free bibles

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In reply to Steven Hall, I prefer the King James Version (KJV) myself,
but I am well aware of both the difficulty of some in understanding the
early English and also of some relatively minor translational errors. I
can show every doctrinal point necessary to salvation as the first
Apostles preached it in virtually any translation, because God has
indeed protected His Word. Even the notoriously inaccurate New World
Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can be effectively be used to
show them Acts 4:12 and other key doctrines. The Catholic translations
can also likewise be used in witnessing to them.

One thing we need to be aware of is that there are very minor
translational errors in the KJV caused by the times and place in which
it was translated. If, in 1611, the translators had truly translated the
Greek word "baptizo", much error in many churches could have been
prevented, but to have tanslated the true meaning, "buried, as in a
liquid" would have been considered as a heresy worthy of death by the
church hierarchy during King James' Catholic reign and the KJV might
never have been allowed to be published. The church of that day
practiced what they called "baptism" by what the Greeks would have
called "cheo"-ing (pouring) or even more commonly by "rhantizo"-ing
(sprinkling). [People who have been sprinkled have not been really
baptized, but rhantized and those over whom water was poured were
cheo-ed!]

Also, the Greek "Xrostos" (pronounced "Chirostos" or "Kristos") was not
translated 
Anointed One or Messiah, but was simply changed to an English
pronunciation.

I have found the following fault with the NIV: In John 3:16, the
translators changed "only begotten son" to "one and only Son" which
effectively does away with "Beloved, Now are we the sons of God..." and
other verses referring to other "sons of God", It also reduces the
significance of the impregnation of Mary by God's Spirit, the Holy Ghost
as is described in Luke 1 by the angel Gabriel. You can adopt your "one
and only son," but if you impregnate your wife, you beget a son. He is
your begotten son.

Later in the same verse, the phrase "should not perish" is changed to
Baptist/Calvinist theology and reads "shall not perish." There is a
world of difference in the meanings! The original Greek word used is
permissive. It means "may" or "ought". Thus, the KJV is quite accurate
here and the Bible NIV deliberately [I contacted Internatiuonal Bible
Society, the NIV translators and they replied that they intentionally
used the strong, positive "shall".] changed the meaning to fit their
theology. The real Bible teaching is that we are without excuse if we
perish because of God's love for us, but it is possible, while the NIV
says it is impossible to perish if we believe.

Please, never take my word for anything, but study the Word of God in
context for yourself and see "...if these things be so."

Rev. Samuel M. Smith