpreted very finitely and narrowly at times to allow for the rape and seizure of our rights and on the other hand it has been interpreted broadly to allow for the protection of some very heinous (sp?) perversions in our society...there is something there for everybody if we read enough into the document...and all of these interpretations are done by folks that are clueless about the original intent of our Founding Fathers...the pressure cooker is fast building up pressure and I think change is eminent in our lifetimes...

Whew...okay...I will take a breath and step down from the soap box...


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Well...I do not know about fruit unless we are talking sour grapes but it could certainly be taken as showing the true colors of the men that rewrote the Bible for KJ (to serve a political agenda it would seem)...and that is for sure...but we have seen those true colors through the ages in all walks of life...



How so? Show me one instance where the "men that rewrote the Bible for KJ" were serving a political purpose. 

I'm afraid that you misunderstood the analogy between the KJB and the constitution(I'm sure it was because of my poor attempt at brevity.)

The KJB did not cause the anti-catholic rhetoric that you hear from some people. It is their own personal hatred or biases. The same holds true for the constitution and its manipulators.


----------



## Festus (Sep 8, 2007)

SBG said:


> Of what?



You said after lots of study...you had come to the conclusion below.  Farmisis was asking for examples to support your statement.   I'd be interested in reading those as well.

"There are considerable differences between the two early manuscripts. One is much more reliable and true to the originals."


----------



## Woody's Janitor (Sep 8, 2007)

I wish we would put this much effort into witnessing!


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

Festus said:


> You said after lots of study...you had come to the conclusion below.  Farmisis was asking for examples to support your statement.   I'd be interested in reading those as well.
> 
> "There are considerable differences between the two early manuscripts. One is much more reliable and true to the originals."



Would you like links?

Above I provided one that has tons of good info.


----------



## dear#4 (Sep 8, 2007)

Jesus is the son of the living God, He was crucified for the sins of all, died and arose on the third day and sits on the right hand of The Father for me!  I give praise everyday for this fact.  It helps me tremendously to remember, before I read any version of God's Word, to pray and ask for God's divine guidance in my studies and for Him to reveal to me what He wants me to learn.  He has shown me over and over how constant He is.  I also ask His guidance in avoiding legalism and above all seeking His truths above any secularism.
This has always helped me.  Although, we are all human and thus we all sin, make mistakes, and judgment errors. All the more reason to praise God for His divine plan to 
freely offer Salvation and forgiveness to all.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



SBG said:


> How so? Show me one instance where the "men that rewrote the Bible for KJ" were serving a political purpose.


 
I based my comment on one of the several links that have been posted in this thread...there was one where I was reading that KJ commissioned the rewrite of the Bible and he tempered the approach in a manner to keep down disagreement between the two prominant groups of the time: Puritans and Conformists...see the analogy there?  I was equating that to the Pres here in the US often having to navigate between the Reps and the Dems...thus the notion of the political agenda...



SBG said:


> I'm afraid that you misunderstood the analogy between the KJB and the constitution(I'm sure it was because of my poor attempt at brevity.)


 
Okay then what was your meaning?  But you have to admit, my response and summarization of the current state of affairs with the Constitution was dead on... 



SBG said:


> The KJB did not cause the anti-catholic rhetoric that you hear from some people. It is their own personal hatred or biases. The same holds true for the constitution and its manipulators.


 
I did not say that the KJB caused the anti-Catholic rhetoric...what I was pointing out was the irony of the fact that due to the Geneva Bible's anti-Catholic tone, the rewriting of the Bible was commisioned by KJ to help decrease said anti-Catholic tone...now with that notion in mind, fast-forward to present day...and what you see is that many of the "religions" that embrace the KJV have either A) never abandoned their anti-Catholic sentiment or B) over time they have reverted back to the old ways of anti-Catholicism which were one of the reasons indicated for the commisioning of the KJV in the first place...that is irony at its finest.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



SBG said:


> No..actually you impugned the integity of the character of the translators.
> 
> _"I do not know about fruit unless we are talking sour grapes but it could certainly be taken as showing the true colors of the men that rewrote the Bible for KJ "_
> 
> You made a dogmatic statement that you could not have known anything about. Your questions on the subject indicate that your knowledge of the subject was/is lacking. But that is okay, we all need to keep learning.


 
Whoa...back away from the coffee pot man...you seem to be slightly more impassioned about this whole issue than I...

As for the character of the rewriters...impuned?!?...I did nothing of the sort...I made a comment based on what I read on the links that YOU and several others posted...

In all honesty, while I respect their opinions I could not muster a squirt's worth of concern for what anyone else here believes (too big of a time waster IMHO to worry myself with when there are much more important issues to worry about) but I do enjoying hearing the various beliefs and learning new ways of thinking from time to time and I will not try and force any other belief structure upon them as that is their right to believe how they choose just as it is my right to believe how I choose without them forcing their opinion upon me...as I said, I love to hear the different opinions that others have and perhaps learn something in the process...it is interesting...it only becomes problematic when one party issues presumptive statements about the knowledge level of others and such...

As for asking questions...yes I have asked questions but that is not indicative of a lack of knowledge...actually it is far from it...when one chooses to close one's mind and no longer inquire and attempt to embrace new ideas then one has surely cheated themselves out of some potentially grand opportunities...

It is Saturday and close enough to noon so it is time to head to the fridge for a cool malted beverage...


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Whoa...back away from the coffee pot man...you seem to be slightly more impassioned about this whole issue than I...
> 
> As for the character of the rewriters...impuned?!?...I did nothing of the sort...I made a comment based on what I read on the links that YOU and several others posted...
> 
> ...




Whatever flips your lid. I see your "true colors."


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 8, 2007)

SBG said:


> Whatever flips your lid. I see your "true colors."


 
Atta way to witness, that'll show him.......


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

60Grit said:


> Atta way to witness, that'll show him.......



I expected nothing less from you Hugh. 

Old high horse Hugh has spoken...the sad thing is, the same thing you want to wannabe moderate about, you do all of the time. Time to check that mote...


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 8, 2007)

This is just getting silly now 

I really can't even believe that this conversation has gone on this long over a version (its just a version) of the Word

If you are reading the Bible at all I would be sure that pleases God and if he really thought the KJV or any other version was to be the only one He would have put that in the book


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



60Grit said:


> Atta way to witness, that'll show him.......


 


SBG said:


> I expected nothing less from you Hugh.
> 
> Old high horse Hugh has spoken...the sad thing is, the same thing you want to wannabe moderate about, you do all of the time. Time to check that mote...


 
Aw come on now y'all...it is just a discussion...one that I was enjoying...I have added the links that you both shared into my Internet Explorer "Favorites" in my Spiritual folder for future reading and reference...

Besides if you two abandon me as indicated in these posts, I will most likely live a life of eternal darnation (new word I just created )......

What color am I showing now SBG?


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 8, 2007)

*...*



jmharris23 said:


> This is just getting silly now
> 
> I really can't even believe that this conversation has gone on this long over a version (its just a version) of the Word
> 
> If you are reading the Bible at all I would be sure that pleases God and if he really thought the KJV or any other version was to be the only one He would have put that in the book


 
I actually do not care about a version...I was just enjoying reading about and discussing how the KJV came about since it is often the version used most frequently to beat folks like me over the head  

I prefer the Bible Gateway site online...it is searchable and allows one to pick the version that one is most comfortable with...that is what I do...if I read something in the KJV that I do not understand, I move to the NIV so that I can gain better understanding of it...

It has served me well and I have learned a lot...my most recent jump into the Bible was the book of Colossians...I have made it through around 3 or 4 chapters and enjoyed it too...


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Aw come on now y'all...it is just a discussion...one that I was enjoying...I have added the links that you both shared into my Internet Explorer "Favorites" in my Spiritual folder for future reading and reference...
> 
> Besides if you two abandon me as indicated in these posts, I will most likely live a life of eternal darnation (new word I just created )......
> 
> What color am I showing now SBG?




I guess you missed the smiley...it was the closest one that I could find that represented a tongue in cheek comment. It was a reference to your comment about the "rewroters true colors."  

You're right it was a decent discussion...then there comes a few that want to play holier than thou. They are the ones that want to act all pious until you go against their pet beliefs.


----------



## jneil (Sep 8, 2007)

I prefer The Thomas Jefferson Bible.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 8, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> This is just getting silly now
> 
> I really can't even believe that this conversation has gone on this long over a version (its just a version) of the Word
> 
> If you are reading the Bible at all I would be sure that pleases God and if he really thought the KJV or any other version was to be the only one He would have put that in the book



Exactly!

There sure seem to be a lot of folks intolerant of any one else's beliefs here.


----------



## alvishere (Sep 8, 2007)

Well Let me be the First....
my posts was not to offend anyone, It is just what was in my heart at the time.
   If anyone took offence please accept my apologies.
They are not to many threads I keep up with..but this was one of them.  
Hopefully the thread will recover in a more positive way.

  Good luck if you hit the Woods this afternoon!!


----------



## leroy (Sep 8, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> This is just getting silly now
> 
> I really can't even believe that this conversation has gone on this long over a version (its just a version) of the Word
> 
> If you are reading the Bible at all I would be sure that pleases God and if he really thought the KJV or any other version was to be the only one He would have put that in the book




I agree 100%. Im still floored that there are some Church's  that require KJV to teach.


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 8, 2007)

SBG said:


> I guess you missed the smiley...it was the closest one that I could find that represented a tongue in cheek comment. It was a reference to your comment about the "rewroters true colors."
> 
> You're right it was a decent discussion...then there comes a few that want to play holier than thou. They are the ones that want to act all pious until you go against their pet beliefs.


 
Now theirs a mouth full of kettle black, isn't it KJV boy...


----------



## jneil (Sep 8, 2007)

leroy said:


> I agree 100%. Im still floored that there are some Church's  that require KJV to teach.



There's probably some churches out there that require the version of the Bible thats been rewritten by the pastor to be the only one the members can read.


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

60Grit said:


> Now theirs a mouth full of kettle black, isn't it KJV boy...




At least I'm consistent...Liberal boy.

KJV fanatic out.


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

leroy said:


> I agree 100%. Im still floored that there are some Church's  that require KJV to teach.



It is about having a standard. Regardless of what version is used, there should be one Bible that is the standard for the church. I know plenty of Southern Baptist churches that use the NKJV as their standard. I applaud them for at least attempting not to have confusion in the church. It is sad that some have gotten so blinded that they can't see that....not addressed towards you leroy...just in general.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 8, 2007)

I do not think I would attend a church that dictated which version had to be read.

But, that is just me.


----------



## SBG (Sep 8, 2007)

farmasis said:


> I do not think I would attend a church that dictated which version had to be read.
> 
> But, that is just me.



I'm glad I attend one that does.

I'm having a hard time understanding why y'all can't see a difference between a church "dictating" what is read, and a church that uses a standard.

Signs of the times I reckon.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 8, 2007)

SBG said:


> I'm glad I attend one that does.
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding why y'all can't see a difference between a church "dictating" what is read, and a church that uses a standard.
> 
> Signs of the times I reckon.




So what happens if someone doesn't use the "standard"? Are they penalized, looked down on? What is the difference in dictating and having a standard at your church?
God didn't pick a standard, so which sign of the times is being fulfilled by Christians using another version?


----------



## packrat (Sep 8, 2007)

*yep*



Woody's Janitor said:


> I wish we would put this much effort into witnessing!



What the Janitor said.


----------



## leroy (Sep 8, 2007)

SBG said:


> It is about having a standard. Regardless of what version is used, there should be one Bible that is the standard for the church. I know plenty of Southern Baptist churches that use the NKJV as their standard. I applaud them for at least attempting not to have confusion in the church. It is sad that some have gotten so blinded that they can't see that....not addressed towards you leroy...just in general.



Our Pastor preaches out of the KJV and I usually use a KJV at Church but I have been in multible classes within the Church that the teachers use other versions. But I use other versions studying at home and sometimes at Church i also have a study Bible in the new living version that I like to use sometimes.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 8, 2007)

I will bring my red letter KJV here, and read my other versions when I am alone.


----------



## Flash (Sep 8, 2007)

Changing gears a little, Have any of y'all heard/read that one translation was translated by "folks that didn't even believe the bible"


----------



## Flash (Sep 8, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> no, actually not.  but i can see that folks who were not pro or con would be the best interpreters.  nothing to gain, nothing to lose, so to speak.
> 
> objectivity is the goal, wouldn't you say?



 Possibly, but if one was say a anti deer hunter I wouldn't think they would translate the pro dh verses correctly or would maybe weaken them. 

 At any rate if GOD is not in the translation (them lead of GOD) I don't agree with it. That being said we don't know which ones HE was in. But I suspect the almighty $$ drove a few of them.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 8, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> i can't disagree. but, on the other hand, if there weren't door to door purveyors of the gospel, (bibles for sale, for a fee) then where would many of us be?
> 
> markups vary, by bible version, and by communities related to the willingness  to pay.  and please remember, ability to pay is also a factor.
> 
> how do we best get the word to the folks who need to hear?



gettem to come to Woody's and we will tell them what to believe.


----------



## Flash (Sep 8, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> i can't disagree. but, on the other hand, if there weren't door to door purveyors of the gospel, (bibles for sale, for a fee) then where would many of us be?
> 
> markups vary, by bible version, and by communities related to the willingness  to pay.  and please remember, ability to pay is also a factor.
> 
> how do we best get the word to the folks who need to hear? :huh:



 I'm not meaning the features (bonded leather, dictionary, concordance etc) I'm referring to someone who may sit around (maybe book companies not sure) and say you know if we come out with a Woodys translation I bet we could SELL a bunch of them. 

We all need to be a better witness


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 10, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Forum rules say you are to provide an English translation of anything posted in a foreign language...
> 
> What will we call it...the FXJV





Sorry  WPh44, i forgot...

Would ya'll prefer English or King James English?... 
now who's not listening...


----------



## addictedtodeer (Sep 10, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Sorry  WPh44, i forgot...
> 
> Would ya'll prefer English or King James English?



American please!

Better yet just transliterate it!


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

leroy said:


> Nothing, I just dont see it getting down to regulating the version of the Bible that you HAVE to use inside the Church. Having an opinion is one thing but to come down and demand that be the only version is another.



What Im saying is, that if it is the opinion of the church that they stick to the KJV then whats wrong with that?


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

farmasis said:


> The Holy Spirit convicted mine.
> 
> So, I would I get a pass for the New King James Version or would I have to enter heaven by a back gate?
> 
> Seriously, the Word of God was spoken and translated into Greek, Herbew and Aramaic. Who is to say (including a church) that one English translation is better than another? I will stick with reading a version that I can understand, and let my prayers, meditation, study and the Holy Spirit reveal what it means.



Seriously the gospel convicted my soul and it came out of the KJV


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Good post Branchminnow...especially on not judging another man and I can attest to that given our phone conversation a while back...you were a true gentleman and very smart about Christianity and religion as well as honest and straight up which is very respectible but more importantly you heard what I had to say as well and did not offer any criticism...
> 
> One question though...obviously given the proliferation of Christianity before the illustrious King James came along it would seem the Bible must have been working and people were getting the word indicating that it was not "broke"...so why did he fix it?
> 
> ...



Thank you for the complement I feel the same as about you. 

I believe that King James was impressed by the Holy Spirit to compile the word and put it together.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> I really can't even believe that this conversation has gone on this long over a version (its just a version) of the Word



WE are talking about major differences between the two.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

farmasis said:


> Exactly!
> 
> There sure seem to be a lot of folks intolerant of any one else's beliefs here.



You are excactly right!


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

SBG said:


> I'm glad I attend one that does.
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding why y'all can't see a difference between a church "dictating" what is read, and a church that uses a standard.
> 
> Signs of the times I reckon.



I read about the signs of the times myself in the KJV.

And Im with you my friend, as we have been several times ........


----------



## SBG (Sep 10, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> I read about the signs of the times myself in the KJV.
> 
> And Im with you my friend, as we have been several times ........





What really troubles me are all of these tolerant christians that want to beat up on folks because they prefer the KJV over other versions. 

It is apparent that most "churches" today have done precisely what the Word prophesied that they would do.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

SBG said:


> What really troubles me are all of these tolerant christians that want to beat up on folks because they prefer the KJV over other versions.
> 
> It is apparent that most "churches" today have done precisely what the Word prophesied that they would do.



But yet you and I are self righteous(sp) and are ignorant and unlearned.


----------



## Festus (Sep 10, 2007)

SBG said:


> What really troubles me are all of these tolerant christians that want to beat up on folks because they prefer the KJV over other versions.
> 
> It is apparent that most "churches" today have done precisely what the Word prophesied that they would do.



I don't think it was the tolerant christians that were beating up on folks.  I would say some less than tolerant christians  were claiming that the KJV is the only accurate version of the bible that should be used.  
The tolerant christians disagreed.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 10, 2007)

I think if a church wants to restrict a version of the Bible that they allow, then that is their perogatives to write that into their bylaws and protect whatever integrity they feel justified. Our church doesn't have it in the bylaws, but our Pastor preaches from the KJV. Whenever we have a bible study, if someone reads a passage from another version, others are called upon to read it from the KJV as well. So, we don't restrict it, but we surely hear from it and encourage people to read it.

As I said earlier, I read the KJV, the NKJV (baptist men's study bible) and the NASB (John McAuthur study bible). I tend to gravitate more towards the KJV. I use the NKJV and the NASB sometimes as a study aid to help with the KJV.

Regardless, let's all read Isaiah 55:11.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 10, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> But yet you and I are self righteous(sp) and are ignorant and unlearned.



Fess up. You and Russ are closet liberals.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 10, 2007)

SBG said:


> What really troubles me are all of these tolerant christians that want to beat up on folks because they prefer the KJV over other versions.



Lets reread the first post...as an example of tolerance.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 10, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> WE are talking about major differences between the two.



Oh I'm sorry I thought we were talking about why the KJV was the best and only translation we should use


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

Festus said:


> I don't think it was the tolerant christians that were beating up on folks.  I would say some less than tolerant christians  were claiming that the KJV is the only accurate version of the bible that should be used.
> The tolerant christians disagreed.



There again my friend, Im saying that NOTHING eelse will do for me I wont have any other version, NEVER said anything about people who use something else..........


use it if you want Ill tolerate you and others but dont expect me to agree with you or anyone else fro that matter privately or publicly, because I wont, I think some dont really know that tolerance and agreement are two different things.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> Oh I'm sorry I thought we were talking about why the KJV was the best and only translation we should use



It is the best and ONLY translation that will do for me......you can use other books if you want but do not expect me to say its ok.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 10, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Fess up. You and Russ are closet liberals.



Ok our cover has been blown. The jig is up!


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 10, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> It is the best and ONLY translation that will do for me......you can use other books if you want but do not expect me to say its ok.



I don't. I admire your stance I just took the very first post by HH as saying that all other versions are inferior and while it is ok to believe that and stand firm on it- I don't necessarily believe that it is true


----------



## SBG (Sep 10, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Lets reread the first post...as an example of tolerance.



Can't argue with that. I hope you are as quick to point out those that have slammed the KJV folks.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 10, 2007)

SBG said:


> I hope you are as quick to point out those that have slammed the KJV folks.



Had someone come on here and said, "NIV is the only Bible and the KJV perverts the word of God."  I would have disagreed in the same fashion...but I didn't see anyone slamming KJV folks  solely because of the bible they used...healthy debate and determining logic is what this particular forum is all about...and I personally, always appreciate your perspective on things...



dear#4 said:


> Jesus is the son of the living God, He was crucified for the sins of all, died and arose on the third day and sits on the right hand of The Father for me!  I give praise everyday for this fact.  It helps me tremendously to remember, before I read any version of God's Word, to pray and ask for God's divine guidance in my studies and for Him to reveal to me what He wants me to learn.  He has shown me over and over how constant He is.  I also ask His guidance in avoiding legalism and above all seeking His truths above any secularism.
> This has always helped me.  Although, we are all human and thus we all sin, make mistakes, and judgment errors. All the more reason to praise God for His divine plan to
> freely offer Salvation and forgiveness to all.



Thanks Dear#4 for the reality check...


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Sep 10, 2007)

I don't believe even Paul thought there was only 1 interpretation of the Good News.

1 Cor 9 (NIV)

19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 

1 Cor. 9 (KJV)

19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 

   20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 

   21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 

   22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 

   23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Sep 10, 2007)

there are a lot of great translations of the Bible out there.  I use the KJV mostly because its words are very powerful.  I do think the NIV is kind of watered down and is not as powerful, but I don't think its translators did so with any intent on perverting the Deity of Christ.  For a new convert or more likely a child, the KJV is seriously stout reading.  There are some prefectly good modern translations out there.  Just stay away from paraphrased versions.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 10, 2007)

I guess there is nothing wrong with having a standard translation for a particular church as long as visitors do not feel substandard. When we create bylaws and interject man's rules into a church we can away from the main meaning and purpose of church, which is getting to the lost. Especially when we begin telling people what to read, how to believe, what to wear to church, how to act etc. 
You can go to extremes on both sides because you can let tolerance water down doctrine, but can also create a clickish club.
I agree with Doc, and I do not think the NIV attempted to remove anything. Just because words may be changed in a passage, doesn't mean it was taken out of the book entirely.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 10, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> It is the best and ONLY translation that will do for me......you can use other books if you want but do not expect me to say its ok.




I use the KJV only.
I have been looking at how to respond to this thread, good post and straight to the point.


----------



## alvishere (Sep 10, 2007)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> there are a lot of great translations of the Bible out there. ......
> Just stay away from paraphrased versions.



Would anyone who has a opinion would like to share what specific translation (if any) to stay away from and Why??


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Sep 10, 2007)

alvishere said:


> Would anyone who has a opinion would like to share what specific translation (if any) to stay away from and Why??



I dont have any problems with any translations that I've read.  I only mentioned paraphrased versions because they are not translated directly from the ancient texts, but are rather, a paraphrase of an already translated version, like the KJV or NIV.

Like if someone took the KJV and did not go back to the original Hebrew or Greek but just paraphrased what was already stated.  I believe that inaccuracies stem from paraphrasing.  Its kinda of like a secondary source... second generation could be (perhaps, though I don't believe God allowed any human error in the translation of the Bible) more chance, at least, for human error.


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 10, 2007)

"The Message" would be considered a paraphrased Bible.


----------



## leroy (Sep 10, 2007)

Festus said:


> I don't think it was the tolerant christians that were beating up on folks.  I would say some less than tolerant christians  were claiming that the KJV is the only accurate version of the bible that should be used.
> The tolerant christians disagreed.



agreed


----------



## farmasis (Sep 10, 2007)

alvishere said:


> Would anyone who has a opinion would like to share what specific translation (if any) to stay away from and Why??



I have a side by side edition of a KJV and a Living Bible (has one column of each on a page). Some of the the Living Bible paraphrased sections are not close to the way I understand them in the KJV. It can help to understand sections sometimes, but if anything doesn't sound right, I would have to use another source.


----------



## alvishere (Sep 10, 2007)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> I dont have any problems with any translations that I've read.  I only mentioned paraphrased versions because they are not translated directly from the ancient texts, but are rather, a paraphrase of an already translated version, like the KJV or NIV.




Are Morman, Jehovah and different domination's bibles considered different translation?


----------



## farmasis (Sep 10, 2007)

alvishere said:


> Are Morman, Jehovah and different domination's bibles considered different translation?



New world translation is the Jehovah Witness' own Bible. The Mormon's have the Book of Mormon, but I believe they also use the Bible.


----------



## SBG (Sep 11, 2007)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> I dont have any problems with any translations that I've read.  I only mentioned paraphrased versions because they are not translated directly from the ancient texts, but are rather, a paraphrase of an already translated version, like the KJV or NIV.
> 
> Like if someone took the KJV and did not go back to the original Hebrew or Greek but just paraphrased what was already stated.  I believe that inaccuracies stem from paraphrasing.  Its kinda of like a secondary source... second generation could be (perhaps, though I don't believe God allowed any human error in the translation of the Bible) more chance, at least, for human error.



Great point.

Another thing to consider is the method for translating from the baseline text. Some use formal equivalence(KJV, NKJV, NASB) and others use dyanamic equivalence(NIV, NRSV)


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 11, 2007)

Jeff Phillips said:


> I don't believe even Paul thought there was only 1 interpretation of the Good News.
> 
> 1 Cor 9 (NIV)
> 
> ...



Good job Jeff,
BUT

Paul did just what he said he would do, but he also preached the SAME gospel whereever he went, never left it, always was consistent in his beliefs...........he was a stubborn man and is admired by me. 

Now back to thread and the reason for your comparison, this is a small comparison considering there are 66 books to take into account.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 11, 2007)

So you think Billy Graham, and the Apostle Paul for that matter, could have reached so many more souls if they had used the KJV?...


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Sep 11, 2007)

farmasis said:


> New world translation is the Jehovah Witness' own Bible. The Mormon's have the Book of Mormon, but I believe they also use the Bible.


correct.  JW's book (I wont call it a Bible) contradicts the Bible, as does the Book of Mormon, which they claim is just a corrollary to the Bible, additional, if you will.  The Book of Mormon has been edited thousands of times.  Initially it said that people of color (Black people) had no soul and therefore could not go to heaven.  Guess Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni were racists... even though the Bible clearly states that salvation through Christ is available for any person who believes.


----------



## Lum (Sep 11, 2007)

I wouldn't put Paul and Billy Graham in the same boat, personally.  

I don't think Paul needed the KJV.  He could have had an original.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Sep 11, 2007)

Lum said:


> I wouldn't put Paul and Billy Graham in the same boat, personally.
> 
> I don't think Paul needed the KJV.  He could have had an original.


Paul wrote a lot of the original.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 11, 2007)

habersham hammer said:


> 1 Timothy 3:16,  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.(KJV)
> 
> 
> Luke 2:33 , And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him (KJV)
> ...



You put alot of effort in this and I agree 100% with you. The KJV will back itself up every time. 

The NIV makes Jesus look like an illegitimate child

Also look at 1st John 5 vs 7
KJV, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one"(there is one scripture that will back up 1st Timothy 3:16)

NIV, "For there are three that testify" Testify to what and who are they?


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 11, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> So you think Billy Graham, and the Apostle Paul for that matter, could have reached so many more souls if they had used the KJV?...



Paul? read the KJV?......you gotta be yankin my chain buddy.

Honestly ....Billy Graham.......he knows the word but in power and demonstration of the spirit I think he lacks.

Sorry to get off topic mods....but FX started it!


----------



## Festus (Sep 11, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> You put alot of effort in this and I agree 100% with you. The KJV will back itself up every time.
> 
> The NIV makes Jesus look like an illegitimate child
> 
> ...



I'd be curious to see what the Greek Manuscripts say.   That's the only way you'd know for certain which was more accurate.


----------



## Lum (Sep 11, 2007)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> Paul wrote a lot of the original.





That is what I was saying Doc Holiday.  I don't think anyone could disput that they had an older manuscript than he did.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 11, 2007)

Boy I'm glad it ain't ya'll deciding who goes in what boat... and who's spiritual ...and who's treasures are in heaven..





Branchminnow said:


> Paul? read the KJV?......you gotta be yankin my chain buddy.



Um ..sorta...Im yankin on ya'lls light switch cord...


----------



## SBG (Sep 11, 2007)

Festus said:


> I'd be curious to see what the Greek Manuscripts say.   That's the only way you'd know for certain which was more accurate.



Can we surmise from this post that you don't believe that God has preserved His Word to this current generation?


----------



## Festus (Sep 11, 2007)

SBG said:


> Can we surmise from this post that you don't believe that God has preserved His Word to this current generation?



Surmise all that you want but that is not what I said.  I've heard Gods word and I'm a believer.   
It's mans many interpretations of Gods word that concerns me.  Forgive me for not blindly accepting what I'm told or preached to by any man.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 11, 2007)

Festus said:


> I'd be curious to see what the Greek Manuscripts say.   That's the only way you'd know for certain which was more accurate.



I would also, but ask yourself what you believe in, was Jesus born of a virgin or was Joseph the Father? Now which one lines up more as to what you base your salvation on?


----------



## HuntinTom (Sep 11, 2007)

habersham hammer said:


> Men are trying to pervert the word of God :
> 
> Do not take my word for it please check out my references for yourself and you'll find this to be true.
> 
> ...



So, with this _either all right, or either all wrong philosophy_ -- How do you justify Luke 2:48 in the KJV?  Here, Mary calls Joseph Jesus' "father"...

(Luke 2:48 KJV)
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy *father *and I have sought thee sorrowing.


----------



## Festus (Sep 11, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> I would also, but ask yourself what you believe in, was Jesus born of a virgin or was Joseph the Father? Now which one lines up more as to what you base your salvation on?



I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and that Joseph was his earthly father.   Just like I'm the earthly father of my own/adopted kids.

Am I wrong for thinking along those lines?   

Some folks here are really hung up on simple semantics.    I try to study the entire message itself instead of focusing my efforts on a single phrase or word.


----------



## SBG (Sep 11, 2007)

Festus said:


> Surmise all that you want but that is not what I said.  I've heard Gods word and I'm a believer.
> It's mans many interpretations of Gods word that concerns me.  Forgive me for not blindly accepting what I'm told or preached to by any man.



Well...didn't mean to hit a rough spot on ya. Seemed like a pretty cut and dry question.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 12, 2007)

Here is the full version...

http://www.biblewaybc.com/kjv niv.htm


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 12, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Boy I'm glad it ain't ya'll deciding who goes in what boat... and who's spiritual ...and who's treasures are in heaven..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My light cant go out.......no matter how hard you yank the switch.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 12, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Here is the full version...
> 
> http://www.biblewaybc.com/kjv niv.htm



Looks to me like you are helping HH's argument......

Granted I did not read all of the website but I read enough........


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 12, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> My light cant go out.......no matter how hard you yank the switch.



 ...No sir...I wouldn't attempt to quench Matt 5:16 in any man, much less you Mr. Branch

Just trying to shed some light on the situation through deductive logic..and getting folks to recognize some facts...



Branchminnow said:


> Looks to me like you are helping HH's argument......



Nope, just presenting all the evidence..


----------



## alvishere (Sep 12, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Here is the full version...
> 
> http://www.biblewaybc.com/kjv niv.htm



Thanks for the link..lots a good info
Just a personal note about myself...I do prefer KJV, But I Was going to the "Big" church in town which taught out of NIV(most of the bigger churches seems to have gone to NIV)...It was frustrating to me because I wanted follow in KJV version and most of my intention was in trying to find out if I was following him in the same passages instead of studying Scriptures.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 12, 2007)

alvishere said:


> Thanks for the link..lots a good info



Uh...lots of um..."debatable" information also..but I think i've already made my case here...  

I can only boast on the cross, not which Version of the bible I use...


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 12, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> :
> 
> Nope, just presenting all the evidence..



I will have to say you are more objective about this than i but you kinda know some of the folks that Im kin to and grew up around. So I dont think it surprises you too much........


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 12, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> I will have to say you are more objective about this than i but you kinda know some of the folks that Im kin to and grew up around. So I dont think it surprises you too much........



Sir,
   I very much respect the way you and I both were raised... I still go to homecomings where such convictions run strong and deep, and I love those churches dearly..and no I ain't surprised at all, indeed I am grieved that many modern churches don't count bibles anymore and those classic hymns are herd less and less, and I will always yern to hear the word of God preached from the KJV.  But I have to believe God loves more than one generation, and His word will not fail, nor is the living word of God dependent on 1611 or anyone at that time....  So while I appreciate the old time religion, I appreciate even more the old, old time Gospel.  

In fact, were prob Branch Kin, and even if we ain't...we're still brothers in Christ, and as such we shall proceed.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 12, 2007)

I hear you..... and yes we are.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2007)

HuntinTom said:


> So, with this _either all right, or either all wrong philosophy_ -- How do you justify Luke 2:48 in the KJV?  Here, Mary calls Joseph Jesus' "father"...
> 
> (Luke 2:48 KJV)
> And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy *father *and I have sought thee sorrowing.



 The next verse Jesus corrects her and says ...... I must be about my Father's business


----------



## HuntinTom (Sep 12, 2007)

Flash said:


> The next verse Jesus corrects her and says ...... I must be about my Father's business



Yep.  And I could site something else - Then you could site something else - Then I could.....  And on-and-on till the water got muddier and muddier and the thread morphed itself into numerous pages of peeing contest...  My ONLY point in all of this is that there is absolutely NO convincing argument that the 1611 KJV is the ONLY legitimate translation of scripture, and that the NIV is NOT a perversion of the word.  Many people have had, and continue to have their lives transformed through the KJV - And I praise God for that -- BUT - BUT - BUT - Many others also have and will continue to have their lives just as radically, and just as legitimately transformed through the NIV and many, many other translations of the scriptures as well.

But, maybe I should heed my own words and remember why I rarely post any more -- _You can't debate the already convinced... _ I'll just save my breath to reach those who are not already convinced of the Good News of a God who loved them so much He allowed His Only Son to die the death of a common criminal on the cross on their behalf.

I'll continue to post on other topics, but leave the narrow-minded debate to the already convinced...


----------



## Lum (Sep 12, 2007)

Nice post Flash.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 12, 2007)

Flash said:


> The next verse Jesus corrects her and says ...... I must be about my Father's business





HuntinTom said:


> Yep.  And I could site something else - Then you could site something else - Then I could.....  And on-and-on
> 
> I'll continue to post on other topics, but leave the narrow-minded debate to the already convinced...



Flash, thats what I love about the KJV, it continues to back itself up in scripture, 

Tom, your right, folks could go on and on and on and on, but we are warned of those that would pervert the gospel, so if that makes me narrow minded, so be it. I like the old saying "you got to stand for something or you will fall for anything" 

I will take a shot using only 1 scripture, 1st John 5:7, look at it in the KJV and the NIV. The NIV version is basically a whole new doctrine that lines up with JW teachings. I know for a fact because I worked with one and that was the first scripture he read to me, I red flagged him and told him not interested.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 12, 2007)

How long might this go on? I think we're at an impasse


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 12, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> How long might this go on? I think we're at an impasse



Im done with it, Im narrow minded (just convinced really) and not very easy to compromise..........


----------



## farmasis (Sep 12, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Im done with it, Im narrow minded (just convinced really) and not very easy to compromise..........



Thought this was interesting:

KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Information on the Textual Sources The Greek Texts The Authorized Version of 1611 (King James Version) utilizes the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") as the basis for the Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus is based upon various Greek texts as well as some influence by the Latin Vulgate. The earliest work being prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, revised by Robert Estienne (better known as Stephanus), and further revised by Theodore Beza. The text produced by each, is substantially the same, there are some variations between their various editions.



The Blue Letter Bible utilizes the Stephanus 1550 edition. 


NIV
For there are three that testify:


Available Translations and Versions for 1Jo 5:7 

Footnote:
Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=7&version=KJV#7

So, it appears that the additional content added in the KJV came from the Latin Vulgate, and not greek manuscripts.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2007)

HuntinTom said:


> I'll just save my breath to reach those who are not already convinced of the Good News of a God who loved them so much He allowed His Only Son to die the death of a common criminal on the cross on their behalf.



That's the main thing right there


----------



## HuntinTom (Sep 12, 2007)

Flash said:


> That's the main thing right there



Yeah, but I must admit - That's a para-phrase from the HTV


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 12, 2007)

*This thread has been interesting!
I have heard lots of people speak of the KJ version as THE WORD OF GOD!
That's ridiculous of course. It was written 1600 years after the original christian manuscripts and thousands of years after the Hebrew manuscripts.
I believe people often [my own mother for one] think that the style of language used-goeth, cometh etc etc was the way Jesus and his apostles talked! 
Of course, they spoke Greek and the Hebrews spoke Hebrew! 
I believe that all translations are useful. "PARAPHRASED" versions are not my cup of tea, they are basically the authors beliefs [TO ME]
Largely, I think that the more modern english translations have a big advantage over the old 16th century Douay or King James versions.
If you were going to study, TO LEARN, any subject of importants, would you use a book that speaks 16th century english?
That just hinders the learning process.
One of many KJ errors (POSTED EARLIER BY SOMEONE ELSE) prove that KJV is not anything special, above other translations-making it "THE WORD OF GOD"    [I think I John 5:7-8 is a good example, that translators have their own beliefs too and sometimes reflect them in their translations. I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record **in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,** the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
{{ SHOULD READ ONLY- "For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."}}


The text between the ** in the above passage was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. In this they are correct and the KJV was taken from the Latin Vulgate.

My old KJ bible says the scripture is "spurious at best"
I think all non paraphrased versions are the word of God equally and can all be used to find truthful teachings. All will also contain some margin of error and perhaps, like the KJV also some feel for the translators beliefs???
It's like all research [including online] multiple sources-not single sources- bring the most accurate results. The KJ bible is just another translation, one, as metioned abobe, that WE KNOW attempted to sway the readers thinking by adding to the word of God!*


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 13, 2007)

*...*



5282jt said:


> *This thread has been interesting!*
> *I have heard lots of people speak of the KJ version as THE WORD OF GOD!*
> *That's ridiculous of course. It was written 1600 years after the original christian manuscripts and thousands of years after the Hebrew manuscripts.*
> *I believe people often [my own mother for one] think that the style of language used-goeth, cometh etc etc was the way Jesus and his apostles talked! *
> ...


 
Great post...from what I have read and seen, it seems it is safe to say that unless someone here was actually there at the time the Word of God was handed down and cares to share that wisdom with us  then anything we have to read today is a paraphrase at best anyhow...and that paraphrase is even further "perverted" by judgement calls made by nothing more than humans that think they know what God meant...one thing is certain, we will all know one day...

I have come here often and tried to ask questions as I seek out not the correct path (because no one here or anywhere on Earth knows that one) but at least one that hits somewhere near the path of righteousness and I have found nothing but criticism and judgement as opposed to objective advice (with a few exceptions and those folks will know who they are)...I have heard the sounds of the thumps on the Bible and I have seen the unrelenting close-minded judgement of others and it is sickening to be honest and don't even come close to resembling Christian-like behavior at least not from what little I have managed to learn in my middle-aged life...

Just my $0.02 and I know it ain't even worth that much to many here...with that said, I have watched this thread and most recently this forum go through its "morphs" and changes and I am done with the both of them...

...oh and before anyone chimes in...don't worry...I will make certain the door does not hit me on the way out...there...saved you the trouble of typing it...


----------



## SBG (Sep 13, 2007)

5282jt said:


> *This thread has been interesting!
> I have heard lots of people speak of the KJ version as THE WORD OF GOD!
> That's ridiculous of course. It was written 1600 years after the original christian manuscripts and thousands of years after the Hebrew manuscripts.
> I believe people often [my own mother for one] think that the style of language used-goeth, cometh etc etc was the way Jesus and his apostles talked!
> ...


----------



## 60Grit (Sep 13, 2007)

5282jt said:


> *This thread has been interesting!*
> *I have heard lots of people speak of the KJ version as THE WORD OF GOD!*
> *That's ridiculous of course. It was written 1600 years after the original christian manuscripts and thousands of years after the Hebrew manuscripts.*
> *I believe people often [my own mother for one] think that the style of language used-goeth, cometh etc etc was the way Jesus and his apostles talked! *
> ...


 

Great post 528


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 13, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> I red flagged him and told him not interested.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 13, 2007)

5282jt said:


> *This thread has been interesting!
> I have heard lots of people speak of the KJ version as THE WORD OF GOD!
> That's ridiculous of course. It was written 1600 years after the original christian manuscripts and thousands of years after the Hebrew manuscripts.
> I believe people often [my own mother for one] think that the style of language used-goeth, cometh etc etc was the way Jesus and his apostles talked!
> ...



Sorry to disagree but this post dont make whole lot of sense.


----------



## bruceg (Sep 13, 2007)

*Wow - got me confused*

I use the NIV. I can read it and understand it. As a kid, I used the KJV - and sometimes go back to that for the language. 

On a completely different note - the KJV is Public Domain (maybe not more recent translations and versions). That's kind of good if you are working on a study - as you could potentially put your study in the public domain as well (especially if you stick with open source or public domain graphics and self-publish, or keep it online).

I've been looking around for a public domain Spanish Bible. That might be a challenge. The Reina-Valera Antigua appears to be - but I'm not sure at all about it's quality (Reino-Valera 1960 is copyrighted, though). I do know my understanding of Spanish is pretty close to nill - even after taking it in middle school and college.

But the NIV seems to have very reasonable copyright laws. You can include up to 500 verses in publications not for sale, so long as the text you quote makes up less than 25%  of what you write, and you include NIV's copyright statement - otherwise you have to write in for permission.

All that to say - I like the NIV. I like the KJV. If I where to work on a very brief introductory study for new converts, I might consider using the KJV since it is in public domain - but that could also cause problems if the new convert doesn't have a high education level and can't understand it.

(not that I'm smart or anything, or am really qualified to write a study - but sometime I do things I'm not qualified to do)


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Sep 13, 2007)

I think that God, in his omnipotence has not allowed any direct translation of original texts to be in direct contrast to what He actually wanted in there.


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

I agree with you Doc. While there are errors in translations, the truth is not hidden, if a person searches for it the way God's word says to search for it. 
 Proverbs 2:3-6


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

*What part do you not understand?*

Maybe I can make myself clearer?


Branchminnow said:


> Sorry to disagree but this post dont make whole lot of sense.


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

*I don't believe God would allow this?*

"anything we have to read today is a paraphrase at best anyhow...and that paraphrase is even further "perverted" by judgement calls made by nothing more than humans that think they know what God meant...one thing is certain, we will all know one day...
"
I believe God is too responsible to allow his word to become nothing more than a paraphrased book.
Obviously [from my post] translations have, and probably will always have, errors and even outright additions to God's word, to promote a translators beliefs-such as the one I pointed out in the KJV. That is why it is important to use many translations. Back in King James day, those translators knew they could get away with what they did. Nowadays, a critic would nail such an addition in a minute!
That's why I prefer [most of the time] modern english translations-besides the fact that modern english is easier to learn fron. I don't use archaic 16th century english in my daily life! 
If you have bible questions and want straight from the bible, simple answers, i'd be glad to assist you as best I am able. I've studied the bible very regularly since 1976. I am no genius, but that's not what is needed to understand God's word-Holy Spirit is what is needed and i'm positive and thankful that I have that!


----------



## PWalls (Sep 14, 2007)

5282jt said:


> to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine



Your opinion is that the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is unscriptural? Or, some part of it?

If so, please start another thread. Would be curious why you would think that.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 14, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Your opinion is that the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is unscriptural? Or, some part of it?
> 
> If so, please start another thread. Would be curious why you would think that.



I was wondering about that too


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 14, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> I have come here often and tried to ask questions as I seek out not the correct path (because no one here or anywhere on Earth knows that one) but at least one that hits somewhere near the path of righteousness and I have found nothing but criticism and judgement as opposed to objective advice (with a few exceptions and those folks will know who they are)...I have heard the sounds of the thumps on the Bible and I have seen the unrelenting close-minded judgement of others and it is sickening to be honest and don't even come close to resembling Christian-like behavior at least not from what little I have managed to learn in my middle-aged life...
> 
> Just my $0.02 and I know it ain't even worth that much to many here...with that said, I have watched this thread and most recently this forum go through its "morphs" and changes and I am done with the both of them...
> 
> ...oh and before anyone chimes in...don't worry...I will make certain the door does not hit me on the way out...there...saved you the trouble of typing it...


Hate to see ya bounce off Phil. But if you ask a question on an open forum with over 10,000 members, well.........your going to get more than one type answer. Besides, were you looking for "the" answer or something to tickle the ears and make it sound pleasing? As far as "bible thumpers" what the heck does that mean anyway, you do want folks to use scripture to help answer your biblical questions dont you? Lets face it, the truth hurts, I have not always agreed with everyone on here and didnt like their answer sometimes, but you know what, sometimes they were right, but it wasnt what I wanted it to be. Maybe the problem does not lie with the "bible thumpers" or the ones that stand with their beliefs,  it just might be the one looking for an easy path to trod. That is only my .02 worth, look forward to you posting again here.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 14, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Hate to see ya bounce off Phil. But if you ask a question on an open forum with over 10,000 members, well.........your going to get more than one type answer. Besides, were you looking for "the" answer or something to tickle the ears and make it sound pleasing? As far as "bible thumpers" what the heck does that mean anyway, you do want folks to use scripture to help answer your biblical questions dont you? Lets face it, the truth hurts, I have not always agreed with everyone on here and didnt like their answer sometimes, but you know what, sometimes they were right, but it wasnt what I wanted it to be. Maybe the problem does not lie with the "bible thumpers" or the ones that stand with their beliefs,  it just might be the one looking for an easy path to trod. That is only my .02 worth, look forward to you posting again here.



 You said you were through with  this one...

Good post actually..

And WPH44...as one of our other esteemed members suggests..

Breath in, Breath out...keep posting... 

we like hearin what you have to say


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 14, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> You said you were through with  this one...
> 
> Good post actually..
> 
> ...



I lied

I like Phil, he seems to be a good hearted fella, hopefully he will get back in here.


----------



## Lowjack (Sep 14, 2007)

Frankly I don't see much perversion of the Word.
By omitting the blood doesn't do any harm as everyone knows "without Blood there is no remission of sin" If the bible was perverted it was done clearly by omitting the true name of the Messiah by Calling him Jesus, which is not his name and has no significant meaning, yet his real name "Yeshua" Means God's salvation in his language of Hebrew.
I would worry more about knowing my savior than change of words.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Hate to see ya bounce off Phil. But if you ask a question on an open forum with over 10,000 members, well.........your going to get more than one type answer. Besides, were you looking for "the" answer or something to tickle the ears and make it sound pleasing? As far as "bible thumpers" what the heck does that mean anyway, you do want folks to use scripture to help answer your biblical questions dont you? Lets face it, the truth hurts, I have not always agreed with everyone on here and didnt like their answer sometimes, but you know what, sometimes they were right, but it wasnt what I wanted it to be. Maybe the problem does not lie with the "bible thumpers" or the ones that stand with their beliefs,  it just might be the one looking for an easy path to trod. That is only my .02 worth, look forward to you posting again here.



Know what? the older I get the less it matters what other folks think. I am well founded in the faith (country baptist feetwashing, ..you know that faith ) and the KJV is good enough....and refuse to budge. Because as our moderator put it I am unconvincable ....or somfin like that


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

Lowjack said:


> By omitting the blood doesn't do any harm as everyone knows "without Blood there is no remission of sin" If the bible was perverted type:



I think that very statement is why some will not agree with you, because if they read part of the word of God....and dont read all of it then they wont know about the blood and the remission of sin.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> I think that very statement is why some will not agree with you, because if they read part of the word of God....and dont read all of it then they wont know about the blood and the remission of sin.



Now you just proved the point I was trying to make earlier- if they read part of the word of God(any part, from any translation) without reading all of it, or at least without an understanding of the WHOLE story of scripture- you have big trouble.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> Now you just proved the point I was trying to make earlier- if they read part of the word of God(any part, from any translation) without reading all of it- you have big trouble.



No my point was if they read any other version than that of KJV and dont read all of it then they have big trouble......




Im just an ole hard head aint I????



Again, Ive never said that folks cannot be saved if they only believe like me...to the contrary I think more than Baptist will be in Glory! (there I said it I just hope none of my congregation reads this or I will be brought up on charges ) I think God can reach people through the preached gospel. I just feel in my heart (and my hard head) that the KJV is the closest that we have, BECAUSE it is in my heart, not in my head.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 14, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> I lied
> .



Sinner 

Branchminnow...I like the water at 110 degrees with epsom salt


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Sinner
> 
> Branchminnow...I like the water at 110 degrees with epsom salt



You know me purdy well dont ya????? And to my knowledge we aint never met. 

Yesir aint nuthin like that creek baptizing I got... I started to include that but I figgerd you would be the only one that would get it anyway.....and if he aint sleepin NGMM would have got it as well.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> No my point was if they read any other version than that of KJV and dont read all of it then they have big trouble......
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good post I just wanted to  you a little more


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> Know what? the older I get the less it matters what other folks think. I am well founded in the faith (country baptist feetwashing, ..you know that faith ) and the KJV is good enough....and refuse to budge. Because as our moderator put it I am unconvincable ....or somfin like that



dont forget your narrow minded to..................


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> Yesir aint nuthin like that creek baptizing I got...



I did mine up at the Young Harris swimming pool...but fear some will argue it didn't take since it wasn't "runnin" water.. 

What say ye ?  my king james brother


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 14, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> I did mine up at the Young Harris swimming pool...but fear some will argue it didn't take since it wasn't "runnin" water..



life guard on duty or not?


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> dont forget your narrow minded to..................



You mean you really think Im narrow minded???


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 14, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> life guard on duty or not?


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> I did mine up at the Young Harris swimming pool...but fear some will argue it didn't take since it wasn't "runnin" water..
> 
> What say ye ?  my king james brother



I was dunked in a cold water creek, but since then I have baptized in a lake and a pool, I prefer a cold water creek just because its a mountain thang. But other than that all I can say is that the River Jordan was runnin' water


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


>



You are right that was funny


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> Oh yeah! Now we're bringing it back.  the creek i was baptised in was the same creek we had seined the saturday before that Sunday afternoon.
> 
> we didn't know there was any other way...



When a kid......I did TRY to sneek a cast or two in the water before the baptizing, but usually got my tail lite up when I tried,,, I got it more than once (tail lite up that is) ....did I mention I was a hard head?


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> You mean you really think Im narrow minded???



I dont answer trick questions


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> all I can say is that the River Jordan was runnin' water





good thing i had em throw in an extra chlorine tablet...


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> good think i had em throw in an extra chlorine tablet...


----------



## alvishere (Sep 14, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> You know me purdy well dont ya????? And to my knowledge we aint never met.



I getting to know some of ya real well, Your Avater pic is etched in my mind...then I go back and read your past post and I really get to know ya!!


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 14, 2007)

alvishere said:


> I getting to know some of ya real well, Your Avater pic is etched in my mind...then I go back and read your past post and I really get to know ya!!



Im very opinionated.....and easy to get along with( for the most part) and i love to laugh.... sometimes folks dont see all of me in one post, I forget sometimes how many people are online who dont kn9ow me to well.

But i enjoy a good tussle ever now and again .....even with frineds.

As for my avatar, I love gettin those younguns outside with a fishin pole or rifle or  shotgun in there hands.


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

*HUH?*

*
My post is about the KJV of the bible and I pointed out an error, to show that it is not a holier than holy translation, but just another good and useful translation.
The teaching of the trinity, was already 1300 years old by the time the KJV was completed-already decided upon under the influence of Constantine, together with Catholic church heads, who were still divided in their acceptance of the new[at that time in the year 325] trinity doctrine.
I like to talk about 1 thing at a time, not jump from subject to subject. Do you have a comment about my post about the KJV? I would be interested in hearing what you think.

*


PWalls said:


> Your opinion is that the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is unscriptural? Or, some part of it?
> 
> If so, please start another thread. Would be curious why you would think that.


----------



## Flash (Sep 14, 2007)

5282jt  do you see the Trinity in other verses?


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

*Yeshua?*

They didn't omit -the blood- They added all that I quoted between the ** marks. The last words of Revelation warn against adding to or subtracting anything from the word of God.
Also, not saying you are wrong, but if you put Jesus back to Yeshua, you will have to do the same with every other Hebrew bible name. Also, his language was not Hebrew. By Jesus time, Greek was the common language. See an instance of Jesus actually speaking Hebrew here-Mathew 27:46
Besides, [just food for thought ] what about Emman′u-el’ ??
Matt. 1:23, RS: “‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el’" 



Lowjack said:


> Frankly I don't see much perversion of the Word.
> By omitting the blood doesn't do any harm as everyone knows "without Blood there is no remission of sin" If the bible was perverted it was done clearly by omitting the true name of the Messiah by Calling him Jesus, which is not his name and has no significant meaning, yet his real name "Yeshua" Means God's salvation in his language of Hebrew.
> I would worry more about knowing my savior than change of words.


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

*That would be a different thread*

*This thread is about the King James Version of the bible, not about the trinity doctrine.
Have you anything to say about my thoughts on the KJV not being above other translations?
*


Flash said:


> 5282jt  do you see the Trinity in other verses?


----------



## 5282jt (Sep 14, 2007)

*the KJV is good enough....and refuse to budge. Because as our moderator put it I am u*

*I REALLY MEAN NO OFFENCE AT ALL, but
from reading the bible for years, that statement rings of the Pharisees thinking a bit.
They too felt that what they had was "good enough" and refused "to budge" and were "unconvincable"
REMEMBER, I MEAN NO PERSONAL OFFENCE AT ALL![/B]





Branchminnow said:



			Know what? the older I get the less it matters what other folks think. I am well founded in the faith (country baptist feetwashing, ..you know that faith ) and the KJV is good enough....and refuse to budge. Because as our moderator put it I am unconvincable ....or somfin like that
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## PWalls (Sep 15, 2007)

5282jt said:


> *
> My post is about the KJV of the bible and I pointed out an error, to show that it is not a holier than holy translation, but just another good and useful translation.
> The teaching of the trinity, was already 1300 years old by the time the KJV was completed-already decided upon under the influence of Constantine, together with Catholic church heads, who were still divided in their acceptance of the new[at that time in the year 325] trinity doctrine.
> I like to talk about 1 thing at a time, not jump from subject to subject. Do you have a comment about my post about the KJV? I would be interested in hearing what you think.
> ...




I have already stated in the thread that I am not 100% KJV only. I am probably 90% KJV only. I have a NKJV study bible and a NASB study bible that I read on occasion.

I highlited your post because you referenced Scripture about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and said it was unscriptural. That is why I asked your opinion of whether you thought the Trinity was unscriptural and encouraged you to start another thread if so. Question still stands.


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 20, 2007)

5282jt said:


> *I REALLY MEAN NO OFFENCE AT ALL, but
> from reading the bible for years, that statement rings of the Pharisees thinking a bit.
> They too felt that what they had was "good enough" and refused "to budge" and were "unconvincable"
> REMEMBER, I MEAN NO PERSONAL OFFENCE AT ALL![/B]*


*

UNLIKE the pharasees I have the KJV IN my heart, the gospel that was preached from it CONVICTED my soul my point is it is good enough for me. SO why change when man comes up with something that sounds better or easy to understand, as some have puit it*


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 20, 2007)

5282jt said:


> *I REALLY MEAN NO OFFENCE AT ALL, but
> from reading the bible for years, that statement rings of the Pharisees thinking a bit.
> They too felt that what they had was "good enough" and refused "to budge" and were "unconvincable"
> REMEMBER, I MEAN NO PERSONAL OFFENCE AT ALL![/B]*


*

I dont mean any offense either, but

Just maybe, the pot is trying to call the kettle black

The NIV will mislead you if you do not know the word in whole.*


----------



## farmasis (Sep 20, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> The NIV will mislead you if you do not know the word in whole.



...and the KJV adds things to passages that never appeared in the original jewish text.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 20, 2007)

farmasis said:


> ...and the KJV adds things to passages that never appeared in the original jewish text.



Proof.

I mean real proof. Show an original Jewish text and compare that same with the KJV.

Dont use somebodies theory or what some theologian has to say. Show the text from both.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 20, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Proof.
> 
> I mean real proof. Show an original Jewish text and compare that same with the KJV.
> 
> Dont use somebodies theory or what some theologian has to say. Show the text from both.



I'd like to see you do the same thing with a KJV and the original Greek and Hebrew texts.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 20, 2007)

All around the mulberry bush....


----------



## HuntinTom (Sep 20, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> All around the mulberry bush....



the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...


----------



## farmasis (Sep 20, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Proof.
> 
> I mean real proof. Show an original Jewish text and compare that same with the KJV.
> 
> Dont use somebodies theory or what some theologian has to say. Show the text from both.




I already did.

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=1440489&postcount=211

1 John 5:7
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV *en tw ouranw o pathr o logos kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisin *
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV* en tw ouranw o pathr o logos kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisin*

Byzantine Majority
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV 


Alexandrian
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV 


Hort and Westcott
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV

All differences between the Greek texts are highlighted in bold type. 

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index2.htm


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 20, 2007)

farmasis said:


> I already did.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=1440489&postcount=211
> 
> ...




The KJV of that scripture tells exactly what the rest of the Bible tells about the Godhead.  

The NIV is not that consistent to back itself up with other scripture.

Thats why I said, if you dont know what your reading, the NIV will mislead you.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 20, 2007)

jmharris23 said:


> I'd like to see you do the same thing with a KJV and the original Greek and Hebrew texts.



You dont always get what you like do you


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 20, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> All around the mulberry bush....



I thought it was a mulberry tree..........
And when David enquired of the LORD, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.


At least thats what the KJV says.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 20, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> I thought it was a mulberry tree..........
> And when David enquired of the LORD, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.
> 
> 
> At least thats what the KJV says.


----------



## MerkyWaters (Sep 20, 2007)

*Baptizing*



Branchminnow said:


> I was dunked in a cold water creek, but since then I have baptized in a lake and a pool, I prefer a cold water creek just because its a mountain thang. But other than that all I can say is that the River Jordan was runnin' water



I posted a thread last month in this forum and i believe that good ole' branch and me know each other!!

Due to the drought we have been suffering our baptizing hole had been much dried up! We had searched all day and then praise the Lord saturday night not know where we were going to be baptizing the next day...a man showed up from a church that branch goes to and told us to use there baptizing hole that is was plenty deep enough!! IF your interested i posted the experience that God allowed me to witness then click on this link.... http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=131250

GOD has blessed My wife and I so much!!

Didnt mean to hijack the thread! 
Not trying to stir the pot even more just standing for my faith!  "I" know what Bible that i will be taught and fed out of...KJV.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 20, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> I thought it was a mulberry tree..........
> And when David enquired of the LORD, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.
> 
> 
> At least thats what the KJV says.



 Thats great Branch!


----------



## farmasis (Sep 20, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> The KJV of that scripture tells exactly what the rest of the Bible tells about the Godhead.
> 
> The NIV is not that consistent to back itself up with other scripture.
> 
> Thats why I said, if you dont know what your reading, the NIV will mislead you.



Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Speaking of misleading....
There is evidence indicating that one mediaeval Latin writer, while purporting to quote from the First Epistle of John, inserted a passage now known as the Comma Johanneum (1 John) which has often been cited as an explicit reference the Trinity. It may have begun as a marginal note quoting a homily of Cyprian that was inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist.[22] The Comma found its way into several later copies, and was eventually back-translated into Greek and included in the third edition of the Textus Receptus which formed the basis of the King James Version. Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with an example containing it, which he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact.[23] Isaac Newton, known mainly for his scientific and mathematical discoveries, noted that many ancient authorities failed to quote the Comma when it would have provided substantial support for their arguments, suggesting it was a later addition.[24] Modern textual criticism has since concurred with his findings; many modern translations now either omit the passage, or make it clear that it is not found in the early manuscripts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Now, I don't have a problem with The KJV, and I do not use the NIV, but I think it to be rediculous to trash a translation of the Word of God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 20, 2007)

Poetry, when translated, gets beaten up somewhat. Their is some amount of it in all languages. Scripture is no different.

It is also the case with the Koran according to arabs. Written in arabic Muslims say its beauty is lost to the english speaking-reading world.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 21, 2007)

Branchminnow said:


> I thought it was a mulberry tree..........
> And when David enquired of the LORD, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.
> 
> 
> At least thats what the KJV says.





I stand corrected...and so suffer me this....

Ye boys keep fetching a compass about thy quarrel


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 21, 2007)

Sorry FX it was just to easy.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 21, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Ye boys keep fetching a compass about thy quarrel



  Where'd ya'll go, to look this one up in an American version?


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 21, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Where'd ya'll go, to look this one up in an American version?



We decided to call the Pope


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 21, 2007)

*...*



Spotlite said:


> We decided to call the Pope


 
Wow!  278 posts before someone decided to try and shift the focus to the Catholics...knew it would happen sooner or later...always has, always does, always will and seemingly will always be tolerated...

 (<---half way )


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 23, 2007)

#281 

If we don't hit 300, I'm going to be really disappointed.  Every dead horse needs to be flogged al least this much.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 25, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> Wow!  278 posts before someone decided to try and shift the focus to the Catholics...knew it would happen sooner or later...always has, always does, always will and seemingly will always be tolerated...
> 
> (<---half way )



Breathe in, breathe out, move on.....................


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 25, 2007)

Twenty five ought six said:


> #281
> 
> If we don't hit 300, I'm going to be really disappointed.  Every dead horse needs to be flogged al least this much.



Only 17 more and we'll have him good n dead -


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 25, 2007)

I think Ill just ttt this thread just to make sure everybody has had thier turn with the stick.....


----------



## FX Jenkins (Sep 25, 2007)

I don't think I've expressed how I feel about the issue...


----------



## Branchminnow (Sep 25, 2007)

Cool pic!


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 25, 2007)

*...*



Spotlite said:


> Breathe in, breathe out, move on.....................


 

You are probably right...due to the fact that it is allowed and tolerated regularly it would not matter what me or anyone else said anyhow...


----------



## PWalls (Sep 25, 2007)

Man, I was in a good mood today until I saw WPH44's avatar.

Phil, you would be more careful with that thing if you knew the heartache and frustration some of us have about "No Child Left Behind". That is one of my pet peeves and has more than once or twice had me go down to the school and "talk" to an educator.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Sep 26, 2007)

*...*



PWalls said:


> Man, I was in a good mood today until I saw WPH44's avatar.
> 
> Phil, you would be more careful with that thing if you knew the heartache and frustration some of us have about "No Child Left Behind". That is one of my pet peeves and has more than once or twice had me go down to the school and "talk" to an educator.


 
Oh, I know the heartache it can and does cause...I have several friends and relatives that are teachers.  Too hard to resist using it as an avatar though  as it is one of the best examples of the incompetency of...oh wait...nevermind...wrong forum...


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Oct 1, 2007)

> Oh, I know the heartache it can and does cause...I have several friends and relatives that are teachers. Too hard to resist using it as an avatar though  as it is one of the best examples of the incompetency of...oh wait...nevermind...wrong forum...



O.K. guys, try not to hijack the thread, and let's stay on topic.


----------



## Mojo^ (Oct 6, 2007)

Festus said:


> Interesting.  But have you gone back to see if the KJV perverts the books that were used in making it?



Indeed! Excellent point. If you read the original text and compare the two, there is a world of difference.


----------

