The top-selling Bible in North America will
undergo a revision, modernizing the language
in some sections and promising to reopen a
contentious debate about changing gender
terms in the sacred text. The New International
Version, the Bible of choice for conservative
evangelicals, is scheduled to be
completed late next year and published in 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0, _n_274299.html


Gender language has pitted evangelicals
against each other. So in some verses,
references to "sons of God" became "children
of God," for example. Supporters say gender-
inclusive language is more accurate and makes
the Bible more accessible, but critics contend
they twist meaning or smack of political
correctness.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/, evision/print/

Bible, word of who

Yeee, Word of God to undergo revision, i laff in japanese,

anyway its not a new thing, they use to edht it every decade

Abuzola:


Yeee, Word of God to undergo revision, i laff in japanese,

anyway its not a new thing, they use to edht it every decade

I didn't know; thats why I was astonished.

The deciet of the muslim . . . i've been reading KJV since 1985 . . . its remained the same since the 17th century.

What happened to fornication and adultery mix up in the king james version, i can as well give you the names of it

Abuzola:

What happened to fornication and adultery mix up in the king james version, i can as well give you the names of it

What are you talking about?

I have some copies that were editted

davidylan:

The deciet of the muslim . . . i've been reading KJV since 1985 . . . its remained the same since the 17th century.

Then explain to us what those folks are intending to do. . .

@davidylan
abeg now free these ppl

I laughed in Hausa @ the above poster's naivety.

muhsin:

Then explain to us what those folks are intending to do. . .

They have a right to review their own copy of the bible. It doesnt change the fact that a large number of us prefer to continue using the old KJV published first in the 17th century based on original biblical manuscripts.

You despicable liars and sons of satan shld learn to speak the truth.

davidylan:

They have a right to review their own copy of the bible. It doesnt change the fact that a large number of us prefer to continue using the old KJV published first in the 17th century based on original biblical manuscripts.

You despicable liars and sons of satan shld learn to speak the truth.

Is it the same KJV that contains a lot of errors(even in the opening verse) and had to be reviewed? Does this person knows that there is the NKJV?

toneyb:

Is is the same KJV that contains a lot of errors(even in the opening verse) and had to be reviewed? Does this person knows that there is the NKJV?

thou fool . . . i know. I even have a copy.
I however retain and use exclusively the KJV and ditto for most of my family members and those i know.

davidylan:

thou fool . . . i know. I even have a copy.
I however retain and use exclusively the KJV and ditto for most of my family members and those i know.

So you and your family members now constitute what authority in christianity thou ridiculous and pathetic fool?

The fact that you and your equally deluded friends choose to use the KJV does not mean that it is without errors, it has a lot of errors in it hence the need for it to be reviewed and the birth of the NKJV.

toneyb:

So you and your family members now constitute what authority in christianity thou ridiculous and pathetic fool?

The fact that you and your equally deluded friends choose to use the KJV does not mean that it is without errors, it has a lot of errors in it hence the need for it to be reviowed and the birth of the NKJV.

No we dont . . . which is why only fools like you see "bible undergoes new revision" and automatically assume it applies for every christian out there.

The KJV contains errors . . . we already know that. We are not too blind to ignore them. Anything new you wanted to pass across to us?

davidylan:

No we dont . . . which is why only fools like you see "bible undergoes new revision" and automatically assume it applies for every christian out there.

First of all there are so many bible translations as there are many christian denominations(each with its own agenda), the english bible alone has over 80 different translations that have gone through so many revisions, so every christian has had the bible that he/she subscribes to undergo some kind of revision in one way or the other even the bible you this delused fool subscribe to as the word of god(KJV) has undergone its own revision because the original one is said to contain some errors. So the FACT is most, if not all versions of the bible have undergone some revision in one way or the other.

The KJV contains errors . . . we already know that. We are not too blind to ignore them. Anything new you wanted to pass across to us?

Pass what across to you? You think I have time pandering to your delusions?

toneyb:

First of all there are so many bible translations as there are many christian denominations(each with its own agenda), the english bible alone has over 80 different translations that have gone through so many revisions, so every christian has had the bible that he/she subscribes to undergo some kind of revision in one way or the other even the bible you this delused fool subscribe to as the word of god(KJV) has undergone its own revision because the original one is said to contain some errors. So the FACT it most if not all versions of the bible have undergone some revision in one way or the other.

Considering the fact that the original manuscripts are available on the internet or on ebay as compilations . . . your bawling is just a sad indictment of your depraved state of mind. Case closed.

David, will you shut up, bible is bible, and if they edit it they have editted the bible, period

davidylan:

Considering the fact that the original manuscripts are available on the internet or on ebay as compilations . . . your bawling is just a sad indictment of your depraved state of mind. Case closed.

Considering that there are as many differences in the original manuscripts available as there are actual words in the bible says that your bawling is really a sad indictment of your very depraved state of mind case closed.

toneyb:

Considering that there are as many differences in the original manuscripts available as there are actual words in the bible says that your bawling is really a sad indictment of your very depraved state of mind case closed.

Its funny how you side-step the fact that the original manuscripts are actually available to whine so hard about "versions" of the bible.

But oh well . . . what do you expect from those who are only desperate to disparage the bible?

davidylan:

Its funny how you side-step the fact that the original manuscripts are actually available to whine so hard about "versions" of the bible.

But oh well . . . what do you expect from those who are only desperate to disparage the bible?

Which original manuscripts exactly are you talking about? Even the original manuscripts have different types(riddle with copyist errors and all), Do you really know what you are saying? But what then do you expect from people who are wired to believe that any body that points to a problem that exist in their belief system is attacking or disparaging it.

Why not answer toneyb question instead of beating the bush, anybody reading this thread knows how unintelligent you are. You and ur bible are big time fraud. Thank God. Don't even dare modify your posts

toneyb:

Which original manuscripts exactly are you talking about? Even the original manuscripts have different types(riddle with copyist errors and all), Do you really know what you are saying? But what then do you expect from people who are wired to believe that any body that points to a problem that exist in their belief system is attacking or disparaging it.

Read the section in highlights . . . first you imply there are NO original manuscripts then go ahead to complain that the "original manuscripts", which dont exist according to you, have different types?  

Seriously . . . are these folks screwed on tight?

Abuzola:

Why not answer toneyb question instead of beating the bush, anybody reading this thread knows how unintelligent you are. You and your bible are big time fraud. Thank God. Don't even dare modify your posts

When have you answered anything put across to you? At least toneyb can ask me questions without fearing for his life.

Hahaha, change of topic, it won't work mr david

davidylan:

Read the section in highlights . . . first you imply there are NO original manuscripts then go ahead to complain that the "original manuscripts", which dont exist according to you, have different types?

Seriously . . . are these folks screwed on tight?

You did not get the message I was putting accross and you some how believe I am screwed on tight? . What I said is simple, Which original manuscript are you talking about exactly since there are many original manuscripts each with textual differences, You talk about an original manuscript as if only one type exist. But that is not the case there are differnet types of the original manuscripts in existence.

toneyb:

You did not get the message I was putting accross and you some how believe I am screwed on tight? . What I said is simple, Which original manuscript are you talking about exactly since there are many original manuscripts each with textual differences, You talk about an original manuscript as if only one type exist. But that is not the case there are differnet types of the original manuscripts in existence.

That the original texts appear in different languages makes perfect sense. For instance you wont expect the old testament texts to appear in anything but aramaic or hebrew. The new testament on the other hand would have been copied into different languages to be distributed to the separate churches . . . from greek to roman and even hebrew.

What is amazing is the fact that barring textual or clerical errors . . . they do not differ at all.

When you talk about textual differences . . . it doesnt seem you have thought your excuse through at all. For instance if i copied an ancient yoruba transcript to Igbo . . . you can expect there will be a couple of differences based on translation and the fact that certain yoruba words may have no meaning in igbo. This is to be expected with the bible manuscripts.

What would be a problem was if there were significant differences in the messages conveyed by each letter that makes up the bible. Which is NOT observed at all.

But of course its ok to dredge up such a pathetic excuse.

davidylan:

That the original texts appear in different languages makes perfect sense. For instance you wont expect the old testament texts to appear in anything but aramaic or hebrew. The new testament on the other hand would have been copied into different languages to be distributed to the separate churches . . . from greek to roman and even hebrew.

Of course I agree with this.

What is amazing is the fact that barring textual or clerical errors . . . they do not differ at all.

Some of them differ because some foot notes in some english version acknowledge or put some caveat saying that some verses are omitted because they do not appear in some early manuscripts. That constitute some difference. But that is not the point I was trying to make , the point I was trying to make is that even the KJV has been revised.

Dawudu do you want to see the amendments of the bible ? I will compare it to other bibles by naming them and giving the verse if you so desire

toneyb:

Some of them differ because some foot notes in some english version acknowledge or put some caveat saying that some verses are omitted because they do not appear in some early manuscripts. That constitute some difference. But that is not the point I was trying to make , the point I was trying to make is that even the KJV has been revised.

Each time i read this constant whine about "missing verses" it always amuses me. This is because at the end of the day you're basically talking of perhaps 1 or 2 missing verses! Besides the fact that some of the early writers may have consciously omitted a verse perhaps based on the audience they were writing for . . . it is possible that we lose some of these verses due to the level of preservation of these manuscripts. For instance certain books of the bible in the dead sea scrolls have numerous verses missing! That's because some of them are so badly damaged!

The revision of the KJV to the NKJV was primarily because some were no longer comfortable with the old version of English language employed with the KJV. Kinda makes your "point" moot.

Abuzola:

Dawudu do you want to see the amendments of the bible ? I will compare it to other bibles by naming them and giving the verse if you so desire

when people with a brain are talking pls dont show up.