Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:
 
- Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
 
- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)
 
Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.
 
- Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)
 
Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"
   
Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).
 
Here is our History:
The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Through God's will a breakthrough for the Protestant Reformation, for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.

 
 
The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
The Holy Bible.
   
Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.
 
Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
 
.............................................................................................
 
Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.
Edited by KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:
Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

 

Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.

 

Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.

Just to be clear here, the Geneva Bible in the English  51 years before the King James Version was the preferred version of the reformers. That fact is, that part of the reason for the commisioning of a new version to be made in English, was because the Geneva Bible seemed to be so popular, that it was a threat to the claim of the Church of England to have unique authority. The reformers viewed the Church of England, as being too 'Catholic', with the King as it's head, sort of being the new pope. 

The Reformers believed that there was no special class of people, like kings and popes, who could claim to speak for the church and it's head, Jesus. The criticisms of the notes, in the Geneva Bible was a large part of why the new version (the KJV) was commissioned by James Stuart to be a new Bible for use in the churches.

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God. It is also of note, that the so called King James Version, was not the first 'authorized' version, but the third authorized version. The Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, were the previous authorized versions. Authorized here, just means officially athorized for use in the Church of England.

However, where this thread is located (as I type this) is the welcome area of the forums, where the purpose is to introduce yourself to our community, and to be welcomed in to it. Therefore, I will be moving this to a different area of the forums, probably to the General Section.

However, if you want to continue this topic, it would be better to do so, in an existing thread on the topic of Bible versions. I am curious though, about why you though it important to introduce Hebrews 4:12 into your 'sermon'.

Quote

 

- Hebrews 4:12  (KJV)

- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

 

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 12:  6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

or as they were written in 1611:

For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. 

My curiosity is due to the fact that "our times" there, were some 1546 years before the King James version, and Psa 12 some 2600 years before the KJV, so what exactly was your point there?

Anyway, welcome to Worthy!

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bro. KJVBO and welcome to the forums.

I, too, love the King James Bible.  I was saved when a King James Bible was preached from and my pastor preaches from the King James.  I'm content with that.  I do not use the King James for my daily reading at home or when I teach Sunday School or weekly Bible study.

While I love the King James, it isn't my preferred.

I'd like to address Psalm 12 and why that it not talking about preservation of God's Word literally in terms of a translation, even the King James Bible.

The theme of of Psalm 12 is crying out to God to help the faithful who are under oppression from the proud.  And it compares the proud words of evil people to the pure words of God.

"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:"

  • The people are wicked and speak so arrogantly, but God will change that. This is a Psalm of David and you know the gossip, boasting, and flattering words that David saw in his enemies:  Goliath, King Saul, the Philistines, and more.  

"Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?"

  • These people were so evil with their words of boasting that they literally asked the question, "Who is lord over us?"

"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."

  • God answers and says, I'm going to take care of this.  I will spare the oppressed and the needy from those that use their words to "puff" at them.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."

  • Now David speaks again and says that in comparison to the haughty, God's words are so pure that you could compare them to silver that's been refined seven times.  Seven being the idea of perfection - not a literal thought.  David says that God will preserve "them".  "Them" as in what?  His words and his people.  Both.  God just got through saying he was going to rescue his people.  And David now says that there are wicked people on every side....vile men are exalted.  Words and people.
  • If you take this too literally, then when David says that God will "preserve" his words "from this generation forever" then.... [1] You and I should be reading Hebrew ONLY, not King James only and [2] how on earth could this be speaking of the King James Version?
Edited by Jayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Hello Bro. KJVBO and welcome to the forums.

I, too, love the King James Bible.  I was saved when a King James Bible was preached from and my pastor preaches from the King James.  I'm content with that.  I do not use the King James for my daily reading at home or when I teach Sunday School or weekly Bible study.

While I love the King James, it isn't my preferred.

I'd like to address Psalm 12 and why that it not talking about preservation of God's Word literally in terms of a translation, even the King James Bible.

The theme of of Psalm 12 is crying out to God to help the faithful who are under oppression from the proud.  And it compares the proud words of evil people to the pure words of God.

"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:"

  • The people are wicked and speak so arrogantly, but God will change that. This is a Psalm of David and you know the gossip, boasting, and flattering words that David saw in his enemies:  Goliath, King Saul, the Philistines, and more.  

"Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?"

  • These people were so evil with their words of boasting that they literally asked the question, "Who is lord over us?"

"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."

  • God answers and says, I'm going to take care of this.  I will spare the oppressed and the needy from those that use their words to "puff" at them.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."

  • Now David speaks again and says that in comparison to the haughty, God's words are so pure that you could compare them to silver that's been refined seven times.  Seven being the idea of perfection - not a literal thought.  David says that God will preserve "them".  "Them" as in what?  His words and his people.  Both.  God just got through saying he was going to rescue his people.  And David now says that there are wicked people on every side....vile men are exalted.  Words and people.
  • If you take this too literally, then when David says that God will "preserve" his words "from this generation forever" then.... [1] You and I should be reading Hebrew ONLY, not King James only and [2] how on earth could this be speaking of the King James Version?

Hi ya Jane,

I'm not going to comment on the different translations of the Bible, as we all have our preferences and reasons. Other than to say, it's interesting at Wednesday night Bible study when we go down the line and each of us reads a verse in scripture that we're studying. It's like, we're not singing from the same sheet of music :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Hi ya Jane,

I'm not going to comment on the different translations of the Bible, as we all have our preferences and reasons. Other than to say, it's interesting at Wednesday night Bible study when we go down the line and each of us reads a verse in scripture that we're studying. It's like, we're not singing from the same sheet of music :D

Yes, I've been in church and Bible classes when it seems that way sometimes.  That's why textual criticism is so important.  You and I aren't probably ever going to study the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus, but we can take the KJV, the ESV, the NIV, the NASB - which are reputable and compare them when studying together to get a clear picture.

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Yes, I've been in church and Bible classes when it seems that way sometimes.  That's why textual criticism is so important.  You and I aren't probably ever going to study the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus, but we can take the KJV, the ESV, the NIV, the NASB - which are reputable and compare them when studying together to get a clear picture.

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

I totally agree. Most reputable scholars, expositors and Bible teachers use a number of translations for comparison. I'm not a language expert, but even I know the Greek and Hebrew languages are much more precise than our English, and the English language in many cases does not have an adequate single word comparable. Strong's dictionary helps me out a great deal, as my second language in grade school was 'pig Latin'  :laugh:   

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Hi ya Jane,

I'm not going to comment on the different translations of the Bible, as we all have our preferences and reasons. Other than to say, it's interesting at Wednesday night Bible study when we go down the line and each of us reads a verse in scripture that we're studying. It's like, we're not singing from the same sheet of music :D

That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Just to be clear here, the Geneva Bible in the English  51 years before the King James Version was the preferred version of the reformers. That fact is, that part of the reason for the commisioning of a new version to be made in English, was because the Geneva Bible seemed to be so popular, that it was a threat to the claim of the Church of England to have unique authority. The reformers viewed the Church of England, as being too 'Catholic', with the King as it's head, sort of being the new pope. 

The Reformers believed that there was no special class of people, like kings and popes, who could claim to speak for the church and it's head, Jesus. The criticisms of the notes, in the Geneva Bible was a large part of why the new version (the KJV) was commissioned by James Stuart to be a new Bible for use in the churches.

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God. It is also of note, that the so called King James Version, was not the first 'authorized' version, but the third authorized version. The Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, were the previous authorized versions. Authorized here, just means officially athorized for use in the Church of England.

However, where this thread is located (as I type this) is the welcome area of the forums, where the purpose is to introduce yourself to our community, and to be welcomed in to it. Therefore, I will be moving this to a different area of the forums, probably to the General Section.

However, if you want to continue this topic, it would be better to do so, in an existing thread on the topic of Bible versions. I am curious though, about why you though it important to introduce Hebrews 4:12 into your 'sermon'.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 12:  6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

or as they were written in 1611:

For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. 

My curiosity is due to the fact that "our times" there, were some 1546 years before the King James version, and Psa 12 some 2600 years before the KJV, so what exactly was your point there?

Anyway, welcome to Worthy!

The two elements i feel you need to consider:
- I feel the text was in the Textus Receptus years before the Geneva Bible. In my mind the Geneva is only a Enlgish Bible printed before the KJV in its AV time period.
- What Bible overall won in populatiy and fruit by the works of God Himself as an english language Bible.
Why would anyone still be concerned by what overall wasnt chosen by God to bring the most fruit in the english language?
There are currently no laws against using the Geneva Bible within my knowledge, Yet, Still the KJV is highly favored.
 
- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jayne said:

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

That is a truly sad statement, I feel like the King James Version Bible is a flawless and 100% whole and perfect translation of God. By God's Decision, Shown in proof by God's work and will , in efforts for it to be chosen to lead the English speaking people to God's absolutely pure and perfect word.

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, I am not deceived as Eve, so you can put 2 Corinthians 11 aside for the moment.  I don't want to argue with you.  That's so divisive.  And if you think my statement was sad, you truly did not understand what I was trying to say.

Let me help a little.  You say you believe the King James Bible to be flawless and the "perfect" translation of God.

Well, which one?  The 1611 or the 1769? What is of no consequence is the minor spelling differences and/or punctuation difference, or settling on the standardization of the language.  Those are minor issues and differences.

But what is of consequence are the handful of contradictions from the 1611 to the 1769.

  • 1611 - Ezekiel 24:7 = "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;   VS.  1769  = For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;.

This is speaking of Jerusalem as "she".  The bloodshed is wicked and senseless bloodshed both by and to Jerusalem.  Was it covered with dust as should have been by the Law or not covered with dust as was opposed to the Law?

This is not a typing error, not a spelling alteration, not a settling of standardizing speech .... this is a direct contradiction - a context and meaning error.

  • Was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem metaphorically able to be "covered up" as the Law required in Leviticus and was the wrath of God soothed as the Law says?
  • Or was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem NOT "covered up" as the Law required because of possible carnage and NOT metaphorically covered up and God's wrath NOT appeased?

As I said before, I love the King James, have one, and read it.  

ALL translations are imperfect in man's handling of it.

Which is the "inspired" English phrase - "poured it upon" or "poured it not upon".  Was God's wrath appeased or not appeased.

I'm not going to stop reading my King James or my NIV or my ESV or my NASB.  

What I am going do to is to study to show myself approved and follow the research of textual critics and compare and contrast and let God let me to what is the truth.

Edited by Jayne
  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      How muslim friend, OneGodBeliever believes the Bible has been corrupted.
       
      He states:
      "You said bible isn't corrupted. Shall we discuss that? I say its clearly is with verses & whole books removed and also contradictions!"
      So, lets have a friendly, loving, open discussion on this
       
    • By KiwiChristian
      Seven Tests to Determine the True New Testament Text
      (Antiquity, Number, Variety, Continuity, Credibility, Context, Internal Evidence)
      Dean Burgon gives these seven tests to indicate which readings are correct.
      1. Antiquity. We may allow only those witnesses who 'spoke' before 400 AD. These are:

      i) Over 70 Church Fathers. iii) Early Papyri.
      ii) Aleph, B, and some Uncials. iv) Earliest Versions.
      For example: Ever since 1881, ‘vinegar’ in Matthew 27:34 has been despised by Westcott and Hort and others as a ‘late Byzantine’ reading. ‘They gave him vinegar...’
      Question: What is the verdict of antiquity?
      Answer: (a) For "wine": Aleph, B, Latin, Coptic versions, Apocryphal Acts, Gospel of
      Nicodemus, Marcarius Magnes. (7 witnesses) eg: NIV, GNB, RSV, NWT.
      (b) For "vinegar": Gospel of Peter, Acta Philippi, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Celsus,Origen, pseudo-Tatian, Athanaseus, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Heraclea, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ephraem Syrus, Lactantius, Titus of Bostra, Syriac version. (18 witnesses). "Vinegar", the KJV reading has much more support.
      2. Number of Witnesses. A reading found in a majority of independent witnesses,
      should be the original.
      The fewer witnesses, the less likely it is to be genuine;
      The more witnesses, the more likely it is to be the original reading;
      Unanimous witnesses, means it is certainly the original reading.
      3. Variety of Witnesses, is the agreement of independent witnesses.
      Variety means that the reading is found in:
      i) many geographical areas, and by
      ii) different kinds of witnesses - eg: Greek manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, Lectionaries.

      A good variety of witnesses are from: different countries, speaking different languages, who never met, and who never colluded. This is not true of Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus.
      The vast majority of uncials and cursives have KJV type readings and have good variety:
      i) They cover at least 1000 years (350-1550 AD).
      ii) Belong to so many countries such as Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine,iii) Exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar sympathies.
      Variety helps us to evaluate the independence of witnesses. If the witnesses which share a common reading come from only one area, such as Egypt, then their independence is doubted. It is quite unreasonable that an original reading should survive in only one location.
      Witnesses supporting a reading in one limited area cannot be the original, as is the case with Aleph, B, and some papyri.
      To illustrate: Many of the most ancient manuscripts come from Egypt. This is due to the hot, dry climate of Egypt favouring manuscript preservation more than the wet Mediterranean climate. Moisture is bad for manuscripts. The Egyptian texts are not an exact representation of texts in other parts of the world. To sample the flora and fauna of Egypt does not guarantee to be the same flora and fauna of Greece, Turkey or Italy, etc.
      Variety + Number = Validity. Variety means independence of witnesses. Lack of
      variety (as is the case for Aleph, B, papyri of Egypt) imply dependence. This is a strong reason to reject modern versions based on Egyptian manuscripts. Burgon said, ‘Generally, the testimony of 2, 4, 6 or more witnesses from many regions, is far weightier than the same number of witnesses from one locality, between which there probably exists some collusion or sympathy’. Hence, many witnesses only from Egypt is a weak case for NIV.
      4. Continuity. A reading to be a serious candidate for the original, should be found
      throughout the ages of transmission, from beginning to end. A reading is invented if it died out in the 5th century, or if it is not found before the 12th century. Where a reading has variety (or agreement of independent witnesses), it almost always has continuity over time.
      The majority of manuscripts are independent witnesses, and must be counted. Westcott and Hort reject this absolutely, accounting for the Majority text by an assumed Lucian recension or revision of the New Testament text around 300 AD. Since there is no evidence that this Lucian recension ever happened, continuity is valid. Hence, number, variety and continuity, form a three-strand rope of textual criticism that is not easily broken. These 3 arguments strongly oppose B, Aleph, NIV and modern versions.
      5. Credibility of Witnesses or weight, judged by the manuscripts ‘own performance’.
      If manuscripts go wrong continually, their character and credibility must be low. The oldest manuscripts can be objectively, statistically shown to be habitually wrong, witnesses of very low character, and with many mistakes. Their credibility is near zero.

      If you read Sir Herman Hoskier's book Codex B and its Allies carefully, you will lose all respect for B, Aleph, etc and modern versions based on them.
      Since modern Greek critical texts are based on B, Aleph, some papyri, etc, it is clear that modern scholars have severely ignored 'credibility of witnesses' as an objective criterion.

      If considered seriously, 'credibility' will overthrow the modern text type and the NIV.
      6. Context is the behaviour (degree of corruption) of a manuscript in the immediate
      vicinity of the problem. If in a certain manuscript, the context is clearly in a very corrupt state, then it is self-evident that this manuscript has very low credibility.
      For example, Westcott and Hort in Luke 22-24, made 16 omissions from the Received Text based solely on Codex D. In Luke 22:19,20; 24:3,6,9,12,36,40,52 W&H's sole authority for changing the Textus Receptus was a single Greek Codex Beza (D), the most depraved of all.

      Codex D in Luke 22,23,24 omits 354 words, adds 173 words, substitutes 146 words,
      transposes 243 words, totalling 916 changes. In 8 places they omitted material from the Bible on the sole authority of D (Burgon, p.77,78).
      With the scribe on a wild omitting spree, how can any value be given to Codex D here, much less prefer it above the united voice of every other witness?
      Modern scholars and versions have completely ignored this Context test
      7. Internal Evidence, concerns readings which are grammatically, logically,
      geographically, or scientifically impossible, such as in Luke 19:37; 23:45 (impossible 3 hour eclipse of the sun at full moon in Aleph, B, and RV); 24:13; Mark 6:22; II Corinthians 3:3.
       
      Conclusion: So then, how are we to identify the original wording?

      1. We must gather the evidence: Greek manuscripts, Lectionaries, Fathers, and Versions.
      2. We must evaluate the evidence to see which readings enjoy the earliest, widest, most numerous, most credible, and most varied attestation.
      3. The independent, credible witnesses must then be counted.
      4. This is how we arrive at the Received Text of the KJV.
    • By KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
      Reasons why I could personally never chose to be Catholic:
      Baptist prospective

      1st of all, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, I feel that as old as the Roman Catholic Church is; it still has not worked out it's kinks.
      - 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV Bible)

      I feel like if I'm going to partake congregationally to worship, it is a absolute must that i am 100% comfortable with the Church and its Doctrines, all elements combined.
      - Galatians 1:6-7 (of Galatians 1:1-12) (KJV Bible)

      It is well known most Baptist have issues with Catholicism because of the Catholic claim of: transubstantiation. Within the ritual of a catholic mass, the pope holds a piece of bread, turns his back, and while his back is turned. Proclaims that it "literally" turns into the physical flesh of Christ.

      3rdly, Christ is the head of the Church, There is absolutely no need for a Pope. It is opposite of scriptural and from what Iv heard, Pagan derived.
      - 1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV Bible)

      God Bless you,
      I have large hopes that you find a profitable King James Version Only proud and preaching Church near you & find the Bible way to Heaven.
       
    • By KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
      A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:  
      - Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)  
      - Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)  
      Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.  
      - Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)  
      Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"  
      - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)  
      Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).  
      Here is our History: The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Through God's will a breakthrough for the Protestant Reformation, for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.
         
      The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
      The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
      The Holy Bible.  
      - Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)  
      Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
      Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.  
      Pre 1611 (New Testament):
      Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
        .............................................................................................
       
      Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
      These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.
×