Featured What version would Jesus read?

Fluoride: Posion on Tap!

Looks like a reputable site.

 

Hebrew and Aramiac text!

 

On the off chance you're not being sarcastic, the dude is the filmmaker for the notorious Steven Anderson, and is pushing the ridiculous "New Age Bible" hypothesis of Gail Riplinger. Cautious

 

Ooh, we might get on his black list! Barefoot

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Geneva Bible seems an excellent English version which predates the KJV. It is intereresting to study the Geneva as it relates to King James I.

Modern translations all have the same problems: some folk cannot deal with the virginity of Mary and the divinity of Jesus the Christ. Preaching one version to someone who is reading another version is confusion at best. God is not the author of confusion.

Curious: the pilgrims on the Mayflower had a 37 member church on board. They were fleeing the religious persecution of England. They had Geneva bibles not KJV. Seems the KJV was the government sponsored version. King James had a problem with Geneva Bibles.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

So we should all start using the Geneva Bible?? I don't get what you are trying to say here.

Two problems: (1) Modern translations in what language? Only English? Or in all languages? What about languages that only have a modern translation?
(2) So are you saying that the NASB, NKJV and other conservative, modern translations also deny the virgin birth and deity (not "divinity") of Christ?

 

Seems it was the Pilgrims whose descendants lapsed into Unitarianism. I reckon some folks have trouble with the deity of Christ no matter how new or how old their English translation of the Bible is.

 

I have read Jack McElroy's book. It displays typical inconsistent, incorrect KJV-only reasoning.

Jack McElroy asserted: "The true Bible cannot be adulterated with men's words. It cannot contain errors" (p. 84).

Jack McElroy wrote: "Come to think of it, the Lord wouldn't be ashamed to bring any edition of the King James Bible to church with him. He has used and blessed them all over the past 400 years even with printing errors, spelling, grammar, orthographic differences, and translation tweaks. He wouldn't even be ashamed to bring in a reprint of the 1611" (p. 162).

Is it consistent to claim that the true Bible "cannot contain errors" while claiming that all the different editions of the KJV are the true Bible even with any errors that they contain?

McElroy would likely assume that all errors in KJV editions are the fault of the printers and never the fault of the KJV translators, but an error is still an error regardless of whether it was supposedly introduced by a copier, a printer, an editor, or a translator.

 

William P. Grady wrote the foreword to McElroy's book.

In his preface, Jack McElroy asserted the following about his book: "Which Bible Would Jesus Use? will prove that the Lord himself has to choose among all the different Bible versions out there and is forced to pick just one of them" (p. xi).

McElroy wrote: "we the see the word of God being assembled until its final form appeared in the 1611 First Edition of the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Bible" (p. 158).

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) What I am trying to say: it seems a translation with a little less state/church bias would be better. Sorry for the ambiguity: modern English was my intent. To be sure, The Word of God preached in Swahili will convict those who understand Swahili. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Truth in whatever dialect. On the other hand, false doctrine can be taught in any language. Satan is very adept at adding and taking away from The Word of God. Satan is an angel of light and has many ministers.

(2) Deny Jesus' credentials? Perhaps not-- watered down for sure. Thank you for the word choice correction: a divine is someone mostly right and reverend and otherwise godlike. "Reverend" is only applied to God. Jesus is Jehovah--anything else is pagan idolatry.

We are entering a most holy period of pagan idolatry: Saturnalia.

Pulpit bibles and pew bibles in different English idiom is very confusing and unedifying.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Chick tract site is advertising it. I think I know the answer given in the book. The NIV!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thanks for the clarification.

So in your view, are the "credentials" (as you put it--interesting choice of words) of Jesus watered down simply because a version is modern? Or is there some other reason?

In other words, is modern English somehow less capable of portraying the nature of Christ than 15th-17th century English? If so, in what way? If not, what do you mean?

 

Your posts qualify as confusing BJ.

Pulpit Bibles and pew Bibles that are 'different' from what? What are you measuring them against? All translations differ from one another -- they use different wordings. I don't understand what your point is --I rarely do. You need to speak in plain English in your posts.You have an odd style that is off-putting.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plain English: there is a disconnect between a modern translation and a KJV when the preacher says open your Bibles. Some would call this confusion. Thank you for the compliment. A put off can still be forgiven.

Have a blessed day.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try: everyone reading several versions aloud simultaneously along with a different translation on the overhead or out of the pulpit. The mixed audio and video signals tend to confuse. Being on the same sheet of music seems a necessary part of worship.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James

 

My church uses the ESV. They show the ESV on the overhead screens. The congregation stands and reads the verses on the screen in unison. After the congregational reading I use the NIV on my phone to reread the passage. I sometimes switch to the KJV to see how it handled the same passage. Then I switch my phone to the ESV since that is what the pastor uses when he preaches. It's not confusing to me. On the contrary, I find it enhances my understanding.