Is it time for a New Bible, not just a new translation?

[NavyGuy7]

I hate all these newer translations of the bible, that treat you as if you were a six year old. The NIV was fine with me, and it is still my favorite, but they made newer versions so simple I get frustrated.

 

[Jerrell]

If you notice I wrote "orignal" in quotation marks. I did not mean that is was the actual original, but somewhat like the original bible that most of the Church (after 1611) has used. I fullwell know of the preceding English Versions before the KJV, and i know about Martin Luther's German translationof the BIble and the Geneva BIble and so on....

The KJV is somewhat like a classic. Classics never die, and they do not need to be updated into a new language (although they are). Consider the works of Shakespeare as he wrote in the exact same language that the King James was written in. Are the Re-trasnlated versions as well known as the old? No, they are not. But if we are to quote the old, people would understand what we mean and to which we are referring. The same for the Bible, MANY, and I mean many phrases are famous in the KJV language- and people know them.

Now I have nothing wrong with the modern versions. I use an NIV and Leadership Bible myself. I understand that the Modern versions are better to understand by many peoples, and that is a blessing. However i also understand that the KJV is the most well known bible among peoples across the world. Now I am not a KJV only advocate, but i do prefer the KJV bible over the others. The language it is written in is not hard for me to understand. And as stated before. We must have God's word in our hearts, not just in the "right" translation.

We fuss too much about translations, and about "ruining" doctrines based on those translations (although it can happen). English is not the only language, there are thousands of different translations of the Bible- the KJV among them- and all of them accomplish the fact in that the Name of Jesus is published thourghout the World.

 

[Macarius]

If you notice I wrote "orignal" in quotation marks. I did not mean that is was the actual original, but somewhat like the original bible that most of the Church (after 1611) has used. I fullwell know of the preceding English Versions before the KJV, and i know about Martin Luther's German translationof the BIble and the Geneva BIble and so on....

The KJV is somewhat like a classic. Classics never die, and they do not need to be updated into a new language (although they are). Consider the works of Shakespeare as he wrote in the exact same language that the King James was written in. Are the Re-trasnlated versions as well known as the old? No, they are not. But if we are to quote the old, people would understand what we mean and to which we are referring. The same for the Bible, MANY, and I mean many phrases are famous in the KJV language- and people know them.

Now I have nothing wrong with the modern versions. I use an NIV and Leadership Bible myself. I understand that the Modern versions are better to understand by many peoples, and that is a blessing. However i also understand that the KJV is the most well known bible among peoples across the world. Now I am not a KJV only advocate, but i do prefer the KJV bible over the others. The language it is written in is not hard for me to understand. And as stated before. We must have God's word in our hearts, not just in the "right" translation.

We fuss too much about translations, and about "ruining" doctrines based on those translations (although it can happen). English is not the only language, there are thousands of different translations of the Bible- the KJV among them- and all of them accomplish the fact in that the Name of Jesus is published thourghout the World.

If that is your opinion, then why bring up your attack on the contemporary translations/paraphrases in the first place? Or was that a round-a-bout way of defending the canon of scripture? (This is honest curiosity - you sounded like someone who was "all KJV, only KJV").

Also, in favor of translations - the KJV uses outdated phrases that require additional commentary to adaquetly communicate. In otherwords, like a lot of Shakespeare's idioms, you need some educational background to understand it. If that can be simplified or cleard up by changing the words to their modern usage (since language DOES change and evolve) wouldn't that be consistent with the notion that we should have the scriptures in the language of the people?

 

[Jerrell]

The Bible is not meant to be simply understood, alot of it's idioms and phrases, and teachings can only be understood by someone who has been educated. The Jews even stumbled at Jesus' teachings. And Jesus himself educated a taxman and fisherman so that they could understand him- he did not simply "clean up the language." And I agree languages do change and evolve, and sometimes people cannot understand old language but history also plays a role.

Mind you that A group of Christians were persecuted and killed because of the Bible -from whose we gather the KJV. And the Persecuters, resulted in how we have the RSV and other "modern" translations.

I need to not expose upon it, but i would also like to say that just like people find fault in the KJV and it's translators, there is also much fault in the Modern Versions and their translators. It is not as if their translations are perfect, or more accurate to the "originals."

Why don't you read the Testimony of someone who once ONLY USED NIV AND NEW MODERN VERSION? He got his Bachelors of Arts at what is now called Hope University, Fullerton, California, in Linguistics and BibleBachelors of Arts at what is now called Hope University, Fullerton, California, in Linguistics and Bible and got his Masters of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, in General Theology, majoring in Linguistics and took the three year Summer Institute of Linguistics courses with Wycliffe Bible Translators.


Read here:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/saved.asp

 

[Jerrell]

Of the Three Major Manuscripts from which the Modern Versions are translated, none of the three can totally agree on how to translate the Lord's Prayer.

 

[Jerrell]

Let's not forget that these so called "majority" text were discarded into the desert for a good reason. And how do we delete posts, is there a button on this thread for it?

 

[BigNorsk]

The text behind the KJV is largely a subgroup of the Majority Text.

The Majority Text is another name for the Byzantine Text.

The reason it is the Majority is that the Byzantines continued to use it and make copies.

There was never a discarding of any text into the desert.

Marv

 

[Jerrell]

Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.

 

[Macarius]

This is why I don't follow sola scriptura. This all so much depends on fallible human beings - to select the text, determine the history of the text, translate the text...

If you have only scripture (and a translated, transferred textual tradition to base it on) to determine your doctrines, there is no hope of unity - nor even any sure guarantee of basic orthodoxy (nicene theology).

Why does it matter where the manuscripts were if the truth was preserved?

 

[oldsage]

The Bible is not meant to be simply understood, alot of it's idioms and phrases, and teachings can only be understood by someone who has been educated.

idioms are just expressions used by a culture. For example in our culture we say, "it is raining cats and dogs" to mean it is raining very heavy. But to another culture or time people would be thinking cats and dogs are falling from the sky if we said that because they didn't know the idiom. The idioms in the bible were know to those who read it because those phrases were contemporary to them. You didn't need to be educated, you just have had to grow up in that time.

The Jews even stumbled at Jesus' teachings. And Jesus himself educated a taxman and fisherman so that they could understand him- he did not simply "clean up the language."

Their problems was not understanding the language but the principles in which Jesus was teaching. When using metephors like "wheats and tares" and such they didn't understand what those represented until He told them.

And I agree languages do change and evolve, and sometimes people cannot understand old language but history also plays a role.

The big problem is sometimes not understanding the older form of a language can give you an opposite meaning of what was really being said. Like the word "let" which means to "allow", but back in the 17th century it meant to "restrain". So, when a person educated in English speaking schools today read such a thing they are bound to be lead astray. Which is why even the KJV translators advocated updating the language as it changes.

Mind you that A group of Christians were persecuted and killed because of the Bible -from whose we gather the KJV. And the Persecuters, resulted in how we have the RSV and other "modern" translations.

The KJV translators enjoyed the protection of the King, I don't believe they were that persecuted. In the time after the KJV was written and more discoveries were found the Catholics churches hold started to wane and people were allow more freedom when it comes to being able to translate. When the RSV came out even the Catholics even criticized it.

I need to not expose upon it, but i would also like to say that just like people find fault in the KJV and it's translators, there is also much fault in the Modern Versions and their translators. It is not as if their translations are perfect, or more accurate to the "originals."

There are problems with all translations if one looks hard enough. The question is are they faithful in their renderings and to they correctly reflect the faith which was given to the church by the Apostles and the Prophets.

Why don't you read the Testimony of someone who once ONLY USED NIV AND NEW MODERN VERSION? He got his Bachelors of Arts at what is now called Hope University, Fullerton, California, in Linguistics and BibleBachelors of Arts at what is now called Hope University, Fullerton, California, in Linguistics and Bible and got his Masters of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, in General Theology, majoring in Linguistics and took the three year Summer Institute of Linguistics courses with Wycliffe Bible Translators.

Read here:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/saved.asp

It is well known that chick is KJVonly and does not give a balanced take on the issues. David W. Daniels may be educated in linguistics but is he a textual critic? Does he have the education and expertise to judge translations, which text and such?
I would be more inclined to listen to Daniel B. Wallace:

Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.
His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive Dorector for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Or Bruce Metzger:

Metzger earned his BA at Lebanon Valley College in 1935, and then entered Princeton Theological Seminary to gain his ThB in 1938. He stayed at Princeton as Teaching Fellow in New Testament Greek. The following year, he was ordained in the United Presbyterian Church. In 1940, he earned his MA and changed post to be Instructor in New Testament. Two years later, Metzger produced his PhD. In 1944 he was promoted to Assistant Professor. In 1948, he became Associate Professor, and full Professor in 1954. In 1964, Metzger's chair was named George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. In 1971, he was elected president of both the Studiorum Novi Testimenti Societas and the International Society of Biblical Literature. The following year, he became the first president of the North American Patristic Society. Metzger was visiting fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge in 1974 and Wolfson College, Oxford in 1979. He retired at the age of seventy in 1984 as Professor Emeritus. In 1994, Bruce Metzger was honoured with the Burkitt Medal for Biblical Studies by the British Academy. He was awarded honorary doctorates from Lebanon Valley College, Findlay College, University of St Andrews, the University of Münster and Potchefstroom University.

I believe these two are much more qualified that Mr. Daniels on this subject. Dr. Metzger had several books on this subject and a very good textual commentary.
I believe the KJV is good if the one reading it is educated in the language it is written in. But modern language bibles are needed for those who speak in the langauge of the modern times. One they can comprehend without the use of dictionaries for archaic words.
I wouldn't say any of the mainstream translations are at fault but I would say they try to make the best use of the known resources of the time.
Blessings,
Chris

 

[oldsage]

Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.

It was the Dead Sea Scrolls which are mostly hebrew/aramaic text and a few greek text which were hidden in caves to protect them from the Roman soldiers. They did this because they were precious. As to ones in the desert, they were found in archeological digs in ruins. The text themselves where not put away but whole cities or buildings which have been claimed by time and sands and possibly war.

Chris

 

[Jerrell]

Well if you actually read what he said you'll learn that he took Greek-Hebrew courses, and that he himself never suggested anyone read the KJV. Instead he, many times, gave people NIV and NKJV and such.

And I was not referring to the KJV translators as being persecuted I am referring to those whom ye seem to not know of, who were persecuted by the Catholic Church because of the Bibles and Manuscripts that they had in their possesion.

 

[Jerrell]

If only the educated can discern truth then tell me why do you beleive in Jesus Christ who never attended any school or university? Not to mention the Apostles who learned from a Carpenter's son. The Apostle Paul was the only one among them who was educated in the school. Jesus Christ was God, and being God he was able to give the spirit of discernment.

I tell you that degrees proove nothing. Because countless millions hold doctorate degrees and are yet on their way to hell because they reject the simple things. You list those "qualifications" as though they mean anything, how many awards someone won means nothing, how much education they got, means nothing, heck, they could translated their own bible and still that would mean nothing to me. The only thing that matters is "Are you saved and indwelled with the spirit of discernment?" Only he himself and God knows the answer to that question, so don't list those things as though that prooves he knows the truth more than the man who wrote that essay on the link i gave you. I know of Many Preachers with doctorate degrees that don't even believe that we can be saved now, but could go to hell at any second (and I mean Christians). The Amount of Education and awards mean nothing. A man on a street corner can be smarter than the man with the college degree.

 

[E.C.]

Well if you actually read what he said you'll learn that he took Greek-Hebrew courses, and that he himself never suggested anyone read the KJV. Instead he, many times, gave people NIV and NKJV and such.

And I was not referring to the KJV translators as being persecuted I am referring to those whom ye seem to not know of, who were persecuted by the Catholic Church because of the Bibles and Manuscripts that they had in their possesion.

And what basis is there for this?

Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.

What evidence, proof or basis is there for this?

The only texts found in caves or anything are the Gnostic Gospels. If you are saying that we should be using those heretical texts, than that completely changes the course of the thread.

 

[BigNorsk]

Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.

Well we've found manuscripts in a lot of places. Probably the most unusual are some of the papyrus fragments taken from mummies. Papyrus was both used to stuff certain mummies and for wrapping in some cases.

But I would say it seems that you are kind of mixing up your manuscripts.

When we say Majority or Byzantine text. That is referring to a family of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. The translations that are most common that reflect a subset of the Majority text are those from the Textus Receptus familiy. The KJV, NKJV, Bishop's, Tyndale, etc. The Textus Receptus is not a critical text, it is taken overall from several manuscripts, in each area it tends mostly to follow one manuscript with some changes when the people who worked on it conformed it more to what they perceived as the common readings. The critical text of the Majority Family is reflected in the English Majority Text Version. Which is available online, as well as for e-sword and is also available in the Apostle's Bible and the new Logos Bible with an Old Testament based on the Septuagint.

When we say Alexandrian text, that is a family of Greek New Testament manuscripts, as is the Western Text.

The Critical text still refers to the New Testament, but is a text arrived at by studying the Greek New Testament manuscripts both individually, but also as families, and following a set of rules based on studies to help do the best job we can of reconstructing the original text. The Critical text is used by most translations today. NASB, NIV, NET, HCSB and so on. They often still reference the longer passages not believed to be original but found in the KJV. They either set them off in brackets or put them in footnotes.

Some people make a big deal out of the manuscripts used for the New Testament, there are even those who claim the text behing the New Testament in the KJV is superior despite it being based mostly on a handful of manuscripts basically chosen at random, not to mention that the KJV translators did not even always follow the Greek text they had but too the Latin over the Greek in some places, and even some places have no basis in Greek at all but are either insertions from the Latin or back translations from Latin to Greek.

Many of the manuscripts found in the Desert have nothing to do with this. They are Old Testament texts.

The Old Testament Masoretic text that is basically behind all English translations you will find except for the handful based on the Septuagint has had some critical work done to it, but really is not a critical text in the same sense the New Testament text is. Though there is now some correction being done. If there is a conflict in the text it is still reproduced by the text instead of changing it to what is believed to be right based on studies of other texts. But we more and more see translators doing that so that say the age of King Jehoiachin when he began to reign, in the Masoretic text, it was eight in one place eighteen in another. Based on other ancient families of text, it appears pretty certain that eighteen is correct in both places of the text so you would see translations reflecting that more.

When you hear of discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. They don't enter into the New Testament discussion much because they are Old Testament manuscripts as well as Old Testament Apocryphal and sectarian manuscripts. There are no New Testament manuscripts among them.

No family of New Testament manuscripts could be said to come from manuscripts abandoned in the desert. Not to say some manuscripts haven't been found in deserts but way more have been found in libraries, or monasteries or other places, but not abandoned in deserts.

When you hear discussions about which manuscripts should be used for translation or you might hear about the KJV and the differences with modern translations, the discussion is pretty much limited to the New Testament. The so called Textus Receptus text was strictly New Testament. The King James Translators used the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament available to them at the time. It's a slightly different version than used today. But not very different.

Hope that helps.

Marv

 

[oldsage]

Well if you actually read what he said you'll learn that he took Greek-Hebrew courses, and that he himself never suggested anyone read the KJV. Instead he, many times, gave people NIV and NKJV and such.

What would make you thnk I didn't read what he wrote? I have read several things from David Daniels. I think you should read up on the author. He is KJVonly, he doesn't promote the reading of other bible versions. He is against the NIV and the NKJV if you read his answers to Bible Version questions.

You may not understand what I was writing about in regard to his expertise. Reading Greek or Hebrew does not make one a textual critic. His bio doesn't show any expertise in this field. The authors I listed are giants in their field. Bruce Metzger is one of the most respected people in textual criticism. Dan Wallace who is part of a bible translation committee and also one of the top 20 textual critics alive today, also has a project of photographing all New Testament manuscripts he can find.

Daniels also speaks highly of Gail Riplinger which is well know to have very unscholarly book on the subject of the KJV bible and other version. So, this also hurts his credibility on this subject especially if he has not check the sources which she used in her writings.

And I was not referring to the KJV translators as being persecuted I am referring to those whom ye seem to not know of, who were persecuted by the Catholic Church because of the Bibles and Manuscripts that they had in their possesion.

What would make you think I don't know of the history or the persecutions of the Catholic Church? Or the history of the transmission of the manuscripts and bible version prior to the KJV?

Mind you that A group of Christians were persecuted and killed because of the Bible -from whose we gather the KJV.

You say a group here persecuted and killed because of the Bible. Our subject has been the KJV. Then you make the comment, "from whose we gather the KJV" This sentence make no sense because it isn't grammatically correct. Not sure what the word "whose" means in this fragment or what "...we gather the KJV" means. So, I have to guess as to what you implied in this statement. I believed you were talking about the KJV translators because that is the subject which we were speaking.

People's written statements really need context for us to understand, you may understand what is in your mind at the time you write and it may make sense to you when you read it, but unless people are thinking just like you they may not get what point you are trying to get across.

Blessings,
Chris

 

[oldsage]

If only the educated can discern truth then tell me why do you beleive in Jesus Christ who never attended any school or university? Not to mention the Apostles who learned from a Carpenter's son. The Apostle Paul was the only one among them who was educated in the school. Jesus Christ was God, and being God he was able to give the spirit of discernment.

I tell you that degrees proove nothing. Because countless millions hold doctorate degrees and are yet on their way to hell because they reject the simple things. You list those "qualifications" as though they mean anything, how many awards someone won means nothing, how much education they got, means nothing, heck, they could translated their own bible and still that would mean nothing to me. The only thing that matters is "Are you saved and indwelled with the spirit of discernment?" Only he himself and God knows the answer to that question, so don't list those things as though that prooves he knows the truth more than the man who wrote that essay on the link i gave you. I know of Many Preachers with doctorate degrees that don't even believe that we can be saved now, but could go to hell at any second (and I mean Christians). The Amount of Education and awards mean nothing. A man on a street corner can be smarter than the man with the college degree.

I am assuming you are responding to me.

Can you tell me what I posted that has anything to do with what you are addressing? I believed we were talking about the subject of Textual Criticism, not the issues of salvation. I made no reference to people needing to be educated in higher learning facilities in order to understand the gospel. You should re-read what I wrote and address what I wrote. I wrote on being educated in how to read English, which is necessary of you want to read an English bible and I wrote on the education of those which study Textual Criticism. You went off on a tangent to make that about salvation which was never discussed until you brought it up on this post I am quoting from.

Blessings,
Chris

 

[Jerrell]

Well we've found manuscripts in a lot of places. Probably the most unusual are some of the papyrus fragments taken from mummies. Papyrus was both used to stuff certain mummies and for wrapping in some cases.

But I would say it seems that you are kind of mixing up your manuscripts.

When we say Majority or Byzantine text. That is referring to a family of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. The translations that are most common that reflect a subset of the Majority text are those from the Textus Receptus familiy. The KJV, NKJV, Bishop's, Tyndale, etc. The Textus Receptus is not a critical text, it is taken overall from several manuscripts, in each area it tends mostly to follow one manuscript with some changes when the people who worked on it conformed it more to what they perceived as the common readings. The critical text of the Majority Family is reflected in the English Majority Text Version. Which is available online, as well as for e-sword and is also available in the Apostle's Bible and the new Logos Bible with an Old Testament based on the Septuagint.

When we say Alexandrian text, that is a family of Greek New Testament manuscripts, as is the Western Text.

The Critical text still refers to the New Testament, but is a text arrived at by studying the Greek New Testament manuscripts both individually, but also as families, and following a set of rules based on studies to help do the best job we can of reconstructing the original text. The Critical text is used by most translations today. NASB, NIV, NET, HCSB and so on. They often still reference the longer passages not believed to be original but found in the KJV. They either set them off in brackets or put them in footnotes.

Some people make a big deal out of the manuscripts used for the New Testament, there are even those who claim the text behing the New Testament in the KJV is superior despite it being based mostly on a handful of manuscripts basically chosen at random, not to mention that the KJV translators did not even always follow the Greek text they had but too the Latin over the Greek in some places, and even some places have no basis in Greek at all but are either insertions from the Latin or back translations from Latin to Greek.

Many of the manuscripts found in the Desert have nothing to do with this. They are Old Testament texts.

The Old Testament Masoretic text that is basically behind all English translations you will find except for the handful based on the Septuagint has had some critical work done to it, but really is not a critical text in the same sense the New Testament text is. Though there is now some correction being done. If there is a conflict in the text it is still reproduced by the text instead of changing it to what is believed to be right based on studies of other texts. But we more and more see translators doing that so that say the age of King Jehoiachin when he began to reign, in the Masoretic text, it was eight in one place eighteen in another. Based on other ancient families of text, it appears pretty certain that eighteen is correct in both places of the text so you would see translations reflecting that more.

When you hear of discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. They don't enter into the New Testament discussion much because they are Old Testament manuscripts as well as Old Testament Apocryphal and sectarian manuscripts. There are no New Testament manuscripts among them.

No family of New Testament manuscripts could be said to come from manuscripts abandoned in the desert. Not to say some manuscripts haven't been found in deserts but way more have been found in libraries, or monasteries or other places, but not abandoned in deserts.

When you hear discussions about which manuscripts should be used for translation or you might hear about the KJV and the differences with modern translations, the discussion is pretty much limited to the New Testament. The so called Textus Receptus text was strictly New Testament. The King James Translators used the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament available to them at the time. It's a slightly different version than used today. But not very different.

Hope that helps.

Marv

Thanks.

 

[Jerrell]

What would make you thnk I didn't read what he wrote? I have read several things from David Daniels. I think you should read up on the author. He is KJVonly, he doesn't promote the reading of other bible versions. He is against the NIV and the NKJV if you read his answers to Bible Version questions.

You may not understand what I was writing about in regard to his expertise. Reading Greek or Hebrew does not make one a textual critic. His bio doesn't show any expertise in this field. The authors I listed are giants in their field. Bruce Metzger is one of the most respected people in textual criticism. Dan Wallace who is part of a bible translation committee and also one of the top 20 textual critics alive today, also has a project of photographing all New Testament manuscripts he can find.

Daniels also speaks highly of Gail Riplinger which is well know to have very unscholarly book on the subject of the KJV bible and other version. So, this also hurts his credibility on this subject especially if he has not check the sources which she used in her writings.



What would make you think I don't know of the history or the persecutions of the Catholic Church? Or the history of the transmission of the manuscripts and bible version prior to the KJV?


You say a group here persecuted and killed because of the Bible. Our subject has been the KJV. Then you make the comment, "from whose we gather the KJV" This sentence make no sense because it isn't grammatically correct. Not sure what the word "whose" means in this fragment or what "...we gather the KJV" means. So, I have to guess as to what you implied in this statement. I believed you were talking about the KJV translators because that is the subject which we were speaking.

People's written statements really need context for us to understand, you may understand what is in your mind at the time you write and it may make sense to you when you read it, but unless people are thinking just like you they may not get what point you are trying to get across.

Blessings,
Chris

What I meant was From Whom we recieved the KJV- bsaed on the texts they copied down on paper, and were persecuuted for.

 

[Jerrell]

I am assuming you are responding to me.

Can you tell me what I posted that has anything to do with what you are addressing? I believed we were talking about the subject of Textual Criticism, not the issues of salvation. I made no reference to people needing to be educated in higher learning facilities in order to understand the gospel. You should re-read what I wrote and address what I wrote. I wrote on being educated in how to read English, which is necessary of you want to read an English bible and I wrote on the education of those which study Textual Criticism. You went off on a tangent to make that about salvation which was never discussed until you brought it up on this post I am quoting from.

Blessings,
Chris

I know what you wrote about, but the subject coverd in the link is more than about salvation.

But I really don't see any reason to argue about versions....If you dont like the KJV, don't use it....however don't criticize those who wish to use it. The Version really shouldn't matter, just that we have the word in our hearts. Consider that the KJV allowed for billions to be saved- the reason it was translated was fulfilled. People understood and people were saved.


~God Bless~