Collecting Bible Versions

DeclareHim,

I also collect Bible translations, including the various editions of each. And yes, I also collect paraphrases of the Bible.

I mostly buy them in thrift stores and used book stores as most of them are no longer in print. I find that many of them are available for $.25 to $2.50. Occasionally I pay more for one, especially if it has an expensive binding and is in really good condition.

I also collect down-loadable electronic Bible translations and paraphrases. As I mentioned to you before, “E-Sword” is an excellent source for down-loadable electronic versions and paraphrases of the Bible—and most of them are free!

Happy collecting!

And may our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ richly bless you with every good thing.

Because He Lives,

Craig

 

A couple of good Bibles in my collection:
Each seems to read with under 1% variation from
the KJV1769.

1. THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE (TMB),
subtitle: New Authroized Version (NAV)
[Deuel Enterprises, Inc; 1998]

The TMB has an interesting preface.
Seems it was made to overcome the objections
that strict KJVOs have to new versions.
Strangely, hardly a KJVO knows of it's existance.

2. The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
[Deuel Enterprises, Inc; 1994]

The KJ21 has an interesting preface.
Seems it was made to overcome the objections
that strict KJVOs have to new versions.
Strangely, hardly a KJVO knows of it's existance.

 

I have the one and only Bible that you will ever need, the King James Bible.

 

Which one? There are several revisions (1613-1769) and editions (Cambridge, Oxford) and they are all different.

With or without the heretical Apocrypha which (according a BB KJVO person) supports prayers for the dead, Mariolotry and the practice of magic?

HankD

 

There is editions, not revisions.

 

I suppose that depends on your definition of "revision." The various editions of the KJV change several tens of thousands of minor things such as spelling and punctuation, and that can't really be called a revision. However, among those changes, especially in the area of corrections of printer's errors, we do find some revision of words being changed to entirely different words which cannot be explained away as correction of printer's errors. I posted a list a couple weeks ago and invited KJVOs to tell me which of the very different readings was correct. Homebound told me the KJV1769 was correct and thus the AV1611 was wrong. Askjo later agreed that the KJV1769 was correct and the AV1611 was wrong then changed his mind and tried to say they were both correct!

Which do you believe was correct? The AV1611 or the current KJV, the 1769? And why do you believe one is correct and the other in error? And how can you tell which one is correct and which one is wrong?

 

I collect wood and coal to BURN people who don't use God's only true word, the ESV thinline.

 

Both are correct. The 1611 has been edited for the obvious spelling and printing errors. The 1769 is that edition. The only proved that I have is faith. I do not feel like I have to learn Greek and Hebrew to prove to myself that God inspired and preserved his word in the King James Bible. If a person does not believe that, then I cannot change what they believe, but maybe with praying and fasting, the Holy Spirit can. Because you see, you or I do not have the originals to refer back to. Anyway, if we did, someone would refute them also.

 

That's because God did not inspire the KJV, or any translation. God inspired the source texts. To say that God inspired a translation is to say that God gave authority to something besides biblical texts, which is counter to Christian doctrine.

 

Both are correct. The 1611 has been edited for the obvious spelling and printing errors. The 1769 is that edition. The only proved that I have is faith. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you write that
last sentence in English please. Thank you.

Do you accept the 1873 respelling KJV?
If not, why not.

Which King James Version do you use?
Here is a sample test:

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):
... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.

I note that most KJV electronic sources
are from the KJV1769.

Here we see a "spelling correction" that
has "he" in the KJV1611, "she" in the KJV1769,
and is corrected back to "he" in
the generally unaccepted by KJVOs KJV1873.
BTW, the variation is in the Hebrew Source
also, some Hebrews Sources being "he" sources
and some Hebrew Sources being "she" sources.
But everybody should be happy to know that
both he and she finally made it into town

 

Neiter the KJV21 nor the TMB is
a paraphrase. Both are upgrades to
the KJV (though which KJV, I have no idea).

 

Both are correct. The 1611 has been edited for the obvious spelling and printing errors. The 1769 is that edition. The only proved that I have is faith. I do not feel like I have to learn Greek and Hebrew to prove to myself that God inspired and preserved his word in the King James Bible. If a person does not believe that, then I cannot change what they believe, but maybe with praying and fasting, the Holy Spirit can. Because you see, you or I do not have the originals to refer back to. Anyway, if we did, someone would refute them also. </font>[/QUOTE]I think we should become G.V.O. why not go further into the past, say, 1599? you see, before 1611, no one really had the real Bible. The KJV was based on the "former translations diligently compared and revised" and they used the Originals....sarcasm intended...

 

So, you are saying that in 2 Chronicles 28:11 the correct reading is both "LORD" and "GOD?"

And in Ezra 2:22 both "children" and "men" are correct?

In Acts 8:32 both "the shearer" and "his shearer" are correct?

And in 1 Corinthians 12:28 both "helps in governments" and "helps, governments" are correct?

If they are different, how can they both be correct?

And how do you know both are correct? They are different words and mean different things. How can they both be correct. Isn't one obviously wrong and the other obviously correct?

 

Isn't this the same
argument used AGAINST multi-version users (MVUs)?



Did i tell everybody i've got a copy
of THE READER'S DIGEST BIBLE? It is a good
read, even if it isn't complete. At least
they seem to NOT have added anything

Bible Version Trivia question of the day:

From which version of the Bible did
the Reader's Digest Bible get condensed?

 

That's because God did not inspire the KJV, or any translation. God inspired the source texts. To say that God inspired a translation is to say that God gave authority to something besides biblical texts, which is counter to Christian doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]That is your opinion. Question, why would he not inspire the KJB? Why makes you think he stopped at the originals?

 

I do not accept the 1873. Why? Because "she" was a printing error in 1611 and in 1769, it was corrected to "he."

Since we do not have the original source, this is all speculation.