Another reason that you should be using the KJV Bible.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/16313.html?1135261054 ^

[Creationist]

I have always believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have not always believed that one version of the Bible is better until the last 10 years or so. I have always read from the Authorized King James Version. Most likely because the Lord did not want me to get my understanding from any other source.

As I have gotten closer to God over the years I have learned why the KJV is the best of the translations of the original Greek and Hebrew text. Some of the reasons are that the words of the Old English which seam difficult to read and understand at first are really the most descriptive and least confusing to understand as you read. Words like Longsuffering from the KJV have been translated into patience in the NIV. Now the word are pretty similar in the definitions, but the word longsuffering shows an inflection of pain while you endure. Patience does not imply this at all. You may be patient with the guy at the counter of the DMV, but you are long suffering with a loved one while you hope they change their ways.

There are many more examples of the pitfalls of the NIV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB to numerous to get into. And if you are not willing to examine and ask the Lord to help you discern the Truth of the matter then my post is falling upon deaf ears.

There is a good book called The Language of the King James Bible , Discover its Hidden Built in Dictionary, by Gail Riplinger. It is very informative on how to understand the Old English of the KJV Bible.

But on to why I posted in the first place if you go to these links you will learn how the publishers of the NIV are also the publisher of the Satanic Bible. Their Teen study Bible is very disturbing and worldly, even mocks the Bible in a hidden way.

 

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/16313.html?1135261054

http://truthinheart.com/Zondervan.htm

[Creationist]

Yea. You are a Bible believer.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Lincoln wasn't, but King James was. Just research it for yourself. Go and read books about the history of the English Monarchy just to make sure yourself.

[bannie]

King James left out some of the chick-parts, methinks.

That said, it's still "my version."

[r9etb]

Usually in our bible studies, we will have several people with different translations. When we read scripture, normally were asked if anyone has a different translation than that of the study notes.

Ours, too. It's really helpful, as there are some passages that are evidently difficult to translate, so there are several approaches to the same verse. I've found that one can often get a better feel for "the real meaning" somewhere between the various attempts.

[WalterSkinner]

What is the best Bible and closest to the original Autographs? I would contend that any translation which uses the Masoretic Text for the OT and the Byzantine Text for the NT --but I will not divide fellowship over it.

I have used the NKJV since it first came out in 1982--it is faithful to the original.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I am. I also study the Bible daily. I use the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and the NASB during my study. I also have a great love of church history, theology and philosophy. I also happen to love the truth and cannot stand hypocrisy within the fellowship of believers.

I have no quarrel with using the KJV, I just have a real problem with you accusing God of witholding the best form of his word for 1500 years from his people. The KJV is a good translation. It was worked on by many faithful scholars. It was also authorized by a man who had sex with other men and persecuted the Pilgrim movement within England.

There are many other good translations as well. St. Jerome made a wonderful translation. It also was criticized in it's day by those who thought it too "modern". It was termed "vulgar", because it was too "common".

It's a shame that so much energy is being put into attacking other translations rather than preaching the Gospel, but we all have our priorities I guess.

[PAR35]

"I've never been able to find a Douay-Rheims translation in the bookstores "

Want a free download? Go here, download the basic (that includes KJV), and then select "Bibles" and download the Douay-Rheims as an add-in. http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html

They have a lot of good stuff in a variety of flavors of theology. After you've downloaded the Bibles of your choice, browse around for other material (A few of the Bibles may be subject to licensing fees, but most of the material there is free.).

[PAR35]

So do you believe that Beowulf was a fictional story.

Try reading the comment again. It was Taxchick who read the OE Beowulf. I just got to the ME Canterbury Tales in school. I suspect that you've read neither in its original form.

[WhiteGuy]

We, the Peoples Front of Judea, prefer the "Brian's regular" version.

Makes a lot more sense.

King james was a bit full of himself don't you think?

[Creationist]

Let it be so let it be written.

[Creationist]

Yea not educated enough to read books went to schul in MISSISSSSISSSIPPSIPPi

[Creationist]

So you believe that supporting a company that publishes porography and the satanic bible is ok as long as you by the bible and adhere to it.

[Richard Kimball]

Excellent post. At the risk of being prurient, later versions, even reliable translations, such as the NASB, clean up text that is considered too "dirty" for today's delicate ears. Euphemisms are used for what was clearly spelled out in the original text.

For example, in 1 Samuel 25:22, in the KJV, David's threat is spelled out clearly, in the form he actually used: "So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall."

In the NASB, it reads: "May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him."

In the first, it's clear that David is saying that any male who is not a babe in arms (old enough to stand up and urinate against a wall) will be dead by morning, if Nabal did not grant his requests. The second is cleaned up.

Even the KJV used euphemisms instead of the actual Hebrew.

In Genesis 24:9 "And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter." the term is a euphemism. Bonds of promise were made by the parties not putting their hands under the other's thighs, but by gripping each other's testicles.

I know that this could be taken wrongly, but I think there's a risk any time that the original intent of the text is violated. David was a man of war. He made threats, and would carry them out. When he threatened someone, it was with the intent of terrifying them, not just with their death, but with the death of everyone in their village.

Similarly, the nature of the oath was to put each at the other's total mercy. The euphemism, "under the thigh" gives no hint of how vulnerable the parties made themselves.

In many of the newer versions, the prohibitions against homosexuality are left out, and covered with euphemisms of "sexual immorality." In the NIV, Mark 16:9-20 are completely omitted, I believe, on rather shaky grounds that they do not appear in two trustworthy manuscripts of the NT, although they appear in many others, some considered as trustworthy as the texts that omit the verses. I believe this was a political decision, as it includes the verse "they will pick up serpents and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

There is a strong movement to try and make Jesus into just another teacher, who was not the Son of God, and did not claim to be. The modern church shies away from supernaturalism, and I believe these verses were excluded for political, rather than textual reasons.

Just my 2 cents

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

You mention that Zondervan, the publishers of the NIV ***Bible, also publishes the Satanic Bible. But that is a lie. The parent company of Zondervan owns a seperate company that publishes the Satanic Bible. ****

Then get yourselves a Cambridge KJV Bible!

http://www.bibles-direct.com/
Stay away from their song books! They are for a legalistic sect, but the bibles are great!

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/bibles/
Excellent Bibles!

Baker Book House also has them!

[Richard Kimball]

FWIW, I've got a copy of "The Complete Word Study New Testament with Parallel Greek", edited by Spiros Zodhaites. Just the New Testament is larger than most study Bibles, but it is an amazing piece of work. You can read the King James New Testament straight through, but the most accepted Greek is in the margins. There are reference numbers above each word (not possible with NIV, as it is a thought for thought translation, not a word for word). This number coincides with a Greek dictionary in the back, with the most common understanding of the specific Greek word.

Let's face it, though, in most instances, in any translation, our problem isn't knowing what the Bible clearly says, it's that we don't want to follow the path clearly laid out, or that doggone it, if Jesus just understood, He'd have said what we wanted Him to say. Most interpretration problems I've seen are based in the fact that we try to use the Bible to confirm what we already think, rather than reading it to be enlightened. That being said, it's a very handy book if you run up on a passage that gives you trouble.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

*******I don't bother with the KJV for two reasons First, because it leaves out the deuterocanonicals.

Second, I don't speak 16th Century English and it's almost incomprehensible.

---

No Excuses allowed!
You can get the KJV with the Apocrypha in it or printed separate.

It is no harder to understand the KJV than the Daouai-Rheims. I have both.

For fun, try a Genevea Bible, with Apocrypha!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

*** I have always read from the Authorized King James Version. Most likely because the Lord did not want me to get my understanding from any other source.****

Check this out! The Translators said That!
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/transaid.html

And this! From the Translator to the Reader from the origional KJV!
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

[nobdysfool]

Because I can not read the original Greek and Hebrew I believe it is the inspired word of God translated from the original text.

My point was about the actual translation. Some have gone so far as to claim Divine Inspiration for the KJV translators. Please do some study on how the KJV came to be. None of the original texts (the original autographs) exist, all we have are copies of copies of copies. Since the KJV, other older manuscripts have been found, so the claim cannot be made that the KJV is translated from the oldests texts. There is no homogenous text which represents the original language equivalent of the KJV. The so-called Textus Receptus is a collection of manuscripts, not all of which agree with each other.

[Creationist]

You mention that Zondervan, the publishers of the NIV ***Bible, also publishes the Satanic Bible. But that is a lie. The parent company of Zondervan owns a separate company that publishes the Satanic Bible. ****

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:16-23.

 

Zondervan is a branch of parent company, as this passage says a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. It is not my words but Gods. If this company is producing Bibles under the ownership of this perverted company than that evil spirit is within the whole. You will deny it but it is so.

Ephesians 6:12

12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[GarySpFc]

In the NIV, Mark 16:9-20 are completely omitted, I believe, on rather shaky grounds that they do not appear in two trustworthy manuscripts of the NT, although they appear in many others, some considered as trustworthy as the texts that omit the verses. I believe this was a political decision, as it includes the verse "they will pick up serpents and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

My copies of the NIV have it following a line drawn after verse 8. I am going to paste the section from Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament," and you will see far more than just the two exclude the passage. Some of the fonts will not show.

16.9–20 The Ending(s) of Mark

Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B),1 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).3 Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts,5 continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except itk also continue with verses 9–20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὃν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’”

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ἁμαρτάνω, ἀπολογέω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστρέφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, ὅρος, προσλέγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non-Markan (e. g. ἀπιστέω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετὰ ταῦτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ὕστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1–8 are now forgotten; the use of ἀναστὰς δέ and the position of πρῶτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine.6 Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of MarkÂ’s Gospel. Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8.7 At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.8

 Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (102). London; New York: United Bible Societies. (Reprinted with permission)