New International PerVersion

[Jerry Shugart]

[Also, I want to add that sometimes these numbers match up with Blue Letter Bible and other times they do not. This is because BLB uses a different version of the KJV I believe.

So one version of the KJB has something different in it than does in another version.

How can they both be without error?

Are there some versions of the KJB which are without error while other versions have errors?

How are we to know which version is without error?

Perhaps the following verse was taken from the KJB that does contain errors:

"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34).​

Since God will not break His promises then we can know that this translation is in error.

 

[Truster]

So I assume you are Anglican or Episcopalian and adhere to all its doctrines?... if not, you are just plain stupid for using the KJV.

The fact remains that the AV is one of the most biased translations of all time.

When you assume you make an *** out of u but not me

The word that has been *** is the Biblical name for donkey. You Americans spell a word wrong and then call it a cuss word.

 

[HisServant]

When you assume you make an *** out of u but not me

The word that has been *** is the Biblical name for donkey. You Americans spell a word wrong and then call it a cuss word.

Well.. are you Anglican or Episcopalian?.. if not, why are you using their bible?

 

[Zeke]

The term is Yisra El and means ruled of El.

What civilization did those deities come from? you seem to have skipped over the historical proof, I understand it requires blind faith.

 

[intojoy]

With all the tools of the internet at your disposal the best you can do is an insult that a 7th grader would be embarrassed to use.

Not an insult, just a light hearted joke. Here's a better word to look up: Kristallnacht



Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Truster]

What civilization did those deities come from? you seem to have skipped over the historical proof, I understand it requires blind faith.

Faith is simply psyching up the mental attributes. Even you are capable of that.

 

[Jason0047]

At least the NIV does not teach that the Lord will break His promises, as does the KJB:

"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).​

The NIV does not make that error:

"For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you’ " (Num.14:34; NIV).​

You are grasping at straws with this one. There is no mistranslation here. Here is what

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says in their commentary:

"Ye shall know my breach of promise—that is, in consequence of your violation of the covenant betwixt you and Me, by breaking the terms of it, it shall be null and void on My part, as I shall withhold the blessings I promised in that covenant to confer on you on condition of your obedience."​

In other words, God owns the punishment or the breach of His promises. So God can say "my breach of promise." For those who break God's Laws forfeit the promises of God. They will instead experience what it is like to know His breach of promise or punishments for disobeying His Laws.

 

[ccfromsc]

Wow! Is it me or is it not just insulting but blasphemous when someone calls a translation of Bible a "PerVersion?" What of the KJV? 28 "revisions" of it and not one here dare mentions that? Has anyone ever looked to see if the KJV ADDED to the basic text?

 

[Truster]

Wow! Is it me or is it not just insulting but blasphemous when someone calls a translation of Bible a "PerVersion?" What of the KJV? 28 "revisions" of it and not one here dare mentions that? Has anyone ever looked to see if the KJV ADDED to the basic text?

The KJV is not perfect.

 

[Jason0047]

So one version of the KJB has something different in it than does in another version.

How can they both be without error?

Are there some versions of the KJB which are without error while other versions have errors?

How are we to know which version is without error?

Watch this video here:

Which KJV?

And or read this article here:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp

 

[Christian Liberty]

Jason, your problem is you're comparing the other versions to the KJV, when you really should be comparing all the versions to the original manuscripts.

 

[Jason0047]

The KJV is not perfect.

I believe it to be perfect because God's Word says that His Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. This is obviously not a salvation issue, but I believe that there is a reason why some do not believe in a perfect Word for our day, though.

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, your problem is you're comparing the other versions to the KJV, when you really should be comparing all the versions to the original manuscripts.

That's the problem. Nobody has the original manuscripts anymore. The originals that the disciples had written do not exist. Their only copies and not all copies say the same thing.

 

[HisServant]

The KJV is not perfect.

And its got quite a few unique ecclesiastic and doctrinal biases that favor the Anglican and Catholic Churches.

Some examples would be.

The translators were barred from producing any verses that ran against the then doctrines of the Anglican Church.

The translators were barred from translating ekklesia as congregation (they were bound to use the word church which is inaccurate).. they also had to retain the titles given to church officials (bishop, etc.) instead of just plain 'elder' which is more accurate.

The translators were also barred from changing any of the formal names.. i.e. Christ had to be translated Jesus instead of Joshua (which is more accurate as far as pronouncement goes).

And I could go on.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are grasping at straws with this one. There is no mistranslation here. Here is what

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says in their commentary:

" For those who break God's Laws forfeit the promises of God. They will instead experience what it is like to know His breach of promise or punishments for disobeying His Laws.'​

If someone does not meet the conditions of a "conditional" promise then the one who made the promise cannot be said to have broken his promise.

Besides, the Scriptures make it plain that the Lord did not break His promise:

" Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).​

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's the problem. Nobody has the original manuscripts anymore. The originals that the disciples had written do not exist. Their only copies and not all copies say the same thing.

Yeah, I know, we don't know for sure. That doesn't make the KJV inspired anymore than any other translation.

What about Spanish people? Or French people? Russians? Chinese? What translation of there's is inspired?

I have no issues with the KJV. use it if you like it. But that translation isn't any better than any other word-for-word translation.

 

[Jason0047]

Wow! Is it me or is it not just insulting but blasphemous when someone calls a translation of Bible a "PerVersion?" What of the KJV? 28 "revisions" of it and not one here dare mentions that? Has anyone ever looked to see if the KJV ADDED to the basic text?

Do you think certain versions of the NIV are correct when it says that the "dragon" is standing on the seashore?

Do you think it is the dragon standing on the seashore is it John standing on the seashore? Making sure you have the right understanding on this passage is a huge difference. In fact, if your interested, please check out what I written on this previously by clicking on the following spoiler button.

Spoiler

I believe the King James is the perfect divinely inspired preserved Word of God for our world language for today (Which is English by the way). This in no way changes the previous translations that have come before in being perfect at one time (Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), and Latin). For all these particular translations all say the same thing. Now, this is not the same texts that Wescott and Hort use (Which most Modern Translations are based upon). That is another vine or source.

However, that said, I read Modern Translations all the time because I view them as if I am panning thru the dirt to get to the gold. For they are helpful in updating the language when comparing it with the KJV. However, they are not my final Word of authority because they add, eliminate, and twist passages all the time. In fact, the devil puts his name within Modern Translations trying to be like the Most High. Don't have a clue what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

http://biblehub.com/revelation/13-1.htm

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Lets look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"​

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I") (This would include the NIV, and the NASB).

 

[Spitfire]

What's funny is there are a lot of "Luther only" people in Germany who think that's the Luther Bible only legitimate translation (and that God therefore speaks German, I suppose.)

 

[HisServant]

I believe it to be perfect because God's Word says that His Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. This is obviously not a salvation issue, but I believe that there is a reason why some do not believe in a perfect Word for our day, though.

When Word is capitalized, it usually is referring to Jesus, not a written document.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God... etc.

The issue I have with your thinking is you use isolated verses to try and prove something you have already made up in your mind. (or been taught in error).

To someone that has the Holy Spirit's indwelling and guidance, any bible is perfect... because without his guidance, even a perfect bible is nothing more than words on a page that you have no hope of understanding.

 

[Jason0047]

Yeah, I know, we don't know for sure. That doesn't make the KJV inspired anymore than any other translation.

What about Spanish people? Or French people? Russians? Chinese? What translation of there's is inspired?

I have no issues with the KJV. use it if you like it. But that translation isn't any better than any other word-for-word translation.

My fiancé lives in Brazil, so I am not ignorant of other Bibles in other countries. God said he would preserve His Word perfectly for all generations within His Word. If God did not do that, then he would have broke His promise. There can only be one perfect Word that was preserved for our day. There cannot be two different Bibles or Words of God saying two different things. God is not the author of confusion.

For the moment you have any one passage disagree with another passage in some way, it is another message. It is another Word of God.

This of course has no bearing on the gospel. For the gospel can be spread by just a couple verses within the Word.