Changes in Scripture - A Comparative of the KJV/NIV Side By Side

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh yeah, sorry. that was the all too currently relevant Romans 13

a reply to: ChesterJohn

hows the the AKJV different from the KJV?

a reply to: ketsuko

While prayer wont hurt, you need more to learn the Bible than prayer, you need the Holy Ghost. He alone is the Author of the scripture, the interpreter of it, and the preserver of it. And all that through faith alone.

a reply to: smkymcnugget420

Yeah, actually I knew where it is located, but it is others who are not as familiar with the word as you or I are.

Thanks but it would have been better to put it in your original reply post so when others read it they know where to look.

Thanks for clarifying that for everyone.

Don't get me wrong. That is my prefer reading for the reasons you already gave and more.
But right now I'm immerse into other subjects and has to cross reference as much as I can to be sure.

So for religious purposes that is the one.

But for other purposes I need as much references as I can, not only the bible but the apochrypha too and some other weird books I though did not exist.

a reply to: smkymcnugget420

they are the same book AKJV stand for the "Authorized King James Version" also known as the AV.

a reply to: DISRAELI
I intended and forgot to add that the reading of Shakespeare is solved in exactly the same way.
There are no living speakers of Shakespeare's language today. By your logic, that ought to mean that we have no way of knowing what Shakespeare said. In practice, the problem is solved by the fact that there has been a continuous cultural tradition of English-speakers through the changes in language which have taken place since Shakespeare's time, so that one generation can supply explanations of the language (and even Shakespeare lexicons) to the next generation.
That is just how cultural tradition has worked in the case of Greek and Hebrew.
"No living speakers" is a complete red herring.

a reply to: Abednego

I do not believe the Apocrypha is inspired of God. While these and other books do exist it is the Roman Catholic Church not the Christian Church, the Body of Christ, that believe they are part of the Canon of scripture.

I have read the books of the Apocrypha and I have found them not to have life to their words as the AKJV does. I agree with them as far as when they agree with the AKJV, where they don't I don't. I liken them to nothing more than books like all other religious books and stories of the world.

a reply to: DISRAELI

the last one to speak in the language of the AKJV died in 2014. If we wanted to we cold speak that way today for it is not beyond our ability to do so.

But there is an original writings of Shakespeare's in the world today to check any copy too. We don't have that luxury with our Bible today. So it is not the same and not a red herring just because you say it is.

Especially because God himself promised to preserve his words to every generation and has done so in one book the AKJV.

Do you believe God can?
Do you believe God did?
Do you believe God still teach his word to us today without the need of "so called Scholars"?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
But there is an original book of Shakespeare's in the world today to check any copy too. We don't have that luxury with our Bible today. So it is not the same.

It's exactly the same situation when a foreigner translates Shakespeare into another language. They probably don't, in practice, make a special library visit to consult a First Folio. They are more likely to translate from a printed English edition- i.e. from a copy. (And even the First Folios, I should add, are not the original Autographs of Shakespeare. They are copies too.)
Then how do they cope with the problem of "no living speakers"? They learn enough modern English to get help from the speakers of modern English who have inherited the cultural tradition, and from the vocabulary guides and other books written by them. That's just how the earliest translators of scriptural texts managed.

Especially because God himself promised to preserve his words to every generation and has done so in one book the AKJV.

You have evidence for the first half, but not for the second.
You can't even justify the limitation to "one" (which would deny the scriptures to people who don't read English).

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Chester you can prove that it is the preserved word of God right? Not just that you believe it to be so? After all you claim this over and over, yet never managed to do anything except some member waving and hand wiggling.

a reply to: Noinden

can you prove you faith is right and not just what you believe to be so? After all you claim yours over and over again to be better than mine.

You have no faith except in yourself and men. I have faith in God Almighty, and one day you will not only believe in him but you will accept his judgement of you by him. Which you can find it in the AKJV Bible today so why wait for history to prove itself just go back and read it for yourself.

You do know that the more you post your ridiculous questions and add nothing tot eh OP you are only making this to be the most active thread in this forum?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't claim my faith is the only path. No polytheist would. I let monotheistic types such as you do such things.

You keep mistaking me for an atheist Chester. I have faith in many Gods..

When the Apocrypha is thrown out of the KJV for political reasons; it makes the rest of the bible seem of questionable motivation.

Yep, KJV only or you are missing 67 of the 167 .... Grace....left out

And 18 verses that mention the power of Jesus and His blood

We don't need Greek...we have the experts from back then, who really tore it all apart as they did have all the different versions

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I have labeled all bibles as erroneous.
I also don't have any proof, just faith

That doesn't bother me, my faith is in Jesus
Why can't you understand that and accept we disagree

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: DISRAELI

the last one to speak in the language of the AKJV died in 2014. If we wanted to we cold speak that way today for it is not beyond our ability to do so.

But there is an original writings of Shakespeare's in the world today to check any copy too. We don't have that luxury with our Bible today. So it is not the same and not a red herring just because you say it is.

Especially because God himself promised to preserve his words to every generation and has done so in one book the AKJV.

Do you believe God can?
Do you believe God did?
Do you believe God still teach his word to us today without the need of "so called Scholars"?

So where did God promise to preserve His word as 100% accurate and why did he take all the way to the 1600's to do it properly
Why do it in English, not Aramaic or Greek
Where is the common sense?

a reply to: DISRAELI

For "old Testament I use JPS Hebrew-English bible also known at the JPS TANAKH. This manual is found in every scholar's library, though expensive in hard leather cover, I find it worth every penny. Here it says thy shall not murder..... not kill......how Moses walked through the REED sea..... etc....

For New Testament .... stick to Greek.... the language most commonly used at time of Christ.

The truth is out there.... it just cost a little more than most want to pay...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The KJV and the NIV are both translations.

When you say it preserved, what exactly is preserved?

- The original language wasn't preserved.
- The explicit meanings of some names & words wasn't preserved (eg; Auroch/Unicorn, The Morning Star/Lucifer)
- The original and specific names and titles of God were not preserved (like the fact that Jehovah, which didn't really exist as a word until the 16th century and was in none of the older manuscripts. Yet in the KJV "Jehovah" replaced many references to God, such as El, El-Shaddai, YHVH, YHWH Yireh, Adonai, Elohim, El Elyon, El Roi, YHWH Nissi, YHWH Rapha & YHWH Shalom.
- Heberew proper names were not preserved (eg; Yeshua/Jesus, Miriam/Mary).
- Then there are confusions that arise due to errors in translation such as the suggestion that YHVH was only one of a council of gods, one for each nation, when the whole idea is not carried in the original text but is the result of misunderstanding of a mistranslation that first appeard in the KJV. I.e; even the wider meanings of whole passages have not been preserved.
- Not to mention the hundreds of changes to the KJV from the 1611 version until the current KJV.

The AKJV just isn't the "Preserved Word of God". Referring to it as such is clearly untrue.

The true Word of God existed in its entirety more than 1,000 years before the KJV and fairly ancient copies of those original texts still exist, which truly 'preserves' God's Word.

Many translations seek to be true in meaning (paraphrase) or true 'word for word' but our English language changes all the time. The divide between American and British English highlights the flexibility of language.

So EVERY translation is trying to hit a moving target and it usually takes study, the Holy Spirit, reasoning and cross reference to clarify the true meanings.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I have a couple of different Bible versions mostly because of this very question. They are probably different from yours since I was raised Catholic. My RSV says Catholic Edition but my KJV is a Protestant Bible. Even if you believe Catholics are evil satanic pagans they provide insight here because their old testament is based upon different sources than the protestant (Christian) version.

Two things to look at: the source and the translation.

One good way to look at source is to compare to the oldest copies available. That would be the Dead Sea Scrolls. Experts claim they are 95% identical so unless you are looking for that 5%, we can be pretty confident.

Translation is really what your post is about. I have to say I like the KJV. Many errors have been pointed out but these are relatively well known and documented. Besides the beautiful poetic language, there are so many study materials based on this translation that it occupies a unique place.

The NIV, on the other hand, may correct some errors, may add some errors. It's very popular among the church leaders but most people I have spoken to don't trust it like the KJV. There are areas the meaning is changed and some off these appear more political rather than faithful to the original text. In addition I find the writing style flat and uninspiring. Psalms is almost unreadable.

The same forces are at work in the Catholic church. We will probably have something like it soon. There is also a big push underway for more inclusive language. I have already heard a lecture about the great father/mother god. God help us all. Don't throw out your old bibles.