SITE NOTICE | MORE..Gospel of John Third Printing! We're excited to announce the third printing of the Gospel of John Personal Edition booklets! To date we have seen over 200,000 copies printed and sent out. .. click for more info!
Ancient Dead Sea Scrolls digitised in co-project by Israel and Google
Anyone with an internet connection will now be able to take a new look into the Biblical past through an online archive of high-resolution images of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls completed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and Google.
The scrolls, most of them on parchment, are the oldest copies of the Hebrew Bible and include secular text dating from the third century BC to the first century AD.
IAA, the custodian of the scrolls that shed light on the life of Jews and early Christians at the time of Jesus, said it has collaborated with Google's research and development centre in Israel for the past two and a half years to upload digitised images of thousands of fragments from the collection.
Yossi Matias, the head of Google-Israel R&D centre, described the project launch as "exciting"....
Item 3, the 1611 version, which only the Mormons accept as being the official version, or the 1769 one which most KJV only, only accept?
Doug Kutilek wrote: I have repeatedly challenged those who claim to have ‚Äúthe final authority‚ÄĚ in their hand and mock the very idea of the ‚Äúoriginal authority‚ÄĚ view. My challenge is this: ‚ÄúWhich ONE KJV edition is the infallible ONE?‚ÄĚ There is no ‚Äúwiggle room‚ÄĚ here. We are told by the KJVO faction that ‚ÄúGod wrote only one Bible‚ÄĚ and that ‚Äúthings which differ are not the same.‚ÄĚ So, tell me straight out: which one KJV edition is the infallible one. It must be only one (if any at all), not two or three, or the KJV editions taken collectively. It must be just one. Until you can with certainty identify it for us, the objections raised against those who appeal to the "originals‚ÄĚ as their final authority is entirely discredited.
item3 wrote: Frank. "If" - You doubting God? Since God brought HIS Word into english in 1611 perfectly preserved.... AND Since that 1611 version is DIFFERENT from the modern versions.... Then stick to the Word of God King James Version. Especially since there are the two Anglican Liberal Roman Catholic philosophy sympathising heretics Westcott and Hort stuck between the Word of God recorded in 1611 - and the myriad doctrinally deficient modern versions.
Which doctrine are you referring to? Now since you made the claim, please be as specific as possible. Give me the KJ verse or verses where the doctrine in question is specified and let me check it out. Remember, I am not referring to individual words, but to meanings. No, I am not doubting God. I'm not all that sure what I said that would make that possible, but if you let me know then I'll take a look at it.
Now this is somewhat vague, but I am also not referring to the spirituality of the translators, but to their translations and their goal when translating. This issue would be somewhat cumbersome, but I only mention that because of your comment regarding Westcott and Hort. If you have something where they said they were going to translate to deceive folks, let me know.
Frank wrote: If He could perfectly preserve it in 1611, then He can also perfectly preserve it in 2012.
Frank. "If" - You doubting God?
Since God brought HIS Word into english in 1611 perfectly preserved....
Since that 1611 version is DIFFERENT from the modern versions....
Then stick to the Word of God King James Version.
Especially since there are the two Anglican Liberal Roman Catholic philosophy sympathising heretics Westcott and Hort stuck between the Word of God recorded in 1611 - and the myriad doctrinally deficient modern versions.
Frank wrote: Yes, as long as we both agree that the use of the word "modern" has no significance to God when it comes to His word. If He could perfectly preserve it in 1611, then He can also perfectly preserve it in 2012.
Absolutely bro. I am not opposed to a modern version, if it is an accurate translation of the word of God from the Received Hebrew and Greek texts.
John UK wrote: 5. Note, this is the position of all modern versions. 6. Dangerous or what?!
Yes, as long as we both agree that the use of the word "modern" has no significance to God when it comes to His word. If He could perfectly preserve it in 1611, then He can also perfectly preserve it in 2012.
Frank wrote: I agree John, nothing irritates me more than for some church to use the expression that infallibility is limited to the original manuscripts.
Yes I am with you in this and the rest of your post Frank.
Here is an example of the subterfuge commonly being used in confessions to hoodwink the unwary. This is part of the Doctrinal Basis of the "Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches" in the UK (FIEC).
"God has revealed himself in the Bible, which consists of the Old and New Testaments alone. Every word was inspired by God through human authors, so that the Bible as originally given is in its entirety the Word of God, without error and fully reliable in fact and doctrine."
1. Note the use of the word "Bible" for the original manuscripts. Deception.
2. Note the words "as originally given". This limits it to the autographs, which no longer exist, having perished.
3. Note what is classed as the "word of God", the original mss, which no longer exist.
4. So where is the word of God today? According to the FIEC it no longer exists, except in a very corrupted form.
5. Note, this is the position of all modern versions.
John UK wrote: In many modern statements of faith, you will find that the Bible is not referred to, but only the original manuscripts (the autographs). Churches that hold to these modern confessions are effectively saying that no Bible is inerrant, therefore the Bible in use in that church will contain mistakes etc. There is also a KJV-Onlyist cult, which holds quite bizarre beliefs.
I agree John, nothing irritates me more than for some church to use the expression that infallibility is limited to the original manuscripts. They are actually saying God was sovereign then, but then somehow He wasn't able to preserve His word later on; how silly.
Now there are translations that are heretical; you and I will agree, but God's word was "perfectly" preserved. The difference is I don't worship a word or a language or a piece of paper like the Muslims do, so if someone says "Your" versus "Thy", or Deine,it is okay with me.
You are also correct about the KJO folks; they are a mystery to me because their logic is so flawed and they are cult-like. Since I am somewhat familiar with languages and translation difficulties, it is like saying English speaking folks are the only ones that have the word of God and not other nations.
Christopher000 wrote: Due to the controversy here...
Christopher, you will find that there are those who claim the Bible is the inspired word of God, and there are others who claim only the original autographs are the inspired word of God. It is important to stick with the former.
In many modern statements of faith, you will find that the Bible is not referred to, but only the original manuscripts (the autographs). Churches that hold to these modern confessions are effectively saying that no Bible is inerrant, therefore the Bible in use in that church will contain mistakes etc. But they will not be able to tell you where those mistakes are. And so no matter where in the Bible you turn, they will not guarantee it is true.
There is also a KJV-Onlyist cult, which holds quite bizarre beliefs. Obviously the devil will be active in dishonouring the true word of God, and he will use even people who vehemently hold to the KJV as the word of God. By their antics, they may, and do, put many sincere believers off the KJV.
The Lord will help you as you study the issue, and when he shows you that the Bible can be trusted, it will be a great thing in your life.
Due to the controversy here, I've listened to many "which translation" type of podcasts because I want to have the right Bible in my hands. I haven't found any that instructed why it should not be used, but rather, I find many that instruct as to why it should be used. The most recent podcast that I listened to is "Modern Bible Translations" by Pastor Mike Hoggard. I thought he put it together very well and used facts, throughout, rather than opinions. Among many other points, one of the things he did was to make mention of every verse of scripture that has been either seriously changed or just plain omitted. The podcast is long, but interesting...90 min. I would love to hear anyones thoughts if you should happen to find the time. I'm self employed so I have the luxury of wearing headphones all day, every day. All I ever listen to are podcast sermons and the Bible...5 days/wk...all day long. I wish I could retain it all!
But actually you can get the real 1611 KJV by using the e-Sword computer program or if you need a copy of it in your hands, you should get it in a Comparative Study Bible. Though the e-Sword program is free as are those from The CrossWire Bible Society except the latter only has the 1769 version, but both offer free computer Bible programs.
Christopher000 wrote: Hi John...thanks. 1. So as long as it just says, "King James", without the "new", "modern", etc, it's good to use? 2. Or, should I search for one that says, "Authorized King James" because we should be using the 1611 version? Thanks!
1. That's it Christopher.
2. Perhaps I should explain a bit better. There is one (King James) Bible, which was published in 1611. Because of changes in spelling, changes in fonts etc. the Bible was updated several times since then, without altering the text. The 1769 update is the most recent one, and most Bibles you see will be this edition. Here in the UK, our Bibles have the title "Authorized Version". In America, you are likely to have the "King James Version". It's the same Bible.
To avoid any confusion, some writers use the expression "The Authorized (King James) Version", although this is a bit OTT.
Hi John...thanks. So as long as it just says, "King James", without the "new", "modern", etc, it's good to use? Or, should I search for one that says, "Authorized King James" because we should be using the 1611 version? Thanks!
Christopher000 wrote: I hear you all talk about the Authorized KJ...is that the same as any King James Bible as long as it doesn't say, "new", "modern", etc?
Morning Christopher. The title of the 1611 Bible is The Authorized Version. In the USA it is commonly known as The King James Bible, or The King James Version. The one we use today was published in 1769.
I know the find is old news, but I find it so exciting that we have these and that they actually mirror the King James! Seems to me that this fact alone should solve the "which Bible" debate. I didn't know this! Exciting, exciting, exciting, that God would provide these for us. I wonder why the Essences would have included the apophrica though. Maybe they should be included but we don't know it. The Book of Enoch, the only one I've read is interesting concerning the watchers. I don't know about one being like 100' tall though. I think the Earth was pretty strange back then by today's standards...dinosaurs, giants, etc. I hear you all talk about the Authorized KJ...is that the same as any King James Bible as long as it doesn't say, "new", "modern", etc?
Christopher000 wrote: By the way, so the Dead Sea scrolls only contain the OT? I thought it was the entire Bible.
C000W: The Dead Sea Scrolls Were Basically Supressed By The Vaticanist & Roman Catholic (Cultic) Scholars Who Were Part Custodians Of The Scrolls Since Their Discovery In The 1940s.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Are More In Agreement--Really Basically The Same--As The Old Testament Used By The Translators Of The King James Bible.
Since The Vatican Has Been Pushers Of The Apocrypha & The Non-Textus-Receptus Old-Testament Of The Protestant-Reformers (Really Roman-Catholic-"Protestant"-'Reformers' For It Was Roman-Catholicism That Was Being Reformed In The Late-1400s/Early-1500s: Not Historic Anti-Hierarchial/Anti-Sacerdotal/Anti-Papist Protestantism);
One Can See Why The Dead Sea Scrolls--Which Were Found About 70 Years Ago--Are Being Made Accessable To The People Today In 2012.
The Evil Vaticanist Scholars Couldn't Supress The Dead Sea Scrolls Long Enough--A Tactic Of The Vatican Since It's Inquistion Days.
The Dead Sea Scroll OLD-TESTAMENT Is Basically A MIRROR Of OUR U.S. AUTHORIZED HOLY KING JAMES BIBLE OLD-TESTAMENT !
This Is Why The IAA & Google Are Making It Accessable To The PEOPLE & NOT THE EVIL & SUPRESSING VATICAN !