If you received one of these booklets in the mail, please let us know! Of perhaps you have a testimony of how the Gospel of John has impacted your own life. If you'd like to share it, we'd love to hear it! We welcome your feedback on this new outreach opportunity.
This Gospel of John project is well worth the support of Believers.
Our church has participated in it, and recently we received copies of the various imprints.
The print style and size are very readable and the entire piece is very attractive. Indeed, it would be nice to have the entire Scriptures printed in such a format!
That was very well said... and I am encouraged and inspired by your heart. But I must confess, I don't think I will ever be ready for such a thing like that... I was baptized in the Holy Spirit this past sunday Aug 2. And I'm so afraid of how I shall Glorify God in my Death.
But I know one thing, that I serve an infinitely Lovely God! And he told me as I was writing in my journal, that so shall my death to him, be lovely...
God Bless You My Brothers and Sisters,
Pray and Do Not Lose Heart (Luke 18)
I have a feeling that the Lord is doing exceedingly abundantly more than we could imagine in this country (Ephesians 3:20). I just came back from "Legacy Conference" in Chicago, and God's Spirit was at work there...
(By The Way) This letter is coming from South Shore Massachusetts, not the Bible Belt. "People from every tribe nation, and tongue!" (^_^)
Regarding the Gospel of John project: What a great way to participate in a Reformation type work and do hardly absolutely nothing but type in your credit card number and not worry about persecution (yet). I wonder what The Lord thinks when He ordained William Tyndale to be burned at the stake for a similar work and then observes very few sponsors in this present day effort. I'm glad I'm one of the few!
This is good News in dark times. Our small church has a Bearing precious seed also. But we need the Word out there more than ever in these later days. Good for you Sermon Audio I wish I could be part of it.But times are hard on our family I thank God that I'm able to listen to the preaching for free also.
I think some of you who want to use this forum to debate the KJV should go it it somewhere else. There are plenty of places to do it. This is meant for feedback on the Gospels of John not what you believe to be a better text. You are causing confusion to those who may be coming here looking for answers. God bless.
P.S. Any thought on my previous suggestions of a banner ad to put on my site?
Thanks for giving out these Gospels of John through the Trinitarian Bible Society! I am very grateful you are doing this. I am also very grateful you chose to do it through TBS. Thank you for getting the Word of God to peoples homes!
Good Job! Bearing precious seed and many other Independent fundamental Baptist printing ministries has been doing this for over 15 years. Independent Baptist Missionaries and Church planters give out 50-100 thousand a year. one church in New England did 13,000.in 4 month. The gospels are free. We IFB church planters call this stage one of church planting. Then we follow up with everyone we sent them to. IFB all the way
Neil wrote: Banned, see http://www.thedcl.org/bible/kjv-1611/index.html for the "real thing." The facsimile of the 1611 Gospel of Luke contains the very footnote about a textual variant for Luke 17:36 that my Zondervan reproduces. Other footnotes that I spot-checked were the same too, so I have reason to believe Zondervan was faithful to the original. So the 1611 KJV itself is "guilty" of engendering "doubt" about the text by noting manuscript variants. Whether the footnotes are "negative" or not is beside the point.
From doing a quick surf, I see your point, and I don't have an opinion to offer on this until I look into it more. All I can say is the Bible itself says God's word is very pure, purified in a furnace of earth seven times, that not one jot or tittle will pass away, that Heaven and Earth will pass away but not the Word, etcetera. I don't see any "bible" that fits that description more than the King James Bible.
But I'll be watching here to see if people more informed than I am on manuscripts and such have things to add to the discussion.
Thanks for pointing this out. Iron sharpeneth iron. God bless.
Maybe to be more specific I should have used 'minimal'.
Also from Webster Online:
MANY: "consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number".
Maybe to be more specific I should have used myriad, countless, innumerable, untold number.
Comparing the alternate readings in the AV to the enormous number of confusing textual & manuscript footnotes in the NKJV is like comparing a spring shower to the Genesis flood.
I do put the KJV on a pedestal in the sense that it is far and above in every way anything else that's available. I can read it cover to cover, over and over and never once have cause to question the validity of a single one of God's Words. Not only did the translators explain everything they did and why (TTTR) but they even went to the trouble of placing the words in italics that are necessary for clarity. Do you think the 'translators' of the NKJV bothered with anything close to that? No. They created a monstrosity that causes those seeking God's words to man to wonder if it's even possible to know for certain whether they exist.
Hey, I love the KJV too! I just don't make more of it than the Translators themselves did.
"They don't ever call into question the validity or trustworthiness of the words or phrasing that they reference. They just offer a few true 'alternate readings'."
From Wikipedia: "special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves"
"As for the few alternate readings..."
Please tell us what "few" in the KJV amounts to, versus "many" for the NKJV.
Thru the years I've tried some of the others. I used the NEB and Living Bible when I was a teenager (1970s) but kept coming back to the AV. I tried the NKJV when it first came out but it was probably the worst of the lot. I spilled orange juice all over it one morning and considered it a good excuse to toss it. I even tried the NIV a few years later (I was foolishly enticed by all of the hoopla) and realized immediately that it was just a terrible translation. I even tried Jay Green's MKJV and Literal Translation in the early nineties but soon realized that many produce translations just for the sake of producing tran$lation$.
As for the few alternate readings in the KJV, they have always been there -even in 1611- but my point is that they are TRULY alternate translational (is that a word?) readings. Read the Translators To The Reader. They explain why they are there. They don't call into question the validity or trustworthiness of the words or phrasing that they reference. They just offer a few true 'alternate readings'.
The modern versions, the NKJV in particlar, use tons of footnotes to call into questions the validity and trustworthiness of the words of God.
Banned, see http://www.thedcl.org/bible/kjv-1611/index.html for the "real thing." The facsimile of the 1611 Gospel of Luke contains the very footnote about a textual variant for Luke 17:36 that my Zondervan reproduces. Other footnotes that I spot-checked were the same too, so I have reason to believe Zondervan was faithful to the original.
So the 1611 KJV itself is "guilty" of engendering "doubt" about the text by noting manuscript variants. Whether the footnotes are "negative" or not is beside the point.
I chucked my NKJV in the bin when I read several of these doubt-producing 'footnotes', such as when the text had 'yes' and the footnote said 'or possibly no'.
DJC49 wrote: No footnotes? Nonsense! Not only did the original 1611 KJV have marginal notes (i.e., "footnotes") [ here's an EXAMPLE ], it also had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha! For instance: In Daniel 8:25 -- the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha. HERE is an example of a marginal note (cross-reference) found in the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV. It shows a reference to 2 Maccabees 7:7 found in the margin at Hebrews 11:35. _ You need to do some study on this issue, *Banned*
Neil is talking about "variant translations from variant manuscript" type footnotes. My KJB has lots of cross references, also chapter titles, put there by the *publisher.*
The King James Bible does not have the kind of footnotes that say "but this mss says this and this older one says that, so we don't know if it should read thus or if it should be included at all."
Banned wrote: There are no footnotes unless added by some publisher. My KJB is from Thomas Nelson and I have none and I've never seen any footnotes. The KJB is what it is, no footnotes.
No footnotes? Nonsense!
Not only did the original 1611 KJV have marginal notes (i.e., "footnotes") [ here's an EXAMPLE ], it also had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha!
For instance: In Daniel 8:25 -- the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha.
HERE is an example of a marginal note (cross-reference) found in the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV. It shows a reference to 2 Maccabees 7:7 found in the margin at Hebrews 11:35. _
8/7/09 11:12 PM
