LF: What Version of the Christian Holy Bible Do You read?

Title: What Version of the Christian Holy Bible Do You read?
Source: LF
URL Source: http://hereandnow
Published: Feb 18, 2012
Author: buckeroo
Post Date: 2012-02-18 17:52:56 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 289547
Comments: 449

Assuming you have a Christian Holy Bible of one flavor or another, what version do you read?

As several examples, here are several variations: the New King James Version, New Living Translation, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version and so forth.

The NIV is revisionist history at it's worst, written by satist NWO neocon libtards. The following chart demonstrates just how far they strayed...

Warning: Beware of the Living Bible and the Good News Bible. They are merely Bible paraphrases, not translations. The wording is not true to the original Hebrew and Greek. The scriptures are perverted to support secular Christianity.

King James Bible
(Translation)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Living Bible
(Paraphrase)

Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power.

2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

3 For the policeman does not frighten people who are doing right; but those doing evil will always fear him. So if you don't want to be afraid, keep the laws and you will get along well.

4 The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose.

5 Obey the laws, then, for two reasons: first, to keep from being punished, and second, just because you know you should.

6 Pay your taxes too, for these same two reasons. For government workers need to be paid so that they can keep on doing God's work, serving you.

7 Pay everyone whatever he ought to have: pay your taxes and import duties gladly, obey those over you, and give honor and respect to all those to whom it is due.

Using your comparison chart in your first post between the King James Version (KJV) and the Living Bible (LB), I want you to know that the New King James Version (NKJV) (note: NOT the KJV as in your chart) has the same meaning as the Living Bible (LB). Also, this same idea contained in your chart between Living Bible (LB) King James (KJV) version seems perpetuated all over the many variations that exist.

I do not believe for a moment that the Bible instructs us, "So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow" (LB) or "The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose." (LB) This is total poppycock for the lame brain creating, dull mass lunatics (whom can't think for themselves) submitting to a fuckin' dictator.

I checked the Coptic Church, too. They are the oldest group of "Christians" around even foreshadowing the Catholic Church by several hundreds of years and they use the English translation of the NKJV! Even the Arabic translation (SJV) converts to "submission unto the the Sultans." I don't believe many people understand the intent of Jesus Christ at all. He was a REBEL in his day, that is the reason for his crucifixion.

Like the gov the Coptics try their best to rip you off. The ones running the liquor store are known far and wide for trying to short change their customers.

The Coptics are pretty much centralized in Egypt and have been as much or more victimized through time as any of the Jews. Their first original writings came from Mark (one of the apostles of Christ) in Alexandria.

I was sure there was some subtle humour intended but I am studying the many variations of the Christian Bible right now. I am exceptionally curious about how the passage of Romans 13 has been interpreted in all these variations of English translation.

Jesus of Nazareth was a REBEL not some cheap submissive, humble servant of the government that is represented in all these English Bible translations.

Kings and even religious leaders try to spin to bible and tell us they we have to kiss their asses. Revolutionary preachers taught that "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God". They considered King George to be a false god (idol).

And we wonder HOW America failed? The entire American nation has been blinded into becoming a herd of sheep caged by ravenous wolves ready to strike at any moment. And, at the top of the list are the fucking ministers, pastors, priests and other BS artists that practice their Sunday SATANIC message of BS.

Hondo - I just researched a wee bit about your excellent resource, Harry Stout. I'm buying his book: The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England. As a synopsis of the book:

Definitely a step up from reading the satanic rantings of an Obama worshiper like diva.

Strange as it may seem, the many variations we find with the Christian Holy Bible *IS* the very reason for the many variations of churches and interpretations of Jesus of Nazareth own words.

Church doctrine almost always is based on the Greek or Hebrew text, and seldom if ever translations.

I see. So how did Jerome translate the Greek and Coptic texts at the Library of Alexandria, Egypt for the Vulgate into Latin in circa ~379 CE?

The Bible has many faces. It can be studied as literature and explored as a set of stories and poetic expressions, or viewed as history which tells us of the beginnings and growth of God’s people. For some it is a guide to Archeology, pointing the way to buried civilizations. There is a place and a purpose for each of those aspects, but at the basis of all, the Bible is the Word of God. It is God’s message to a rebelling world of how it can return to Him. It is a love letter from God to us. But do we take this claim seriously? Or are we interested only in one aspect?

The earlier chapters of this book have shown that we can know that God exists, what He is like, how He can overcome evil, that He can perform miracles, and that Jesus is God without ever referring to the Bible as a sacred book. However, it must be said that while these arguments don’t rely on the Bible, they are guided by it. They take the path of reason to reach these conclusions, but they are directed by the revelation. Without the Word of God, there is no guarantee that anyone would ever reach these conclusions. Even if they did, there might not be many who found them, and there is no telling how long it would take or how much error might be included along the way. Also, reason can take us only one step farther. That step leads us to the Scriptures as God’s Word. If we are to have any knowledge of God’s saving grace and love, then we must have the Word of God. The big question is, “Is the Bible really a revelation from God?” That is the question we will try to answer in this chapter.

We know that the Bible came from God for one very simple reason: Jesus told us so. It is on His authority, as the God of the universe, that we are sure that the Bible is the Word of God. He confirmed the Old Testament’s authority in His teaching, and He promised an authoritative New Testament through His disciples. The Son of God Himself assures us that the Bible is the Word of God.

Jesus spoke of the whole Old Testament (Matt. 22:29), its central divisions (Luke 16:16), its individual books (Matt. 22:43; 24:15), its events (19:4–5; Luke 17:27), and even its letters and parts of letters (Matt. 5:18) as having divine authority. He called the Scriptures the Word of God (John 10:35). He said that they had been written by men moved by the Spirit when He said, “David himself said in the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36) and refers to events “spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (Matt. 24:15). In such statements He confirms the authorship of the most often disputed books, like Moses’ writings (Mark 7–10), Isaiah (v. 6), Daniel, and the Psalms. He also refers to the very miracles which critics reject as historical events. He cites the Creation (Luke 11:51), Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4–5), Noah and the Flood (24:37–39), Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 10:12), and Jonah and the great fish (Matt. 12:39–41). He said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the letter of the Law to fail” (Luke 16:17). The fact that He considered the Scripture to be the final authority is seen clearly in His temptations, when He defends himself from Satan’s attacks three times with the phrase, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4ff).

Jesus told His disciples just before He left them, “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:25–26). Jesus added, “When He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come” (16:13). These statements promise that the teachings of Jesus will be remembered and understood, and that additional truths would be given to the apostles so that the church could be established. They set the stage for the apostolic era which began on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff) and continued until the last of the apostles died (John, about a.d. 100).

During this period, the apostles became the agents of the complete and final revelation of Jesus Christ and He continued “to do and teach” through them (Acts 1:1). They were given the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:19) and by their hands did believers receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14–15; 19:1–6). The early church built its doctrines and practices on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). It followed the “apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) and was bound by decisions of the apostolic council (Acts 15). Even though Paul had received his apostleship by a revelation from God, his credentials were confirmed by the apostles in Jerusalem.

Some of the New Testament writers were not apostles, though. How can we explain their authority? They used the apostolic message which was “confirmed to us by those who heard” (Heb. 2:3). Mark worked closely with Peter (1 Peter 5:13); James and Jude were closely associated with the apostles in Jerusalem and were probably Jesus’ brothers; Luke was a companion of Paul (2 Tim. 4:11) who interviewed many eyewitnesses to produce his account (Luke 1:1–4). Paul’s writings are even equated with Scripture by Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16). In each case (with the exception of Hebrews; we don’t know for sure who wrote that book), there is a definite link between the writer and the apostles who gave them information (cf. 2:3).

Now if Jesus, who was God in the flesh and always spoke the truth, said that the Old Testament was the Word of God and that the New Testament would be written by His apostles and prophets as the sole authorized agents for His message, then our entire Bible is proven to be from God. We have it on the best of authority—Jesus Christ Himself.

How is that possible? First, the NT wasn't written in a collective manner with some texts integrated into the canon and others not before Jesus' crucifixion; that even was some 300+ years later. But, just preceding the time of Jerome's synthesis and reproduction of the NT, here comes the Talmud! (circa ~200 CE):

There was no Bible, as a complete Jewish history (OT) was always oral not written and to this very day many Jews reject the Talmud altogether as is pointed out in the video.

There are also huge differences between the Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox versions of the Old Testament.

JW - You are on "TOP" of this thread. You seem to understand that the documentation that we have at our disposal is diverse. This is why there are so many variations in Jewish faith (tons of variations, BTW) as well as variations in the Christian faith (many more tons, BTW).

I have noted that NO two Christians agree as to their faith. The fundamental question is WHY? I strongly believe that the interpretation of the Bible between Christians is because they do not have a common ground for discussion.

No it's not weird it's typical, and just another example of that 'rugged individualism' we love to brag about.

We had methods of maintaining "core" values about God, family and country at that time. And despite, that many people think the founders were Christians ... they were more the following: deists.

I am going to emphatically disagree. Only two, Jefferson and Franklin, we're Deists, and their form of Deism was not at all like today's Deism or atheism. See for yourself.

What did our Founding Fathers have to say? Was America founded by Christians? Was it founded to be a Christian nation?

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.","Give me liberty or give me death. "Patrick Henry of the Constitutional Convention.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation. Part of our commitment should be to raise Old Glory across the nation's flagpoles and http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Founding- Fathers.htmbe grateful we live in a nation committed to these ideals.

I dispute what you are suggesting for several reasons. First, there is a known association of the "closeness" of the local church with community activities in very early colonial America by local leaders and of course they went to a Christian church and were active within local community efforts. To be otherwise, could ensure being ostracized from their relative positions.

But, for the most part most were deists not atheists (as you associate the term) ... they simply didn't believe in an organized religion at the level of increasing "hell fire&damnation." They believed in a creator but it did not mean that the creator would intervene in our day-to-day lives much less with breaking away from Britain.

In fact, within the Declaration of Independence (written by TJ) Jefferson's inclusion of the slavery issue was completely removed by the Continental Congress. There was no consensus of or about a Christian concept in that exclusion in the concept of slavery. Jefferson threw EVERYTHING at King George ... yet the adoption of the DoI doesn't indicate one iota of "faith" or a "religion" certainly not from a Christian perspective.

The founders and framers were fulling aware of the perils of a Christian theocracy and had they wanted to form one we might has well have stayed on as colonies under British rule.

The word "Religion" as used by the Founders meant denomination. You might not be aware of it, but. Several states had their own denomination as late as 1820.

And this is important to note, the early Americas came here seeking freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion. The colonies had state churches.

Furthermore, the Founders had CONTEMPT for atheism. Does Franklin sound like a modern Deist?

Benjamin Franklin in a letter to the President of the first Constitutional Congress, 1789: " I have lived a long time, Sir, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that " except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and hat one or more Clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service." speech to Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787 , America's God and Country, William Federer, pp.247-248

As it turned out, after the convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), the Congress implemented Franklin's recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one of the House and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 apiece. This practice continues today, posing no threat to the first Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote the Amendment.

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration, US Minister to England and France, oldest Founding Father: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion…and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others ancient or modern." America's God and Country, William Federer, p.251

The founders and framers all had a variety of beliefs, that is for certain. But if they wanted to found a theocracy similar to that of Britain they certainly could have done so. Instead they used it as the example they didn't want to imitate.

Baloney, where do you think we got our 3 branches of government from? Madison found it in the Bible.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” [Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]

"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land." James Madison

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." James Madison - America's Providential History p. 93.

"While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786). This can be found in numerous documentary histories and other resources. The religion of divine origin was obviously Christianity, of which Madison said he was convinced.

"Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it." James Madison response to an essay/sermon by Reverend Jasper Adams. Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

"Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." James Madison, ca. 1789, cited in Gaillard Hunt, James Madison and Religious Liberty (Washington: American Historical Association, Government Printing Office, 1902), p. 166.

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773) • In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. “ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government' far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the 10 commandments."

So that must mean the founders should have created a theocracy, because one found inspiration in the Bible.