Contents:
Some of histories greatest artists are presented in the gallery.
Over different artists covering every aspect of Jesus adult life. We are allowing commercial use of the images contained in the cd without any further royalties paid. We want you to use the images to spread the good news of Jesus. Use the images in your crafts, hobby and art projects. Churches, Authors and Musicians are welcome to use the images in their projects.
If you need the images for your church and don't have the resources to pay for the DVD, please contact us, we will accommodate you. DVD will contain restrictions and free commercial use license document. Plus, bonus vintage Christmas postcards. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: His mother, Mary, that is, having been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. But Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and unwilling to expose her publicly, purposed to have put her away secretly; but while he pondered on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save his people from their sins. Now all this came to pass that might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord, through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, 'God with us. Since the beginning of creation women have played an important role in God's overall plan for mankind. Beginning with the fall of man, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit to Mary giving birth to the Savior of the world.
This gallery includes the most notable women in the Bible; Hagar, who was given to Abraham by Sarah to conceive an heir in her place. Potiphar's wife, who tried to seduce Joseph. Rahab, a Harlot who hid Israelie spies and gained the favor of God. Rebekah, married Isaac and gave birth to twins: Rachel, the wife of Isaac's son Jacob The only scene in the Bible of a man kissing a woman. Delilah, a cunning woman who deceived Samson into telling the secret of his strength. A History and Evaluation Grand Rapids: Baker, , Wright, The Monarchs and the Message: And a note beside 2 Chronicles 15 criticized King Asa for not executing his idol-worshipping mother.
Miller and Robert V. Lion Hudson, , It was significantly different from Classical Greek. Some hypothesized that it was a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. But studies of Greek papyri found in Egypt over the past one hundred years have shown that this language was the language of the everyday people. Zondervan, , , 1. But now we have numerous letters, business receipts, census statements, novels, and other writings written in Koine. Furthermore, among the discoveries were ancient manuscripts of biblical texts that were older than those used to create Erasmus Greek text that became the Textus Receptus.
He dedicated the first edition of his Greek New Testament to the Pope. I include this bit of information for those who wrongly claim that the newer English translations are unduly influenced by Roman Catholicism. See also endnote The reviser represents the western tradition dating back to the second century, and clearly reveals the trend of thought among his contemporaries by rephrasing the received text of Acts Stephanus adopted this reading in his Greek edition. Wallace also notes that there is no evidence for the existence of a Byzantine-Majority text-type before the end of the fourth century.
Page decorations are copied from the King James Bible as is the image of the frontispiece below. What are English Translations of the Bible Based on? Holmes on the Bible Odyssey website. Which Bible translation is best? Marg Mowczko lives north of Sydney, Australia, in a house filled with three generations of family. She strongly believes that if we are in Christ we are part of the New Creation and part of a community where old social paradigms of hierarchies and caste or class systems have no place 2 Cor.
In section 3 you wrote: One of the issues with the KJV primacy debate is that both sides are militant anti-Catholic. But they think nothing good can come from Rome. Personally I prefer the translations that focus as much on the encoding as the decoding. In other words, translations that ensure the words are understandable to most readers without needing a church dictionary.
Koine after all is common Greek; the language of the streets. But many translations are in high English, with lots of loaded terminology, and far to many transliterations. My congregation, though well educated, comes from 14 native languages. To load them down with a translation that requires translation itself, or one that is bound by higher critical presuppositions that ignores patriotic citations, creates a different challenge. We need a Bible that is written in common, everyday English, just as the New Testament books were originally written in common, everyday Greek.
It is ironic, because there were at least three excellent English translations at that time. Most people who back the KJV do not agree with these men and their doctrinal positions, nor in their assumptions about scripture. But they claim apostolic inspiration for these men, when it comes to translation. Ask why they transliterate the word sometimes, and translate it other times. Ask why their perfected work had to be corrected and retranslated. Sorry the KJV is a translation of word of God, and one which should be tested — like any other.
I too found it ironic that Mark would choose to quote 2 Timothy 2: Hello and thank you for the article. I have come to a conclusion that perhaps you can help me with…God never intended for His people to be in an ultra-organized. Is the church the same organism?!!!! Hi Dawson, In answer to your question: This is what James wanted to maintain. Like many rulers he believed that only a hierarchical, top down, method of leadership, with political and judiciary might, would bring control to the church and his country.
I have written about authority in the church here. It is so cool you replied so quickly and kindly.
A two-headed body is a monstrosity. Thank you again so much! Hi Dawson, thanks for the compliment.
Here are 22 fierce and fearless women in the Bible that can teach us a lesson or women in the Bible that we can learn from in our own daily Christian walk. The following is a list of women found in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. The list appears in . Genesis, Ruth; Lois, grandmother of Saint Timothy. II Timothy.
All the way through the New Testament Text. What makes it worse is these are not translations, but transliterations. A translation would be Peter — Cephas. A transliteration is to try and pronounce the word in the same language — like Iesou-Jesus, Joshua. In most other Greek manuscripts, the Greek word is the genitive form of Iesous, and other English translations have translated this as Joshua because that is the name of this particular person as it appears in English translations of the Old Testament.
I completely take your point about transliterations. So, Jesus is Joshua and Joshua is Jesus. Same or inter changeable. What verse were you thinking of, Steven? Unicorn is a case in point. No modern English translation that I know of uses the word unicorn because in modern English a unicorn is a mythological creature, not a real one. I do not know of any educated English speaker who refers to rhinos as unicorns. We may have a different definition of that word, but for the newer editions to have been produced, I imagine that the editors used older editions which they worked on and edited i.
The nastier comments have been deleted.
I presume that the people commenting here are my Christian brothers and sisters, and have a keen interest in the Bible as I have, but I have never encountered such rudeness and arrogance from some who have commented here. Do some Christians really think they can persuade someone to their way of thinking by insulting them? Or that I know more than I claim to know? Or that I have some sinister or subversive motive?
Where is the brotherly love? I am not determined to find fault with the KJV. I use a newer edition of the KJV and I think it is an excellent English translation, even if some of the expressions are still archaic. However some people claim that the edition is the best, and my point is that an English translation that is difficult to understand with archaic spellings as well as archaic vocabulary is not the best translation for most modern English-speaking Christians.
I have written this post with honesty and I think the reasons for my concerns about the KJV are clearly expressed. For God is Love. Lets endeavor to live Godly. Thanks for the article and discussion. I believe and use only the KJV, but I do recognize the hostility among some in my crowd and it serves to destroy any credibility their arguments may have. For instance, when sharing our faith with unbelievers we do not deride them for their sin — after all, they know no other path than the natural road of self-will.
We speak the truth in love or ought to. That said, I do believe it is an issue of authority, as mentioned above. That is, what did God say? This is authority in the sense of a standard. So we all rely on translators. And with some of the original Greek words having many potential translations, who decides which is right? Is it not subjective? So I ask again, what did God say?
Which brings us to the nature and character of God. If He is who He says He is and we can rely on that description could He not, and would He not, be capable of preserving the book revealing His will for man? He did it once in Greek, why not again in English? So these are questions I seek to answer to settle my mind. What my heart knows of God, however, compels me to trust in things that are concrete.
Faith is substance according to Hebrews God is big and powerful, transcending human invention, and certainly not limited by it. My main point is that much of the language of the KJV, even that of the more recent editions, is dated, and that some of the words in the KJV no longer convey an accurate meaning, simply because the meanings of some words have changed over time. That languages change over time is true of English and it is true of Greek, which brings me to another main point.
The translators of the KJV did not have the benefit of the insight these papyri have brought to our understanding of 1st century Koine. They did not even know that Koine was a real language, let alone the lingua franca of the Greco-Roman world in New Testament times. And they got some meanings wrong.
I still think that the KJV is a good translation but, if we take some of the texts at face value, they give the wrong, misleading meaning. And some phrases are needlessly beyond the comprehension of 21st century readers e. I believe that God continues to preserve his Word. I also believe that God wants his people to have access to a Bible that is as easy to understand as possible. I also agree that there are archaic words and phrases in the AV. And I do suspect that, contrary to the assertions of some in the KJV-only crowd, it would not be sinful to update the language to some degree.
But how far to take it? I also see your point about the differences in the Greek. But it begs the question: Do we have it now? Many, many disagree with each other on key points and in foundational scriptures. How do we reconcile this? Is there something I can point to, in my language, and unequivocally assert that it contains the very words of God in truth, without error?
But we need to know where we stand as believers, and on what we stand. An unbeliever walks into a bookstore seeking truth, and finds it wrapped up in the opinions of scholars — thousands of them. In answer to your question. It is preserved in the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament, and Greek texts of the New Testament, that are without punctuation. I do not regard the Masoretic pointing as especially inspired. My Hebrew is poor, But I believe they made some errors. I do not believe that the Apocryphal books of the Greek Old Testament that were included in first few editions of the KJV are at all inspired or authoritative.
They do not constitute the the Word of God. The differences between the Greek and English in most reputable English translations are slight and mostly negligible. God has left the preserving and translating of his Word in the hands of his people.
The books of the Bible were written by men, and I know that God continues to use his people to preserve, translate, publish, and teach it. Just like most ministry, the Bible is a collaboration of God with his people. And I believe that this revelation is the bedrock of our faith and the keys to the Kingdom that we, as a community, have been authorised to administer Matthew The unicorns mentioned in the Bible were Not the Mythical Creatures we think of today— the Horse with the One Horn- I read that they more like a Rhinoceros—now extinct.
They mentioned that No Remains, no Bones of unicorns were found. Hi Peggy, My point is that the Hebrew Bible does refer to an animal like a rhinoceros, or maybe they are in fact rhinoceroses. These were real animals, but the King James Bible does not convey that message to modern readers. The King James Bible refers to these creatures as unicorns, which, as you say, we think of as mythical creatures. So the KJV is conveying wrong information to the reader. Someone reading the King James Bible today, and taking it at face value i.
We are living in the 21st century, and we need a Bible translation that speaks our language. Not a Bible where too many words now mean very different things to what the original translators intended. However, the assumption that there are older, less handled documents that are valid is incorrect reasoning. It has been established that the so called oldest manuscripts had numerous corrections. When scribes fail so many times, they just set the manuscripts aside and start again.
No one uses these faulty documents and so they remain to this day. That is a very plausible explanation for their existence. Especially so, regarding the ending of the book of Mark, we really err in thinking that the oldest manuscripts leave off the ending verses and that this is more accurate…it is unreasonable to accept that they have omitted the resurrection and are yet acceptable. What do they do then?
Just make stuff up? The KJV is the only non-copyrighted version of the Bible. No one makes money on it. How would this affect those who desire to gain financially from their project? Would they resent the KJV? It is their parents who balk at having to learn new words, YET sometimes I have found the NIV to be less clearly understood, and even to use more difficult words where simpler words would have sufficed.
Try it yourself and you will see you remember the words more quickly than you do other versions. It is the poetic and melodic nature of the language. They are grateful for the KJV and Shakespeare for the wonderful heritage of the old English language that often says much more with less words. Which quotation do you prefer, in the end:. And just try to remember the second quotation!
The Muslims invading Turkey is just one of these reasons. We have the commentaries and lectionary notes of early Christians to guide us as to what texts they were using. People in antiquity did not have the same appreciation for ancient artifacts as we do today.
But if manuscripts were not usable they were discarded, or placed in some dark corner of a monastery, where a few have been rediscovered. On the other hand there are some terrible stories about the callous, careless destruction of manuscripts. In the UK, it is still under copyright. Plus there is a danger of assuming that some passages mean something when in actual fact it means something quite different because the meanings of words have changed.
There is no doubt that the King James Bible was a great translation and has been a tremendous asset to the kingdom. I am extremely grateful for the legacy of the King James Bible and I have no intention of throwing it out. I use it regularly. Maybe the King James version has stood so long because it is so archaic and hard for some to understand in this modern English world. Church leaders have been trying to control people for thousands of years. History and the Bible itself proves this! As 1 Timothy 4: Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: Of which I have memorized several scriptures this way.
Thus bringing it, some what, up to date. True,thank God for Tyndale. The raking the King over the coals is not that justifiable as if you study the Geneva Bible which is much older than the KJV one will see that there was not much changed. Talk about plagiarism, Ha! But who would dare charge His Majesty? Or was it the Geneva? Remember, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
And as far as the King James being the inspired word of God, It is. What was inspired for the different Bible versions was the original message only. Not what language or time period you translated it in, not someones extra beliefs or agendas and not the name you put on the final book.
Judy, so sad that men do such as was done to the precious Chinese. My cousin is half Chinese. But, the word I am. Just remember and I know you do, the warning of Peter 2 Peter 3: Speaking of insidious, that is. Look at this; Peter could and would not warn of the twisting of Scripture if it was not already firm or untwisted now would he? Here is the other 3: We can and must trust His word as was such delivered to us. Some info about another authorised English Bible translation.
The Great Bible relied heavily on the work begun by Tyndale. Edward the VI, who is said to have read twelve chapters of Scripture a day, ordered that the restrictions concerning the use of the Great Bible be removed. This article on wikipedia provides a brief overview of the Bibles mentioned in this comment: Hi Judy, The apocryphal books were written during the intertestamental period and first century, and most were originally written in Greek not Hebrew.
They are not considered canonical by Jewish people and present-day Protestant Christians. The Greek Orthodox Church regards the Apocrypha as canonical. As well as the apocryphal books which roughly correspond to the deuterocanonical books accepted by Roman Catholics, there is pseudepigraphical literature dating from BCAD that is also alluded to in the New Testament. There are many allusions, rather than direct quotes, from these books in the New Testament. For example, compare Hebrews References and allusion to the apocryphal books of Enoch occur several times in Jude and 2 Peter Jude 4,6,13,14—15; 2 Peter 2: Perhaps the best known non-biblical allusion is in Jude 9 which comes from a story found in the Assumption of Moses.
The writers of the New Testament also quoted from, or alluded to, current rabbinical teaching and pagan literature. This link is to sayings of Jesus which have some semblance to apocryphal writings. Some are a bit of a stretch, but others seem valid. I have no problem with the New Testament authors quoting such sources. It is like us today quoting from secular literature such as Shakespeare , or from well-known Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Tim Keller to make a point, except that the New Testament writers were uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Experience the original design and beauty of this masterpiece as these digitally re-mastered pages transport you back in time to read the greatest story ever told. For the first time since the original King James Version rolled off the presses, see and experience an exact, page-by-page, digitally re-mastered replica of the original printing in an economically priced edition.
This replication contains the lavishly illustrated genealogy of key biblical figures—from Adam and Eve to Jesus. Now you can embrace the elegance, majestic style, and rich cadence of the first printing of the King James Version Bible. Thanks, would love to have a Geneva Bible done in that price range!
Here it is in all its glory! I just wanted to say thank you Judy. When I read the bible I read an easy modern translation like the ESV, but when I study I use the KJV and anything else I can get my hands on to enable me to correctly discern the true meaning of a word. I abhor some newer translation like The Message and the NIV but am aware people are answerable to God, each one, for their choices whether that be choosing to live ignorantly or seeking wisdom. To someone seeking God we might present as a group of infighting skeptics not even convinced of the truth and validity of our own precious word.
You make an excellent point, Melina. The debates over Bible versions can be heated and political, and look horrible and petty to an outsider looking in. But it concerns me that many Christians choose to use a Bible version that is difficult, and potentially misleading, to read. I do use the NIV though, and I wonder why you abhor it.
I feel the same way about the translation of the KJV—there are some inspired choices and other less inspired choices.