King James Bible

No verses have been "modified/removed etc. from newer translations". Do your homework, stop taking only one source for your information, and get your facts straight.

So if we use the WIKI we need to know that it is liberal biased ?

When it comes to the Bible I am just interested in knowing that the translation has conveyed as accurately as possible what God by means of prophets which were inspired is telling us today. Wiki and all info sources have errors and news sources possibly still carry insurance which limit their liability for what is known as Errors and Omissions. Supposedly and possibly true is that even tabloids are difficult to indict in any way since the way the wording is done it is misleading but yet accurate. Paradox? Go Figure. Is every product you purchase exactly what you expected or do you sometime find that you were somewhat misled. Go Figure.

When it comes to the Bible I am just interested in knowing that the translation has conveyed as accurately as possible what God by means of prophets which were inspired is telling us today. Wiki and all info sources have errors and news sources possibly still carry insurance which limit their liability for what is known as Errors and Omissions. Supposedly and possibly true is that even tabloids are difficult to indict in any way since the way the wording is done it is misleading but yet accurate. Paradox? Go Figure. Is every product you purchase exactly what you expected or do you sometime find that you were somewhat misled. Go Figure.

The following is a link that includes specific modifications, etc. I know what is documented to be true because I do my homework. I owned and operated a Christian Bookstore years ago and was able to confirm the information, and did so by comparing the list to the actual bibles I had in inventory. If you take the time to study them out you too may find what they reveal quite eye opening.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ersion-scripture-changes.207529/#post-4922290

Hmmmm! that could take awhile to prove - get out the popcorn!

I really don't know if there were prisoners of war here. They were no captives here, everything they found will be killed once and for all including those who intend to come and help them. No one will escape this slaughter. The Hebrew ספה has been used as (Hiphil) meaning to say to catch up, gather hence join. This is a definition given by Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions, Strong and Gesenius and The KjV translators are far more experts in the Hebrew language than you can imagine. The Latin versions as well favor the KJB more than what you are saying as a captive.

Vulgate(i) 15 omnis qui inventus fuerit occidetur et omnis qui supervenerit cadet in gladio

Google translation of the Latin:
every one that is found shall be slain, and every one that cometh shall fall by the sword

Spanish Bible RV

ReinaValera(i) 15 Cualquiera que fuere hallado, será alanceado; y cualquiera que á ellos se juntare, caerá á cuchillo.

Google:
Anyone found will be speared; and whoever joins them will fall by the knife.

French Martin

Martin(i) 15 Quiconque sera trouvé, sera transpercé; et quiconque s'y sera joint, tombera par l'épée.

Google Translator

Whoever is found will be pierced; and whoever joins in it will fall by the sword.

I bet this is enough to chew on.

In reading your postings ,they show, you are trying to find fault or something similar. Go learn old Hebrew and Greek for your self. Only then will you know.

Once again your are displaying your ignorance. The Hebrew word sair literally means hairy and can be applied as follows:

1. he-goat, buck
   1. as sacrificial animal
   2. satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30-32)

The New King James is a really good translation. In fact I would say likely the best one we have.

I have been usually reading the NLT to get the idea and then if something really strikes me I go to bible hub and get the multi-languages and even check out the Latvian and Lithuanian since I know those languages a little bit. I even have a Lithuanian Bible published 1910 and dictionaries to go with it and that can really get involved because the Lithuanian language is a real mish-mash, particularly the way I learned it being a mix of at least two dialects and some Latvian. And then todays Lithuanian is quite different than even early 20th century Lithuanian. Crazy. Go Figure.

From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???

Hmmmm! that could take awhile to prove - get out the popcorn!

What you found is that some verses were included in the KJV which were not included in some newer versions, for good reason. You present this as though it was intentional corruption, which it most certainly was not.

well isnt it funny that naysayers who mock the KJV but cant actually come up with a single better version in English, but a myriad of multiple cut and pasted 'modern' versions that all have holes in them.

I mean nobody is pushing the LOLcat bible. Remember that one?

You may want to actually review the documents. There are many changes to actual scripture as well as additions/removal of verses, etc. As I mentioned in other posts, different manuscripts were used for the modern versions. I also noted that whether intentional or not many changes distort the deity of Jesus Christ. This is serious as many new to Christianity can end up formulating the wrong ideas about the Lord Jesus Christ, the existence of hell, etc.