Bible Versions

[pilgrim]

Look at the Several Bible Version's articles in the following website,

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/

Like the articles in these websites,

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/The%20King%20James%20Bible/kjb_chart.gif

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/heretics_behind_modern_versions.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/zondervan_and_satan_share_parent.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/niv_calls_lucifer_jesus.htm

[grace2u]

I will try not to get involved in this discussion - I've had manuscript evidence until I'm blue in the face.

Although, I agree that the King James is preferred some people that support this go to extreme, throw some logic out the window and end up hurting their view. In my opinion.

[grace2u]

NIV (and the like) does indeed create some problems though.

OK - I'm outta here.

[pilgrim]

grace2u,

Thank you for reading some of the websites that I posted.

Please look at the following short video before you live this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0

Blessings
Pilgrim

[pilgrim]

CHRISTIANS AND THE COPYRIGHT LAW
The following wesite says that "Only the King James version of the Bible is not copyrighted".

http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/decj1.htm

Quoted from the above website, "Though most Christians would agree that we should not break the law of the land, one has to wonder about a law that can have the effect of inhibiting men from singing praises to God, or even from understanding the Bible. The Bible? Yes, in case you didn't realize it, all modern English-language versions of the Bible are copyrighted. Only the King James version of the Bible is not copyrighted. Thus, you cannot freely reprint portions of the word of God (in present-day English) without first securing permission from the copyright owner (you CAN quote small portions of text under a doctrine of law called "fair use", but you couldn't legally reproduce, say, the entire Gospel of John to give away as an evangelistic aid).
Of course, it's as likely as not that a copyright owner will NOT give you permission to reprint. Rather, they'll offer to SELL you copies of whatever you need, and will make a profit in the process. Thus, they take the word of God, or a song dedicated to God, and demand that men pay them before it can be used."


Words changed to get copyright. i.e to make money
"Publishers Must Make New Bibles
Harder to Read or Give Up Copyright Dollars"

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/copyright.asp



You can also look at these websites

I believe that God is powerful and able to preserve his words.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6-7)


http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

(Message edited by pilgrim on April 22, 2007)

[pilgrim]

They are two families of the New Testament Greek manuscripts

The Greek Manuscripts from Antioch, Syria called Byzantine used to translate the the king James Version and The perverted Greek Alexandrian Gnostic Manuscripst used in modern bible versions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8641490037570404129&q=bible+versions&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8641490037570404129&q=bible+versions&hl=en)

Quoted from the following website,"The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other "bibles" do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. We don't need an Egyptian version, for Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that "every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians" in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten. Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don't need a "bible" from Alexandria, Egypt."
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html
The Alexandrian Manuscripts had been perverted by origen.The following is quoted in the next website,
"Origen (A.D. 184-254), one of the most famous "Church fathers," was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, and all modern versions, are based. He tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy"
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

[pro610]

Pilgrim
Many people are unaware about what Zondervan(Rupert Murdoch) has been doing since it was purchased by Harper Collins.
Zondervan was purchased by Harper Collins in 1988 and ever since Zondervan has tried to slowly undermine Christianity .
Zondervan owns the right to the NIV and has been promoting the TNIV that has caused plenty of trouble .
This was one of the projects I was working on regarding the New Age Movement a few years ago.

Here are a few examples ( I have not updated this list in quite awhile)

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE NIV
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

TEEN STUDY BIBLE
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/nivteen.html

Harper Collins Avon is the publisher of the Satanic Bible
http://truthinheart.com/Zondervan.htm

Rewritten Bible banishes saints
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 15/03/2005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/15/nbible15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/15/ixhome.html

NIV OWNER BIG PORNOGRAPHY PUBLISHER
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nivowner.htm

Teen girls' Bible talks of oral sex, lesbianism
http://www.kjbbn.net/teen_girls_bible_talks_of_oral_sex_and.htm

The Battle for the Bible
Zondervan, IBS claim concern over the "gender-accurate" Bible is merely a false alarm, but
critics will not back down
http://reformednet.org/salt/970505/battleforthebible.htm

Here is more
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nivowner.htm


http://www.worldmag.com/articles/424


http://www.kjbbn.net/teen_girls_bible_talks_of_oral_sex_and.htm


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

http://www.familyconcerns.net/gender_neutral.htm


http://reformednet.org/salt/970505/battleforthebible.htm

http://www.youthspecialties.com/about/news/2003/emergentYS.php

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10357

http://www.thinkbible.org/writings/kjvhistory.html
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/anotherjesus.asp

http://watch.pair.com/wof.html

http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/lesbianandniv.htm

[pro610]

You might be surprised by how all of this ties into some major Evangelicals such as Rick Warren,Tony Campolo and others.
The connections also run deep with some powerful Politicians and some of the Worlds richest people.
I try and give you more on this later this week.

[pilgrim]

Pro610,

Thank you for the articles including the one exposing that "'Largest' Christian Publisher Zondervan, is a Division of HarperCollins, which Publishes the Satanic Bible."

http://truthinheart.com/Zondervan.htm

I will look at your next messages when your have the opportunity and the time to post them.

Blessings
Pilgrim

[grace2u]

Ironic - I was just reading about the satanic bible the other day - didn't realize a possible connection.

Still - please weed out some of the silly stuff that those who are hard hard core 1611 use because some of their accusations can be turned around and used against them. The question is not KJ ONLY - the questions is which textual type.

[pro610]

Grace,
I agree that some of the links I posted are way "Over the top".
Most of them is from old files I had saved during my work on the NA movement

The only point is to show a pattern .


I appreciate your concern.

I wish you a Blessed evening

[pilgrim]

grace2u,

I think that the KJV is the best english translation available. I also use the spanish translation Reina-Valera 1602, translated from the byzantine manuscripts, available on line in the following website.

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Biblia_Reina-Valera_1602


Quoted from the following website, "It is from this wealth of manuscripts that men such as Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Robert Stephanus (1503-1559), Theodore Beza (1519-1605), and Bonaventure and Matthew Elzevirs (1624) produced Greek Texts which were greatly used by God and His Church. The Greek Text produced by Erasmus was the text which Martin Luther used to produce his German Bible. This text, along with those produced by Stephanus, were the basis for the Italian Bible of Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649) and the French Bible of Louis Second. They were also used by Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) and Cipriano de Valera (1531-1602) and their Reina/Valera Spanish Bible. These texts and translations, along with earlier English translations and the Greek Text of Beza, formed the basis of our KJV."
Also quoted in the following website,"The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in scriptures. It is the first place where the born- again believer is called a Christian, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts. 11:26). It is also interesting to see that where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage, Antioch is listed as a place of service, while Alexandria is listed as a place of disruption.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolls a proselyte of ANTIOCH: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and ALEXANDRIANS, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. (Acts 6:5-10)
The Bible-believer finds this rather interesting in that the line of modern translations has its source in Alexandria, while the Traditional Text has its source in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were first called Christians. And, as we examine the Biblical text of these believers in Antioch we find that it reflects the same text as found in our English Authorized Version of 1611."

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson05.htm

grace2u, I know that you do not like the above website but it looks like the modern bible versions had been translated from the perverted Greek manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. So I will read older translations like the KJV (english version) and the Reina-Valera 1602 (spanish version) and for speakers of other languages I recommend that they find the most accurate bible translation from the Greek Byzantine manuscripts from Antioch, Syria into their native language.

You said,"The question is not KJ ONLY - the questions is which textual type."

You are partly right, for example spanish people can not read the English KJV so God provided good and old translations in many languages from the Manuscript from Antioch where believers were first called christians.

[pilgrim]

grace2u,

I think that the KJV is the best english translation available. I also use the spanish translation Reina-Valera 1602, translated from the byzantine manuscripts, available on line in the following website.

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Biblia_Reina-Valera_1602


Quoted from the following website, "It is from this wealth of manuscripts that men such as Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Robert Stephanus (1503-1559), Theodore Beza (1519-1605), and Bonaventure and Matthew Elzevirs (1624) produced Greek Texts which were greatly used by God and His Church. The Greek Text produced by Erasmus was the text which Martin Luther used to produce his German Bible. This text, along with those produced by Stephanus, were the basis for the Italian Bible of Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649) and the French Bible of Louis Second. They were also used by Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) and Cipriano de Valera (1531-1602) and their Reina/Valera Spanish Bible. These texts and translations, along with earlier English translations and the Greek Text of Beza, formed the basis of our KJV."
Also quoted in the following website,"The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in scriptures. It is the first place where the born- again believer is called a Christian, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts. 11:26). It is also interesting to see that where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage, Antioch is listed as a place of service, while Alexandria is listed as a place of disruption.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolls a proselyte of ANTIOCH: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and ALEXANDRIANS, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. (Acts 6:5-10)
The Bible-believer finds this rather interesting in that the line of modern translations has its source in Alexandria, while the Traditional Text has its source in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were first called Christians. And, as we examine the Biblical text of these believers in Antioch we find that it reflects the same text as found in our English Authorized Version of 1611."

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson05.htm

grace2u, I know that you do not like the above website but it looks like the modern bible versions had been translated from the perverted Greek manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. So I will read older translations like the KJV (english version) and the Reina-Valera 1602 (spanish version) and for speakers of other languages I recommend that they find the most accurate bible translation from the Greek Byzantine manuscripts from Antioch, Syria into their native language.

You said,"The question is not KJ ONLY - the questions is which textual type."

You are partly right, for example spanish people can not read the English KJV so God provided good and old translations in many languages from the Manuscript from Antioch where believers were first called christians.

[grace2u]

Pilgrim,

It is not that I don't like the aforementioned websites. The issue is that I have studied this "extensively" for the last year in a half and thought that now I could move on to study something different.

I have not only studied most, if not all the sites you have listed above, I have studied Riplinger, Grady, etc. etc. I have written several lengthy papers on the issue myself. I'm actually pretty much on your side except I am a TR person. I can partly accept the New King James in that it does reference the Alexandrian text type and in doing so presents a historic picture. I fault the New King James in that it does not include statistical data regarding this. Ultimately, my studies have convinced me to use the King James Bible pretty exclusively.

My problem is that to some degree Riplinger tries "too hard" to make her case. She could have made it better but went overboard to a degree which hurts her scholarship. Grady, attacks too much (from my opinion). He presents a lot of good data but seems to have a mission against the church that he grew up in which is the Catholic church.

As you noted concerning the modern versions - yes they follow the Alexandrian generally. But there are a few others that don't. They are just not mass marketed like those that follow the Alexandrian.

Again, it's not that I don't like or dislike those sites. It is just that this is basically almost all I have been studying for a long time now so I'm thinking "oh no - not again."

[grace2u]

For example http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/inspired.html lists the following versions (which I "sorta" agree with):


Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530 - http://faithofgod.org/EnglishC/
Miles Coverdale's Bible 1535 - Psalms from Coverdale's Bible , the whole Bible in old english spelling & bad controls
Matthew's Bible 1537 - Luke 11:2-4
The Great Bible 1539 - Luke 11:2-4
Geneva Bible 1557-1560 - With verses that have notes only , all the gospels & Romans only , the whole Bible but in old english spelling & bad controls
The Bishops' Bible 1568 - download all of the New Testament , the whole Bible in old english spelling & bad controls
King James Version type correction dates - http://www.cforc.com/kjv/
Webster Bible 1833 - http://www.awmach.org/BWB/dochome.htm
Young's Literal Translation 1862-1898 - http://www.bible.org/public/youngslt/youngslt.htm
New King James Version 1979 - based off of KJV and the TR, but is reported to side with the Minority Text when the Minority Text differs with the TR in the notes - http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MA+8&language=english&version=NKJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MA+8&language=english&version=NKJV)
The 21st Century King James Version 1994 - http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Math&KJ21_version=yes&language=engli sh
Literal Translation of the Bible 1995 - http://www.litvonline.com/
Revised Webster Bible 1995 - I don't know anything about this version, it seems of good quality http://faithofgod.org/EnglishC/
Modern King James Version 1999 - http://www.mkjvonline.com/
Analytical Literal Translation 1999 - http://www.dtl.org/alt/main/nt.htm
English Majority Text Version 2002 - http://www.emtvonline.com/
World English Bible not yet fully released - http://ebible.org/bible/web/
Hebrew Names Version not yet fully released - http://ebible.org/bible/hnv/

[grace2u]

LOL - Oh good grief! I wrote like I talk above! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[pilgrim]

Grace2u,

I am glad that you managed find a Tyndale copy of the bible on line. I will try to read part of it to compare it to the KJV and the Reina-Valera 1602.

I am also doing some more research so I might write again in the next few days.

I am very impressed with the life of Willian Tyndale. He was the first one to translate the bible into English from the Byzantine manuscripts dispite the persecution.

William Tyndale
http://www.fbinstitute.com/engbible/7.html
From the above website "One of the best-kept secrets in English Bible History is that of William Tyndale’s Bible. Many people have heard something of Tyndale, but very few have ever read his work or about him. Yet no other Englishman, not even Shakespeare, has reached so many by his life’s work.
Tyndale translated the New Testament twice, and made three revisions before his death. In 1534 the Tyndale New Testament was finished. And it was his greatest work that would bring many souls to Jesus Christ, as their personal Saviour.
Those scholars who prepared the Authorized 1611 King James Bible spoke with one voice. Of course they did, that voice which could never be acknowledged by them was that of William Tyndale. Much of the New Testament in the 1611 Authorized King James Bible came directly from the Tyndale New Testament."

Look at this website as well,

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

[pilgrim]

Hi grace2u,

"I asked some questions to a friend and I copied the answers below. I hope that they can clarify some of your questions as well. I also acknowledge that you probably know more than me about bible versions and I am grateful for your contribution to this thread."

Reply to my questions:

"You ask good questions. Let me start my reply by briefly giving some of the reasons why the KJV is preferable to Tyndale and to the other pre-KJV English versions...

* Prior to the KJV, the English language hadn't stabilised.
* Prior to the KJV, the English language was also not as capable as it later became. (Its breadth of vocabulary, and therefore its power, reached its zenith at the time of the KJV.)
* Prior to the KJV, the TR (Textus Receptus)
was still being refined.
* Many of the pre-KJV translations were the product of just one or two men, whereas 47 translators (plus some editors) worked on the KJV.
* The KJV was built on the good work of Tyndale and the other versions. The KJV benefitted from all the scholars who had gone before. It can be likened to the polishing of a mirror.
* The KJV can be shown to improve on the Tyndale and other versions in a variety of ways.

God apparently saw fit to supersede earlier versions such as Tyndale's after just a few decades, whereas the KJV has a proven track record stretching back centuries.

As to why the KJV is better than the POST-KJV (i.e. modern) versions based on the same Hebrew and Greek...

* Many are again the product of just one or two translators.
* The translators do not begin to compare with the scholarship of the men behind the KJV.
* English has contracted greatly in the last century or more, meaning accurate words to reflect the true meaning of the original languages are no longer available/used.
* The issue is not just whether a version is based on the correct Hebrew and Greek but whether God actually *ordained* the version in question.
* Not all modern versions *are* based on the identical Hebrew and Greek of the KJV.
* Those modern versions with copyrights do not have the freedom to be worded in the best way, as this will too often be too close to the KJV wording, making the copyright void.

For me, the "bottom line" is that God expects us to do the best we can. This includes using the best Bible we can obtain."

I hope that this information helps.

Blessings
Pilgrim

[grace2u]

Good points. The real question is - why do we really need another Bible? And we don't - the language has not changed substantially enough.

Still, I'm not going to destroy my NKJV, etc. I mainly use this for the various devotionals in these any way. During my personal study I use strictly King James. I have found that sometimes I listen to pastors and ministers (not in the group I fellowship with because they are pretty much KJ Only) and they may be using a modern version and I still gain from what they say when truth is presented. Yes, there may be some wolves in the fold but I think a large number of these individuals believe what they were taught in seminary. For the record, I have never heard a good Alexandrian case presented. I hear a lot of men say that this is the correct textual family but they then do not present the evidence. Still, they may just be mislead.

[pilgrim]

grace2u,


You wrote,"Still, I'm not going to destroy my NKJV."

I also have a few bibles in English and Spanish that I bought before I learnt about bible versions. Some of them are not the best translations and I am not going to destroy them either but I'll use or a least double check all my studies with the best translation available in English and Spanish.

My English KJV study bible have a Greek and Hebrew dictionary and sometimes I find these dictionaries quite useful.

I think that it is important to have some knowledge about bible versions to enable us to get and use the best Bible that we can obtain.

[mcmstaff78]

I've got tons of bibles (well, okay, a couple dozen at any rate), but it is the KJV I use both for devotion and for scholarly work. While the translation is not perfect, I agree that is probably the best there is in English right now and it is based on the best text. The Byzantine (or Majority, or TR) is the text preserved by the Eastern Church for 2 millenia as the authoritative text. So-called "critical" texts are based upon a faulty presupposition, that older manuscripts or codices equate to closer to the original. This doesn't take into account the issue of usage. Scrolls and codices would not last under the constant use. Those that have lasted and come down to us have done so because they were not used, they were simply "library copies" because they were not considered authoritative. They had mistakes in them or deliberate changes. Those that were used in worship wore out, so that the oldest manuscripts we have of the Byzantine or Majority text are not as old as some of the others.

While I find a few other versions helpful at times (NKJV, NASB, Douay-Rheims, Young's Literal and the James Murdock (A translation of the Pe****o Syriac New Testament)), nothing truly compares to the KJV in English.

BTW, if you're looking for a good, and free, bible software, check out E-Sword at http://www.e-sword.net/

[ba2]

Unfortunately, the KJV is written in late Middle English and very difficult for even the linguistic expert to totally follow with perfect understanding. I would love to see a good translation in my own native language – Modern day English. I agree that the KJV is a decent interpretation but it can’t be assumed to be perfect. It is virtually impossible to translate any two languages perfectly and to suggest that one could translate languages perfectly which have been dead for thousands of years is ridiculous. If Moses wrote the Torah, it was in some sort of ancient Egyptian picture writing, 300 years before the Phoenicians are credited with inventing the first alphabet. The translation into Hebrew would have been questionable and is exasperated because even Hebrew was dead as a language for a number of generations. The language of Jesus was Aramaic and the gospels were mostly old Greek. None of these languages are used today and there is no way to understand the idioms, similes, metaphors and other nuances of the languages. The fundamentalists try to claim that the KJV is a perfect word for word translation. This is not only ridiculous, it is absurd.

[franklin]

So from what you are saying ba, does that mean it is possible that like the Shepherd's Chapel "students" believe that satan had sex with Eve? Or that Jesus is NOT the Son of God? Or that there is no God? Do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater because you do not believe that the men who wrote the King James Version, basically the first English version of the Bible for us who speak English, were not inspired by God.

Seems like you are a little too hung up on the literal words on the pages and not recognizing what actually happens when one reads the Bible with an open heart. The Holy Spirit descends on our souls and the real understanding of scriptuire begins.

The word of God is not just words on paper. It is actually God communicating with our souls. The Holy Bible is just the trigger mechanism that enables that to happen.

[grace2u]

try this (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=185 045501)

And if that doesn't work - try that.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Ms. Grace2u:

I just listened to a Mr. Lyon preach his Sunday morning sermon. He is CoC. He told us of the fallacies concerning the rapture, the one thousand year reign and something he called pre_dispensationalism.

[grace2u]

Well maybe it ws because I was young. I just don't remember any one ever talking about it.

What is Pre-dispensationalism? I know what dispensationalism is. Does it relate to the Gap theory?

(Message edited by Grace2u on April 29, 2007)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

I don't know the answer to that question. His point was that dispensational theology holds that God made a large number of mistakes including getting Jesus killed on the cross.

Sorry, I tried to memorize the website he mentioned . . . me mind? . . . searchtv.com. I ain't been there yet.