KJV and different bible versions in english.

Interesting thought

Even for non-english speakers?

English seems to be a more volatile and flexible language than others. Many words have opposite meanings to what they did 400 years ago, such as "let" and "prevent". This is due partly to the fact that it is spoken in so many places and develops so many dialects and variants.

In the transmission history of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, people simply asked for a version in their language, even if it was the same language but had changed significantly. So it really isn't, or at least hasn't been, just English.

As usual it's the stinking Roman Catholic church at work to pervert the Word of the Lord.

THE ATTACK... [link to www.chick.com]

They are all wrong and contain significant generational losses (mistranslations over mistranslations). For truth you need to back to the earliest hebrew.

And Greek. My amateur rendering: [link to bible.fether.net]

Good point, education and eyes that are not of spirit

With internet sites like bible.cc, you can have a dozen versions, plus a lexicon, plus the Greek.

Helps dispel christian folklore Jlike 'hell', lake of fire is actually a cleansing, eternal is not eternal, etc . . .

It should go without saying that the concept of eternal separation from God does not hinge upon a single word, or can be declared debunked in spite of ages of debate over the subject by knowledgeable people. Interpretations are just that.

I know just what you mean......

For me, the ONLY answer is to get an Interlinear bible.......that's where you have the original language below the word-for-word interpretation!!

Not easy to read, but you are getting the real words as they were meant to be read!!!

I am not a 'religious' guy but am 'spiritual'....and I just feel that if you ARE a 'christian' you should NOT be reading the KJV!!

Oh, it's pretty to read, but they didn't use 'thou' and 'thee' back then!!

I say, if you honestly believe the bible is God's word, WHY THE HELL would you want to read it in some prettified language from years ago??????


HUH?????????????

Thank you. That does explain the reasons for the variations in english.

Very wonderful site. Thanks for the link.

the site is very nice! Thanks from me too!!!

Here I have a vid for you:

You're both quite welcome.

Definitely will pin that to watch later! Thank you.

Re. the "Battle of the Bibles" video, here are some notes I made while listening:

Old does not necessarily equal good, but on the other hand, neither does new. The new have had more time to introduce errors, and to be copied more prolifically because they were supported by important or influential benefactors.

Minority/few does not necessarily equal good, but on the other hand, neither does majority or many. The many have a higher probability of copy errors simply by percentage. And the presence of copies in many languages only helps if they are fairly old, because the copy/error problem does not go away simply by introducing more of them.

Also, there is no more reason to suspect the removal of verses than there is for the addition of verses, especially in the newer copies. If verses were being removed, one would expect the omissions to be more prominent in later versions.

And of course, the differences among the various manuscripts do not have any serious impact upon the gospel or any other central tenet of the faith. This is the most important fact to remember when on the topic of Bible versions' sources. In my opinion, a far greater area of concern is translation, wherein there is much room for bias.

Sadly typical of the KJV Only side, the Received family of texts is touted as the right or accurate one, while other families are deemed "rivals". The speaker in the video has highlighted problems with the minority texts while ignoring the problems with the majority. He further smears the minority by inferring the influence of Freemasonry. He also wrongly portrays Constantine as caring at all what the text of the Bible was, when in fact he only cared that the Christians settled on one version; there was no agenda on his part at introducing pagan or Gnostic beliefs into the text. His goal was indeed unity, but he left the details of Christian scriptures to those leaders gathered at the council.

From there the speaker maligns Eusebius as some kind of Gnostic heretic, and Origen as likewise willing to change the text rather than simply interpret it. His mocking tone while quoting others such as Wescott reveals a strong bias from the start. And no good KJVO can end a diatribe without smearing Wescott and Hort. Whether Wescott, for example, believed the early chapters of Genesis were literal or not, this has absolutely no bearing on whether he would go so far as to change the scriptures, and there is no evidence that he did such a thing. For a defense of these two men who have been so widely hated and slandered, see [link to www.westcotthort.com] .

See also [link to www.fether.net] and other links there for more about the Bible versions debate.

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 11/02/2012 11:04 AM

No argument, The KJV Bible is the only true bible for me.