ChristiansUnite Forums

God is unchangeable. God's word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Why then are we so ready to accept changes to God's word in the form of different Bible versions? The Authorized King James text has faithfully served the body of Christ for almost 400 years. During this time, and during its translation, Satan has viciously and relentlessly attacked it. I now hear Christians attacking it too! I've heard preachers and lay people say things like, "it's too hard to read" or "it doesn't properly reflect the true meaning of the original Greek". The issue about the original Greek sets my teeth on edge--which Greek? There are Greek manuscripts galore, including the corrupted manuscripts that the Roman Catholic religion uses. The snide remarks and attacks against this utterly reliable text are unfounded.

We must remember that the Bible is a spiritual book and is understandable to those who are led by God's Spirit. It is not possible for the natural man to understand it [I Corinthians 2:14], hence paraphrasing or simplifying it will do no good. The Bible is not supposed to read like a fairy tale--Peter said, "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables" [II Peter 1:16]. The words of the Authorized King James are not laborious to me, they are beautiful and full of God's power. Even the world knows it--the Authorized King James has been listed on Norton Anthology's list of "the world's best literature" for decades.

The new versions have come up with some dangerous changes to the scriptures. The Lord God gives us stern warnings about changing His Word--

Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


I do not buy the line that the inerrant word of God is found only in the originals-- which nobody has. I know that God has the power to preserve His word and that he wouldn't leave us out in the dark with an "imperfect" translation. In the authorized King James Version God assembled, and moved with His Spirit, a team of some of the world's best scholars to translate His word into the world's most popular language, English.

The complete translator's notes of the Authorized King James scholars are not included in today's publishings. This is unfortunate because these notes say a lot about these men-- they were humble, loved the word of God, loved the King, were berated by the Catholic religion, and they desired a translation for the common man who was kept in darkness. Some of the translators where killed for their faith. This book was forged in blood, sweat, and tears.

I've heard folks make a big to-do about the italics in the Authorized KJV. Well, unlike many of today's translators, the authorized KJV translators let us know which words they had to add in translating in order to give the full meaning of the original text (these are the words in italics in the KJV). Other translators have added words too--but they don't tell you what they've added. I speak a little Spanish and know that it is oftentimes necessary to rearrange or add words so that the translation makes sense. These men went through the extra trouble of identifying which words they added. That's real scholarship and integrity.

Let's fall in love with the Authorized KJV again and stand on it. Let's get down to business and read the Word and stop spending so much time reading what others have to say about the Word in commentaries, Greek lexicons, study bibles, etc. We want the Holy Ghost to talk to us.

How many classes have you been in where every student has a different textbook? None. It just doesn't make good sense on a very practical level. We all need to be on the same sheet of music so that we are in harmony. Let's not confuse our kids by teaching/preaching from the NKJV, NIV, NASV, LB, the Message, Phillips, GN, etc.

Let's not accept the premise that the tried and true Authorized King James is somehow outdated and is to be replaced by dozens of new translations. A standard test determined the Authorized KJV reading level to be 5th grade because it contains mostly one and two-syllablic words making it one of the easiest to read. People have been getting saved by reading it for a long, long time. We know that it contains the Word of life whereby we live and grow.

Satan knows that in a generation we won't uniformly quote the scriptures. Imagine ten people with ten different translations trying to recite a psalm together. Confusion. Satan knows that many newborn babes in Christ will not have the real milk that they need in order to grow because they'll have a watered down version of the truth. He figures that if he can't kill the babes, he'll do the next best thing-stunt their growth. At the same time the world will point to Christianity and say, "They don't even have a definitive word of God. Anybody can write a Bible." They already say that the Bible was "just written by men".

Being able to talk to a child of God and have our spirits commune on the parts of God's word that we've memorized is great. I now find people who are quoting scriptures that I know, but they are worded so differently that I have to ask the reference. This is confusion, and we know who authors confusion, the enemy of our souls, the Devil. I believe that the emergence of these many different "Bible" versions is Satan's most successful attempt to attack God's word. The Bible says that in the last days there's going to be a falling away of the church and I believe that these other versions are helping to usher it along.



http://66.34.143.142/kjvdefns.htm (http://66.34.143.142/kjvdefns.htm)

Oklahoma Howdy to IrishAngel,

I agree 100%. I would add that some of the best and most rock-solid study aids are designed for the KJV. On top of everything else, there is a poetic quality of the KJV that gives it beauty in the written WORD that the other translations just don't have.

In Christ.

Most of this is covered in the other ongoing threads, but I thought I'd pick up on a few of the new points here:.

If our childen can't grasp why there are differences in translation, then they aren't being taught properly.
Different schools will use different textbooks to teach physics or maths, and sometimes you might even refer to two different textbooks within the same lesson.   So should be with bible translations - the translation carries the message - it isn't the end in itself.

The very church that produced the AV (the Church of England) didn't use it for the psalms in its prayer book.  The psalms in the Book of Common Prayer come from the Great Bible I believe.  We have always been chanting psalms from different bibles I'm afraid.  What's the problem - can't you read while you recite?


The rest of your post is meaningless rhetoric, or covered on other threads.

Oklahoma Howdy to Ebia,

I understand and agree with some of what you said. However, I see a real danger in some of the translations I've been reading about. I'm not interested in a politically correct translation that doesn't step on any toes and makes man happy. I'm not a Guru in this area, and I don't wish to be one. I'm very happy with my KJV. If I feel a need to use other versions, I go to the original language versions. That's a lot of work, but I would rather do that than read a translation that twists the original meaning or deletes offensive portions.

I don't think that a discussion of accurate translations of the Holy Bible is a waste of time. This is a valid concern.

Right On! IrishAngel

Brother Love :)

Always good to see some smart ladies around.   :D

 :)

Brother Love :)

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

KJV translators

If a person feels comfortable with the KJV, fine. It's a decent translation. That's what it is, a decent translation - nothing more.

Confirming the statement?  "At the same time the world will point to Christianity and say, "They don't even have a definitive word of God. Anybody can write a Bible." They already say that the Bible was "just written by men".



(BEP, I just came across  this thread, if its out of place, its because its a old one)   :-\
"I don't think that a discussion of accurate translations of the Holy Bible is a waste of time. This is a valid concern."
Very valid!

Oklahoma Howdy to Shylynne,

You made an excellent point, and I think many excellent points were made in this thread. I specifically enjoyed the comments made by IrishAngel about the Authorized King James Version. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the Holy Bible has survived all these years. I have no doubt that Almighty God preserved and protected it. I also believe that God gathered the dedicated scholars who shed their blood and suffered persecution to translate HIS WORD into English for the common man.

This is a sore subject for some, but I'll stick with what I've used all my life, the KJV. I won't step on any specific toes here, but I honestly believe that many modern translations either dilute or completely change the WORD OF GOD.

Love In Christ,
Tom

How do ya get a Spanish, German, Chinnese, Etc. verson of the AKJV.  

John 1:1-2
:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.
KJV
  The above  scriptures do not mean to me the Jesus is some how  sittin on my desk, over in the book case, in the night stand, ...... nor do they mean  He is over crowded in the Amplified ...He is only partly in the living bible that is in the bathroom ( no jokes about that being a good place for it) These are  books paper and ink.

So what do we mean when we say The Word of God or Jesus is the Word  etc....


I like KJV best...

psst BEP...Irish recieved a transformation  ;)


I`m not really concerned about this being a touchy subject, I know why I use the KJV as my sole reference, simply because  every verse, every passage, has been tried, tested, and found to be truth, according to the witness of the Spirit of it`s author.  I know of no other version that has withstood the test of time as this one has.


Book, paper and ink?
I got what you were trying to say , but I wonder if a trunkfull of mere books could pass into a communist country unseen by police patrols who searched but did not find what was right there in plain sight,  except God blinded thier eyes so they could not see these Books that were not just ordinary books?  ;)
( as personally witnessed and told by a missionary)

God’s Amazing Love Letter – The Bible

The Bible is the most incredible, miraculous, wonderful book ever written.  It is actually a whole library of 66 books.  It’s God’s love letter to us!

 It was:

Written over a period of nearly 1500 years.

Written on three different continents.

Written by many different authors – including fishermen, a cup bearer to the king, shepherds, farmers, rabbis, a tax collector, a doctor, poets, kings, preachers and prisoners.

Written in three different languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

It contains stories about:

War and peace, romance, suspense, family struggles, mystery, murder, kings, princes, prophets, births, deaths, money, poverty, spies, traitors, bullies, friends, enemies, heroes, adultery, forgiveness, faith, hope, love, hate, sinners and a savior.

It contains:

Poetry, prose, prophecy, history, sermons, love stories, laws, personal and public letters.  It contains every element of the human condition.  But yet, it is also a single story rather about Paradise – lost in Genesis, then regained in Revelation.  There is a message of hope throughout every book: the blood sacrifice and redemption of Jesus, who made us friends again with the Father by paying the price for our sins – something we could not do ourselves.

It is the number one selling and read book of all times.  It is full of thousands of controversial issues and all the authors agree upon them. – a miracle in itself.  More manuscripts have been found proving its authenticity than any other book from antiquity.  The Bible – you can read it, believe it, stake your life on it.

Yuppers and very well said Shyone...

I am not a King James Onlyist.

I think that God is very able to tell us what He wants us to hear in any version.

The King James is a good, pleasant version, yes. I like it, and I own a copy and use it regularly. But I would not take someone else's bible away and tell them they must use the same as mine, for it is the only one God approves of. It is neither the earliest English translation, nor the first people died for, nor the only one to be used for a long time. Nor, should anyone mention this particular "argument" is it the only one not under copyright - as it is under copyright (personal gripe, sorry).

Not to offend anyone, but I always thought KJVOism was an American abberation. People protest that it is not used over here on the grounds that it is beautiful - not that it is the only one that may be used. I find it a strange argument, personally.

I find it "strange" that God told us what He wants us to know in ONE version, and man decided it was  not good enough.

Which one would that be?

Wyclif's Bible?
Tynedale?
Matthew?
Coverdale?
Taverner's?
The (authorised) Great Bible?
The Geneva Bible?
The Bishop's Bible?
or even the Dhouai-Rheims?

Those are just the Bibles which predate the KJV and which are in modern (or early modern) English.

Well, the problem is that we don't know, most of us, the original language very well. And sometimes the Greek usees idioms and grammar that are comepletely meaningless to us in our culture. But the answer to this would be to put literally what the text says, and then add a footnote. Not change the Bible to make it more readable.

Be that as it may, the newer versions have the advantage of severah hundred years of archaeology. They user older and more reliable manuscripts. But they also translate them more loosely, using what is called the dynamic equivalent rather than a literal translation. This means they translate what they believe the text meant, not necessarily what it says. Again, they should use footnotes and not take it upon themselves to do the translating instead of saying what it says.

Often you will hear that there are verses in the KJV that are "taken out of" the NIV. But the situation is, older and more reliable manuscripts were used.

What we need is a literal translation that uses the older Greek septuagint rather than the more recent Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts.

My 2 cents.

How many ways are there to spell S-A-L-V-A-T-I-O-N ??

    ???


The Hebrews were the unwilling infidels, God came in the flesh anyway, allowed us to kill him, He arose, and now all we have to do is believe that.

Otherwise, we die.

Is it that complicated?    :-X


    8)

I fail to see what yet another bible will do for man, if the simple gospel message contained in one  has already been rejected by the masses.

Man needs a outpouring, and infilling, of the Holy Spirit!
It is the spirit of God that gives us understanding of the word of God, so why should we seek to gain better understanding from a 'better' translation of man?

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.  The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Then why bother translating at all - just stick to the greek, hebrew and aramaic?   Or stick to the first English translation.

The AV is pretty good, but it's not a perfect translation and its translators never claimed it was.  We can do better, and in modern English - the real language of now.

Amen to you IrishAngel! Great Post! :):)
(Love the name too!)

As stated I read the KJV because its been preserved and annointed by God. What God has approved  I see no reason to change, simplify, add too, or take away from. God gave us stern warning about altering His word, and yet many of the newer versions are changing the wording, (meaning) of scripture, I think its enough to alarm christians to take heed. Tho I do enjoy commentaries, study bibles, etc. I always refer to the KJV for accuracy.
"As it is written" is good enough for me, and the history of the KJV can certianly defend itself better than I ever could.

You can water down a substance until its lost its power and ability to cleanse  ;)

Hi nateycakes!  :D
Irish got her wings clipped and took on a new name :-X

Ebia, I see what you're saying. And, actually, it would be much better if we did learn the original Greek and Hebrew because it would eliminate a lot of the translation problems. But since not everyone finds this practical, I'm rooting for a new literal translation using the same process as the KJV, only using the better manuscripts.

While changing the flow to make a translation read better, decisions are being made by the translator that may not be accurate. It actually is changing God's word. That's why I'm rooting for footnotes giving *possible* explanations rather than translating it according to someone's *opinion* of what it means, and presenting it as actual scripture rather than merely his *opinion* of scripture.

The KJV was translated extremely well, but the problem here is the manuscripts. We now know there are mistakes made by the scribes who copied the Masoretic manuscripts. There are no mistakes in God's word, but we can see from the older manuscripts where a letter was changed by a tired, unalert,  or otherwise compromised scribe, that changed the whole meaning of the word. And we know that isn't the correct word, because that word appeared later, and is only a letter off. This makes a difference at one point between giving God the firstfruits of your cattle, and the firstfruit of your sons. Pretty big difference, wouldn't you say? In some cases, entire verses were added! Several! So here we hear from people that other translations are bad because they took verses right out of the Bible! But in fact, someone took it upon himself to add to God's word.

And it really is very important to know exactly what God's word is saying, because there are vast differences between the NIV and KJV, in regards to meaning. And I don't think all of them are manuscript-related.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

there are vast differences between the NIV and KJV, in regards to meaning.


Do you think those differences are integral to an adequate understanding of the Gospel message, Whitehorse?

That’s real funny, because the KJV has been charged several times over the years. ::)

No, I think only what the scriptures say is conducive to this; I think adding or changing it only introduces confusion. It takes the reader away from what the scripture says by introducing other ideas.

I don't know, I guess I might look at this differently than some :)

God gave *Me* this Bible, it was meant to be my friend, my knowledge and my wisdom. It might not be in the exact terminoligy that other Bibles are written, but the reason he brought it my way is that I might understand his word,through His Spirit, although we have a few versions here at home, this is the one I feel in my spirit, came to me for *His Purpose*.

I feel as long as His Word is doing the job it's supposed to in my life, *It's The Right Bible*..:) Stet

(http://img9.photobucket.com/albums/v24/Stetson11/HPIM0417.jpg)

Good post on the whole, Whitehorse, but I'd like to follow up on a couple of points:

Firstly, there isn't really such a thing as a literal translation - if you literally translate word for word you end up with gibberish.  It's a sliding scale of how accurately you try and stick to the (closest) equivalent words verses how much you try to maintain the sense of the passage.  Having said that, I think there probably is a market out there for a new translation at the word-equivalent end of the scale.


You do that whenever you translate though.  Even choosing which English words to use for which Greek.  If there existed one-to-one correspondence between greek and english we wouldn't have a problem, but there isn't.

But you make choices or you end up with all footnotes and no bible.   The choices are a bit less for word-equivalence than dynamic-equivalence, but they are still there and you're only kidding yourself if you think they are not.  The authors of the A.V. had to make choices, just as the authors of the NIV, RSV or any other translation had to make choices.



Yes and no.  Most of the AV is very well translated, but some of it is not.   In some cases we know more about how a word was used in greek or hebrew than they knew.  In some cases they've borrowed heavily from previous latin translations that were not perfect either.

The A.V. is no more annointed by God than any other translation, and makes no such claim for itself.


As did the authors of the A.V.    Not intentionally, of course - it's inevitable in any translation.  

The A.V. is not the definitive version of God's word - the original greek manuscripts are.



Shame its not perfectly accurate then.

I'm sure that's true  ;D

This raises a good question: how do you tell a good translation from a bad one? I know of one free translation that actually substituted Washington for  Rome (being our capitol here in the US), and another that changed the words into inner-city slang. How do you feel about free translations?

The slang ones are gimmics - if they get someone interested, that's great, but they aren't intended to be used seriously.

Some of the other freer translations are intended to get you thinking about passages in another light.  They are not intended to replace more straighforward translations, but to complement them.

Before you decide whether a translation is good, bad or indifferent, you need to decide what purpose you are going to put it to.

Shylynne,


It does not claim so for itself. If by preservation you mean age, then there are older English translations.
Where exactly does God approve of one version? Where did He say, "The King James Version of the Bible is the only Bible that is accurate"? I think, somehow, it was men who said that. Not God.


Of course the words are going to be different. Translators cannot help that. I would not want to be a translator, personally, it is a very difficult thing to do. On the one hand you have to deal with a foreign language where one Greek word could have the meanings of several English words, or vice versa, for instance. On the other hand English is a living language, and therefore words change their meaning. That is why the KJV, though a good translation, is hard for some people to understand. Parts of it are now offensive - for reasons of profanity - because the language has changed. Naturally newer versions will take into account both developments in our understanding of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (especially Greek - at the time of the KJV koine greek was considered to be a special language used only for the writing of the NT. It was only in the 19th C that more documents in koine were discovered, which naturally meant we can now understand it rather better.) The newer versions also take into account the change in our own language - and of course they pay attention to the change between American and British English, which the KJV naturally would not do.

I like the KJV, but it is not the only version I would use. Even were I to be so fond of it that I never read another version - I still do not see the justification for the leap between "I prefer this" to "everyone must only read this".

Preference...That's a Great Word isn't it, it allows us to share with others our most treasured appeals, without stating that it's the only one that will work :) Stet

Nice post, Broken... Nicely said. :)


On the other hand English is a living language, and therefore words change their meaning.


Boy you can say that again.  Just look at what's been done to the word "gay".

Like in the Christmas hymn, "...now we don our gay apparel..."


     :-X

       


Sheesh  thanks a lots Symp just thanks a whole lot.... never again will the song be the same ..............

There are lots of examples of words changing. "Gay" is one of them.

I can think of one which is changing as we speak - quite fascinating to watch. That is the word "cult". It has two meanings now, and I find it difficult to remember that there is a newer definition, and inadvertently offend people. The older definition of "cult" is :
ritual observances involved in worship of, or communication with, the supernatural or its symbolic representations. A cult includes the totality of ideas, activities, and practices associated with a given divinity or social group. It includes not only ritual activities but also the beliefs and myths centering on the rites.
and so we can describe Christianity as a cult quite honestly and with no intention to offend. The same goes with all other religions, past and present. It is interesting that the word "religion" has now taken up some of the meanings of the older definition of "cult" which seems to have led to the present "relationship not religion" sloganeering. Just a minor point ;)
The newer definition of "cult" is: The term cult is now often used to refer to contemporary religious groups whose beliefs and practices depart from the conventional norms of society. These groups vary widely in doctrine, leadership, and ritual, but most stress direct experience of the divine and duties to the cult community. Such cults tend to proliferate during periods of social unrest; most are transient and peripheral, or "false religion", "brainwashing", various other ways of expressing what we mean, but the word has become pejorative. Both of those quotes came from the Columbia Encyclopaedia (http://www.bartleby.com/65/cu/cult.html), by the way.

Erm, where was I? Yes, language changes, sometimes quite drastically, from generation to generation and even between generations. Any book that is used for a long time and is written or translated in a living language must adapt to the changes in that language, or become very very difficult to understand. In some ways, the Vulgate (or the Greek/Hebrew bibles) have the edge on this one, because as dead languages, they never change. But we are not native Latin/Greek/biblical hebrew speakers, unfortuantely.)

I`m laughing so hard I got tears! symphony  :-X

ah...yes...preference...a lovely concept...

and funny, if I took a leap, I dont recall doing so  ;)

The sum of all I have to say is I love the KJV, and the truth remains, (keeping in mind I am not saying there are no other versions that are acceptable) we must be careful what we accept to be the inspired word of God, always letting His spirit bear witness in this matter, for without the spirit we cannot hope to discern what is true.


We  still need a washing and renewing of the Holy Spirit!  :D

Who amoung us can eat meat  ;D

I love the language of the KJV. But I did hear of another reason that I haven't seen listed here for reading another version. I was listening to a Spanish speaking missionary who apologized for reading from the NIV - but he had trouble with English and so the NIV was actually easier for him to read from. I had never thought of that before... :-\

Truly, I am delighted that you enjoy the KJV. It is a beautiful translation, and it has changed and enriched our modern language immensely. It is part of the English-speaking world's heritage, and it is said, it is impossible to understand English literature unless you have read it, so great has been its influence. I am very fond of it myself, and often use it simply for the beauty of its language. I was as upset as anyone when they started saying the Lord's Prayer in a modern version - for all that I understand and accept why they decided to do so (how many people, especially kids, know what "hallowed" means?).
My difference from you rests purely on the issue of whether the KJV is God's own choice of Bible, or whether it is a good translation which some people prefer over all others. The first belief is one I dislike, for the simple reason that any Bible that brings you to God is a good Bible - people can be saved through the use of any. I daresay people have been saved by reading the Jehovah's Witness bible before. I do think God can and will guide us to good translations - which is no excuse for us finding out about those translations ourselves - but I see few of the modern versions which are wrong. I would avoid the TNIV, the street bible and a few others - but the rest, I have no problem with.
That said: my favourite version is the RSV :)


The best bible is the one that you read.

22 years ago I was poor and undone
21 years ago I became rich and had no money
20 years ago I had no Bible
Then one day I was at a yard sale and bought a Bible for $2.00

Why couldn't God have a KJV sitting there if that was His only correct version left.

Why would he trick me with a NAS

 :'(  sheesh read the very first line  SH  my heart is broken I shall never recover from such neglect  :'(

Well, I don't think we can use providence as a determiner of the will of God. God permits things He doesn't actually approve of. Of course, I'm not saying that applies here. I'm just saying there are more reliable ways to determine the validity of a translation.

I think in looking at what makes a good Bible, we should forget entirely what we want out of it. We shouldn't choose it because we like it or it is beautiful or it's easy albeit inaccurate as free translations invariably are. We must approach the word, not for anything that pleases us, because the Bible is, by definition, God's word to us. We should be trying out what it is He is telling us. If we read something that isn't translated correctly, we will fall into sin. Look how subtle satan is in Matthew 4. Even the slightest misinterpretation can lead to serious consequences. We come to the Lord because it is His will; He chooses how He wants to use our lives, for we are His creation. God doesn't come to us on our terms. We go to Him on His. ;)

Oklahoma Howdy to Shylynne,

UM??, would the transformed IrishAngel be you? If so,


If not, I still agree with what you said above.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Oklahoma Howdy to Reba,

If the person needing these languages has a computer, I think that all of these languages are available free of charge with e-Sword.

If you are needing these languages in books, I think that I can get Spanish in my city of 110,000 people. For the other languages, I think you would have to either special order it or find some huge Christian Book Store somewhere. I hope this helped some.

Love In Christ,
Tom

sheesh read the very first line  SH  my heart is broken I shall never recover from such neglect

There, there Reba..... :P It wasn't that I didn't read what you wrote. It was that I didn't explain what I meant!   :-*

The missionary who's MAIN language is Spanish has a Spanish Bible - (and I thunk it was KJV?).

But for us English speakers, he was speaking in English, so he was reading from the NIV.... He had a hard enough time with English; the King James Version of it was way too much for him!

I had just never thought about that aspect of it....

Now have I confused you more?  ;D

OK  :)  thank you SH I can recover now  :)


The KJV, which i love, tells us Job had steel..... yet we know steel did not develop until about 1000 AD  seems to me to be a mistake of translation  what do you all think?


Job 20:24

24 He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.
KJV