Christianity Today Writer Ken Smith Is Founder of a Company Fined for Deceptive Business Practices; With Child Porn Ties
The co-author of a recent Christianity Today article is one of the founders of Zango, a company fined by the FTC for unfair and deceptive business practices, including lax distribution of software that furthered child pornography. The Christianity Today article was co-written by Ted Olsen and Ken Smith, who founded 180solutions (which later became Zango), a company with software that had been "distributed in conjunction with child pornography," according to documents obtained by The Christian Post....
If the adventurers took books with them they took the Bible, Shakespeare, and later Pilgrim’s Progress, and the Bible they mostly took with the Authorised Version of King James I. About ninety million complete copies are thought to have been published in the English language alone. It has been translated into more than 760 tongues. The Authorised Version is still the most popular in England and the United States. This may be deemed James’ greatest achievement, for the impulse was largely his. The Scottish pedant build better than he knew. The scholars who produced this masterpiece are mostly unknown and unremembered. But they forged an enduring link, literary and religious, between the English-speaking peoples of the world.” History of the English Speaking Peoples, one volume, Commager edition, p. 160 That was Winston Churchill, a man who I know was not KJVO, let alone a believer. Can you tell me of one other English misbible that God use to cause this.
Jim, the KJV is the only Bible I know of that churches can print freely, without feared of being jailed for copyrighting. Yes in England they have a copyright on the KJV, at least they don't it to be corrupted. And Jim do you know what a jackass is? And nitwit the "lost books" in the KJV was a attack by the RCI.
The KJV is a cash-cow John, publishers who publish good Bibles, also publish the KJV because it's pure profit, no royalties to pay, at least in most of the world, including the U.S.
Now, getting money of ... people who will pay for an outdated Bible, that has plenty of errors and mis-translations, is like selling the Broklyn bridge. That "mute donkey," in the better translations of 2Pe 2:16, should be saying something to you. King James Version (KJV) ONLY???
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, John UK, why not something in contemporary English...
Exactly! Why not the KJV in contemporary English? Well there are numerous answers to that question.
1. There would not be enough money in it for the filthy-lucreist publishers.
2. Modern publishers and nearly all the Bible Societies are ECUMENICAL in character and belief. That means they HAVE to accept the corrupt W & H greek text and its derivatives; therefore the modern version translated or paraphrased into English.
3. Some modern "scholars" do not accept the Received Text as the word of God, so they see no point in modernising the KJV which was translated from this text.
4. Publishers need to keep making money year on year, so they are not keen to produce a perfect Bible. Rather they want to keep the gullible Christian public hankering after more, promising them that THIS is the bestest, brightest Bible you ever did SEE!
5. The TBS keeps a close eye on all new versions as they come out, and reviews them all, for the benefit of the saints. Thus far, no modern Bible has been acceptable as a modern version of the KJV, NOT EVEN the NKJV.
6. Do some research, Jim.
7. I believe in an inspired, inerrant Bible. You do not!
Mr.Jim here one good reason having a contemporary English bible make you more look like actors. For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt. Job 11:12 My transition of it into contemporary English For vain man would be wise, though man be like a j*****s. Job 11:12 And once again John UK, Amen and Amen
Ah, John UK, why not something in contemporary English rather then bombastic, unnatural, and Elizabethan, which only English actors use? The New Testament was written in contemporary Koine Greek.
John and many of you others answering my posts are just a part of a fringe group, since the majority of conservative Christians would say it is,
A necessary condition for a Bible to be accepted, There are Baptists on the translations team. There work is in contemporary English.
This not sufficient reason to accept a translation, the RSV, NRSV, TNIV, etc. have been rejected by evangelical Christians (though not by the Anglican Church!) and if a Bible attracts those with The Truth About KJV Only:...Agendas. It is reason enough to reject it since it so loved by, Identity...
Jim Lincoln wrote: Oh, as I pointed out any Bible that doesn't have Baptist translators on its translation team and if it isn't in contemporary English, throw it in the recycle bin...
Ha! You expect me to hearken to thee?
Observe:
1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
I have three fathers through whose preaching God brought me to new birth. All of them used the KJV, preaching it from memory not a tablet. And I rather think God has given his seal of approval to the majestic KJV, in saving countless souls over several centuries, and edifying the church through its public reading and proclamation.
Indeed, I shall shortly be sending off to the TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY for two more KJV Bibles. Ahhhhh.... it is good to hold an inerrant Bible in the hand, rather than one of those not regarded as inerrant, because the publishers believe only the autographs were inspired and inerrant, so their own new, better Bible may yet have terrible mistakes in them.
Why don't you Jim get your head out of the Baptist clouds. Yes I also a Baptist, but I am also not a Baptist Brider. I do also believe that everyone who wrote the books in the Bible was not a Baptist. yayayaayayayyayayay.
Well, remember Satan's man and Satan's church produced a Bible that many of you seem to idolize you know like,
2 Kings 18 3 And he did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.---NASB
Oh, as I pointed out any Bible that doesn't have Baptist translators on its translation team and if it isn't in contemporary English, throw it in the recycle bin -- unless it's for your own personal use.
Now some Bibles that meet the above criteria aren't all that great, q.v., Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions but those that don't have those two qualifications throw them out.
good link, thanks for putting up the quotation, from the URL I referenced, it looked like there was more than one side to the story, when I looked at the original article.
I'm very happy with the Bible I use, e.g.,
2Peter 2:16 but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.---NASB
My church gives out free copies of the NASB to new attendees, and from the example above you should check if you have a **** *** version of the Bible The above is from the latest version of the NASB. The first version had an old fashioned word for, "mute," Any worthy version of the Bible will keep English usage updated.
From Link "I suppose I need to say a few obvious things: that Zango never sponsored or allowed child pornography on its network, that it dealt resolutely and immediately with any violations of its terms of service, and that had this not been true, there’s no way I would have allowed myself to be associated with it. Any allegation or implication otherwise is simply and entirely false." (Ken Smith)
Jim Lincoln Good link Jim. Now all you've got to do is get a copy of the real Bible.
Ken Smith's answer to Christian Post, can be found here: Confessions of a Would-Be Theologian. I would like to know is the Christian Post supporting some latter day whacky Moonie, who says he's Christ?
Dr. David P Murray | 6/16/2009
COMMENTS | 
, it follows the Textus Receptus more closely than the KJV, q.v., 
It's translators never claimed perfection for the KJV, they knew better! 
