KJV and the modern versions

When God said, "Jesus", the Greek text said, "Jesus." The Bible translation said, "Jesus." WHO TOLD YOU to change Jesus to He? WHO TOLD MV TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?

When God said, "He", the Greek text said, 'He". The Bible translation said, "He." WHO TOLD YOU to change "He" to Jesus? WHO TOLD MV TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?

 

Regardless, my question still holds. I suggest that there is a reason certain versions/editions are the ones consistently at the top. Those appear to generally be (currently) the NIV, KJV, and NKJV, with the NLT a strong fourth, according to some sites I just checked, and which I will list, below.

Interestingly enough, for one month, the "profit driven" copyrighted NIV, actually ranked #1 for sales units, but #2 in dollar volume, while, only last month, the 'non- copyrighted' KJV, published with only supposedly 'pure' ideals, according to some, and where no such 'greed for filthy lucre' is actually a factor, apparently, was #4 in volume sales, but #2 in dollars, while the version 'owned' by that money-grubbing outfit of Thomas Nelson, the NKJV, was #2 in units sold, but only #4 in bucks realized.

Uh- is something not exactly adding up, here? Incidentally, these are not my figures, at all, but those of the CBA, and I suggest they have no reason to be biased in presenting this data, in any manner.

http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20071126_december_2007_bible_sales_rankings.html

http://www.newepistles.com/2008/02/bible-sales-ranking-for-march.html

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

It is interesting to note that some versions, that have been oft 'hyped', in various places, including the BB, are barely, if at all, even visible among the "Top 10", while some others that 'receive far less press' are hanging in there, including the NKJV and HCSB, to name a couple, and both of which are far more 'Baptistic' in nature, than are most.

Your or my preferences notwithstanding (and for now the umpteenth time, I am not a particular fan of the NIV), once again, I would suggest that God has something to do with this. Other versions, such as the RSV never came close to living up to 'hype' and expectations, for long, but the NIV has been at or near the top, along with the KJV, and almost from its appearance, and has stayed there for a quarter of a century, and actually attained this position, without any subtle (or not-so-subtle, as the case may be) help from 'government or an official state church.

There is no legitimacy to any argument for one version over the other, in this regard, for the only official advocate the NIV had, is and was Zondervan, and the Zondervan created entity, The IBS.

Ed

 

Let's look at NIV in regard of "morning star."

Isa. 14:12 NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Rev 22:16 NIV
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Isa. 14:12 refers "morning star" to Lucifer. Rev. 22:16 refers "morning star" to Jesus. Therefore NIV said Satan is Jesus.

 

With all due respect, check a good dictionary.
The dictionary defines a unicorn as a one-horned horse with wings coming out of Greek mythology. In fact that is the only definition that it gives. Does the Bible use Greek mythology? I have had new believers ask me that question when reading through the OT.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unicorn

Your "Bible Dictionary" definition is there only to correct the mistake of the KJV.
Or, more precisely it is there to give the definition of the Hebrew word, when translated properly is a two-horned wild ox, with no resemblance to any kind of unicorn at all. There is no kind of rhinoceros indigenous to the land of Palestine at all, or anywhere near there. We know it is not that animal. Besides the word doesn't mean rhinoceros. It means wild ox. The misinterpretation of the word in the KJV was an obvious mistake. The Bible does not teach Greek mythology.

 

Probably, the same one who told the TR 'collectors' and editors to change the readings of the majority of the MT/Byzantine texts and also the CT/'Alexandrian' texts, as well, for some other reading, in the several places they did so, or other 'editorial' choices, that have been made in every version and/or translation ever done.

Or the one who told Beza to not use his own personal copy of a Greek manuscript, Codex D, in a version he supported, the Geneva Bible.

Why did John Wycliffe, use the Vulgate he had available, for the Wycliffe Bible? Simply because it was considered to be a better version, and a truer basis, than the notoriously known to be UN-reliable Greek and Hebrew texts he had at his disposal, even considering the fact that the Vulgate, in itself, was already a translation from the Biblical languages into Latin.

It's called 'Editing' and 'Textual Criticism.'.

Ed

 

The phrase, “Down to minimum,” is the best one. The TR texts had it, and the CT texts did not have it.

 

What is the 'names of our Lord Jesus Christ'?
​

This is a test. Here is some help:

1. Lord - a title meaning 'boss'
2. Christ - a title from a Greek word meaning 'Anointed by God'
3. Messiah - a title from a Hebrew word meaning 'Anointed by God'
4. Lamb of God - a title reminding us that Messiah Jesus is the perfect sacrifice
5. etc ...

A. Jesus - a later modern English name meaning 'Hashem Saves'
B. Iesus - an early modern English name meaning 'Hashem Saves'
C. Yeshua - an English adaptation of a Hebrew name meaning 'Hashem Saves'
D. etc ...

I suspect most people confuse the Titles of Jesus and the name of 'Jesus'

 

The TR has the minimum and the CT have more than the minimum?What are you talking about?Your posts are mystifying.

 

This is a misrepresentation, at best, as Ed Edwards and annsni have already posted in this thread from posts 15-19, and as Ed Edwards has specifically posted, here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1300966&postcount=19

Ed

 

The book of Mark in the NT is where TRs disagree 19 times; the Book of Mark in the NT is where CTs disagree 650+ times.

 

Barry Burton is a liar and a false teacher. I have his book in my study and it is filled with lies and attacks on God's words. This is one of them. The MajT is different than the TR. They don't "agree" with each other. They are different in numerous places. The MajT is a family of texts that show a number of differences from various manuscripts. The TR was edited several times each time making changes to it.

As you admitted even the KJV has had errors in it.

This is part of your problem. You are learning from false teachers who attack the word of God without shame. There are many good resources out there who can help you combat the lies that you have bought into. In this day and age, there is no reason to continue in unbelief about the Bible.

 

Believe whatever you like.
I believe:
Barry Burton is not a liar.
The KJV is God's preserved Word; it is infallible [when you understand it correctly]
The KJV bible, being God's inspired Word, I use it as the measure to deterimine what is true and what is not true.

The Alexandrian texts, vaticannus and sinaiticus, (property of the vatican) are corrupted texts from one city, Alexandria, Egypt; a hotbed of gnostic heresy for centuries.

[note: the Isaiah scroll in the dead sea scrolls matches the massoretic text Isaiah word for word. It is the massoretic text that was used in palestine at the time of Jesus and the apostles.]

You believe whatever you like.
I will believe whatever God leads me to believe; I pray to Him to control what I believe and know.
I will believe whatever I like.

 

Reason certain ones are at the top; top of what, popularity.
Ed, the unsaved will always outnumber the saved.
The false prophets, (like in the Old Testament) will always outnumber the true prophets.
Popularity is a wrong standard to judge bibles.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Yeah, there is a reason they are on top.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

In these latter time apostate times before antichrist is revealed many will depart from the faith.
Since the faith of Christianity is built on God's Word, that must mean many will depart from God's Word.

We have had God's Word in the KJV bible for centuries. Now men are departing from it to altered bible versions.

Suppose appostacy is happening; don't you think altered bibles would be the most popular in apostate times?

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Yeah there is a reason.

It seems to me the altered versions will increase in popularity the closer we get to the end.

 

Praise God people did not have this mindset in 1611 or we wouldn't have the KJV!

 

Okay then.Don't ever let me catch you telling us how popular the KJV was for hundreds of years.

Fine Scripture which has nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

And by this you're maintaining that those who do not use the KJV have departed from the faith?!Rubbish.

More garbage if by quoting these verses you're claiming that those who read,study and meditate from MV's are consequently departing from God's Word.

Yeah.And before the KJV we had God's word for centuries.The Vulgate (in its various forms) was around a lot longer than the KJV has been since its inception.

By 'altered Bibles' you mean translations which are not KJV ( in its various forms).MV's are different from the KJV and are more popular because of increased accuracy and readibility.It's not at all a sign of apostasy.That is just sinful on your part to even suggest such a stupid connection.

Again.That's a great passage.It's very true.Have you thought of the possibility that KJV Onlyism may be a false doctrine which carnal-minded folks gravite toward due to their itching ears?

Instead of calling them 'altered versions' how about calling them Modern Versions?Most of them are faithful and fine works of scholarship.Their increasing popularity has absolutely nothing to do with people rejecting the Gospel.

Due to time differences I am able to respond to AA's insubstantial remarks.Others of you who will awaken to his drips and drabs can respond with more pointed comments.

 

I appreciate your calling me an apostate.

Coming from you, that is a compliment.

 

A point of correction

I had received some incorrect information, and thought that Zondervan (founded 1931) actually had created the IBS. In fact, the IBS dates to 1809, and was the actual originator of the NIV, and partner(s) with Zondervan, in publishing the NIV.

Ed