New bibles since 1960
- Thread starter preston39
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well good you getting that as well good point.
Same with thee and thou, thou being mostly used to address God.
If youve got a new bible, dont be stingy, share what the word is for propitititian. If you dont well, to me seems like you a bit embarassed to admit you cant find it or dont understand it. Im not going to argue with someone whos got a bit of an attitude problem with answering questions.
I dont have a 'new' bible, so I am asking you who has one. If you want to be kind and share. If you dont well, forget about it. You probably dont know what propitiation means.
Same with thee and thou, thou being mostly used to address God.
If youve got a new bible, dont be stingy, share what the word is for propitititian. If you dont well, to me seems like you a bit embarassed to admit you cant find it or dont understand it. Im not going to argue with someone whos got a bit of an attitude problem with answering questions.
I dont have a 'new' bible, so I am asking you who has one. If you want to be kind and share. If you dont well, forget about it. You probably dont know what propitiation means.
L
Original text does not have the words "brother of ". The interpreters of King James added it in from the same story in Chronicles. Which does not change the meaning,
However they KJV interpreters added the name of Moses in Exodus 4 which is demonstrably wrong. The common pronoun him is what the actual text says. And Moses first born son is implied by the context. That being said the other Bibles leave that to the context and use the common pronoun him.
However they KJV interpreters added the name of Moses in Exodus 4 which is demonstrably wrong. The common pronoun him is what the actual text says. And Moses first born son is implied by the context. That being said the other Bibles leave that to the context and use the common pronoun him.
-
1
- Show all
Doesn't change the meaning? Without the words, "brother of", it makes the Lord Jesus a sinner and in danger of hell fire. The Lord got angry several times, yet was without sin. His anger was justified with a cause. And in 2 Samuel 21:19 the words were added for truths sake. Without those words the text becomes a lie. Exodus 4 wrong? Nope, your opinion is not truth. We have the actual original text? Nope, again.
L
Ridiculous!
King James opinion about Exodus 4 is imposed , and wrongly so. The actual words are the common pronoun that translates to him. King James translators or interpreters inserted the name of Moses, thus imposing his opinion upon the reader both textually awkward and out of context.
In 2nd Samuel the words brother of was added by the interpreters. Not having "Brother of" does not make Jesus a liar. It simply makes you fail to understand because of huge cultural difference across many generations.
Some say son of Goliath the first, but some other cultural clues hint that the next in line brother may well have taken up the armor and the moniker Goliath in his elder brothers honor. Legacy of Goliath if you will. We know contextually it's not the same man that David killed; some enough, but it was the same spirit, legacy, and name.
We can't make the mistake of applying our cultural standards to thousands of years ago in far off places.
King James opinion about Exodus 4 is imposed , and wrongly so. The actual words are the common pronoun that translates to him. King James translators or interpreters inserted the name of Moses, thus imposing his opinion upon the reader both textually awkward and out of context.
In 2nd Samuel the words brother of was added by the interpreters. Not having "Brother of" does not make Jesus a liar. It simply makes you fail to understand because of huge cultural difference across many generations.
Some say son of Goliath the first, but some other cultural clues hint that the next in line brother may well have taken up the armor and the moniker Goliath in his elder brothers honor. Legacy of Goliath if you will. We know contextually it's not the same man that David killed; some enough, but it was the same spirit, legacy, and name.
We can't make the mistake of applying our cultural standards to thousands of years ago in far off places.
-
1
- Show all
You characterize my suggestion that you look it up yourself as "an attitude problem". You characterize my lack of a direct answer as "you probably don't know".
Well, I characterize your unwillingness to do your own homework as "lazy" and your ignorant presumption as "insulting".
We can trade epithets all day, and in the end, you won't have your answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You have internet access, therefore you are just as capable of linking to BibleGateway as I am. It has about 40 English versions so you'll know more than I would tell you with the six or seven that I have handy.
Here's a link: https://www.biblegateway.com/
Well, I characterize your unwillingness to do your own homework as "lazy" and your ignorant presumption as "insulting".
We can trade epithets all day, and in the end, you won't have your answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You have internet access, therefore you are just as capable of linking to BibleGateway as I am. It has about 40 English versions so you'll know more than I would tell you with the six or seven that I have handy.
Here's a link: https://www.biblegateway.com/
-
1
- Show all
You characterize my suggestion that you look it up yourself as "an attitude problem". You characterize my lack of a direct answer as "you probably don't know".
Well, I characterize your unwillingness to do your own homework as "lazy" and your ignorant presumption as "insulting".
We can trade epithets all day, and in the end, you won't have your answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You have internet access, therefore you are just as capable of linking to BibleGateway as I am. It has about 40 English versions so you'll know more than I would tell you with the six or seven that I have handy.
Here's a link: https://www.biblegateway.com/
Well, I characterize your unwillingness to do your own homework as "lazy" and your ignorant presumption as "insulting".
We can trade epithets all day, and in the end, you won't have your answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You have internet access, therefore you are just as capable of linking to BibleGateway as I am. It has about 40 English versions so you'll know more than I would tell you with the six or seven that I have handy.
Here's a link: https://www.biblegateway.com/
There are so many new bibles. Just post a couple. Come on, be a sport. This isnt just for me its so everyone on here can learn.
There is NO CONTRADICTION. It is a simple misunderstanding through improper reading of the text:
Ahaziah's age of confirmation
The "problem":
The King James Bible (as well as the majority of "original manuscripts") says of Ahaziah:
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
And it also says:
2Ch 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
The "stock" answer:
The King James Bible and vast majority of "original" manuscripts are obviously wrong. It is a simple copyist error.
The truth:
Look again at the context of 2nd Kings 8:26:
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. 26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
This was eloquently explained in the notes from the Geneva Bible (circa 1599 A.D.). I'll just quote it:
"Which is to be understood, that he was made king when his father reigned, but after his father's death he was confirmed king when he was forty-two years old, as in 2Ch 22:2."
So there you have it.
https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/ahaziah.html
Ahaziah's age of confirmation
The "problem":
The King James Bible (as well as the majority of "original manuscripts") says of Ahaziah:
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
And it also says:
2Ch 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
The "stock" answer:
The King James Bible and vast majority of "original" manuscripts are obviously wrong. It is a simple copyist error.
The truth:
Look again at the context of 2nd Kings 8:26:
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. 26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
This was eloquently explained in the notes from the Geneva Bible (circa 1599 A.D.). I'll just quote it:
"Which is to be understood, that he was made king when his father reigned, but after his father's death he was confirmed king when he was forty-two years old, as in 2Ch 22:2."
So there you have it.
https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/ahaziah.html
-
1
- Show all
If you only reading the KJV bible in piecemeal fashion of course you not going to get the full counsel of God. The Bible is a narrative its not bits and pieces you can chop and change, thats the thing people just dont read things anymore and seem to have really short attention spans.
Its better to read ONE bible all the way through than 7 different ones skimread in my opinion.
Its better to read ONE bible all the way through than 7 different ones skimread in my opinion.
L
So it's ok to just come along and change the word to fit your socio-political plans. And reject the idea of, don't add or take away from this word even though that is the directive from the Lord. We can just kick that to the curb huh? I guess that leaves the question about J-dubbs and mormo followers and their Jimmied up versions of the Bible.