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: 272241
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.

The Greek Orthodox Church has recently release a new English translation of the New Testament called the Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible.

I read their website. They claim either the KJV or RSV version. Here is what they say:

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The version that the Orthodox Church uses has now been translated to English.

Paul is being crystal clear here: we should consult our "conscience," i.e. our Christian conscience, according to the true Word of God, in order to judge the deeds of those rulers and whether they are set "for good" or for evil among us. If they are "for good," then tribute is indeed due. If they are for evil, then "fear" is due. Now, hand on heart, are your rulers true followers of God?

Who is our ultimate ruler? Who should our earthly ministers follow and obey? Jesus Christ said it clearly: "I am the Alpha and the Omega." Christ is the beginning and the end.

Only He rules. His ministers are but those following His Way and functioning by His example. To them, our tribute is due. Don’t deal with the rest.

Thanks for the commentary and critique and although I linked it into my database I want to find Romans 13 in a similar way that hondo showed in his post#1.

hardcopy for fifty bucks to learn about their official translation? If it is a recent work, why is it NOT online to buy at a fraction of the price?

You can buy a paperback version on-line for $13.99 at Amazon or Barnes and Nobel.

Here is some more Christian theology for your consideration (this is jwpegler's view -- which has its roots in 2,000 year old Orthodox Christianity, a bit of Lutheranism, and some personal interpretations as well):

Is the Bible the "inspired" Word of God or the "inerrant" Word of God? In other words, did God dictate word-for-word what the authors of the New Testament books wrote or did God just inspire them to what to write what God was communicating?

Paul wrote a lot of letters to various peoples to convince them to accept Christ.

The Roman Empire was the major political authority of the day. Paul tried to convince them that accepting Christ would not endanger their political authority. (Romans 13: It's okay to pay taxes, just accept Christ.) It worked. The Romans did accept Christ and it changed the history of the world.

Paul also wrote the "Letters to the Hebrews" to try to convince them that Christianity was an extension of their historical beliefs, so they should accept Christ. In this case, it didn't work. Most Hebrews rejected Christ. (Dispensationalist Christians love to point to Hebrews as evidence that we need to kiss the Likud Party's ass to be saved. They don't just don't understand the historical context of Paul's writings.)

Traditional Christianity believes that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, not the inerrant world of God. American dispensationalists believe otherwise.

Paul was a salesman for Christ. Like all great salesmen, he tailored his message to his audience.

The written Bible (The Old Testament) sprang from the Jewish Tankh and the forerunner of the Tanakh came from the Jewish Talmud comprised of Palestinian an Babylonian oral traditions for hundreds of years.

When I was in a military class, there was an experiment on oral communications wherein there was a set of mutually exclusive participants comprised of four separate students, for notation: s1, s2, s3, and s4 where s1 was permitted to take his time and read some fairely minor details from a documents script. Once s1 completed his reading, the documented script was removed for the remainder of the exercise. s2 was invited to to come into the classroom. s1 then orally delivered the data to s2 with some fairely accurate reconstruction and then asked s2 if he was satisfied with the data. When s2 assured s1 that he was confident with the details, s1 was removed and now, s2 delivered the data to s3. Here was the main change in data and was very inaccurate. Once s2 was confident with the data (of course) s2 left the experiment and s3 came in .... and so on with s4.

Now, s1 returns and retrieves the data from s4. The data was completely distorted and stripped of details that were very important within the experiment and ALL new data was delivered. This experiment categorically PROVES that the dissemination of information from one person to another through an oral approach can yield tragic results in the real world.

So, let's go back to the the Jewish Talmud which was the oral tradition information dissemination of the Jews from generation to generation, in fact about 1500 years from Abraham/Sarah (circa ~2000 BCE) to the fall of Israel by the Babylonians and the resultant exile of the Jews from Israel to Babylon (circa ~500 BCE).

When the Jews came back to Israel (circa ~500 BCE), they also brought back some interesting ideas from Sumerian/Babylonian religious thought that I think merged some of the oral traditions of the Jews into some more refinement concerning their monotheism, such as designing a written word, the Tanakh (circa ~400)

But thousands of years elapsed before the Tanukh! Data handed down from cow herder to sheep herder begat this... begat that ... begat here ... begat there! Don't you think that there would be inaccuracies of the earlier generations through all that oral traditions? I do.

As for the New Testament, we are confronted by the same situation although the Vulgate was designed (circa ~ 400 CE) just a few generations away (relatively speaking) from the Crucifixion of Christ (circa ~30 CE)

Now, the Apostles traveled widely all over the Mediterranean area. All were crucified or put to death but John. He died about circa ~100 CE. It is important to know that because of the wide and varied traveling they independently pursued that differences occurred with the many early Christian Churches. Indeed, Mark established his domain in Alexandria Egypt and his foundations established the Copts whom created the GREATEST libraries around. But, none of their individual works or deeds were unified except through the Holy Roman Church, primarily via the Vulgate by Jerome whom studied in Alexandria and translated many of the canons later accepted in to the Vulgate.

But, back to your question, it is obvious to me that we are dealing with fallible people separated by lengthy trips and as a result many variations in traditions.

So, I agree with your view about Paul, as well. And any of the original texts are interpretations, although I would wager fairely accurate.

“Governing authorities” (cf. also NRSV; NIV; NASB; NJB) translates a phrase that is central to the interpretation of the paragraph. Like our “authority,” exousia refers broadly in secular and biblical Greek to the possession and exercise of (usually legitimate) power. As an abstract noun, the word usually denotes the concept of authority. Jesus’ well-known words in Matt. 28:18 use the word in a typical way: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” But the word can also have a concrete application, in which case exousia denotes a sphere over which authority is exercised (e.g., a “dominion”; cf. Luke 23:7) or the being who exercises authority.18 The latter is clearly how the word is used in Rom. 13:1. The NT refers to two different kinds of “beings” who exercise authority: a person in government (a “ruler”)19 and spiritual “powers.”20 A few scholars have argued that Paul may be referreferring at least partially to spiritual beings in Rom. 13:1.21 But this is unlikely.22 As parallel terms in this context suggest (cf. “rulers” [archontes] in v. 3), the “authorities” occupy positions in secular government. Paul qualifies them as “governing” in order to indicate that they are in positions of superiority over the believers he is addressing.23 Paul calls on believers to “submit”24 to governing authorities rather than to “obey” them; and Paul’s choice of words may be important to our interpretation and application of Paul’s exhortation. To submit is to recognize one’s subordinate place in a hierarchy, to acknowledge as a general rule that certain people or institutions have “authority” over us. In addition to governing authorities (cf. also Tit. 3:1), Paul urges Christians to submit to their spiritual leaders (1 Cor. 16:16) and to “one another” (Eph. 5:21); and he calls on Christian slaves to submit to their masters (Tit. 2:9), Christian prophets to submit to other prophets (1 Cor. 14:32), and Christian wives to submit to their husbands (1 Cor. 14:34 [?]; Eph. 5:24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5).25 It is this general posture toward government that Paul demands here of Christians. And such a posture will usually demand that we obey what the governing authorities tell us to do. But perhaps our submission to government is compatible with disobedience to government in certain exceptional circumstances. For heading the hierarchy of relations in which Christians find themselves is God; and all subordinate “submissions” must always be measured in relationship to our all-embracing submission to him.26

ESV|°Let every person be subject to the governing authorities °. For there is no authority except °from God °, and those that exist have been °instituted by God. °Therefore whoever resists the °authorities resists what God has °appointed , and those who °resist will °incur judgment °. For rulers °are not a terror °to good conduct , but °to bad . °Would you °have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is °good, and °you will °receive his approval, °for he is God’s servant °for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword °in vain . °For he is °the servant of God , an °avenger who carries out God’s wrath °on the wrongdoer. Therefore °one must be in subjection , not only °to avoid God’s wrath but also °for the sake of conscience. °For because of this you also °pay taxes, for the authorities are °ministers of God , °attending to °this very thing . °Pay to all what °is owed to them : °taxes to whom taxes are owed , °revenue to whom revenue is owed , °respect to whom respect is owed , °honor °to whom honor is owed . 49.7% difference

AMP|°LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities °. For there is no authority except °from God °[by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist °do so by °God’s appointment . °Therefore he who °resists and sets himself up against the °authorities resists what God has °appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who °resist will bring down judgment °upon themselves °[receiving the penalty due them]. For °civil authorities are not a terror °to [people of] good conduct , but °to [ those °of] bad behavior . °Would you °have no dread of °him who is in authority? Then do what is right and °you will °receive his approval and commendation . For he is God’s servant °for your good. But if you do wrong, [you should dread him and] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant °to execute His wrath °( punishment , vengeance) on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject , °not only °to avoid God’s wrath and escape punishment , but also °as a matter of principle and for the sake of conscience. °For this same reason you pay taxes, for [ the civil authorities ] are °official servants under God , °devoting themselves to attending to °this very service . °Render to all men their dues. [Pay] taxes to whom taxes are due , °revenue to whom revenue is due , °respect to whom respect is due , °and honor °to whom honor is due . 55% difference

NASB95|°Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities °. For there is no authority except °from God, and those which °exist °are established by God. °Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the °ordinance of God °; and °they who °have opposed will °receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers °are not a cause of fear for °good behavior , but for °evil . Do you want to °have no fear of °authority? °Do what is °good and °you will °have praise from the same; °for it is °a minister of God to °you for good. But if you do °what is evil , be afraid °; for °it does not bear the sword for nothing °; for it is °a minister of God , an °avenger who brings wrath °on the °one who practices evil . Therefore °it is necessary to °be in subjection , not only because of °wrath, but also °for conscience ’ sake . °For because of this you also °pay taxes, for °rulers are °servants of God , °devoting themselves to °this very thing . °Render to all what °is due them : °tax to whom tax is due ; °custom to whom custom ; °fear to whom fear ; °honor °to whom honor. 55% difference

Nice definitive explanation. How come it does not take into account the issues that Paul was confronting with Rome from on a historical basis in order to arrive at the explanation? I have been reading "Romans: A Shorter Commentary" by C. E. B Cranfield and 13:1-7 are not what you think from a general or broadview position. In fact, I find your discussion further PROOF of the dolts that read and interpret the scriptures as reason NOT to read their ideas other than in a mocking sort of way.

The story of the ancient world is recorded by several historians of old, such as Homer, Josephus, Tacitus, Xenophon, Herodotus—called “the father of history,” and Thucydides, who is credited as being one of the most trustworthy of ancient sources. All of them suffer in comparison to the historical pinpoint accuracy of Luke.

Luke was undeniably brilliant, possessing remarkable literary abilities and a deep knowledge of the Greek language. He was the only non-Jewish author of the Bible. Yet he wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else—28 percent. He was a physician and a scientist. He was a writer and a medical missionary. He has proved himself a historian of first rank. Here he tells us that before writing his Gospel, he did the work of an investigative journalist, recording his findings in an orderly manner based on careful investigation: “It seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (

With that in mind, remember that Luke painstakingly and confidently described the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in his Gospel, chapters 23 and 24; and he repeatedly made reference to the Resurrection in the book of Acts.

"Of all the writers in the New Testament, Luke was the one who knew better than any of them, from his own medical experience, that it was utterly impossible for a dead body to come to life again by its own power. He was also a man who would have no faith in such a great doctrine as the resurrection of Christ, were it based upon a vision, a hallucination, mental excitement, or the blowing of the wind, or the rattling of a window. It was the conviction of this scientist and scholar, true Grecian and true Christian, that the Lord manifested himself to his disciples in many proofs." To reject the Resurrection, you have to disregard the demonstrated reliability of one of the foremost historians of the first century, a man who has been proven accurate even in the minutia of his narrative. How accurate was Luke's historical record? He tied everything into history and gave us historical anchors all along the way, both in his Gospel and Acts. His historical pegs have proven accurate even in minute points. For example, notice the way he began chapter 2: those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register” (Luke 2:1–3).

Luke did not just say that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem. He said they traveled there because of a census instituted by Caesar Augustus and that this particular census occurred while a man named Quirinius was governor of Syria. A hundred years ago, critics had a field day with that statement, finding no evidence in history to suggest that Caesar ever issued such a decree. Furthermore (critics charged) there was nothing to suggest that Quirinius was ever governor of Syria at the time prescribed by Luke. Then a series of discoveries were made. Sir William Ramsay, the Scottish archaeologist, dug up first-century documents showing that the Roman Empire conducted a regular taxpaying census every fourteen years and that this system originated in the days of Caesar Augustus. Another document was found in Egypt, an edict of G. Vibius Maximus written on papyrus, describing the procedure used in such a census, directing taxpayers to return to their ancestral towns to register. Another inscription discovered by Ramsay in Antioch showed that with brief interruptions, a man named Quirinius functioned as military governor in Syria from 12 b.c. to a.d. 16.

Notice in the next chapter, Luke 3, how meticulously Luke nails down his historical references: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1–2)

Sound like misty legend and fabricated fable? Anything but! Luke tacks John’s ministry to the wall of history using six different pins. John the Baptist appeared when (1) Tiberius Caesar was in his fifteenth year of rule; (2) Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea; (3) Herod was tetrarch of Galilee; (4) Herod’s brother Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis; (5) Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene; and (6) Annas and Caiaphas were sharing the office of high priest. Most of these facts are easy to verify, but a couple of them caused problems. A hundred years ago, critics were attacking Luke’s reference to Lysanias, saying, “The only Lysanias mentioned in history was killed in 36 b.c., sixty years before John the Baptist.” But the critics were stilled when archaeologists excavated an inscription near Damascus, stating that a man named Lysanias was indeed tetrarch of Abilene at the time mentioned by Luke. The skeptics also made hay with Pontius Pilate. For most of modern history his name has been absent on every historical document we have from the ancient world. Critics charged that Pilate was a fabrication. But a stone I have personally seen and took a picture of was excavated in Caesarea. It has the name Pontius Pilate plainly engraved for all the world to see. He was governor of Judea during the very time given by Luke, and he was headquartered at Caesarea.

I mentioned earlier how William Ramsay traveled to the Middle East to disprove Luke’s historical references and how, to his great surprise, he found the writings of Luke accurate in their tiniest details. This is even more remarkable when we consider that every other historian in the ancient world—men like Polybius, Quintilian, Xenophon, Josephus, and even Thucydides—did not hesitate to misrecord the facts to suit their own purposes.

Your entire post is a KEEPER. That was brilliant and to the point and I thank you. Did you write that post or was it "lifted" from some obscure out-of-the-way remote location of the Internet?

Now, we are getting somewhere! The history of the Jews/Rome (circa ~67 BCE) is the crux of the New Testament. Prior to 67BCE, there were Essenes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. After Pompeii's conquest of Syria/Judea/Israel something amazing happened: a new Jewish sect rose up against the Pharisees and the Romans. That was the fourth group: the Zealots.

When the Zealots rose up and attacked the Romans because of TAXATION, the Zealots lost time and again (circa ~4 CE) but this continual conflict created a blood lust against the Jews.

Are you aware of that? You see, the Pharisees and the Sadducees basically permitted the Romans to co-exist and this attitude further created the conflicts in religion and politics by the Zealots. The Essenes appear to be nearly aloof of this situation with the exception of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. This is important stuff from a historical perspective.

Yes, I am aware of theses groups. That said, there is nothing to indicate either Jesus or the Baptist were members of either group.

They were Jews, correct? Just so you know, the Zealots were centralized in Galilee ... guilt by association with Jesus and associates? Hmmmm.