it is here:

http://www.e-sword.net/

you’re welcome. Love your Blog.

God speed on your journey and may He guide you.
Abe

Let me just say “thank you.” Thank you for sharing your story to “the world.” Thank you for being honest about what’s going on in your life. Thank you for sharing your journey. And thank you for leaving the porn industry.

I don’t struggle with porn (I’m a woman, although I’m sure there are many women who do.) BUT, I know so many Christian guys (mainly husbands of friends) who struggle with pornography (the reason why I’m staying “anonymous” on your blog, sorry).

It’s a constant struggle for them. But they are all set up with accountability partners and such. Many of them use Covenant Eyes and their wives get their accountability reports. Having regulary accountability (like your blog, or a filter, or whatever) is definitely going to help. But sharing your story is even better.

I will remember you in my prayers as you start a NEW career!

–a sister in Christ

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. I don’t like to argue about Bible translations (or anything else really). But you need to realize something – there are a lot of people reading this blog and many of them are probably not solidly grounded in their faith. A week or two ago the issue of health and wealth theology came up, and I was so glad a couple of people threw up red flags, because that “gospel” has thrown a lot of well meaning legitimate Christians way off track. The KJV Only issue is not dissimilar in that those who believe that way see everyone else as “missing the boat”. I thought it appropriate to raise a red flag. That issue creates division in the church and gets people off track and emphasizing the wrong things. While we shouldn’t major on minors and we should have a “big tent”, we shouldn’t sacrifice truth and have no standards either. Which Bible is right is a very legitimate question. I realize it isn’t the one you asked, but it came up, and I think the answer is that while there is not one “right” English translation, it is important for serious Christians to understand the distinctions between translations and prayerfully consider which one(s) to use.

Donnie, I think your answer says a lot about you and your spiritual gifts. Teacher/Prophet types are the ones who tend to give these things a lot of attention. You seem built as Exhorter (i.e. encourager) and maybe even an Evangelist to me. To someone with those gifts, issues like this are annoying because they do not directly lift people up or draw them to Christ. But it’s a part of guarding the truth, which is critical for a healthy church.

Dave

On that note, find the one that easiest for you to read. The New Living Translation, not to be mistaken with the Living Translation (which is a paraphrase) is good for it’s ease of reading. I lean toward the NIV, because it’s what I was raised with. But I prefer the NASB Updated (New American Standard Bible). It is harder to read, but it provides a more literal word-for-word translation that I like, while the NIV will take an entire thought from the original language, and find a similar phrase in English.

The Message has it’s downfalls. It doesn’t claim to be a translation, just a paraphrase. For recreational type reading, it’s fine, but I have found discrepancies between it and the four other translations I regularly refer to for study.

As for your last comment, you’re spot on, Donny. The thing to keep in mind with all translations: They involve humans. How can human language, even as varied as we have it now, in any way capable of relating to a completely infinite God? It can’t. Every translation has it’s problems. Part of the trick is to find one that you can understand. Get comfortable but not dogmatic about it. Then look at other translations. Language in the KJV/NKJV is harder for me to read, because I haven’t practiced it. I don’t know if it’s better or not, but it does some things right that other versions miss. And vice versa.

As for software, check out e-sword.com. His is free software with tools, readers, devotions, etc. Some you have to pay for, but most is free. If it benefits, maybe slide him some cash to keep his own livelihood running.

Arguing about Bible translations is like running in the special olympics: even if you win, you’re still retarded!

There are no winners. Seriously. When Christians spend time about who is right and wrong on Bible verses and translations they’re spending less time talking to their neighbors or friends about the message of Jesus’ love. It’s not really that important, anyway, in my opinion. If it was, we wouldn’t need churches and people to talk to about God. We’d just take scripture word for word.

Is it wrong when your pastor gives his “interpretation” of the Bible from the pulpit? No. Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with reading a “translation”.

If one does their own research it won’t matter if someone else got something a little bit wrong.

Know what I mean?

I won’t take the trouble to refute all that point by point. Just google ‘KJV only’ or ‘KJV onlyism’ and you will find various defenses and refutations of the kinds of things solem is saying. And actually there is some truth in what solem said along with a bunch of conclusions I think are faulty.

The main thing to understand is that most true Christians believe the Bible is inerrant IN IT’S ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS (check your church’s doctrinal statement and it probably uses that exact language). So the key to an accurate English Bible translation is to get as close as possible to the original manuscripts. While there are more manuscripts in the Textus Receptus line, they vast majority are significantly later manuscripts, meaning they are chronologicly further removed from the originals.

As far as “removing verses from the Scripture” it’s really only an issue if you’ve already accepted the premise that the Textus Receptus / KJV is the only legitimate Bible. You don’t hear it mentioned that the Apocrypha was part of the original KJV. Protestants “removed it” about 15 years later.

Solem is implying that every English Bible translation in the past 400 years or so is illegitimate and devil inspired. Must mean all the modern Bible translators and people who are reading them are terribly deceived. An extreme view? You tell me.

At this point, this is a great big rabbit trail and i am not sure how edifying it all is, but I can’t just leave some of the things that were said sitting out there unchecked.

Peace to solem and everyone else. If this stuff concerns you and you want to contact me off-line feel free – kingsolo@juno.com

Dave

Quoting annonymous: ” There are certain words that I have see particularly in the KJV NT that were mistranslated. Also the NIV is taken from more, older, and simply better manuscripts (IE the Dead sea scrolls).”

This is impossible because the Dead Sea Scrolls only deal with the Old Testement, not the New.

Not only that, but there is no difference between the bibles as to which text they use in the OT: KJV and NIV both draw from the Masoretic text ( i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls).

Also quoting this: “My opinion, after doing a little research on the subject, is that the NIV is the closest literal translation that there is.”
- In the opinion of the translators of the NIV, it is not even considered a “literal translation” but relies heavily on dynamic equivalence (as does the KJV, to some extent).

Rgrds~

I quote: “Also the NIV is taken from more, older, and simply better manuscripts (IE the Dead sea scrolls).”

Actually, that is not quite correct, please let me explain;

We have in existance, two groups of Greek texts. One is the “Textus Receptus” – which comprises of over 5000 manuscripts and is hence the “Majority Text.”
The other is suitably called the “Minority Text” (sinaiticus and vaticanus) which only represent 5% of existing manuscripts.

The big thing here to make clear is that these two groups are “grouped” for a reason: The 5000+ majority texts all agree/make sense with each other; However, in the case of the minority texts, they do not agree with the Textus Receptus, or in fact with each other among themselves.

So that in itself is instant concern regarding this Minority Text; and for good reason.

The Minority Text is horribly flawed because:

1. The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.

2. The Minority Texts OMIT approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This ammount is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter!!

3. Like I said allready, the Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places, and they are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

Here is why that matters:
Virtually every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text, in preference, to Textus Receptus. Like for example, the popular NIV.

Of course this is a huuuuge topic, and anybody who researches it will quickly discover that the perversions in these new “bibles” are simply staggering. NEW King James included.

If you’ve read this far, here’s a quick example: The word “Lucifer” is found one time in the King James Bible – Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

In the NIV, the word “Lucifer” is completely gone, and is identified as the “morning star”.

(NIV) “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

So we know that accordning to the NIV, Satan is Lucifer, the “morning star.”

This is where that counts: The following passages in the NIV show the “morning star” as Jesus Christ.

(NIV) Revelation 22:16,
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Also, 2 Peter 1:19 in the NIV, again proclaims the morning star, as Jesus:

“And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

So how astonishing, is that? The NIV contradicts itself. In fact, it calls Satan Jesus. And of course we all know that Satan fell because he wanted to ‘be’ God (saying “I will ascend into heaven” and “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.”)

If you ask me, this stinks of the Devil.

The original KJV, does it right.