|
Post by terfly4fun on Feb 28, 2015 23:17:46 GMT -5
According to three pastors, Steven Anderson, Roger Jimenez, and Dennis McCain, TH-D, PH-D, on FRAMINGTHEWORLD.COM The word of God is under attack today, right before our eyes. They say there's an agenda to change the Bible under the disguise of "new translations." According to these ministers the changes, the alterations, and the ommissions, are planned, calculated, attack specific verses and are not done by mistake. There are hundreds of new translations on the market today but the top 5 selling translations are the NIV, KING JAMES, NEW LIVING TRANSLATION, NEW KING JAMES VERSION, and ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION (ESV).The NIV is missing 16 verses from the NEW TESTAMENT: MATTHEW 17:21 MATTHEW 18:11 MATTHEW 23:14 MARK 7:16 MARK 9:44 MARK 9:46 MARK 11:26 MARK 15:28 LUKE 17:36 LUKE 23:17 JOHN 5:4 ACTS 8:37 ACTS 15:34 ACTS 24:7 ACTS 28:29 ROMANS 16:24 Are all missing from the NIV .... and there are thousands of changes. Acts 8:37 is gone from the NIV, ESV, and THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION BIBLES. What does it say? KJV: 8:36: "and as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunich said See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" KJV 8:37: "and Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, and he answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God." KJV 8:38: " and he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Phillip and the Eunich; and he baptized him." So verse 36 " what's stopping me from getting baptized" verse 37 "as long as you believe and confess with your mouth you can be baptized" verse 38 " he baptized him." Now, here's what the NIV says: 8:36 "as they travelled down the road they came to some water and the eunich said 'Look, here is some water, what can stand in the way of my being baptized?" 8:37 ... is missing from the NIV Verse 38 " he gave orders to stop the chariot then both Phillip and the eunich went down into the water and Phillip baptized him." What's missing ... BELIEVE ON JESUS CHRIST ... THE GOSPEL Five of these so-called Bible translations attack Jesus Christ! Not only did they remove 16 verses from the original New Testsment they also put notes by many of the verses stating "... these verses probably weren't necessary in the original Bible ..." and cause the reader to doubt God's word. Verse like Mark 16:15 " ... Go ye into all the world, and preach the gosoel to every creature ..." And verses like " ... Father forgive them for they know not what they do ..." have not been removed from the NIV but they've put a note by these verses rendering them null and void! By saying " well, these verses probably weren't in the original writings of God's word anyway ..." and "... this doesn't reallt have any authority anyway ..!" 1John 5:7 " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." (KJV) the NIV merely says " For there are three that testify " It doesn't mention the Father... it doesn't mention the Word, and it doesn't mention the Holy Ghost. Look too at what they've done with 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 " (KJV) and without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory ..." again they devalue this verse in the NIV, ESV, and NEW LIVING TRANSLATION with their note stating this probably was not even needed nor intended in the original writings of the Holy Bible. THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION BIBLE has completely reworded and changed Hebrews 1:8. They also attacked Christ's virgin birth. (KJV) " LUKE 2:33 " and Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him" The NIV, ESV, and NEW LIVING TRANSLATION BIBLES say " The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." The modern versions of the Bible are calling Joseph the father of Jesus Christ! God was his father! The KJV is careful to NEVER call Joseph the father of Jesus. Not only do they attack his virgin birth , they also attack his preexistence. Jesus Christ did not come into being in Bethlehem's manger. He didn't come into existence in Mary's womb. Jesus has always existed according to the KJV of Micah 5:2 in the OLD TESTAMENT: " But thou Bethlhem Ephratah though thou be little amoung thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The NIV says " ... out of you shall come one who's origin from times of old ... from ancient times." Attacking Christ's pre-existence. "origin" means sonething "started" or had a beginning Does the KJV say Christ 'originated' NO it does not!!! It says he's from everlasting. The NIV says in Isaiah 14:12 that Jesus Christ is to be cast out of heaven when it's Satan that is to be fallen out from heaven. (KJV) ... this is the only verse in the KJV that mentions the word Lucifier.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 23:47:04 GMT -5
According to three pastors, Steven Anderson, Roger Jimenez, and Dennis McCain, TH-D, PH-D, on FRAMINGTHEWORLD.COM The word of God is under attack today, right before our eyes. They say there's an agenda to change the Bible under the disguise of "new translations." According to these ministers the changes, the alterations, and the ommissions, are planned, calculated, attack specific verses and are not done by mistake. And what was the KING JAMES BIBLE translated from?
Anybody know who & why King James wanted someone to translate the bible for him?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 1, 2015 0:00:36 GMT -5
According to three pastors, Steven Anderson, Roger Jimenez, and Dennis McCain, TH-D, PH-D, on FRAMINGTHEWORLD.COM The word of God is under attack today, right before our eyes. They say there's an agenda to change the Bible under the disguise of "new translations." According to these ministers the changes, the alterations, and the ommissions, are planned, calculated, attack specific verses and are not done by mistake. And what was the KING JAMES BIBLE translated from?
Anybody know who & why King James wanted someone to translate the bible for him? hand waving, I know, I know, it was translated from the German Bible, which of course it is so obvious that God was German, because it says right in Genesis , and this is God speaking , and I quote- "Wo bist du , Adam?" There, now that's settled, let's move on. Alvin hmmmm, on second thought, now I'm sure I'm not sure....maybe it was Spanish..hm Now you got me all confused AGAIN
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 1, 2015 0:22:54 GMT -5
According to three pastors, Steven Anderson, Roger Jimenez, and Dennis McCain, TH-D, PH-D, on FRAMINGTHEWORLD.COM The word of God is under attack today, right before our eyes. They say there's an agenda to change the Bible under the disguise of "new translations." According to these ministers the changes, the alterations, and the ommissions, are planned, calculated, attack specific verses and are not done by mistake. And what was the KING JAMES BIBLE translated from?
Anybody know who & why King James wanted someone to translate the bible for him?The KJV was mostly translated from the Reina Valera (Spanish) version, but the present KJV is not the same as the original KJV. But I don't know the circumstances of how and why the original KJV was changed. Of course, Henry VIII dictated some of the later changes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 1, 2015 0:50:39 GMT -5
And what was the KING JAMES BIBLE translated from?
Anybody know who & why King James wanted someone to translate the bible for him? The KJV was mostly translated from the Reina Valera (Spanish) version, but the present KJV is not the same as the original KJV. But I don't know the circumstances of how and why the original KJV was changed. Of course, Henry VIII dictated some of the later changes. Oh my! Poor pastors!
Señors Steven Anderson, Roger Jimenez, and Dennis McCain, are now going to really confused!
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 1, 2015 1:36:29 GMT -5
Didnt Luther go to King James with the transcript?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 1, 2015 1:40:58 GMT -5
NT 1522 then OT and NT and Apocrypha 1534. German to English.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 1, 2015 1:53:10 GMT -5
Here is the history that I picked off wiki.
The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.
First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker, this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities.
The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[3]
In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[4] a faction within the Church of England.[5]
The translation is considered a towering achievement in English literature, as both beautiful and scholarly.
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[6]
The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[7]
In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.
In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[8]
By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches.
Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars.
With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford; and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha.
Today the unqualified title 'King James Version' commonly identifies this Oxford standard text, especially in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 1, 2015 1:53:33 GMT -5
Tefly4fun Yrs ago we were warned this would happen. According to ancient text the bible is not a true translation from the original languages.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 1, 2015 1:59:23 GMT -5
Tefly4fun Yrs ago we were warned this would happen. According to ancient text the bible is not a true translation from the original languages. What do you mean that, "Yrs. ago we were warned this would happen?"
Who warned us?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 1, 2015 2:24:29 GMT -5
I read the king James, but i also have a copy of the Pesh-ta Bible which sometimes makes some verses easier to understand. But i mainly read the king James. I don't think it's a good thing if they change the Bible again. Eventually they will be taking our God altogether! There is enough translations now!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 1, 2015 3:37:08 GMT -5
Didnt Luther go to King James with the transcript? I didn't know Luther even spoke English. Even if we could, we'd not be able to read it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 1, 2015 3:39:07 GMT -5
Tefly4fun Yrs ago we were warned this would happen. According to ancient text the bible is not a true translation from the original languages. You mean the ancient texts predicted their own bastardization?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 1, 2015 3:44:05 GMT -5
I read the king James, but i also have a copy of the Pesh-ta Bible which sometimes makes some verses easier to understand. But i mainly read the king James. I don't think it's a good thing if they change the Bible again. Eventually they will be taking our God altogether! There is enough translations now! You're afraid they'll take God out of a book about Him? That's like taking Santa Claus out of Christmas -- isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 1, 2015 3:47:11 GMT -5
I read the king James, but i also have a copy of the Pesh-ta Bible which sometimes makes some verses easier to understand. But i mainly read the king James. I don't think it's a good thing if they change the Bible again. Eventually they will be taking our God altogether! There is enough translations now! You're afraid they'll take God out of a book about Him? That's like taking Santa Claus out of Christmas -- isn't it? That part was meant to be tongue in cheek :-)
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 1, 2015 3:53:14 GMT -5
You're afraid they'll take God out of a book about Him? That's like taking Santa Claus out of Christmas -- isn't it? That part was meant to be tongue in cheek :-)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 5:30:15 GMT -5
And what was the KING JAMES BIBLE translated from?
Anybody know who & why King James wanted someone to translate the bible for him? The KJV was mostly translated from the Reina Valera (Spanish) version, but the present KJV is not the same as the original KJV. But I don't know the circumstances of how and why the original KJV was changed. Of course, Henry VIII dictated some of the later changes. How did Henry V111 influence a Bible translation started 57 years after his death?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 1, 2015 5:49:00 GMT -5
The KJV was mostly translated from the Reina Valera (Spanish) version, but the present KJV is not the same as the original KJV. But I don't know the circumstances of how and why the original KJV was changed. Of course, Henry VIII dictated some of the later changes. How did Henry V111 influence a Bible translation started 57 years after his death? The KJV wasn't the first English version of the Bible. King Henry VIII authorized the first English version of the Bible for use in England. But being head of the church he insisted on adding some verses to the New Testament that the English kings/church kept in subsequent versions. Check the TV series "The Tudors" -- it's historically accurate. Newer versions of the Bible in English omit as many as 50 verses from the New Testament that never appeared in other languages. One of the verses that was added is the last part of the Lord's Prayer in the Protestant Bible. I don't know for certain, but I suspect those verses have also been omitted from the New King James Version.
|
|
|
Post by responding on Mar 1, 2015 6:15:42 GMT -5
terfly4fun gives this example: (KJV - LUKE 2:33 "and Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him" The NIV, ESV, and NEW LIVING TRANSLATION BIBLES say "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." The modern versions of the Bible are calling Joseph the father of Jesus Christ! God was his father! The KJV is careful to NEVER call Joseph the father of Jesus.
RESPONDING says:
In KJV - LUKE 2:48 "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
Mary must have made a blasphemous mistake, eh? All the relatives and neighbors thought Jesus was Joseph's son because Joseph never exposed Mary's pregnacy as being from BEFORE they had sexual relations as man and wife. But Jesus set her right in the following verse: KJV - LUKE 2:49 "I must be about my Father's business."
If you're going to split hairs about this, I'll let you take it up with Mary. She knew better than anyone else whose son Jesus was, yet referred to Joseph as his father.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 1, 2015 6:29:28 GMT -5
There are hundreds of new translations on the market today Take your pick of versions then check it against this one. skepticsannotatedbible.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 6:38:24 GMT -5
My take on these skeptic annotated bibles is that they are more about mockery than serious thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 6:39:03 GMT -5
You're afraid they'll take God out of a book about Him? That's like taking Santa Claus out of Christmas -- isn't it? That part was meant to be tongue in cheek :-) Big mistake, that is not allowed on this forum, not even on the humour thread. Before you post on any thread here, first you toss your hat in and see what jumps on it, if nothing jumps on it then you proceed, but that doesn't always work either, you enter at your own peril.LOL.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 1, 2015 7:57:55 GMT -5
Tefly4fun Yrs ago we were warned this would happen. According to ancient text the bible is not a true translation from the original languages. You mean the ancient texts predicted their own bastardization? One example would be numbers in Genisis 5 were mistranslated. Quote: Methusalah reported to have lived 969 yrs. Noah reported to have lived 950 yrs. The Septuagint (ancient Greek version)has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genisis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic pre-cuneiform , sign value, sumarien number system, similar in some ways to roman numerals.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 1, 2015 9:08:01 GMT -5
You mean the ancient texts predicted their own bastardization? One example would be numbers in Genisis 5 were mistranslated. Quote: Methusalah reported to have lived 969 yrs. Noah reported to have lived 950 yrs. The Septuagint (ancient Greek version)has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genisis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic pre-cuneiform , sign value, sumarien number system, similar in some ways to roman numerals. Bubbles that's way over my head, what does that mean? I'm not highly intelligent like lots of people on here lol
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 1, 2015 11:17:26 GMT -5
How did Henry V111 influence a Bible translation started 57 years after his death? The KJV wasn't the first English version of the Bible. King Henry VIII authorized the first English version of the Bible for use in England. But being head of the church he insisted on adding some verses to the New Testament that the English kings/church kept in subsequent versions. Check the TV series "The Tudors" -- it's historically accurate. Newer versions of the Bible in English omit as many as 50 verses from the New Testament that never appeared in other languages. One of the verses that was added is the last part of the Lord's Prayer in the Protestant Bible. I don't know for certain, but I suspect those verses have also been omitted from the New King James Version. Bob - curious what words were added to the Lord's Prayer? www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=6&t=NKJV#s=935009
|
|
|
Post by terfly4fun on Mar 1, 2015 13:09:00 GMT -5
I didn't intend to infer by my post stating I'm sticking with THE KING JAMES BIBLE to mean that I didn't know there were other translations before the KING JAMES version and there are hundreds if not thousands of translations since; but, I poked out all I said on my original post from my android!!! It was after 2:00 am when I finished, and I didn't have time to follow up with the following: Bible Expert Joel Lampe, Director of the ANTIQUARIAN MUSEUM, a Bible Museum in Phoenix Arizona, has one of the largest collections of the rarest Bibles in the world in his museum. He explains the first editions of the Bible and the first translations in english leading up to THE KING JAMES edition of the BIBLE. A fellow named Erasmus, said to be one of the smartest men in the world if not the absolute smartest, with degrees in science, theology, philosophy, etc. wrote and published the Erasmus Greek / Latin New Testament in 1516. In this Bible Erasmus simply wrote the Catholic Church's Latin translation down one column of each page and wrote the Greek translation in a column adjacant to the Latin translation. They say it was very easy to see how wrong the Latin translation was when compared to the Greek translation. The vatican was still being constructed ... interior paintings were still being done by Michael Angelo. Erasmus's Bible book infuriated the Church of Rome and the King!!! Money stopped pouring into Rome! This book launched the REFORMATION. The King wanted the book destroyed and the Church ( and we all know it's the CATHOLIC CHURCH) put a bounty on this book.The protestant movement was launched because of Erasmus's book, and protestant means basically "protest" Erasmus's book didn't even say what "should" be in his book; it was merely a Greek interpretation published beside the Latin interpretation! It let the reader see very easily what was wrong with the Latin interpretation when it was published in 1516. It allowed the reader to be the judge. It was not until a couple years later that Erasmus of Rotterdam published what "should be" the interpretations of the orignal Bible scripts. Not only did Erasmus show what was wrong he also showed what it should be. To me it would be interesting to read accurate english translations of both the Greek and Latin translations and compare them. Then THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT was born. Now without all the details ... Tyndale of England wanted to do the same thing Luther of Germany was doing.... he went underground and in 1534 Tyndale produced the very first New Testament in english. If anyone has any questions I suggest you contact Joel Lampe BIBLE EXPERT and Director of the ANTIQUARIAN MUSEUM in Phoenix, Arizona. He has one of the largest collections of the rarest Bibles in the world. Alot of people think the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible was the first english translation ... it wasn't. There were numerous other english bibles before the King James version. The first edition Coverdale Bible was put together by William Tyndale, the inventer of the english we speak today and the preparer of the first english bible translated from the original languages. Tyndale produced the first english translation of the NEW TESTAMENT in 1534. It became the most hunted book in England! The King wanted this book destroyed! England was still under the control of the Catholic church and the King considered Tyndale's New Testament an assault against the Catholic Church. Tyndale spent most of he rest of his life translating the old and new testaments into english but before he could complete english translations of the old testament he was arrrested in 1534 and placed under house arrest for 500 days then he was taken out and burned alive at the stake! Nice guys!!!! During Tyndale's incarceration Myles Coverdale finished what Tyndale started with the english translations and the Coverdale Bible was published. Then what we know as THE GREAT BIBLE was approved authorized and permitted by Henry the Eighth the King of England followed by a translation by Stafanas ... important because it provided the Greek that later reformers like John Calvin and William Wittingham used to translate the Geneva Bible, the first family bible. The GENEVA BIBLE was the Bible that sailed over on the Mayflower. It was also the first Bible with verses. The BISHOP'S BIBLE was put together during Queen Elizabeth's rein; but, it just never caught on and the Queen didn't like THE BISHOP'S BIBLE. The Queen's cousin King James first edition of the Bible was then created, and a year later King James allowed his Bible to be sold in book stores. The ANTIQUARIAN MUSEUM in Phoenix Arizona has a copy of all the Bibles mentioned plus an original copy of one of the first editions of a King James Bible. The reason I choose to stick with the KING JAMES BIBLE is because we as a populace can't get our hands on any of the older translations, and who wants a Bible translation that has be changed modified altered changed again and again rehashed reedited redone reworked remodified a couple hundred times? The King James is next to the oldest translations I can find. If I could get my hands on a Tynsdale translation or a Geneva Bible I'd study them too.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 1, 2015 13:58:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 14:26:38 GMT -5
|
|