Reply
Tue 4 Jan, 2005 11:24 pm
has anyone ever heard or seen of the original version of the bible, alternately named the king james version?
the goverment have evn stopped parts of this version being shown in classrooms, & it is frowned upon by alot of churches.
now iv never read either the bible nor the king james version so i'm not really the correct person to preach, but it surprised me wen i read a passage which was supposedly deleted from the original king james version, allong with other parts of it.
''Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?''
the above passage was said by jesus in the original king james version of the bible.
now i've done a little research into it & it's been said to be they key to eternal life & immortality, which may be true, i do not know. but obviously it must worry government officials if a passage such as this was to be removed.
also it is said in John 6:66 (also seen as controversial since of the numeracy there (666))
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning Who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
i just think it'd be interesting to hear ppls opinions on it.
thank you
The King James version is hardly "original", far from it... it was brought forth in 1611, long after the events described.
The most "original", oldest texts/versions in existence are probably among the "Dead Sea Scrolls", written in the same Aramaic as that spoken by the characters figures in the texts.
The Library of the Vatican also has some very ancient texts in its collection... written in Greek and Latin. For centuries, the "Latin Vulgate" was the authorized text in use.
The King James version has been shown to contain many inaccurate translations so is used less often than it once was; it is, however, still in print.
yes but still, i was actually getting around the point that the bible has been changed obviously due to translation reasons etc, but here it has been changed deliberately, almost like censorship.
but personally i dnt know much since im a buddhist
Well, I have a more modern version, translated directly from original texts, that also does not contain the words from the original King James. I would think it was removed from the King James, not as censorship, but because it should not have been there in the first place since it was not contained in the original text.
Re: king james version of the bible
byrnfri wrote: now i've done a little research into it & it's been said to be they key to eternal life & immortality, which may be true, i do not know. but obviously it must worry government officials if a passage such as this was to be removed.
Why must it worry government officials if something has been added or removed? You haven't established that any government was behind the adding or removing.
If you go into most any book store and pick up 3 copies of the King James version of the bible from 3 different publishers I'd wager you'd find discrepancies between them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace