We’ve seen the “In da beginnin’ Big Daddy created da heaven an’ da earth” Ebonics Bible, as well as the “Apostle’s Log” Star Trek English paraphrase Bible. In a more serious effort, the New Oxford Annotated Bible was created in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars in order to set forth a more “gay” revisionist interpretation of Scripture.
But now there is a major controversy developing as the latest altered Bibles are being created by organizations that most would think of as being more conservative and reasonable. At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.
2. God says that He has PRESERVED these pure words.
3. God tells us to obey these PURE words that He has PRESERVED.
Very plain, very simple. No wonder the devil didn't challenge the Lord Jesus Christ when He said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD." The devil couldn't challenge that statement, but plenty people today do!
The argument that the King James Bible is too hard to understand is ridiculous. If that's your conclusion then you'd better never own a good set of encyclopedias. You'll find a vast multitude of words you won't be familiar with. The fact of the matter is that many people are lazy-minded and want everything the easy way. Of course, the Bible publishers are more than willing to oblige ($$$) by printing more and more diluted Bible versions.
I believe what God says. I'm glad that I can hold in my hands the pure and preserved Word of God, the King James Bible.
Dyslexic,written off as educationally sub-normal,he found a book in his father’s room and as he read it, copied it out, and memorised portions of it, this book changed Robert’s life. He was converted one night in 1957:From the moment I knelt on the floor of my cold room and accepted Jesus as my Saviour, I became aware of a dimension of God and an ever-available Jesus I did not know before. From that moment, too, the Bible became a miracle book in my own soul. God had touched me supernaturally and my life would never be the same again." http://www.emw.org.uk/magazine/2011/06/thank-you-king-james/
The young man had never read or possessed a book until he copied out the KJV. What happened to the English Language since 1957 when the KJV was still readable and THE standard Bible, very little?
Methinks this article below by an Iranian converted as a teenager spells out why the likes of old Jim Lincoln misrepresent plain facts.
The Authorised Version:Its Relevance Among the Young in a Multicultural Society Pastor Pooyan Mehrshahi
'the problem of relevance that we face in our generation does not lie with the young; it lies with the old' http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/199-1.pdf#page=31
I Tim 3: 16 in the JW Bible? No wonder they jettisoned The STANDARD Bible!
I hope you have the Anglican Version, as part of the modern versions that you dislike Frank.the number of errors in it are large, Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV. The AV is almost as bad as the Jehovah Witnesses Bible.
Doug Kutilek wrote: …let me say first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV does at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it" are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil. To enslave English readers to a single translation which is often archaic and obscure, occasionally wholly unintelligible and sometimes plainly inaccurate when other versions that remedy these defects are easily accessible is a monument to mere human tradition and is, as it were, to spit in the face of the very purpose of Bible translation,…
I said many years ago that modern versions of the Bible are the work of the devil to corrupt the Word of God. He knows he can't destroy it. So, he changes it. The very same attack he used in Gen. 3 (..hath God said..?).
One of a multitude of examples: This past Christmas I read a quote of Micah 5:2 from a modern version. The word "Ephratah" was left out. Since there were two cities called Bethlehem, "Ephratah" identifies the proper one. Also, "from everlasting" was changed to "from ancient times". BIG difference! Ancient times implies time. Everlasting means eternity.
Once upon a time I used the modern versions. I felt scholarly (like the Bible publishers said I would) but was ignorant of the massive amount of changes made and the omissions. So much so that doctrine itself was perverted. The more I learned of God's Word the less I used modern versions. Finally, I got rid of them and have cherished what God has blessed and honored for so many generations - the King James Bible.
The 1984 NIV and earlier versions are really quite good translations. It is a TNIV and after that should be avoided, q.v., Comparing Bible Translations. Liberal translations are the best for exegesis and expositional preaching, q.v.,
OK, here is a good time for KJV only advocates to get on their band wagons. But seriously, the KJV is not the best translation "in the people's language" if you have ever looked at the original Greek & Hebrew texts, but it is at least a translation like the trustworthy NASB, but not a paraphrase like the NIV and even the completely liberal NLT and a whole hoard of unfaithful to the original that is out there. Having said that, I must admit, reading Ken Taylor's Living Bible helped me find Christ! I wonder if the authors of these new works have added their own spin to Rev 22:18-19??
Wycliffe's explanation of of the "familial terms" problem on their website is just BABBLE to try to make those of us who are not trained as linguists and textual critics think that we are not qualified or capable to have an opinion on this subject. The fact is that Wycliffe produces Catholic friendly bibles worldwide. There should be no surprise that they would produce Muslim friendly bibles also.
This is totally wrong. Wycliffe Bible Translators is totally committed to accurate translation of Scripture, and this story completely misrepresents the position of Wycliffe. Read what Wycliffe says about it: http://www.wycliffe.org/SonofGod.aspx.
No, Dan, the AV a corruption of the word of God, is also under a copyright of the Crown. The folks across the pond can tell us if that restriction has been raised. It was supposed to be removed last year, but I don't think it was. So much better Bibles, such as the ASV, are not copyrighted either. Even copyrighted ones are free to view, on the Internet, q.v., John 1:1 or better, you can read the NASB on the, Lockman foundation site itself. Also the excellent ESV is free to use in the free programs put out by the The CrossWire Bible Society.
Anyway, Dan, we don't want you or anyone else to use such an inferior Bible as the AV, I would suggest if you don't read the entire article, Comparing Bible Translations at least read Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusionsso as to rethink the whole issue of Bible versions.
The Bible Gatewaywould give some people a way of reading the Bible and Arabic, and perhaps an even better method is to give someone a complete CD version of one of the programs on The CrossWire Bible Society, so they wouldn't have to download from the Internet which could be traced back to the person who wanted to read the Bible in Arabic, but that person could suffer from persecution if it was found out he did download something from the Internet concerning the Bible.
Dr. Ray Register wrote: Of course, the lack of an Arabic translation of the Bible is no longer an excuse since we now have the Bible in good Arabic, as well as the languages of millions of Muslims today; Urdu, Bengali, Farsi, and others. In the same way the Quran has been interpreted into English, French and German and a majority of the languages used in the Western world.…
Jim Lincoln wrote: Why John UK, the Anglican Version was one of the first corrupted versions of the Bible. excerpt from, Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations. Most problems with Bible translations can be resolved by using The New American Standard Bible. Once you get rid of all bad versions of Bibles in churches, including the AV.
Why John UK, the Anglican Version was one of the first corrupted versions of the Bible.
Doug Kutilek wrote: …In reply, let me say first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV does at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it" are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil. To enslave English readers to a single translation which is often archaic and obscure, occasionally wholly unintelligible and sometimes plainly inaccurate when other versions that remedy these defects are easily accessible is a monument to mere human tradition and is, as it were, to spit in the face of the very purpose of Bible translation,…
Most problems with Bible translations can be resolved by using The New American Standard Bible. Once you get rid of all bad versions of Bibles in churches, including the AV.
I knew this would end up going to the KJV only debate. Rafael which king James original are you referring to? I was not aware that any of the original manuscripts were even in english
Bill Schell wrote: QUESTION: for those of us who are giving money to help give Bibles to needy Christians around the world: How do we know if the Bibles they are distributing are accurate translations of the God's Word?? FOR EXAMPLE: Voice of the Martyrs, Bibles for the World, Gospel for Asia, etc.
Bill, the only Christian organisation I know of which has determined to circulate Protestant or uncorrupted versions of the Word of God around the world is the Trinitarian Bible Society
Also there is the Revival Movement Association formerly known as the Every Home Crusade, based in N Ireland, which does a magnificent work in sending out freely parcels, packages, even container loads of material (including KJV Bibles) to all corners of the globe.
If you post a link to the organisations you mentioned, I will have a look at them and give you my opinion.
Good on yer for supporting the distribution of the word of God to other places, especially areas where poverty abound.
As long as they have a "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" your investment is protected.
Bill Schell wrote: QUESTION: for those of us who are giving money to help give Bibles to needy Christians around the world: How do we know if the Bibles they are distributing are accurate translations of the God's Word?? FOR EXAMPLE: Voice of the Martyrs, Bibles for the World, Gospel for Asia, etc.
QUESTION: for those of us who are giving money to help give Bibles to needy Christians around the world: How do we know if the Bibles they are distributing are accurate translations of the God's Word?? FOR EXAMPLE: Voice of the Martyrs, Bibles for the World, Gospel for Asia, etc.
4
There are a total of 23 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Alan Cairns | 4/27/2009
Pastor Greg Locke | 6/26/2008
COMMENTS | 
barry from ky from northern ky: "hey mike, i don't think i would ever have a..."
