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: 272742
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.

I am always dismayed when I talk to American fundamentalists, who have no idea where the New Testament came from.

In the 300 hundred years after Christ was crucified, a lot of Christian groups sprung up in the Middle East, with widely different views of Christ's deity and humanity.

There wasn't any New Testament. Some groups used word of mouth. Others collected various combinations of writings by the Apostles and others.

In the early 4th century, leaders of the Western Church (Rome) and Eastern Church (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) decided Christianity needed an official version and a set of writings that would support it.

During the 100 year process, there were many disagreements on what should be included. The four Gospels were universally accepted. Other books were hotly contested. The disputed books included Hebrews, James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2d Peter, Jude, Revelations, the Shepard of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Epistle of Clement.

Finally in 396 AD, the new Testament was declared finalized. However there were still bibles produced in the east that contained Barnabas, but not Revelations for sometime after the decree.

The decisions made about what to include in the New Testament are documented in the writings of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. Catholics and Orthodox look to those writings in addition to the New Testament because they tell why these particular books were chosen to be in the New Testament.

A few years ago I sat on a plane next to a fundamentalist preacher, who had his own unaffiliated church. He said flat out that what is wrong with American Protestantism is that they don't have any ties to history. Their congregations don't have any knowledge about the rich history of Christianity and how our current broad Christian views actually came into being. That's very sad.

You have obviously been talking to the wrong people. The books of the New Testament were complete prior to the end of the First Century.

“You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the Good Shepherd in the Gospel of John; they could hear it only muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thas miomxed in with a lot of other things. “When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.

“For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, ‘Let’s get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.’ I would say, ‘Thank you for nothing! We knew it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon.” Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D.

Paul joins OT and NT as both Scripture
Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18 joins both Old and New Testament references, and calls them Scripture.

1 Timothy 5:18 (ESV) For the Scripture says, *“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, *“The laborer deserves his wages.” Deuteronomy 25:4 (ESV)
[4] *“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Luke 10:7 (ESV)
[7] And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for *the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

B.) When were the individual documents selected for inclusion into the official Christian Bible (the New Testament)?

Prior to 396 AD, there were a lot of very, very different collections of writings that circulated among Christian. The Four Gospels were universally accepted. Many of the other books, that I name above, were NOT.

I am very aware of the differencee between when the NT books were completed and the canon. The books of the NT were all completed prior to 100 AD. Several of the early church fathers wrote what books were part of the NT long before 396 AD, and they didn't need a church council to tell them what was canon, and neither do I. If you feel differently that's your issue, not mine.

There is no point in having a conversation with someone who is too stubborn to learn.