New bibles since 1960

[Dino246]

Meh whats with all the kjv haters. Get over it.

First, you are displaying your misunderstanding (or perhaps ignorance) of this issue. Very few people "hate" the KJV (atheists and anti-Christians excluded). In my experience, those who don't use it have good reasons for not using it, but their preference for other versions cannot be considered "hatred" in any sense. Unless of course you're using "hate" the same way modern social justice warriors use it in terms like "hate speech" which is "anything that disagrees with my position".

Second, if you look at threads on this subject with an unbiased eye, you will see that the most nasty, insulting and denigrating comments are made by those who prefer the KJV about other translations. So maybe it's the "haters" who are KJV-only whom you should be addressing.

If you cant understand it, then ask God to help you, its really your loss if you dont. The Bible is really an ancient library of books and does take a bit of effort to read and meditate on, but is totally worth it.

If one needs a paraphrase, then fine, nobody is calling these paraphrases Gods word. I dont think anyones under the illusion about that, those that know and trust God, trust Him completley to preserve His word to us, and to translate in whatever known language we happen to speak.

Am just thankful I have a bible at all. Many countries you can be persecuted for having one.

If you prefer the KJV, fine with me. I'd rather you read the KJV than no Bible at all. Regarding your comment about calling paraphrases "God's word", I suggest you read the 1611 Preface to the Reader by the translators of the KJV. They didn't agree with you.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Meh whats with all the kjv haters. Get over it.
If you cant understand it, then ask God to help you, its really your loss if you dont. The Bible is really an ancient library of books and does take a bit of effort to read and meditate on, but is totally worth it.

If one needs a paraphrase, then fine, nobody is calling these paraphrases Gods word. I dont think anyones under the illusion about that, those that know and trust God, trust Him completley to preserve His word to us, and to translate in whatever known language we happen to speak.

Am just thankful I have a bible at all. Many countries you can be persecuted for having one.

Lol
We don't have the King James Bible, we prefer a translation of God's word rather than an interpretation. As far as hating goes you sound like a Democrats calling hate for every disagreement.
As far as translation goes wouldn't it be great if the king James interpreters had decided to translate the word βαπτίζω rather than transliterate it.
So it would read "immerse in," rather than baptize, so that the sprinklers would actually baptize people.

 

[preston39]

..... all new Bible interpretations and publications have been since 1960, because if they were from before 1960, they wouldn't be "new".......

You make no sense here...?

 

[Dino246]

You make no sense here...?

I'll be happy to clarify what I wrote, right after you clarify the purpose of this thread... which I have requested at least twice.

 

[preston39]

Meh whats with all the kjv haters. Get over it.
If you cant understand it, then ask God to help you, its really your loss if you dont. The Bible is really an ancient library of books and does take a bit of effort to read and meditate on, but is totally worth it.

If one needs a paraphrase, then fine, nobody is calling these paraphrases Gods word. I dont think anyones under the illusion about that, those that know and trust God, trust Him completley to preserve His word to us, and to translate in whatever known language we happen to speak.

Am just thankful I have a bible at all. Many countries you can be persecuted for having one.

You are so correct. It will not be long before the Bible is offensive here two.

Recently Cal. failed to pass a bill which would have outlawed the Bible ...by one vote. That bill will be re-submitted very soon. It will go country wide as pot seems to have done.

 

[preston39]

Lol
We don't have the King James Bible, we prefer a translation of God's word rather than an interpretation. As far as hating goes you sound like a Democrats calling hate for every disagreement.
As far as translation goes wouldn't it be great if the king James interpreters had decided to translate the word βαπτίζω rather than transliterate it.
So it would read "immerse in," rather than baptize, so that the sprinklers would actually baptize people.

What?
The translators had to interpret before translation.

I suggest the following to you;

Take the Bible literally whenever possible. If typical, figurative or symbolic language is used then look for a literal interpretation it intends to convey.

Look for scripture which interprets scripture.

Do not spiritualize the Bible.

Many find those study rules most helpful.

 

[Dino246]

You are so correct. It will not be long before the Bible is offensive here two.

Recently Cal. failed to pass a bill which would have outlawed the Bible ...by one vote. That bill will be re-submitted very soon. It will go country wide as pot seems to have done.

Wow... way to reinterpret someone's words. Lanolin was addressing hatred of the KJV. You've morphed that into hatred of Scripture itself. In case you were unaware, the two are not synonymous.

Now, for the fourth time at least, would you please explain your opening post to this thread. What are you getting at by asking about "New bibles since 1960"?

 

[John146]

Wow... way to reinterpret someone's words. Lanolin was addressing hatred of the KJV. You've morphed that into hatred of Scripture itself. In case you were unaware, the two are not synonymous.

Now, for the fourth time at least, would you please explain your opening post to this thread. What are you getting at by asking about "New bibles since 1960"?

It should be, new bibles since 1881.

 

[posthuman]

I've been reading the 1587 Geneva version.

Why did the KJV come along and think it had to change the preserved word?

 

[calibob]

I've been reading the 1587 Geneva version.

Why did the KJV come along and think it had to change the preserved word?

I think it was because the King James of England only read English and since he was at odds with the Pope he wanted a bible he could read to determine the authenticity of the Pope and also to challenge the popes authority.

 

[posthuman]

I think it was because the King James of England only read English and since he was at odds with the Pope he wanted a bible he could read to determine the authenticity of the Pope and also to challenge the popes authority.

There had been a printed English language Bible for 50 years already tho - Geneva 1560 edition

 

[posthuman]

Recently Cal. failed to pass a bill which would have outlawed the Bible ...by one vote. That bill will be re-submitted very soon. It will go country wide as pot seems to have done.

Nope.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/california-bill-wouldnt-ban-the-bible/


You really need to check out the sources when you get alarmist and conspiracy social media posts or chain emails. Be suspicious.

 

[Melach]

Nope.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/california-bill-wouldnt-ban-the-bible/


You really need to check out the sources when you get alarmist and conspiracy social media posts or chain emails. Be suspicious.

it grieves my heart that christians are so quick to spread falsehoods and lies only to further their agenda. we must be truthful, the Bible never encourages us to watch politics or news, rather it encourages us to watch. watch our state, watch our walk, watch that we are ready for Jesus coming back. not watch the news, brethren. i say this in love, yet with an ounce of encouragement to be more careful about what we claim.

 

[posthuman]

it grieves my heart that christians are so quick to spread falsehoods and lies only to further their agenda. we must be truthful, the Bible never encourages us to watch politics or news, rather it encourages us to watch. watch our state, watch our walk, watch that we are ready for Jesus coming back. not watch the news, brethren. i say this in love, yet with an ounce of encouragement to be more careful about what we claim.

Like sheep ain't we?

We must be learn to conduct ourselves shrewd as serpents yet gentle as doves - because we are sent out among wolves

 

[preston39]

Nope.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/california-bill-wouldnt-ban-the-bible/


You really need to check out the sources when you get alarmist and conspiracy social media posts or chain emails. Be suspicious.

Part of your message is timely and note worthy.
However, you really need to look at the effect on the Bible.
Refusing to allow application and guidance of G-d's word is simply a backdoor approach to prohibit it's use.

Same with guns...do the back door...first limit the number of rounds in magazines, etc. Next then limit...no magazines...etc.

This is the spin approach ...typically applied by the radical left when wanting control of an issue.

 

[breno785au]

Nope.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/california-bill-wouldnt-ban-the-bible/


You really need to check out the sources when you get alarmist and conspiracy social media posts or chain emails. Be suspicious.

Especially now as we are coming to a time when AI is capable (with the help of humans) of creating Videos of people saying things that they never actually said.
This is not conspiracy but a reality now.

 

[calibob]

Nope.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/california-bill-wouldnt-ban-the-bible/


You really need to check out the sources when you get alarmist and conspiracy social media posts or chain emails. Be suspicious.

I read the link and I am not surprised. The medical establishments and big pharma are not on our side. There's way too much money at stake selling hormones and gender reassignment surgeries. "Oh there's nothing wrong with you that a knife and a few stitches won't correct. God made a mistake, you don't need a penis. Just sign here!" They don't even know what malpractice means.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

It should be, new bibles since 1881.

You mean 1587.

 

[posthuman]

You mean 1587.

or since 1535?

((Cloverdale))

 

[preston39]

Especially now as we are coming to a time when AI is capable (with the help of humans) of creating Videos of people saying things that they never actually said.
This is not conspiracy but a reality now.

My post was/is correct.