FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
You definitely like to obfuscate. Plain English please. The King James when it was issued was not popular and was criticized for over fifty years before it got accepted. Nobody was willing to give up their Geneva Bible at first. Then the KJV took Geneva's place and now people are saying the same thing about the KJV and criticizing every other version under the sun. The only critical thing I keep in mind is that about 4500 manuscripts make up the Byzantine Text of manuscripts and the KJV was based on a few of those available to Erasmus and his text became the Received Text. However when you compare the KJV to the Byzantine or Majority Text, you find very few variants. The only Bibles based on the Received Erasmus Text are the King James Version, the New King James Version, and Jay Green's Literal Translation Version. No other version is based on the Majority Text. All other versions are based on the Alexandrian Text of manuscripts that have substantial variants between them. The TNIV in John five says that Jesus learned that the man at the pool of Bethesda was infirm for 38 years. Even the NASV says knew instead of learned. So while I know that God reaches people even through the NIV, I simply don't trust it for myself. However, I have to deal with that version because it is the most popular version out there. I wish there was a modern English translation based on the Majority Text. There are none. So when I hit the streets I give out NKJV gospels of John in English but only have the option of giving out NIV gospels of John in Spanish. So I trust in the Lord. Only by the Holy Spirit can a person repent, convert to Jesus and be saved, and God overcomes a lot of stuff like Bible versions to get the job done.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
There is the Reina-Valera - and you can get Gospels of John in that.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
There is the Reina-Valera - and you can get Gospels of John in that.
Thanks Jerry but what I don't like about most of the Spanish translations is that in John 1 instead of saying In the beginning was the word, they say, In the beginning was the verb. I find versions that say in the beginning was la palabra, the word. I just have a hard time finding an outlet that ships gospels of John with the word instead of verb. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
pshda said,
Quote:
1. The King James Bible took only one generation to fully replace the Geneva Version. 2. Only a handful of extremists criticised the King James Bible. I am sure that you could not name more than six people that criticised the King James Bible from 1611 to 1660. 3. And that "nobody" was willing to give up the Geneva Version is perhaps bordering on complete deception. I could easily name six people who promoted the King James Bible from 1611 to 1620. When the King James Bible appeared, it was quickly taken up by many Anglican Bishops, and even notable Puritans began to use it. I think that you are believing the WRONG history of the King James Bible, the one promoted by the quasi-KJB scholars like Daniell and Norton, and by the anti-KJBO scholars like Norris and Joyner. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also, the Geneva Bible did not dominate the scene for nearly 400 years, so your analogy is strained at best. Quote:
Quote:
Caring about the Bible -- and caring for the very words in it -- evinces love for Jesus Christ. You can't brush it aside with "well the Holy Spirit will take care of everything." John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. |
#6
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Hi Folks,
A few more corrections on this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
|
|