I have been a Christian for 20 years. For over 18 years I primarily used the NIV translation but during a six year period in which I taught an adult Sunday School class, I used a myriad of translations picking from them the one that best drove the point of my lesson home. This is basically the same thing we see from most modern pulpits today.
While I’m somewhat reticent to submit this posting, as I know it will alienate some. Actually it already has although I’m not sure why. After all, we each have a right to our own opinions and you will not find any condemnation within this text towards those who do not agree with me. Nonetheless, I find myself compelled to submit this so I can quit trying to explain myself, but rather, just point people here should they happen to care for my opinion. Why should they? Good question… most probably don’t. So, please bear in mind that I’m not trying to start a debate with anyone; I’m just sharing my opinion with full recognition that yours probably differs. I realize that I’m swimming upstream here.
About two years ago I started using the King James Authorized Version 1611 and have since abandoned all of the modern translations for several reasons, primarily because they do not flow from the Textus Receptus. Essentially there are two basic lines of manuscripts; one came out of Alexandria—that’s in Egypt by the way—and one came from Antioch. I believe the Alexandrian line of manuscripts to be corrupt from the very beginning… which, by the way, is where the Catholic bible originates. The additional books in the Catholic bible are part of the Alexandrian line of manuscripts. Having learned of this, I’ve come to trust the line of manuscripts from Antioch (the Textus Receptus), for one, because they were first called Christians at Antioch. The first missionary journeys poured from Antioch and anytime Antioch is mentioned in the Bible it is always referred to in a positive light. The King James AV1611 Bible stems from the Antiochan line of manuscripts.
I honestly believe that God had his hand in the AV1611 translation, for reasons which are too great in length to address in a single posting. I do not believe that God’s hand is in the seemingly endless “bibles of the year” which continue to pour out from various publishers whose primary goal is to make money.
The bottom line is that one has to conclude whether or not God, having given us His word, would have bothered to preserve His word. Apparently the bible scholars don’t think so because they seem to believe that, just because they know a little Greek or Hebrew, they somehow have greater insight into what God really meant to say. I find that rather audacious as it carries with it the clear and obvious implication that God was incapable of preserving His word in plain English. It’s a sad commentary that the Christian community, who profess that the bible is the word of God, doesn’t even believe that themselves. If they did, why would they have the audacity to think that they know what God said better than what God actually said? How can we presume to put words in HIS mouth? Just think how upset we get when people put words in our mouth. I wonder what God thinks about it?
How is it that Christians today don’t even believe that God was capable of preserving His word? They look to the AV1611 and, because it doesn’t say what they want it to say, imply that “It’s faulty. After all, it was translated by men too, wasn’t it?” Sure, but you know what? Moses was a man, David was a man, Peter was a man, Paul was a man. And every one that ever had a hand in preserving the word of God was a man. That’s just the way God works. He uses men. Why do we fault the AV1611 because men translated it? God uses men. And for a fact, MEN are behind the multitudes of modern translations as well. Others say that the AV1611 is too hard to understand. I used to say that too; said it for many years but we have to remember that it’s the Spirit that gives understanding, not our intellect.
Christians scoff at the non-Christians and especially the liberals who say, “Well that may be good for you, but it just doesn’t work for me. Here’s what really helps me.” Then we turn right around and subject ourselves to the exact type of ridicule as we submit ourselves to the same type of subjective relativity in regards to God’s word. “That bible may be good for you, but you know, this is the translation that really works for me.” How in the world can the Christians expect to be taken seriously by the non-believer when every believer they talk to shows them something different? It’s no wonder that non-believers find us odd. We run around claiming to have THE authoritative word of God then turn right around and say, maybe not in so many words, “and it’s hidden somewhere within these hundreds of translations that have rolled out over the past couple of centuries and the ‘original manuscripts’.” By the way… the original manuscripts… they don’t even exist!
Imagine what a different world it would be if people actually just taught THE bible instead of teaching how to retranslate it. If we weren’t so busy trying to restructure God’s words we’d actually have time to study them, instead of the non-existent originals.
I think the King James AV1611 contains THE AUTHORITATIVE words of God as He intended to preserve them in the English language. One book, believe it or don’t believe it. A person cannot say that he believes THE BIBLE if he holds to many; he might say that he believes BIBLES IN GENERAL but not THE BIBLE—not if he doesn’t hold to ONE book.
So ask yourself. Is God capable of preserving His word? If He bothered to give us His word I would certainly think that He’d see to its preservation. But then, maybe not. Maybe only Zondervan, Holman, Nelson and the rest of the publishers know what God really said.
I’ve recently been in discussions that revolved around the various translations of the bible. Having formerly used various modern translations, primarily the NIV, I’m now 100% convinced that God preserved His word in the English language in the KJV (AV 1611). I, like many others, formerly failed to see any danger in the practice of “swapping out” archaic words for modern words. How wrong I was. Let’s look at just one example, just one word, and see if it makes a difference. I’ll offer other examples in the future as there are many, many examples that prove the strength and authenticity of the KJV. So, without further ado…
In this corner, fighting for the KJV …Tares.
Matthew 13:24-30 (KJV) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. (26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. (27) So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? (28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? (29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. (30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
In the opposite corner, fighting for the modern translations …Weeds.
Matthew 13:24-30 (NIV) Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. (25) But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. (26) When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. (27) “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ (28) “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ (29) “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. (30) Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
At one point in time I wouldn’t have seen any problem with the modern translation but, thank God, I’m finally starting to learn THE Bible in earnest.
So before you read on, consider the verses again. See any problems here? I’ll bet if your honest you’ll say no… but check this out.
What do you do if you have weeds in a garden? You pull them up! You never let weeds grow in a garden. So why did Jesus tell them to leave the weeds? Well, he didn’t. He told them to leave the tares. You know why? Because tares are very similar in appearance to wheat and it is difficult to distinguish one from the other until they are nearly ready for the harvest.
So the tares here represent false Christians. People who talk the talk and, for all intensive purposes, look like real Christians but are not. But there will come a time-the harvest-when they will be found out.
So what do the weeds represent? Absolutely nothing, and in the context of the parable it doesn’t even make sense for them to be there… they should be pulled up long before the harvest.
Todd Reichert built a human-powered aircraft. The “Snowbird,” made from carbon fiber, foam, and balsa wood actually has flapping wings. Countless men and women have dreamed of flying like a bird under their own power; although a rather short and low altitude flight, it would appear that Todd has done it.
Source: ZDNet
I bought an iPad a couple of weeks ago so I’ve been all about learning what I can about it. I didn’t really learn anything from this video but thought it was kinda cool.
My wife, Michelle, has been taking banjo lessons for about 7 months now and had her first recital today. I am really proud of her, she has worked so hard for this.
This video shows the July 16, 1969 launch of the Apollo 11 mission that landed the first humans on the moon. The camera was rolling at 500 frames per second, allowing the first 30 seconds of the launch to be slowed down into this 8-minute narrated video.
1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
2. The farm was used to produce produce.
3. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10. I did not object to the object.
11. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
12. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
13. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
14. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
15. They were too close to the door to close it.
16. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
17. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
18. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
19. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
20. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
21. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
Let’s face it – English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren’t invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren’t sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on. English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn’t a race at all). That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
Source: Unknown
As soon as I saw this I thought of my friend John; he’s got some remote control planes and was just showing me a video the other day from a camera that was mounted on one of them.
This is a series of tests of the MK-HexaKopter. It includes a Flight-Test, GPS-Test and Payload-Test. This “mikrokopter” has a central hub with six arms sticking out. At the end of each arm is a two-bladed propeller with each propeller oriented horizontally.
Technical data of the HexaKopter:
- flight-time: up to 30 minutes (with small payload)
- max. payload: 1kg
- weight: 1200g