Changes to the Word of God Seen in other Bible Versions

[biblelesson]

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.

What do you think?

I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:

Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

[johnthebaptist]

5 hours ago, biblelesson said:

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.

What do you think?

I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:

Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

But how do you know the King James Version is without mistakes?

[biblelesson]

1 minute ago, johnthebaptist said:

But how do you know the King James Version is without mistakes?

Because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit which, shows me that KJV best describes the Spiritual truth of Christ.

[Deborah_]

5 hours ago, biblelesson said:

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.

What do you think?
 

The people who "made the changes" were the scribes who copied the manuscripts in the early centuries after Christ. They didn't set out to "change God's word"; they simply made errors. Sometimes they missed words out; sometimes they added them.

"Newer" Bible versions are based on older texts because these are believed to be more accurate (i.e. closer to what was originally written). So we should think of the new versions as pre-dating the KJV, not the other way round!

I personally stay away from the KJV and only read new versions.

[johnthebaptist]

9 minutes ago, biblelesson said:

Because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit which, shows me that KJV best describes the Spiritual truth of Christ.

But the meanings of some of its words has changed since it was written 410 years ago.

[biblelesson]

46 minutes ago, johnthebaptist said:

But the meanings of some of its words has changed since it was written 410 years ago.

Ok, I see!  But there are many versions of the KJV that I did not think changed around the words, based on the original KJV 410 years ago.  But the other versions, the NIV, and others that came later is where I see some words changed, and even whole verses omitted.  Which are you are referring to?

Edited September 5, 2021 by biblelesson

[Hopefully]

The Lords Prayer was changed  recently.
 

“The Italian Roman Missal had translated the penultimate verse, "and lead us not into temptation” (“e non ci indurre in tentazione”). This has now been changed to “and do not abandon us to temptation” (“e non abbandonarci alla tentazione”).

The reason given for this was that the older translation gave the revolting impression that God tempts us to sin. Pope Francis' desire to clear up confusion is typical of his  pastoral emphasis. But what this has led to, is a serious and entirely unnecessary error.”
 

Article continues here https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/where-pope-francis-went-wrong-with-his-new-translation-of-the-lords-prayer/2181.article

I believe Gods Sprit helps us discern what he wants to teach us even if people mess with the Bible.

 

[Waggles]

13 minutes ago, biblelesson said:

Maybe I have misunderstood you, but based on what you I think you are saying, what gives us the right to make changes to God's word to accommodate us?  

What gives the right to scholars and translators is the availability of numerous more manuscripts held in many libraries (along with the Dead Sea Scrolls) that were not available to the KJV translators in the 16th century. 

The KJV is full of errors - mostly minor, but there are some wrong verses in there;

1John 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 
7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 
8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.  [KJV]

1John 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 
7  And it is the Spirit that witnesseth, because the Spirit is the truth. 
8  Because the witnessing ones are three: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. [NENT]

and 

Deuteronomy 32:8  When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9  For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.   [KJV]

Deuteronomy 32:8  When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. 
9  But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.  [ESV]

Edited September 5, 2021 by Waggles

[biblelesson]

Just now, biblelesson said:

59 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

The people who "made the changes" were the scribes who copied the manuscripts in the early centuries after Christ. They didn't set out to "change God's word"; they simply made errors. Sometimes they missed words out; sometimes they added them.

"Newer" Bible versions are based on older texts because these are believed to be more accurate (i.e. closer to what was originally written). So we should think of the new versions as pre-dating the KJV, not the other way round!

I personally stay away from the KJV and only read new versions.

 

Think about what you are saying!  I can see if you were born back then and had access to those "more accurate texts" as you say, then I you can make this statement.  But you cannot!  You said, "the newer bible versions are....believed to be more accurate... and to think of the new versions as pre-dating the KJV."  You cannot, absolutely, as a matter of fact, make this statement. 

 

[johnthebaptist]

15 minutes ago, biblelesson said:

Ok, I see!  But there are many versions of the KJV that I did not think changed around the words, based on the original KJV 410 years ago.  But the other versions, the NIV, and others that came later is where I see some words changed, and even whole verses omitted.  Which are you are referring to?

I'm not talking about changing around words. The English language has evolved over the years, and the meanings of some words has changed since the original King James Version was printed in 1611. Here is an article about that: 

https://www.compellingtruth.org/KJV-words.html