| 3/27/2008 11:05:20 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
Are you confused as to which Bible to read; New Age Version, New King James Version, New International Version, American Standard Version, old or “Authorized” King James Version, etc?
Confused because someone posts something here from their bible and you just can't find it your bible?
I invite you to watch this video.
Gail Riplinger, a Christian and former Kent State University Professor, took six years to compile and compare all verses of all available bibles to find out how each differers from the other.
You will be startled at her findings and will find out why people are posting so called “Christian” ideas in this very forum that are confusing and seem to go against traditional Christian ideas.
This lecture came in two parts on two separate nights and lasts two and a half hours. There is no indication of when this lecture took place but the video is dated Jan, 2006. Parts of the video have become damaged and in the last half the image begins to lag the audio, but please do not let that prevent you from watching it. If you would sit through two consecutive re-runs (that you watched 50 times last week)of Myth Busters then turn off your TV and learn something of true value.
This is NOT an "End Time prophesy" video in spite of where it takes place.
|
| 3/27/2008 8:19:11 PM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
whofan
Jeddore Oyster Ponds, NS
age: 50
|
Capt Pappy
I have to disagree. Her "factual" evidence is very disputable. If the KJV is the Word of God, then what was the Word of God prior to 1611 when it was translated. Was there no Bible for Christians for 1600 years? It is a translation. New manuscript evidence has come to light to scholars since 1611 and the newer translations are based on that evidence. Is this Ms. Riplinger a textual scholar familiar with the original Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence for the Bible - obviously she is not. In the copying of these manuscripts over the centuries, words were left out or added or changed by scribes. That is factual evidence because we have the variant manuscripts to compare. The job of biblical scholarship is to attempt to arrive at a reasonble conclusion as to what the original text said. NOt an exact science at all but they do their best. Earlier manuscripts than those the KJV was based on have been discovered since 1611. It is an interesting fact that the KJV was an Anglican (Church of England or Episcopalian) work and was rejected as inferior at the time by most of the more radical Protestant groups. Some of these same groups (fundamentalist Baptist and Presbyterians) swear that this version is the only Word of God. This is really an unnecessary debate to be having, and the people who insist on having it look quite silly to anybody with marginal knowledge of how the Bible came together in the first place. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but this can only confuse sincere Christians who need to be reading from a Bible that uses readable, not archaic English. She also made the point that we shouldn't use multiple translations, but it is clear that the writers of the NT used different translations of the OT when they quoted it. I have much more I could say but I'll shut up for now.
|
| 3/27/2008 8:22:08 PM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
whofan
Jeddore Oyster Ponds, NS
age: 50
|
By the way Capt Pappy. FYI I was born and raised in Franklin LA. And My Father was Chief of Police in Morgan City in the 1950's. Small world.
|
| 3/27/2008 8:22:57 PM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
whofan
Jeddore Oyster Ponds, NS
age: 50
|
Oh yeah and I attended Calvary Bible Church in Centerville LA as a kid. Know it?
|
| 3/28/2008 7:08:44 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
As I understand Ms. Riplinger, the KJV is a translation of the (closest to) original Hebrew text where others are taken from a later (edited) translation.
I believe that her point was that the KJV was the first reliable English translation; that any translation previous to that would not have been understandable by present day English speaking people because the English language before the 17th century was still a miss-mash of several other languages.
Her claim is that the old King James version is the only true English Bible.
I understand that a single word's meaning can be disputed some 2000 years after it was scribed, but to leave it out because one can't determine it's meaning with 100% accuracy is wrong.
I only found this video last week, and will need to watch it several times to get from it all she is trying to present, but I have been aware of different version discrepancies since high school when a friend asked me to read the "Living Bible"
Even at that point, only beginning to understand simple Christian ideas, that particular bible always felt "wrong" to me.
I personally will also not trust a book that omits entire verses; something like a cook book leaving out the most important ingredient.
It's not the case with all other bibles but I personally will not trust a translation of the Word of God written by people who were known Spiritualists and Lucifarians. That would be kind of like the allied forces in world war II reading battle strategies written and given to them by Hitler.
Most of the other publishers do not claim that KJV is wrong but merely outdated. If that is true then I select the book with more content.
Unfortunately Ms Riplinger spices her factual content with some pretty unusual theories and opinions and many times causes people to discount her other findings.
____________________
I'm not really from this area, Whofan. I grew up on the south east coast. I've been in La since Katrina running a supply boat helping to repair the oil fields (and fishing). I must say that the people I have met here are wonderful people and because my mother's parents were originally from New Orleans and French, I guess I look like I belong here.
[Edited 3/28/2008 7:24:16 AM]
|
| 3/28/2008 7:42:17 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
Maybe important to the evidence would be an understanding of why King James the First decided to translate the original Hebrew and Greek text and the "rules" he set to the group of people assigned to the task.
To understand that you might want to read this brief history:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
(copy and paste link into your browser's go bar.)
[edit] for anyone curious, the word "vulgar" as used in this paper has the following definition:
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
6. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
[Edited 3/28/2008 7:47:59 AM]
|
| 3/28/2008 9:51:20 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
whofan
Jeddore Oyster Ponds, NS
age: 50
|
It is not a question of omitting verses. When the earlier manuscripts were discovered, these verses were not in them, suggesting that the King James was using manuscripts where verses had been added. Some of these passages are disputable, but some are without question instances where the mauscript had been edited by scribes. I don't know of any "credible" translation done by other than Christian scholars, and to refer to them as "Lucifarians" or some other insult, is and attempt to make ones argument by appealing to people's fears, and these claims cannot be substantiated.
Having said all of that, the differences in translations are so minor that they in no way can be said to alter Christian doctine. I happen to believe that the KJV was a great English Bible but has outlived its usefulness for folks who speak the language as currently used. But if anyone feels comfortable with it, I would never suggest they shouldn't use it. My advise is always to find a Bible that you like and READ it!
You mention the "Living Bible". The LB was not a translation based on the newer founded manuscript evidence. It was one man's (Ken Taylor RIP) paraphrase of the King James Bible. It can be helpful to some who have trouble with the Bible, but I personally would not reccomend it for serious study.
I have no problem with people using the KJV. My problem is when people suggest that using another translation is falling into some sort of Satanic deception. That is, quite frankly, rediculous.
All said in firm Christian charity my friend
Whofan
|
| 3/28/2008 12:28:57 PM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
Understood Whofan. No offense taken. I only have the above information, and also similar recommendations from Calvary Chapel Ministries (of course without the accusations). I have personally heard Chuck Smith recommend the KJV over other bibles.
I would appreciate any links to the info you mention so I could do a little study on my own (one week into a 4 week off rotation with not much to do =). If I find that your view is correct I will remove the video. It's not my intention to mislead anyone.
All in good will Whofan.
[Edited 3/28/2008 12:31:48 PM]
|
| 3/28/2008 12:35:00 PM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
zacman555
Navarre, FL
age: 50
|
This is all a bunch of huey!
The prophecy club is one of the biggest shams out there.
I personally knew one of their speakers who told me first hand you needed to keep your hand on your billfold when talking to their founder.
As to Ms. Riplinger's conclusions, they are more than erroneous. She did these lectures in the 80s and 90s btw.
The 1611 KJV originally contained the apocrapha and has had 10s of thousands of edits due to obvious errors.
The KJV is influenced by both the vulgate and textus receptus. If you would like to tell me how gehenna, hades, and tartarus can all be translated into the same english word hell, which simply meant to conceal or bury in the 17th century, I'm all ears....LOL
Translation are just that, translations. The original languages can be easily studied for those who true interest. Although they don't read as easy, literal translations like Young's are more accurate in many ways. At least they don't translate aion, meaning an age, as forever and ever for example.
Although the KJV is not a bad translation except for some of the obvious and more important issues such as hell and forever, it is no more infallible than other modern translations.
God only reveals the real truths of the bible to the few elect now anyway, so the misunderstanding and delusions between the masses is understandable.
|
| 4/1/2008 2:00:16 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
I'm going to regret this:
"God only reveals the real truths of the bible to the few elect now anyway, so the misunderstanding and delusions between the masses is understandable."
.... ? .... so .... God is purposely blinding the majority of present humanity from seeing His truth?
So you must be one of the very "few" elect chosen by God to understand His truth then?
|
| 4/1/2008 6:06:53 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
zacman555
Navarre, FL
age: 50
|
Capt,
First did I say anything about me being one of the few elect? Not that we should not strive for the high calling, but even Paul stated he pressed on unless by some means after preaching to others he himself might be a castaway. If Paul wasn't going to claim to be one of the elect how can anyone?
Now to answer your question:
* Matthew 22:14 KJV
For many are called, but few are chosen.
* 2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
* 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .
Now, who do you think is being sent strong delusion because they receive not a love of the truth? Pigmy's out in the jungle, or the orthodox Christians who have all different kinds of beliefs? ( and even the ones they do agree on are pagan beliefs from the early centuries of intermingling with the pagan empires)
Bottom line Capt. is this Gail Riplinger lecture is completely ridiculas. At what point is she going to claim the KJV was the real word of God? After how many of the revisions that have taken place to correct obvious errors did it become the word of God.
It's a translation for crying out loud. And no more perfect than the men and women who translated it. This kind of stuff is just a distraction from the real issues of searching for better understanding of the truth IMO.
Best wishes,
Zac
|
| 4/1/2008 8:20:48 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
Great wisdom in this, Zac my man!
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Study what Jesus is saying:
John chapter 12
46: I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48: He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
[Edited 4/1/2008 9:02:48 AM]
|
| 4/1/2008 11:35:10 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
zacman555
Navarre, FL
age: 50
|
Capt.
Believing on Christ encompasses believing He is the Saviour of the entire world. Those that don't believe He will succeed therefore remain in darkness.
Best wishes,
Zac
|
| 4/5/2008 9:19:40 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
lotsafuninpa
Tioga, PA
age: 67
|
Check to see what bible the great Evangelits used--such as
Billy Graham
Billy sunday
Benny Hinn
and pastor Jack Hyles
I just did some research on the history of the bible--It might surprise you to see how it all took place.
My bible is KJV--Thompson Chain reference--I love it
God bless you---lotsafun 
|
| 4/7/2008 9:28:38 AM |
Why is his bible different from yours? |
|
lees224
Cohoes, NY
age: 50
|
try studying from 3 or 4 bibles,you should not be stuck in only 1,they are all interpreted by man,but to study with out only one group of mens idea,and ask God every time to Guide you through and get the ans. to seek through many different mens eyes, gives me a clearer picture, and I guess that might be confusing for some but it helps me get full spectrum most always of the same message.. 
[Edited 4/7/2008 9:29:54 AM]
|