- Dec 20, 2009
- 30,494
- 8,655
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
That version was probably too ecumenical, the (unnecessary) translation changes are probably sales driven.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That version was probably too ecumenical, the (unnecessary) translation changes are probably sales driven.I thankfully have the 1984 version. It was my first ever Bible given to me by my ex-wife. It is a Men's Devotional version.
People have done that to me in a discussion before, so it is true.That's not true. You are being facetious.
I'm not sure of your point, but if I think I understand you are pointing to the changes that were, which contradicts my concern. If that's your point, I have to consider that the KJV was done over 2000 years ago. I definitely was not born then, and I was not in those discussions when King James made the decision to put a committee together. I also believe the word was God inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, who am I, who was born 2000 years after such an important work was accomplished, to question it? I don't know why the apocrypha was not included, and I don't think I have the right to question it.
People have done that to me in a discussion before, so it is true.
Helpful to know since there was a significant update to the structure of the KJV 200 years ago.Correcting my own comment: I meant to say over 400 years ago!
Love does not keep record of wrongs, and it was a while ago.Give an example!
Helpful to know since there was a significant update to the structure of the KJV 200 years ago.
Likewise, you may find the following link of interest.I was making reference to 1611. But here is a history of bible translations I found! https://www.tcseagles.org/faculty/n...les/Timeline_of_Bible_Translation_History.pdf
Love does not keep record of wrongs, and it was a while ago.
Likewise, you may find the following link of interest.
A King James Vocabulary Lesson | Religious Studies Center
That version was probably too ecumenical, the (unnecessary) translation changes are probably sales driven.
That makes sense. I have a lot of the bible memorized in that version so sometimes I google a phrase and it doesn't pop up anymore. Oh well.For me now, it's more sentimental as it was my first Bible.
I agree that the KJV is best. What I found is that once Christ opens your eyes and ears to see, the KJV best describes the Spiritual truth of Christ.Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?
The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.
What do you think?
I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:
Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ
Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations
I thankfully have the 1984 version. It was my first ever Bible given to me by my ex-wife. It is a Men's Devotional version.
Depends on each change, omission etc. Not many are essential, most are not for any particular agenda.Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?
The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.
What do you think?
I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:
Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ
Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations
A couple of things. First, the 1611 edition of the KJV had marginal notes. Meaning the translators themselves were not always sure of how a reading should be rendered. Second, the edition you likely have is the 1769 Blaney revision. Mostly this corrected spelling but also introduced some changes to the text.What resource can you point to that shows that the King James bible have been edited? I did not know that.
The thing is, it wasn't removed until the 1828. The original translators would have been dead at this point. In terms of authority to determine, "it is okay to tear these books out of the bible" would relate to your original question.
Who did they think they were ripping pages out of the bible based on their opinions?
Yet they did, and this translation that's been mangled and changed a bunch, and somehow became the object of an onlyism movement. It's absurd.
Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?
Have you wondered about the errors (but mistaken and DELIBERATE) that are IN the KJB?
How would I be able to determine what mistakes or errors were possibly made over 400 years ago? I wasn't there, but God was and I believe God knew what He was doing with His servants.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?