Just bought the King James Bible.

[sky]

Originally Posted by janielee

Beautiful, beautiful, I must say.
Thank you so much for this link, dear one.

Your welcome

I looked into the history of the KJB. For anyone else interested in its context (publishing) https://www.history.com/news/king-ja...e-most-popular

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Honza

In which section of the Bible?

You will find it at Matthew 6:9-13 and another version can be found at Luke 11:2-4.

[Found Goat]

Sola Scriptura is for me a beautiful and abiding motto; a term meaning that a person need only the Scriptures to know the Word of God, and need not an intermediary, that is, a self-appointed priesthood or governing body, to help interpret Holy Writ -- nay, only the Holy Spirit for its more obscure passages to be made understandable.

Yet with countless Bible translations in existence, one might wonder if all of these are equally valid. My own opinion is that only a very few are reliable and based on the Received Text.

It is commonly understood that William Tyndale's 1526 New Testament is as close to being textually faithful to the original scribal manuscripts, with the KJV of 1611 considered equally trustworthy. Old English, however, isn't to everyone's liking or knowledge. Still, so long as a modern translation keeps to a strict interlinear rendering of the ancient Hebrew and Greek source manuscripts, a la Tyndale's (in the case of the latter), the reader can be assured of transcriptional fidelity, it is reasonable to assume.

The importance of Bible translation cannot be stressed enough, I feel; especially within this postmodern age of so many watered-down versions available to choose from; those which utilize a loose 'thought-for-thought' approach to translation, in effect taking liberty with the original meaning of Hebrew and Greek language, to the point of their completely altering the master copy if you will, via revision upon linguistic revision, using the justification for this in claiming to want to make the Bible more palatable to modern and liberal-minded readers.

The history surrounding the King James Version, in particular, is quite interesting, and full of intrigue; one involving two pro-papal scholars named Westcott & Hort, whose collaborative efforts had the intention of wanting to discredit the KJV, in league as they were with Roman ecclesiastical authorities; this, thought to have been part of a Jesuitical, academic attack on the Received Text cherished by the Protestant Reformers.

Since Westcott & Hort, various translation committees have gone about publishing their own Bibles, editions of which are centered on the dubious scholarship of said duo, if not to consciously distort the Word via a 'thought-for-thought' linguistic updating, then as a subtle means to reflect their own doctrinal biases (e.g. John 1:1; Luke 23:43).

One Bible translation I myself read and recommend -- one based on and aside from the original KJV -- is the English Standard Version (ESV). (Whereas, I personally would stay clear of any translation with the phrase 'New World' in its title, if only because of their curiously being only one word shy of NWO.)

[Honza]

Very interesting. Thank you Found Goat.

[keiw1]

One Bible translation I myself read and recommend -- one based on and aside from the original KJV -- is the English Standard Version (ESV). (Whereas, I personally would stay clear of any translation with the phrase 'New World' in its title, if only because of their curiously being only one word shy of NWO.)[/quote]


New world translation--The only translators out of love and respect for Gods will, to put his name back in the 7000 spots God willed it to be. Condemned by the ones who outright refuse to support Gods will and put his name back. Should seem very strange as to why they would condemn Gods will. God inspired his name in those spots because he wants it there. It was removed by satans will to mislead and he gets his will supported in every translation that refuse to put Gods name back.

New world translation ? Does anyone use that ?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Found Goat

Sola Scriptura

The history surrounding the King James Version, in particular, is quite interesting, and full of intrigue; one involving two pro-papal scholars named Westcott & Hort, whose collaborative efforts had the intention of wanting to discredit the KJV, in league as they were with Roman ecclesiastical authorities; this, thought to have been part of a Jesuitical, academic attack on the Received Text cherished by the Protestant Reformers.

Westcot & Hort were Anglicans and their work is considered by some to be a complement with other Protestant Reformers contributions.

I have a copy of their 1881 text. There are about 5 or more texts used for Biblical translations and the 'Received Text' used for the King James is inclusive of that group. Incidentally, the Westcott & Hort text uses manuscripts that were not available for the 'Received Text'. This is also true of the other texts.

[sky]

[quote=keiw1


New world translation--The only translators out of love and respect for Gods will, to put his name back in the 7000 spots God willed it to be. Condemned by the ones who outright refuse to support Gods will and put his name back.[/QUOTE]



The Book that should 'Unite' yet causes so much 'Division'. Every Denomination declaring that their translation is the only 'Truth' and creating yet even more division.Take the good and leave the rest behind from whatever translation you choose to read, apply the 'Teachings' to your daily life and leave others to do the same, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Imo only.....

[BigJohn]

If you look at the various texts used to translate the various Bibles, it appears all of the texts use God's name but for whatever reason, most translators seem to ignore that. What keiw1 writes, does seem to have a considerable amount of credence.