# The Bible.. yet another "Q".....



## SnowHunter (Jun 29, 2010)

So this came up in a discussion with a close friend this weekend...and I thought I'd ask here, considering the amount of devout/commited believers that still post in this forum...

Why are there so many different versions of the Bible, not just in wording (IE NIV vs KJV) but in content? 

If its truly the "Devinely inspired" Word of God, why does it seem the Bible is ever changing as though its a "living document" instead of being an "as it was originally written, set in stone" document.

Not trying to  just genuinely curious as to how yall see it


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 29, 2010)

SnowHunter said:


> Why are there so many different versions of the Bible, not just in wording (IE NIV vs KJV) but in content?



You have to start with the source documents.  Most modern versions (NIV, NASB, etc.) are based on the "critical text" while others (KJV, NKJV) are based on the "traditional text".  The differences in the text used explains some of the differences in the versions.  For example, the critical text does not include the last twelve verses of Mark.  These twelve verses are included in modern versions but are usually footnoted with an explanatory paragraph.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 29, 2010)

I have heard many an argument/debate/discussion about this subject. 
My personal opinion is this: If you don't understand what you're reading,it ain't doin' you one bit of good.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 29, 2010)

Also, the archeological finds have changed some of the source documents.  In other words, the KJV 1611 was done in 1611 using the documents available at that time.  Since that time, archeological findings have found source documents that are older in dates.  Although the variances are extremely minute, they explain some of the differences.

Also, our own language changes.  Anyone who spoke english 200 years ago would have a difficult time with some of the slang and dialect that is used today.

Lastly, anytime you translate (or for LJ transliterate) any language, you have differences.

For example...mas o menos in spanish means what in english?

Pretty good...alright...so so.....

You can see how I used 3 words...all different, that mean the same thing.  Now...when a book the volume of the Bible, you can understand that there are going to be variations.

Lastly, you touched on content.  To that, I figure you're referencing what is commonly known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books.  I'm not going to hash that one out again...do a search on it.  It has been debated to death...and I don't want to upset any and get banned from this site


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 29, 2010)

I will add....I think too many focus on the speck (minute translational differences) rather than the log (the message of man's need for a savior and Christ's ability to fulfill that need.)


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 29, 2010)

A large AMEN from the back row on _that!_


----------



## earl (Jun 29, 2010)

The truth is , it's easier to prove that your religion is the only true religion when you have your very own version of the holy book.


----------



## Inthegarge (Jun 29, 2010)

Earl, unfortunately even using the same translation people put a different "spin"on interpretation... I believe it has more to do with your heart than your version and/or intrepretation........Most differences I see have to do with putting a man into the picture reserved for God alone.....JMHCO  RW


----------



## earl (Jun 29, 2010)

I believe you are right about the heart .


----------



## Randy (Jun 29, 2010)

For the same reasons there are so many denominations and religions.  Man's interpretations of God's words.  And hence the reason I don't worry too much about the Bible being the inerrant word.  Just in my short life man has messed up a lot of God's work.  Certainly in the thousands of years of the scripture man has messed up some of it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 29, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> I will add....I think too many focus on the speck (minute translational differences) rather than the log (the message of man's need for a savior and Christ's ability to fulfill that need.)



A amen from the front row also.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 29, 2010)

One thing I know is true: God is the same - yesterday,today,and forever. "Man" is a _mess!_


----------



## SnowHunter (Jun 29, 2010)

Thanks for the input yall


----------



## game dog (Jun 30, 2010)

KJV only inspired translation of the word of god.


----------



## Thor827 (Jun 30, 2010)

game dog said:


> KJV only inspired translation of the word of god.



Just curious, why would you think that?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 30, 2010)

game dog said:


> KJV only inspired translation of the word of god.



which one?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 30, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> "Man" is a _mess!_


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

We can't even fathom just how messed up we all are, that is how much of a mess we are.

The Heart is Deceitful and Desperately Wicked!!!

DB BB


----------



## earl (Jun 30, 2010)

game dog said:


> KJV only inspired translation of the word of god.



BeenHuntin , is that you ?


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jun 30, 2010)

Thor827 said:


> Just curious, why would you think that?



Do you believe God is all powerful? If so wouldnt you believe his words were powerful? 
Psalms 29:4 The voice of the Lord is powerful;
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,...
Ecclesiastes 8: 1 and 4 say: Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing?...
4: Where the word of a king is, there is power:...
You wouldnt know that from reading one of the other versions, such as the New International perversion. They chop it up bad. One reason I believe the King James Bible is the only inspired word of God, in the English translation, is because there was nor is anybody that could interpret the Greek and Hebrew as King James could, therefore he ordered the fifty something translators to translate the original manuscripts into the English language when it was finished in 1611. And I guess it just "happened" to be that he was a king. "where the word of a king is, there is power. Another "coinsidence" is Psalms 147:19 He showeth his word unto Jacob.... Jacob is Hebrew for????? thats right James
You can not possibly believe that the new translations are to keep up with our changing dialect, "the new times", because we know from Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. therefore his Word is the same. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.I also believe despite the continual attempt to get rid of the King James Bible, and smash it, and trash it, that God will preserve His word as stated in Psalms 12:7... from this generation for ever.
I also believe that if you cant read and understand the Bible, if you dont have the right Bible, its because you cant compare scripture with scripture to make things make sense. I Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Now this is were it gets even more interesting.
Romans 1:24-27
24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleannes through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their own lust one toward another; men with men....One of the NIV revisers was openly lesbian. Therefore changed the Word of God taking out every mention of sodomy in the entire book.(isnt that sweet). She made the "truth of God" into a lie.

Oh and lets not forget Revelation 22:18-19 ...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,....
The NIV and other versions have taken out over 88000 words from the King James version. 
There isnt but one Word of God, therefore, there isnt but one Bible. If you dont have the KING JAMES BIBLE, you dont have the Bible. God made it clear to us what Bible he wanted us to use, therefore we must use it. The others...they just look like it, to decieve you that thats the word of God, but we know that there is on deciever, the devil. I believe he would have you believe what you got is God's word, to keep you from knowing the truth. 

Just a small example why I believe the King James Bible


----------



## Thor827 (Jun 30, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> Do you believe God is all powerful? If so wouldnt you believe his words were powerful?
> Psalms 29:4 The voice of the Lord is powerful;
> Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,...
> Ecclesiastes 8: 1 and 4 say: Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing?...
> ...



My question is why aren't earlier versions valid? Are you saying that the true word of God wasn't known until 1611?  Do you think that the Church of England is the only church that understands God's plan? I'm not discounting the KJV in any way, I'm just wondering why translations written earlier (closer to the time of Christ) are not considered valid.


----------



## SneekEE (Jun 30, 2010)

SnowHunter said:


> So this came up in a discussion with a close friend this weekend...and I thought I'd ask here, considering the amount of devout/commited believers that still post in this forum...
> 
> Why are there so many different versions of the Bible, not just in wording (IE NIV vs KJV) but in content?
> 
> ...



The bible is a big time selling book. Every body wants a peice of the pie. But each time someone prints up a version it has to be different cause of copyrights and such. So with each newer version they chaNGe some things. And if they change some things to suit a certain group of people , they gaurantee themsleves a profit.


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jun 30, 2010)

Thor827 said:


> My question is why aren't earlier versions valid? Are you saying that the true word of God wasn't known until 1611?  Do you think that the Church of England is the only church that understands God's plan? I'm not discounting the KJV in any way, I'm just wondering why translations written earlier (closer to the time of Christ) are not considered valid.



The modern english language was not finalized until 1604. That is when the first english dictionary was published, look it up. King James ordered the translation of the KJV to begin in 1604. It was not finished until 1611. 1611-1604 is 7 yrs. Seven being the number of perfection.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 30, 2010)

This all sounds vaguely familiar.

Hey,Ruger: Do they hafta use the KJV in Outer Mongolia,too?


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jun 30, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> The bible is a big time selling book. Every body wants a peice of the pie. But each time someone prints up a version it has to be different cause of copyrights and such. So with each newer version they chaNGe some things. And if they change some things to suit a certain group of people , they gaurantee themsleves a profit.



This is close to being accurate. The Bible is still to this day the most selling book. However, out of all the versions of the Bible, the King James Bible has no copyright on the words of the Bible itself. Ill give it to you that the Preface, or the publishers notes, or if you  have one with maps in the back, those might (will) in most cases be copyrighted. Study Bibles will have a copyright, but again not on the text of the Bible, just on the notes. Again, I hope this isnt another attempt to discount the words of God.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 30, 2010)

You might wanna save yourself a tremendous amount of time and typing,and use the "search" feature at the top of the page.Type in KJV and you will get an idea how many times this argument has already been hashed out. I apologize if that sounds rude.

Y'all new guys have at it!  I guess it's time for the next "class."


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jun 30, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> This all sounds vaguely familiar.
> 
> Hey,Ruger: Do they hafta use the KJV in Outer Mongolia,too?



I said I believe it is the perfect word of God in English. All languages are obviously different. Take the originals in the original language, translate them to mongolian, and viola. As God said his word will be preserved. Of course you will have a translation issue when a language has a word that another doesnt. Example that might be understood. My father in law is french. He speaks English and French. Neither more than the other. I however dont. If him and his buddies our speaking french, and they try to explain something to me, they always have trouble explaining it to me. Why? He speaks both fluently. Because some words dont have an English translation, so they get as close as they can.


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jun 30, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> You might wanna save yourself a tremendous amount of time and typing,and use the "search" feature at the top of the page.Type in KJV and you will get an idea how many times this argument has already been hashed out.



It will never be "hashed" out. You will always have believers and non believers. Fact of the matter is some people dont like to be offended or told they cant do something and get away with it so they find a kindler gentler bible that tells them they are good people. Aww thats nice


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 30, 2010)

So - let me get this straight: Anyone who doesn't tote a KJV Bible is not a believer?

Reckon what version the Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip led to the  Lord was using?


----------



## SnowHunter (Jul 1, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> You might wanna save yourself a tremendous amount of time and typing,and use the "search" feature at the top of the page.Type in KJV and you will get an idea how many times this argument has already been hashed out. I apologize if that sounds rude.
> 
> Y'all new guys have at it!  I guess it's time for the next "class."


Dave, I wasn't looking to see folks hash this out.. I just wanted each individuals opinions on thier views of my question...  and I got honest opinions, which I'm thankful for


----------



## Thor827 (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> The modern english language was not finalized until 1604. That is when the first english dictionary was published, look it up. King James ordered the translation of the KJV to begin in 1604. It was not finished until 1611. 1611-1604 is 7 yrs. Seven being the number of perfection.



Ruger, 
Looks like I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the KJV was the only valid translation ever written. If I'm understanding correctly, you're really saying it's the only valid English translation. Am I correct?


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

Thor827 said:


> Ruger,
> Looks like I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the KJV was the only valid translation ever written. If I'm understanding correctly, you're really saying it's the only valid English translation. Am I correct?



Thats correct, I tried to express that enough, I might not have made it clear enough as you can see in my next post. Either that, or there are just some who have been blinded, and couldnt see the truth if it smacked them in the face. The key words here are "in English" I believe the King James Bible to be the Gods perfect word from cover to cover including the cover preserved in English for us. There cant be two Bibles in one language, and both be perfect if they dont say the same thing.


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> So - let me get this straight: Anyone who doesn't tote a KJV Bible is not a believer?
> 
> Reckon what version the Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip led to the  Lord was using?



That would be correct. Think about what you are saying THE ETHIOPIAN eunuch nor Philip would have spoken ENGLISH would they????? Just because you read it in English does not mean they had it in English.


----------



## MoonPie (Jul 1, 2010)

SnowHunter said:


> So this came up in a discussion with a close friend this weekend...and I thought I'd ask here, considering the amount of devout/commited believers that still post in this forum...
> 
> Why are there so many different versions of the Bible, not just in wording (IE NIV vs KJV) but in content?
> 
> ...



Good question that I thought of too SnowHunter. Has it changed    , or just been translated into language of the time.  If there is  a real God of the Bible, which I do believe their is, seems likely He'd allow translation to evolve just as language does, but no matter what translation you get, doesn't it say the same thing.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> One of the NIV revisers was openly lesbian. Therefore changed the Word of God taking out every mention of sodomy in the entire book.(isnt that sweet). She made the "truth of God" into a lie.
> 
> Oh and lets not forget Revelation 22:18-19 ...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,....




Couple of questions...

Where is the word Sodomy in the KJV?  Just curious.

So which KJV version is the inspired one?  1611?  NKJV?  KJV with 66 books or 73?


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

The key word here is "translation." The KJV,NIV,etc,etc are TRANSLATIONS. It seems ridiculous,and even arrogant, to me when someone says only 16th century English is correct.Who was king James,to me? Just another human,messin' with the original Greek,Aramaic, and Hebrew.I 'preciate him taking the time out of his busy king-job to translate the Bible so some could read it that didn't speak Greek,Aramaic,or Hebrew,but he warn't th' be-all and end-all of translators to me.I think they talked kinda funny in 16th century England,myself. If you make me mad enough,I might just come up with a CNV! [That would be Cracker Nation Version.] I bet a lot of fellow rednecks would read and study God's Word that never even picked it _up_ before,because they couldn't make sense of 16th century English.

OK - fire away!


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

SnowHunter said:


> Dave, I wasn't looking to see folks hash this out.. I just wanted each individuals opinions on thier views of my question...  and I got honest opinions, which I'm thankful for



Snowy,I think I know you well enough that I'm sure you didn't ask this question in anything other than an honest,seeking way. 
I guess there _is_ no simple answer to your question about why there are so many versions of the Bible. There have been people arguing about which one is acceptable since it was written.It is a topic that has been beat to death on this forum many times. It would eliminate a lot of conflict if every new poster of a thread here would do a search of the forum,and look at what has already been said about the subject. Believe me - there's not much that hasn't been covered!

Love ya,sister.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> Take the originals in the original language, translate them to mongolian, and viola.



Would that be modern Mongolian or the Mongolian spoken in 1611?  I'm guessing it would be the former, so why can't we take the originals and translate them into modern English?

Here's another question for you.  I have a bible called the Third Millenium Bible.  It is the complete KJV text, but the archaic words that have changed meaning in the last 400 years have been updated to their modern equivalents.  Do you consider the TMB to be a legitimate bible?


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

MoonPie said:


> Good question that I thought of too SnowHunter. Has it changed    , or just been translated into language of the time.  If there is  a real God of the Bible, which I do believe their is, seems likely He'd allow translation to evolve just as language does, but no matter what translation you get, doesn't it say the same thing.



No the original is still there. the others would be a private interpretation of the translation. Which is why we have 
II Peter 1:20 and 21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. YES THAT IS A PERIOD after interpretation
21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
the text of the Bible will not change as our language does. That goes back to two verses. Remember we are to compare scripture with scripture. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word(notice the W is capitalized), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
now compare that verse to Hebrew 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. This would mean that within one language the WORD is always the same. There isnt two words, there is ONE. This would be much easier if there wasnt a private interpretation, instead there was scripture. But that cant happen in an argument about the scripture because only the KING JAMES Bible will tell you that.


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Would that be modern Mongolian or the Mongolian spoken in 1611?  I'm guessing it would be the former, so why can't we take the originals and translate them into modern English?
> 
> Here's another question for you.  I have a bible called the Third Millenium Bible.  It is the complete KJV text, but the archaic words that have changed meaning in the last 400 years have been updated to their modern equivalents.  Do you consider the TMB to be a legitimate bible?



Your losing focus on the in English
1611 has no importance to mongolian. The original manuscripts in the Greek and Hebrew is what you would translate that to in mongolian. Sorry if that was confusing. 

The second question answeres itself. The King James Bible was written in English and translated exactly how the Word of God was originally given to us in Greek and Hebrew. So no I do not consider it to be a legitamate Bible.
For instance: In the King James Bible the Bible will consistantly use the word dung. From beginning to end. Any where you find a reference to excrement, it is refered to as dung. Dung is an archaic word. ALL other version have "updated" to more modern language. This shows a lack of consistancy in the "chosen" words to change because your book will say dung as well. If there was a consistancy in your book, wouldnt it be changed to "crap pile" That may not seem to extreme, consider where these inconsistancy may lead you down a road to saying salvation is no longer by faith because what we think faith means now a days is totaly different from what it was known to mean. Just an example


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 1, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Couple of questions...
> 
> Where is the word Sodomy in the KJV?  Just curious.
> 
> So which KJV version is the inspired one?  1611?  NKJV?  KJV with 66 books or 73?



I don't want my questions to be skipped 

Also, I'm adding one more.

You say that the KJV was based on original documents.  This is not true...we don't have the originals.  That being said, it was based on the oldest manuscripts available at the time.

As archeological finds give us older documents, do you think the KJV should be updated based on these "more original" docs?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> The second question answeres itself. The King James Bible was written in English and translated exactly how the Word of God was originally given to us in Greek and Hebrew. So no I do not consider it to be a legitamate Bible.


 
Except that Ancient (not modern) Greek and Hebrew did not directly translate to English and some words had a multitude of uses and meanings and some words just flat out didn't have a translation.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> The original manuscripts in the Greek and Hebrew is what you would translate that to in mongolian. Sorry if that was confusing.



I'm not confused.  I'm just wondering what's wrong with taking the "original manuscripts in the Greek and Hebrew" and translating them into modern English.  

The KJV translators took the original Greek and Hebrew and put it into the English of their day.  You agree that it's OK to translate the G and H into modern Mongolian (or French or German or Swahili.)  For some reason, though, you object to a translation into modern English.  What's wrong with modern English?




Ruger GSP said:


> The second question answeres itself. The King James Bible was written in English and translated exactly how the Word of God was originally given to us in Greek and Hebrew. So no I do not consider it to be a legitamate Bible.
> For instance: In the King James Bible the Bible will consistantly use the word dung. From beginning to end. Any where you find a reference to excrement, it is refered to as dung. Dung is an archaic word. ALL other version have "updated" to more modern language. This shows a lack of consistancy in the "chosen" words to change because your book will say dung as well. If there was a consistancy in your book, wouldnt it be changed to "crap pile" That may not seem to extreme, consider where these inconsistancy may lead you down a road to saying salvation is no longer by faith because what we think faith means now a days is totaly different from what it was known to mean. Just an example



The KJV translators themselves would disagree completely with this, and they make that crystal clear in their preface to the reader.




Ruger GSP said:


> This shows a lack of consistancy in the "chosen" words to change because your book will say dung as well.



Chosen by whom?




Ruger GSP said:


> ... these inconsistancy may lead you down a road to saying salvation is no longer by faith because what we think faith means now a days is totaly different from what it was known to mean. Just an example



I think that's about as likely as Guam tipping over (to paraphrase Hank Johnson.)


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Couple of questions...
> 
> Where is the word Sodomy in the KJV?  Just curious.
> 
> So which KJV version is the inspired one?  1611?  NKJV?  KJV with 66 books or 73?



Where is the word rapture? Its not there, but it is.
Sodomy= root word sodom= sodomite=men with men=not natural=gay
from the beginning Gen 13: 13 But the men of Sodom were wicked 
? why were they wicked

Read all of Genesis 18(KJV)

Deuteronomy 23:17 ....nor a sodomite....

Romans 1:26-27   26. ....their women did change the natural use of the women=lesbian
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women= no longer doing natural things with women....burned in their own lust one toward another; men with men= sodomy


second question

the NKJV is not the KJV . It is not the KJV.
The King James Bible was translated exactly how we have it today. with 66 books. Every King James Bible you will find only has 66 books.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> The King James Bible was translated exactly how we have it today. with 66 books. Every King James Bible you will find only has 66 books.



The original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha.


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Except that Ancient (not modern) Greek and Hebrew did not directly translate to English and some words had a multitude of uses and meanings and some words just flat out didn't have a translation.



thats why I use the only Bible that was translated to English by 1. a king (were the word of a king is there is power) 2. God promised us His word would be preserved. 3. You have no idea what manuscripts we have and dont have. (the history channel will tell you) As I said before, if there were more manuscripts discovered that God wanted us to have it would have been preserved and given to us in the English language.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> Where is the word rapture? Its not there, but it is.
> Sodomy= root word sodom= sodomite=men with men=not natural=gay
> from the beginning Gen 13: 13 But the men of Sodom were wicked
> ? why were they wicked
> ...



This is fun

The verses above in KJV and NIV....the meaning is the same.

Genesis 13:13 (New International Version)
13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD

Genesis 13:13 (King James Version)

 13But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.


The NIV does say Sodom....or has the concept of Sodomy, just like the KJV.  So...your arguement above stating that the NIV removed it is false.

Second, it is ignorant to think that every KJV bible has 66 books in it.  The original KJV 1611 has 73 books as it includes the deuterocanonical books.

The other questions?

Oh...and one more....does it have to have "_____Baptist Church" on the front to make it inspired?


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> This is fun
> 
> The verses above in KJV and NIV....the meaning is the same.
> 
> ...




YES!


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> This is close to being accurate. The Bible is still to this day the most selling book. However, out of all the versions of the Bible, the King James Bible has no copyright on the words of the Bible itself. Ill give it to you that the Preface, or the publishers notes, or if you  have one with maps in the back, those might (will) in most cases be copyrighted. Study Bibles will have a copyright, but again not on the text of the Bible, just on the notes. Again, I hope this isnt another attempt to discount the words of God.



ERM you said you hoped my statement was not another attempt to discount Gods word.....I suppose you are implying by saying "another attempt" that I have in the past attempted to discount Gods word. Well I havnt, never would, and for the record I never read anything but the KJV. All that beeing said, are you sick in the head...


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> The original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha.



It still does.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

If you believe there is nothing wrong with the newer bible versions then i invite/challenge you to go to youtube and type in the title...

Gail Riplinger on New Age Bible Versions 1 of 16 

watch all 16 videos, if you still think there is nothing wrong with the newer versions i would absolutly love to hear your reasoning as to why.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> It still does.



Mine doesn't.  

I used to own a KJV that had the Apocrypha, but I had to look hard to find it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> If you believe there is nothing wrong with the newer bible versions then i invite/challenge you to go to youtube and type in the title...
> 
> Gail Riplinger on New Age Bible Versions 1 of 16
> 
> watch all 16 videos, if you still think there is nothing wrong with the newer versions i would absolutly love to hear your reasoning as to why.



I have read a lot of KJV-only material (including Riplinger's) and remain unconvinced.  

The KJV is a great translation, but it's problem is that the English language has changed in the last 400 years, and it's not as easy to understand as the modern versions.  I'll ask this question again:  what's wrong with putting the ancient texts into the common English used today?  That's exactly what the KJV translators did.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Mine doesn't.
> 
> I used to own a KJV that had the Apocrypha, but I had to look hard to find it.



Buddy of mine brought one to work some time back, it was a new 1611 with the Apocrypha, dont recal where he got it.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I have read a lot of KJV-only material (including Riplinger's) and remain unconvinced.
> 
> The KJV is a great translation, but it's problem is that the English language has changed in the last 400 years, and it's not as easy to understand as the modern versions.  I'll ask this question again:  what's wrong with putting the ancient texts into the common English used today?  That's exactly what the KJV translators did.



I cant tell you what is WRONG, because you will not think it is WRONG. You, like I, have already made up your mind on the subject, at least that is what i think. The definitions of words do not change on there own, todays english can mean anything people want it to mean. Who gets to decide the meanings of todays common english words?

Just curious, was there nothing in Riplingers teaching that caused you to have a bad taste in your mouth toward some of the changes?

Personaly I love the KJV, have no problem understanding it. I do not believe anyone who tells me they have a hard time understanding it, if I can understand it, anyone who can read will also. As you can tell by my spelling i can barly read...lol.But to each his own.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 1, 2010)

Here is some interesting history on the Bible in English.

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

And this on the KJV (which , if you read the article points to the fact that though many "copies" claim a date of 1611, most every copy in common use today is a revised edition dating from as early as 1629. Seems it didn't take long to start changing the 1611 edition. The more prominent revisions are the 1762 Cambridge and the 1769 Oxford. Retaining the "1611" date was common practice by publishers into the 20th century, regardless of changes made.)

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html


Seems that a significant number of ancient manuscripts have come to light since Jimmy, the I, authorized his version. This, from www.bibleandscience.com.

The KJV translators were limited in the manuscripts available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls had not been discovered yet (1947). (See The Dead Sea Scroll Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated For the First Time into English by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, published by Harper San Fancisco, 1999; also see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein published by Eerdmans, 1979; Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter published by Fortress Press, 1986). Ancient Greek manuscripts had not yet been uncovered. Aleph, a fourth century AD codex,  was discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai. Codex Vaticanus from fourth century AD at the great Vatican Library at Rome was not made available until a photographic facsimile was published in 1889-90.(See The Text of the New Testament By Bruce Metzger published by Oxford University Press, 1964). 

Further problems arise, for example.

The KJV 1611 references 3 entirely mythical creatures. Unicorns, dragons, and satyrs seem to be imperfect representations of things clearly understood to be real creatures 1600+ years earlier. The translators had no way of knowing exactly what animals the authors recorded in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, but they took the liberty of inserting "unicorns", "dragons", and "satyrs" into the 1611.

Also,there are places (especially in the Book of Revelation) where there is no Greek manuscript evidence for the words. For example, no Greek text says "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. The Greek says, "tree of life." I John 5:8 is a later addition not found in Greek manuscripts before the 16th century.

Now, I offer this, not to discourage the reading and study of the KJV or to claim a particular translation is superior or inferior, but to show that God is not limited in how or when He may choose to bring clarity to the minds of men who seek Him. His Word is sufficiently powerful to accomplish that which He intends, regardless of language or translation. To be so focused on one English translation is to deny the infinite power of God to use whatever and whomever He chooses. God speaks through the Bible. 

For me, it is far more important to be in the proper relationship to God and my fellow man than to be so absorbed by the particular translation anyone else chooses to use.

You get that right and God will direct you to the Bible He wants you to have! (That is, if He hasn't already.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> I cant tell you what is WRONG, because you will not think it is WRONG. You, like I, have already made up your mind on the subject, at least that is what i think.



I think I have a pretty open mind on the subject which is why I've read as much of the KJV-only material as I have.  Here's my main problem with KJV-only advocates:  they treat the KJV as if it just dropped out of heaven one day with "Certified by God Almighty" stamped on the cover.  It didn't.  

I understand that KJV-only people believe that modern versions are based on the corrupt "critical" texts.  OK, fine -- then take the Textus Receptus and translate it into modern English.  Not only won't KJV-only people do this, but they dismiss any attempt by others to do so (see the NKJV and the TMB I mentioned earlier, for example.)

The purpose of translation is to put the original languages into the language of everyday people.  That's where the KJV comes up short.




SneekEE said:


> Just curious, was there nothing in Riplingers teaching that caused you to have a bad taste in your mouth toward some of the changes?



Riplinger strikes me as a nut, as does Peter Ruckman.  I don't think she or Ruckman are the best spokesmen for the KJV-only position.  I think Edward Hills makes a better case.

Also, they didn't _change_ the KJV.  They did new translations of different manuscripts.  I understand that people have trouble with that.  If I accept that argument, I'm left with a difficult-to-understand KJV.  A better option would be a modern translation of the Textus Receptus, but that is anathema to KJV-only people.


----------



## Ruger GSP (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> ERM you said you hoped my statement was not another attempt to discount Gods word.....I suppose you are implying by saying "another attempt" that I have in the past attempted to discount Gods word. Well I havnt, never would, and for the record I never read anything but the KJV. All that beeing said, are you sick in the head...



Sorry it did sound like that after I went back and read it, but that is not what i meant. I meant another as in somebody else making another attempt. I see that it is not and apolagize. And yes Riplinger hits it on the nail head as does Ruckman. As for the rest of you guys who are KJV haters, II Timothy 4:3 Tor the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

There has been given ample evidence that the KJV is the perfect word of God. Not one reference has been give from any of the useless translations you love so dear. As for not being able to understand it, they have already disproved that 100xs over by proving the KJV is readable and understandable on a much lower education level. Its the "great" ones of today that cant accept it. but that is not a surprise because my Bible already told me there would be.
Im done showing you the mountains of evidence, and now Ill practice what Proverbs 26:4 tells me to do, and that is Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him. This is turned into a definite one sided argument, which it always does, because their simply isnt any proof that the garbage you read is true.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I think I have a pretty open mind on the subject which is why I've read as much of the KJV-only material as I have.  Here's my main problem with KJV-only advocates:  they treat the KJV as if it just dropped out of heaven one day with "Certified by God Almighty" stamped on the cover.  It didn't.
> 
> I understand that KJV-only people believe that modern versions are based on the corrupt "critical" texts.  OK, fine -- then take the Textus Receptus and translate it into modern English.  Not only won't KJV-only people do this, but they dismiss any attempt by others to do so (see the NKJV and the TMB I mentioned earlier, for example.)
> 
> ...



well i am not a kjv only guy, however it is the only one i read. The bible talks about people turning away from the truth, or a falling away. I figure if each time the bible is written anew, and somthing is changed, then sooner or later you are no longer reading the truth.I just prefer to go back to the oldest version i can read.

What keeps someone from comming up with there own version, making it say what they want? Dont know if it is true, but i was told there is a gay and lesbian bible now. It supposedly paints Jesus and John as beeing gay, but that is just a rumor I was told.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> Sorry it did sound like that after I went back and read it, but that is not what i meant. I meant another as in somebody else making another attempt. I see that it is not and apolagize. And yes Riplinger hits it on the nail head as does Ruckman. As for the rest of you guys who are KJV haters, II Timothy 4:3 Tor the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
> 
> There has been given ample evidence that the KJV is the perfect word of God. Not one reference has been give from any of the useless translations you love so dear. As for not being able to understand it, they have already disproved that 100xs over by proving the KJV is readable and understandable on a much lower education level. Its the "great" ones of today that cant accept it. but that is not a surprise because my Bible already told me there would be.
> Im done showing you the mountains of evidence, and now Ill practice what Proverbs 26:4 tells me to do, and that is Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him. This is turned into a definite one sided argument, which it always does, because their simply isnt any proof that the garbage you read is true.



I totaly agree with you on the KJV beeing easly understandable by lower education levels. I am living proof!

I hear people say... "I just dont understand all the THOUS and THEES" I am like, stupid, Thou is youThee is me, problem solved, now go read your bible LOL


Seriously I do have a question, or comment, that I heared, that realy causes me to support my KJV.

I dont recall exactly how it went, If you know, please refresh my memory. It had to do with the bible verses that said OF Christ, and FROM Christ. Maby it was when it speaks of the rightousness of Chirst. Any way, by taking away the of and adding from, or vice versa, it realy changes the meaning.But now I cant recall what the meaning was, or what i was told. Have you ever heared this, or know what I am trying to explain?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

Ruger GSP said:


> Sorry it did sound like that after I went back and read it, but that is not what i meant. I meant another as in somebody else making another attempt. I see that it is not and apolagize. And yes Riplinger hits it on the nail head as does Ruckman. As for the rest of you guys who are KJV haters, II Timothy 4:3 Tor the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
> 
> There has been given ample evidence that the KJV is the perfect word of God. Not one reference has been give from any of the useless translations you love so dear. As for not being able to understand it, they have already disproved that 100xs over by proving the KJV is readable and understandable on a much lower education level. Its the "great" ones of today that cant accept it. but that is not a surprise because my Bible already told me there would be.
> Im done showing you the mountains of evidence, and now Ill practice what Proverbs 26:4 tells me to do, and that is Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him. This is turned into a definite one sided argument, which it always does, because their simply isnt any proof that the garbage you read is true.



I will just say that not a single one of the KJV translators believed that the KJV was the Ultimate, Perfect, Never-To-Be-Eclipsed English Translation.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

Oh and Centerpin Fan,Ripplinger does seem odd, but that isnt important. What matters is what she is saying, is it true or not. I mean if the crasiest person in the world stands up and says Jesus is Lord, then with that I would have to agree. Not going to dissagree based on the fact that he is crasy. With all she had to say, and all the "work" she presented, there wasnt anything about the changes in the newer translations  you felt were wrong?


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I will just say that not a single one of the KJV translators believed that the KJV was the Ultimate, Perfect, Never-To-Be-Eclipsed English Translation.



True. if i recall there is a letter in the original KJV 1611 saying somthing like.. we did the best we could translating, but it is important you study and check the translation... ect ect. Not real sure exactly how it was worded.I just dont understand why so many people hate the KJV????


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> I just prefer to go back to the oldest version i can read.



That would not be the KJV.  The KJV is the oldest version that is easily obtained.




SneekEE said:


> What keeps someone from comming up with there own version, making it say what they want?



First of all, people take the KJV and make it say what they want.  Jim Jones wasn't preaching out of an NIV.  Second, people (or groups) do come up with their own versions.  You can't stop that, but you can compare their versions to all the others.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> I hear people say... "I just dont understand all the THOUS and THEES" I am like, stupid, Thou is youThee is me, problem solved, now go read your bible LOL



It's not the "thees" and "thous" I have a problem with.  I like the "thees" and "thous".  It's the 300-400 archaic words and some of the sentence structure I have difficulty with.




SneekEE said:


> Oh and Centerpin Fan,Ripplinger does seem odd, but that isnt important. What matters is what she is saying, is it true or not. I mean if the crasiest person in the world stands up and says Jesus is Lord, then with that I would have to agree. Not going to dissagree based on the fact that he is crasy. With all she had to say, and all the "work" she presented, there wasnt anything about the changes in the newer translations you felt were wrong?



I agree.  Truth is truth, regardless of who says it.  And I think the KJV-only people make some good points (most notably in regards to the manuscripts used in the KJV and modern versions.)  Unfortunately, a lot of the good points they make get drowned out by a lot of their louder (and crazier) arguments.




SneekEE said:


> True. if i recall there is a letter in the original KJV 1611 saying somthing like.. we did the best we could translating, but it is important you study and check the translation... ect ect. Not real sure exactly how it was worded.I just dont understand why so many people hate the KJV???? ?



Yes, that's correct.  You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

Ironically, that is a KJV-only site! 




SneekEE said:


> I just dont understand why so many people hate the KJV???? ?



I don't know anybody who hates the KJV.  I certainly don't.  On the other hand, I know a lot of KJV fans who hate the modern versions.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> That would not be the KJV.  The KJV is the oldest version that is easily obtained.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I said make it say what they want, I meant litteraly changing the words to suit there desires, practices or beliefs. Take the rapture for example. You have all these different views, pre-trib, post-trib ect ect. It is only a matter of time before say the pre-tribers print a bible that changes 2 Thessalonians 2:3 from the words falling away to rapture. There is one version that uses the word departure, sounds a little like rapture. If they done this, then there would be no convincing them they are wrong, assuming they are, just an example. people can believe what ever they want, but when you start changing things to make it actualy say what you want, well that is wrong.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> True. if i recall there is a letter in the original KJV 1611 saying somthing like.. we did the best we could translating, but it is important you study and check the translation... ect ect. Not real sure exactly how it was worded.I just dont understand why so many people hate the KJV????



I personally do not "hate" anybody or anything. 'Cept satan.
My stance is this: If you do not understand what you are reading,it does you NO good whatsoever.

 The Holy Spirit will help a person understand God's Word - yes. But is that "Holy Spirit" in a man who has read very few [if any] books in his life and maybe reads at a third grade level and doesn't have a _clue_ about Jesus or what the Father did for us through Him - does that king James English "do it" for him? I think not,and I rest my case,your honor.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 1, 2010)

SneekEE said:


> ... people can believe what ever they want, but when you start changing things to make it actualy say what you want, well that is wrong.



I agree that is very wrong.  That's one reason I usually stay away from study bibles.  The notes tend to be biased toward one viewpoint.  (Of course, that's just the notes.  I know you're talking about the text itself which is completely different.)


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

Here's a good study Bible,and you can buy it in any version you want.I promise it will make you a stronger Christian,when you learn how to use it.

Life Application Study Bible,published by Zondervan.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> I personally do not "hate" anybody or anything. 'Cept satan.
> My stance is this: If you do not understand what you are reading,it does you NO good whatsoever.
> 
> The Holy Spirit will help a person understand God's Word - yes. But is that "Holy Spirit" in a man who has read very few [if any] books in his life and maybe reads at a third grade level and doesn't have a _clue_ about Jesus or what the Father did for us through Him - does that king James English "do it" for him? I think not,and I rest my case,your honor.



i work with a guy that can not read, older fellow. There is very few verses of the kjv he can not quote almost perfectly. It is a amasing thing to hear him.Couldnt help but think of him when i read your post.As far as the person who is uneducated enough to read the KJV, then the other versions will be over there head as well. Dont get me wrong, i am ok with a person reading other versions. But I think they need to know about the changes. 

And there is a real hatred out there towards the KJV and its readers. i dont know why, but it is there. There is somthing in the KJV that realy steps on a persons toes, and goes beyond just not beeing able to understand it. There are alot things I dont understand, like for instance, I cant tell you how when i click the ON button on my TV remote, it makes the TV come on. Dont understand it, but I dont hate it. i dont understand alot of physics books, but I dont go out of my way to bash phyisics books.

I do agree with you, if you cant understand somthing then it does you know good.But I also know if you realy want to know then God will give you the understanding.

Prov. 2: 3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 
(lift up your voice means ask God in prayer for those who can not understand this version)

 4If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; 


 5Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I agree that is very wrong.  That's one reason I usually stay away from study bibles.  The notes tend to be biased toward one viewpoint.  (Of course, that's just the notes.  I know you're talking about the text itself which is completely different.)



yup, me too.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 1, 2010)

Proverbs 2:3-5 (King James Version)

 3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

 4If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

 5Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.


Proverbs 2:3-5 (New Living Translation)


 3 Cry out for insight,
      and ask for understanding.
 4 Search for them as you would for silver;
      seek them like hidden treasures.
 5 Then you will understand what it means to fear the Lord,
      and you will gain knowledge of God.


Proverbs 2:3-5 (New International Version)

 3 and if you call out for insight
       and cry aloud for understanding,

 4 and if you look for it as for silver
       and search for it as for hidden treasure,

 5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
       and find the knowledge of God.


Proverbs 2:3-5 (Young's Literal Translation)

 3For, if for intelligence thou callest, For understanding givest forth thy voice,

 4If thou dost seek her as silver, And as hid treasures searchest for her,

 5Then understandest thou fear of Jehovah, And knowledge of God thou findest. 


Proverbs 2:3-5 (21st Century King James Version)


 3yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;


 4if thou seekest her as silver and searchest for her as for hidden treasure,


 5then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.


Proverbs 2:3-5 (American Standard Version)

 3 Yea, if thou cry after discernment, And lift up thy voice for understanding;

 4 If thou seek her as silver, And search for her as for hid treasures:

 5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of Jehovah, And find the knowledge of God.



Proverbs 2:3-5 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

3 furthermore, if you call out to insight
    and lift your voice to understanding,

    4 if you seek it like silver
    and search for it like hidden treasure, (A)

    5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
    and discover the knowledge of God.


Truthfully, don't these all convey essentially the same idea?

And does it really add to the ease of reading and understanding for the 21st Century King James Version to continue using " seekest her as silver and searchest" rather than " seek her as silver and search"?? Does anyone use "criest" or "liftest" in contemporary speech???

We aren't talking about anything more than some folks clinging to linguistic traditions here.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

Gtparts you asketh...Does anyone use "criest" or "liftest" in contemporary speech???


I doubteth they shall.


----------

