Jump to content
IGNORED

Bible Versions in these Last Days


Footprint

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  41
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  873
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   520
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

For those who are King James only adulterants, what are they to do? The 1611 King James Bible, had the Apocrypha, while most modern King James versions, have it missing.

Well, this is clever arguing, at least. I was told that the King James translators did include what are called the Apocrypha. And "King James only" people claim those translators were holy and trustworthy people. So, then, do King James only people include the Apocrypha? There are King James publications which do have the Apocrypha, as far as I know; so I am not going to assume that King James only people leave it out. For all I know, it could be others who leave it out . . . ones who do not claim King James is the only inerrant translation. Each person can speak for oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  41
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  873
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   520
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I am inclined to think that God looks upon the heart, and that the word of God is not ink on paper, but what He wants us to know, from His heart, to out heart.

Jesus is the Word. And there is no other name, than Jesus, for salvation. So, I would be careful about preaching the name of King James as a way of salvation, or any other name. 

Our Apostle Paul says we are an epistle of Christ. If we are God's epistle, then would this not mean we ourselves are Canon Scripture? The King James Bible says this >

"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (2 Corinthians 3:3)

Jesus in us > Galatians 4:19 > is the Word of God. He is the living meaning of all words of God. So we need to grow in Christ, so we are the meaning which is God's very own, of His word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  41
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  873
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   520
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

 I have to admit, I cannot help but wonder, if translators and publishers do not have vested interests at times. For example, most Bible version have the word "baptism" in them. It is not a translation, it is a transliteration. The Greek word was baptismo, which means "immersion". That would not sell as well to denominations which sprinkle, instead if immersing their congregants. I have seldom heard of John the immerser! 

But there is scholarship which says to baptize means to make completely wet. You do not have to immerse, in order to make all wet. God's word discerns the intents of our heart :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  229
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  10,900
  • Content Per Day:  2.95
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

26 minutes ago, com7fy8 said:

Well, this is clever arguing, at least. I was told that the King James translators did include what are called the Apocrypha. And "King James only" people claim those translators were holy and trustworthy people. So, then, do King James only people include the Apocrypha? There are King James publications which do have the Apocrypha, as far as I know; so I am not going to assume that King James only people leave it out. For all I know, it could be others who leave it out . . . ones who do not claim King James is the only inerrant translation. Each person can speak for oneself.

Are these what you're referring as to the Apocrypha?

I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesisticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Esther* and Daniel*

*which are included in the KJV Bible

I'm curious as to what exactly is the question here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  41
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  873
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   520
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

14 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

Wycliff,  Tyndale ,  those men actually were persecuted for their translations . And they were not In it for a buck or an agenda.

And the beauty of the KJV can no bible match .  Not in accuracy and not in beauty .      Folks , we got agendas and the love of money has waxed to an all time high .  Tyndale did a beauty by grace ,  and its been said that over eighty percent of the KJV alone was interpreted from tyndales writings .

And the language since the first translation has been updated. 

So . . . since an amount of the King James Bible language is not what people speak now, what do you think about the New King James?

Also, I checked a little bit of the 21st Century King James Version. It seems to have correct updating > of at least the one word I checked.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  229
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  10,900
  • Content Per Day:  2.95
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

10 minutes ago, com7fy8 said:

But there is scholarship which says to baptize means to make completely wet. You do not have to immerse, in order to make all wet. God's word discerns the intents of our heart :)

I kinda doubt John went around 'sprinkling' the repentant ones, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/7/2019 at 8:11 AM, Footprint said:

All over the world in these last days Satan is destroying mainstream Christianity through liberalism and tolerance of heresies. When comparing the different versions of the Bible, we notice major differences. For example, In Matthew chapter 17 (KJV) Jesus talks about casting out a devil...

Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

This verse is not in the NIV. What scripture do we suppose the devil would like to take out from the word of God? the one that talks about about prayer and fasting, so no one can cast him out.

There is less anointing in many versions, they are watered down, verses omitted. The devil can't completely destroy the word of God, so what did he do? he compromised it as was his device from the beginning...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

It is amazing the amount of different Bible versions out there. A recent trip to the Bible section in the book store revealed so many as the men's devotional, the Catholic, the NIV, not even sure if there was a KJV but did see a NKJV, amplified, message bible, ESV, and the list goes on. If Satan can get us out of unity, not having a scripture that's the same. What Bible would a beginner know to choose, they may be overwhelmed and walk away. What dis-unity and confusion this brings.

-God bless!

Satan is working over time in our world today. Perhaps he knows his time is short?

  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  13,256
  • Content Per Day:  5.40
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  62
  • Joined:  07/07/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1972

1 minute ago, com7fy8 said:

And the language since the first translation has been updated. 

So . . . since an amount of the King James Bible language is not what people speak now, what do you think about the New King James?

Also, I checked a little bit of the 21st Century King James Version. It seems to have correct updating > of at least the one word I checked.

The new king james is probably one of the better ones .   I have read that .   There was only two places in the new test where I wish they had not

interjected their own thoughts .   its hard to remember where it was .   One I think was when it was being said , NOT to let it be the adonring of gold and etc

but the new king james says not merely .   They should not have done that .    but it is one of the better versions .   I don't think anyone who reads it will be lost .

There is another  place which almost all the new bibles have made a mistake .   But if I bring that up , its gonna cause WW three at worthy .

SO I ask us to simply understand that without natural affection means the same thing it does in romans one .

IT means without NATURAL    , as in against nature , as in vile affections .  Most are overlooking a key sign of the end times .

For many now are without natural affection , and yet most think ITS LOVE and celebrate it as love .     Men with men , women with women .

Many have given up the natural uses of the opposite sex and are burning in their own lusts man with man , women with women . ONLY

the churches are so terrified they wont dare say a word against it , Even in there own churches and then the worse has occurred .

NOW more and more churches honor this unnatural affection as though its love .  I have studied  our language quite well .

And UN means WITHOUT or OPPOSITE .     for instance did you know for narrow road they simply used to say unbrad .   Which means not broad .

Its why we also see words like UNTOWARD generation .  NOT toward GOD .

Without natural affection means UNNATURAL or vile affection .   But most versions say without love .  And this is not what those word mean .

THOUGH yes without love is an end time sign as well. That is not what that word itself meant .    But try telling that to THIS GENEARATION whose churches

and lands honor UNNATURAL AFFECTION . 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  41
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  873
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   520
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

5 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

Are these what you're referring as to the Apocrypha?

I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesisticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Esther* and Daniel*

*which are included in the KJV Bible

I'm curious as to what exactly is the question here.  

I think these are. 

There are people who insist you must not take away from God's word. And they insist this means from any part of the Bible. And ones of these claim that the King James translators were honest and holy men.

But it is said that the Apocrypha were included in the original King James Version.

And now we see that the Apocrypha are not included in some number of King James bibles. So a question is would a King James only person consider removing the Apocrypha to be taking away from God's word . . . since the Apocrypha were in the originally translated King James?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  41
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  873
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   520
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

13 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

I kinda doubt John went around 'sprinkling' the repentant ones, don't you?

I see it could have been totally washing someone by cupping his hands and pouring water all over someone . . . or he could have just dunked them, which might be more lazy and less personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...