Which version of the Bible should I pick? Advise me.

a reply to: Necrose

If you can get hold of it a Geneva Bible because its before the one redone by King James in which he gives himself divine right to rule. If you are planning to read it from cover to cover don't be surprised if you get a shock at what is written in it. I suggest you also read the Torah and other Jewish texts because then you will get it in context.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I prefer this one.

Sir Francis Bacon edited the New King James version, and he was like the original Freemason. Go figure.

Sir Francis Bacon lived from 1561 to 1626. The New King James translation (published by Harper Collins) also called the "Revised Authorized Version" was finished in 1982 after seven years of work. Francis Bacon could never have edited it. He was alive when the original 1611 KJV was published but Bacon is not listed among the 53 people who contributed to the translation.

a reply to: Necrose

Answer:
The closest one
that your hand can reach.

2nd line.

a reply to: Necrose

Start with the King James Bible and compare it to all versions that succeed the KJV. In the newer versions, you will see certain words changed in key verses that change the very nature and character of God, and entire verses changed or removed altogether. The NIV is a shining example of this debauchery, where it is estimated that upwards of forty different verses have been completely removed. To the authors of such books, there fate has already been sealed. I wouldn't trust any book that came after the KJV with a ten foot pole, avoid like the plague.

(Revelation 22:18-19) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: DISRAELI

I find the Book of Barnabas , found in Turkey, interesting. The Pope wants it in the worst way.
Papal authentication, you know.

yeah at one time Turkey before the Ottoman Empire came in and Destroyed some Books and Merge the Conquered library
with Theirs was one of the Center Hubs for Knowledge and Librarys

I wouldn't be surprised what they would find next

a reply to: Necrose

The noneya version is best.

a reply to: Necrose

The KJV is NOT the most accurate and NOT the worst. It is one of the better ones but difficult for modern folks younger than say 50 years to understand fully or well.

The New Living Translation is, to me, one of the better modern English versions. Others disagree.

The NIV seems to have some deliberate corruptions in most of its editions.

You can find some online rankings as to accuracy and readability.

THE MESSAGE is criticized as being a paraphrase and it's translator advises not to read it only but only in conjunction with more literal word for word or at least thought for thought translations.

Many of those criticizing THE MESSAGE seem to ignore the FACT that ALL translations MUST be greatly paraphrased because no two languages are identical.

I like THE MESSAGE version as a supplemental version because it faithfully lives up to Peterson's goal of presenting the Scriptures with all the intensity, vernacular, earthiness etc. that was inherent in the original languages.

my 2 cents.

a reply to: Necrose

I would grab a KJV personally... As another member said, its just written very poetically...

Old english can be hard to understand at times but it also forces you to focus on the words being used...

a reply to: BO XIAN

The Message uses a Satanic phrase in the Lord's Prayer. "As above, so below".

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Necrose

I would grab a KJV personally... As another member said, its just written very poetically...

Old english can be hard to understand at times but it also forces you to focus on the words being used...

The 1611 is Olde English, the newer revisions aren't. Get a 2011 version.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Hey... I just passed the blog along. I thought it rings quite true.

No problem, I had to explain why certain parts were erroneous, not blaming you.

Thanks everyone!!
I will go for KJV as I have planned.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Necrose

I would grab a KJV personally... As another member said, its just written very poetically...

Old english can be hard to understand at times but it also forces you to focus on the words being used...

The 1611 is Olde English, the newer revisions aren't. Get a 2011 version.

Its reads the same... just spells things weirde

a reply to: Necrose

From years of looking into this very topic, I'd have to say the KJV is the most accurate of the translations. Perhaps not as easy to read, but more accurate. Some of them actually alter the meaning of the text, which is far different from just using different words to say the same thing.

a reply to: Necrose

The Preserved AV as it has all the bible verses in it. It was preserved of God and we have all his words in it just as he stated them in the originals.

The AV has a supernaturally built in cross-reference using terms, words, phrases and verses, And it can define any word in it by the context.

No other Bible has all the verses nor a supernatural cross reference (only man made ones listed in center, inline verse or bottom), no other can define words correctly.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Necrose

I would grab a KJV personally... As another member said, its just written very poetically...

Old english can be hard to understand at times but it also forces you to focus on the words being used...

The 1611 is Olde English, the newer revisions aren't. Get a 2011 version.

Its reads the same... just spells things weirde

No friend, the 1611 is very unique, there wasn't even the letter J in 1611 and Jesus is spelled "Iesus".

a reply to: NOTurTypical
Ah Yes there was a J in 1611. King James had a J in his name and he is the one who initiated the Authorization for a complete and whole English Bible for the common people.

He was an educated man and read the work of the AV before it was allowed to go to press and insisted on certain corrections be made so that it wasn't overly Anglian or overly Puritan. The men who did the work were located in three locations and no one saw the others work. Where one passage was difficult to translate they prayed earnestly for God's Guidance.

It was no mere translation it would be the first complete and accurately translated version in English and it would go out into the world via the expansion of the English Empire, which was really built and established by King James. Remember the Guy with a J in his name.

the reason for the use of the I's was because they ran out of J's at the printing press. Later renditions and editions, of which there are only four, correct that and other parts where the wrong words were placed by mistake.

God's handiwork can be seen in the AV and not other. The rest of the Bibles are renditions of men for a profit and for the promotion of a particular denominations doctrine.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I learned more by going thru all the different ones than if I did just one! *

*PS Dad was Catholic, mother a Protestant...with both Catholic and King James versions. So, I was confused at a very early age!!!

Thanks

a reply to: chr0naut

I knew that. But, thanks for clarifying the facts for those who did not!

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That is factually incorrect, in the 1611 KJV it said "Iesus" for Jesus and "IEHOVAH" for YHWH, the letter J didn't appear in the KJV until the 1769 version.