The revisionists Bibles were made to help people be able to understand the Bible. Old English is very difficult to read and to understand. NIV & NKJ are written in more modern English.
2007-04-01 21:46:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Julia B 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Actually, the so-called "revisionment" that took place with the translation of the KJV into the NIV wasn't. The NIV was translated from EXACTLY the same languages that the KJV was. That's why the meaning in both versions is exact.
As for the Nicean councils, have you read the books that they decided were heretical? I have, and I've also read about them; how old they were and who wrote them. I understand completely why they weren't included in the canon.
2007-04-02 04:51:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I really look down on the Unisex approach to God
any copyrights would be the translation -
as the original texts are in Hebrew and Greek
The King James was a milestone Bible that lasted for 200 years before being challenged - and they only had 5,000 words in the English language - today we use 25,000
their manuscripts were 300-400 years old - ours date back to the first century - with fewer copying errors (i.e. crossed a t instead of dotting an i) yeah - I'll take a donut and coffee!
So the Revised Standard and New American Standard are my favorites
And I laugh at these books of Enoch and Judas - what will people come up with next for their 15 minutes of fame.
back to the question of revision - one's theology can 'change' and revise the Bible -
e.g. - baptiso in Greek - means immersion
BUT - baptism for King James (chop your head off if you disagree) was to dip a rose in water and sprinkle the candidate to be baptised. SO the word was transliterated
to baptism instead of the correct translation - immersion
Another checkpoint in a Bible is John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In one cult's king james bible (note the lower case letters - I didn't buy that copy) - it reads "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god."
again - notice the difference in lower case letters., and the inclusion of the word 'a'
hmmmmmmm - so how do you revise - - - - - - -
be very careful, O Theophilus,
blessings
2007-04-02 05:02:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by tom4bucs 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I have done a lot of research on the history of the Bible and the revisionism that has gone on is just one of many reason that I do not consider the Bible reliable. BTW, the most recent one and probably the biggest one is the Revised Standard Version of the 19th century. All popular modern Bible versions, with the exception of the King James Version, are based on the Revised Version.
2007-04-02 04:50:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wisdom in Faith 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
What revisionment?
Bible translations must accomodate changes in the vernacular, as well as new manuscripts, advances in textual criticism, and new insights into the use of idiomatic phraseology in the original languages.
The Nicene Council did not remove any part of the Bible! On the contrary, they included every scrap of Scripture that was read publicly in any corner of the Roman Empire, and even included a few Scriptures that were almost universally rejected (like Hebrews and Revelation). Even then, when they printed up copies of the actual Bibles, they added even more books (like 2 Esdras, 3&4 Maccabees, Hermas, the Epistles of Ignatius, etc.) into the binding to fill out extra pages.
2007-04-02 04:46:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by NONAME 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I know Zondervan owns the copyright to the NIV (New International Version). They don't tend to admit revision (despite often using words like revised) but rather say that the new version is a truer translation.
Seems logical, right? Each time they "fix" it, it gets closer to the original.
This is done by people who never played telephone as a child.
2007-04-02 04:46:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dan X 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
The NIV is not a revised version of the KJV. They are two seperate english translations of the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic bible.
2007-04-02 04:42:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Scott L 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I look into the most essential of the Bible. That is the teaching of the most central Figure in the Bible, i.e. Jesus Christ.
With the help of the Holy Spirit one can still reach the most basic teaching to be the foundation of his faith, that is the word of Jesus!
No confusion can be generated by the revisions!
2007-04-02 05:38:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by amsops 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Feel free to right your own ( the JW's and the Mormons do). No there are no copyrights ( that is regarding the origenal text, there may be copyright in a specific translation and you will have to look up the laws of your own country to be clear.)
2007-04-02 04:44:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Zarathustra 5
·
0⤊
0⤋