PDA

View Full Version : Different bibles



Denny606
Feb 1st 2009, 07:19 AM
Why does it seem that every time some one quotes from their KJV Bible that there is someone who wants to discredit what it says or say it is a misinterpretation? It was good enough for our fore fathers to study and preach out of and I dare say that the world was not in the state of moral decay it is today.Personally I have a problem with it not all being there now,why did the Puritans Have the Apocrapha taken out? I believe it was just the one more step in the watering down the word of God.It seems to me that every time some one gets offended by what the KJV says ,instead of moving up and conforming their life to coincide with the word,the just go hunt them a bible that will accept what they are doing as alright ,when in most cases it's not.I am not trying to run any body down for their beliefs ,Just stating mine.I believe we are on a very slippery slope that is leading our people to torment, I am very plainspoken,I learned long ago plain talk is easily understood.Draw your line people ,it may not be where mine is but you had better have that line you won't cross,Denny

Jeremiah333
Feb 1st 2009, 11:54 AM
It seems to me that every time some one gets offended by what the KJV says ,instead of moving up and conforming their life to coincide with the word,the just go hunt them a bible that will accept what they are doing as alright ,when in most cases it's not.

Can you give an example? I've never heard anyone say that the KJV had anything wrong.

I own nine versions, including KJV, and every verse I've looked up has said the same as KJV, but the wording may be slightly different.

billy-brown 2
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:19 PM
Why does it seem that every time some one quotes from their KJV Bible that there is someone who wants to discredit what it says or say it is a misinterpretation? It was good enough for our fore fathers to study and preach out of and I dare say that the world was not in the state of moral decay it is today.Personally I have a problem with it not all being there now,why did the Puritans Have the Apocrapha taken out? I believe it was just the one more step in the watering down the word of God.It seems to me that every time some one gets offended by what the KJV says ,instead of moving up and conforming their life to coincide with the word,the just go hunt them a bible that will accept what they are doing as alright ,when in most cases it's not.I am not trying to run any body down for their beliefs ,Just stating mine.I believe we are on a very slippery slope that is leading our people to torment, I am very plainspoken,I learned long ago plain talk is easily understood.Draw your line people ,it may not be where mine is but you had better have that line you won't cross,Denny

The KJV translation is THE greatest English translation of the Holy Bible without question (in my mind, at least).

Nevertheless, there is no one English translation that can reveal all of the richness of the cultural, social, historical, and political nuances of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic documents.

(The Holy Bible is a Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek document.)

So, it is wisdom indeed to use an "all of the above" approach when reading the Holy Scriptures: Find all of the English translations you can, compare the versions together, and see what our Lord might be revealing to us.
:pp

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:33 PM
If the KJV was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!

In a verse I was struggling with and then found to be mistranslated, the KJV states that "the love of money is the root of all evil".

That would be false. The love of money (as correctly translated in the NIV) is the root of many kinds of evil.

threebigrocks
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:44 PM
If the KJV was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!

Uh... are you aware that the KJV wasn't in print until 1611? It was done for the Anglican church in England. That's about 1,559 or so years after the last writings of the apostles who wrote the New Testiment. Pretty sure they were dead by then. And - the apostles weren't denominational.

Not to mention - no mass printing until the after Reformation, which began in the early 1500's. All the apostles had were the OT documents, the scrolls, which were few and far between. I can gaurantee that not everyone had a copy sitting on their coffee table.

threebigrocks
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:46 PM
Draw your line people ,it may not be where mine is but you had better have that line you won't cross,Denny

And that has absolutely nothing to do with which translation of the Bible you read. At all.

It's deeply an issue of self control.

Jeremiah333
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:53 PM
If the KJV was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!

You are joking, right?


In a verse I was struggling with and then found to be mistranslated, the KJV states that "the love of money is the root of all evil".

That would be false. The love of money (as correctly translated in the NIV) is the root of many kinds of evil.

How do you know which is translated correctly? Have you checked the original language to see which translation fit best?

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:15 PM
Uh... are you aware that the KJV wasn't in print until 1611? It was done for the Anglican church in England. That's about 1,559 or so years after the last writings of the apostles who wrote the New Testiment. Pretty sure they were dead by then. And - the apostles weren't denominational.

Not to mention - no mass printing until the after Reformation, which began in the early 1500's. All the apostles had were the OT documents, the scrolls, which were few and far between. I can gaurantee that not everyone had a copy sitting on their coffee table.

What are you talking about?! Everytime the Apostles or Christ Himself quoted Scripture, they quoted the King James Version! Just look at the following:

Matthew 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Christ quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 of the KJV right there. He didn't use the NIV, or the NASB, or any other version but the Word of God, the KJV.

If it was good enough for Christ, it's good enough for me!

Jeremiah333
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:24 PM
What are you talking about?! Everytime the Apostles or Christ Himself quoted Scripture, they quoted the King James Version! Just look at the following:

Matthew 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Christ quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 of the KJV right there. He didn't use the NIV, or the NASB, or any other version but the Word of God, the KJV.

If it was good enough for Christ, it's good enough for me!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry..........

Walstib
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:37 PM
Hi Denny,

It seems to me that every time some one gets offended by what the KJV says ,instead of moving up and conforming their life to coincide with the word,the just go hunt them a bible that will accept what they are doing as alright ,when in most cases it's not.
I don't know about you but I had no idea what lasciviousness was until I looked it up. Let alone how to pronounce it.... ;)

You make a good point, but people hunting for different translations that say what they want to hear is not limited to the situation you present. Going from a more modern one back to the KJV to find it is the same thing. Therein lies a lesson I think, are we searching to prove ourselves right or are we searching to make sure we are not wrong. It does not matter what translation you are using for this.

Peace,
Joe

threebigrocks
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:39 PM
What are you talking about?! Everytime the Apostles or Christ Himself quoted Scripture, they quoted the King James Version! Just look at the following:

Matthew 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Christ quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 of the KJV right there. He didn't use the NIV, or the NASB, or any other version but the Word of God, the KJV.

If it was good enough for Christ, it's good enough for me!

Okay....uhhhhh....NO! :help:

YUKE! There's a reason it's also referred to the as the 1611 King James. It wasn't completed until 1611. Even if the apostles lived as long as they did in preflood days - the oldest person then only lived to be 930 years old! Even living that long doesn't get a person from 70 AD to 1611!

But I'd love to see the math that works it out....

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 03:47 PM
What are you talking about?! Everytime the Apostles or Christ Himself quoted Scripture, they quoted the King James Version! Just look at the following:

Matthew 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Christ quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 of the KJV right there. He didn't use the NIV, or the NASB, or any other version but the Word of God, the KJV.

If it was good enough for Christ, it's good enough for me!

I might be new here and all, but I think this is a little silly. The KJV is based on copies of copies (we don't know how many times since the originals are either lost or locked away in Vatican catacomb vaults) of letters written by inspired writers. Yes, the KJV translators did a heck of a job in translating those Greek and Hebrew words in English, but it is not perfect. For one example as I don't want to debate this, we see the word Easter. Ok, Christians keep Easter over Passover....I understand this. But the Greek word translated as Easter is the Greek word for Passover. So Passover would have been the proper word in that case.

I love the KJV, don't get me wrong. It is my primary "sword" of choice. But to think that English translators took copies of another language perfectly into their own shows a lack of linguistic understanding. Not every Greek word has a perfect counterpart in English, just as Hebrew lacks perfect counterparts in Greek. This is why we are told to beware of the scribes and called to study to show ourselves approved a workman unto God.

Bosco

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 05:17 PM
I honestly thought you guys knew me better than this....

I thought I would keep 3BR going, but when others also started jumping in, it was time to clarify. I am one of the largest proponents AGAINST solely using the KJV.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry myself. It's so funny it hurts.

Emanate
Feb 2nd 2009, 05:35 PM
I honestly thought you guys knew me better than this....

I thought I would keep 3BR going, but when others also started jumping in, it was time to clarify. I am one of the largest proponents AGAINST solely using the KJV.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry myself. It's so funny it hurts.


Thou shouldest not worry. Verily, I was with ye.

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 06:30 PM
Thou shouldest not worry. Verily, I was with ye.

Verily verily I say unto thyself, the eggeth is in my faceth.

Bosco

Gulah Papyrus
Feb 2nd 2009, 07:06 PM
I honestly thought you guys knew me better than this....

I thought I would keep 3BR going, but when others also started jumping in, it was time to clarify. I am one of the largest proponents AGAINST solely using the KJV.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry myself. It's so funny it hurts.

At first I couldn't believe you believed that. Now I can't believe that I believed that you believed that. Nice work!

Interesting that it wasn't completely obvious due to the fact that there are KJVO's who think along those lines.

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 07:56 PM
Yukerboy 3:16 Joketh not, lest ye be joked upon.

Jeremiah333
Feb 2nd 2009, 08:49 PM
I honestly thought you guys knew me better than this....

I thought I would keep 3BR going, but when others also started jumping in, it was time to clarify. I am one of the largest proponents AGAINST solely using the KJV.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry myself. It's so funny it hurts.

Wooohoooooooo!! I am sitting here howling, it is so funny!

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 11:50 PM
Thank Waltsib, he was the one that convinced me to "let them off the hook". :)

I wanted to go so much further, but I couldn't. I had examples of how the King James was handed down to Moses and everything. :)

Jeremiah333
Feb 3rd 2009, 12:35 AM
Thank Waltsib, he was the one that convinced me to "let them off the hook". :)

I wanted to go so much further, but I couldn't. I had examples of how the King James was handed down to Moses and everything. :)

:o


Wow, I'd have really been crying, then!

:rofl:

ears2hear
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:13 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry..........

Well, I got a giggle...:D

Sirus
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:50 AM
I love the KJV, don't get me wrong. It is my primary "sword" of choice. But to think that English translators took copies of another language perfectly into their own shows a lack of linguistic understanding. Not every Greek word has a perfect counterpart in English, just as Hebrew lacks perfect counterparts in Greek. This is why we are told to beware of the scribes and called to study to show ourselves approved a workman unto God.

BoscoYes, and I suppose you think, despite no scripture says so, that God created a perfect world for a perfect man to dwell in? God said it is good, not perfect. That's the Hebrew BTW ;)

In other words, who said it needs to be perfect for imperfect man to understand it? Certainly not God!

Oh, and this has nothing to do with why we are told to beware of scribes. Learn what the scribes believed in Jesus' day before saying something so baseless. Then look at amillennialist/spiritualist...there's your scribes. ;)

Diolectic
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:51 AM
Can you give an example? I've never heard anyone say that the KJV had anything wrong.

I own nine versions, including KJV, and every verse I've looked up has said the same as KJV, but the wording may be slightly different.Hebrews 4:8 name Jesus should be Yashuah; yeh-ho-shoo'-ah

1Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is A [not the] root of all evil.
If money is the root of all evil, then Adam sinned in the garden because of his love of money.

Hebrews 9:28 Should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and He shall appear a second time, apart from (being a) sin-offering, to those waiting for him--to salvation."

Revelation 14:4 should be "as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb" or "a firstfruit to God and to the Lamb", because the 144,000 are not all THE firstfruits.

Anyway, the KJV is not the BEST translation out there, even though it is a good one.

Sirus
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:55 AM
It is by far the best. You listed a few, I can list 100's from modern trans....

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:29 AM
Hebrews 4:8 name Jesus should be Yashuah; yeh-ho-shoo'-ah

1Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is A [not the] root of all evil.
If money is the root of all evil, then Adam sinned in the garden because of his love of money.

Hebrews 9:28 Should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and He shall appear a second time, apart from (being a) sin-offering, to those waiting for him--to salvation."

Revelation 14:4 should be "as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb" or "a firstfruit to God and to the Lamb", because the 144,000 are not all THE firstfruits.

Anyway, the KJV is not the BEST translation out there, even though it is a good one.

Good point on Heb. 4:8. The verse is actually speaking about Joshua, in Hebrew that is Yahshua. The KJV, like almost all modern versions, continues in the "tradition" (read new version prefaces) of replacing God's name (YHWH) with LORD.

Most don't realize that the 1611 version didn't even have the name Jesus in it. There was no letter J yet, so it was written as Iesus.

Still, the KJV is my first choice if I had to make one.

Bosco

Denny606
Feb 4th 2009, 08:23 AM
Uh... are you aware that the KJV wasn't in print until 1611? It was done for the Anglican church in England. That's about 1,559 or so years after the last writings of the apostles who wrote the New Testiment. Pretty sure they were dead by then. And - the apostles weren't denominational.

Not to mention - no mass printing until the after Reformation, which began in the early 1500's. All the apostles had were the OT documents, the scrolls, which were few and far between. I can gaurantee that not everyone had a copy sitting on their coffee table.
I have sat back and not defended my position and now I want to ask you a question about a statement you just made here that the KJV was not in print until 1611 and no mass printing until the early 1500,s and I suppose that you ,are saying that there was no technology for mass printing until then.And you think that all the apostles had were the scrolls /OT and they didn't have any thing else to go by.Yes the apostles were dead by 1611,are you saying that the threw away everything that was written down by the very ones who walked with Jesus Here on Earth,saw him after he was raised from the dead and some saw ascend back to the Father,do you think that the early Christians would not keep as accurate record as they could have,and the argument that it is not translated perfectly from the Hebrew and Greek,does not hold water when it is also not translated perfectly from the Kings English into modern terms either.And I am also disappointed that two or three members would hijack a post to make fun of people that don't agree with their views.It truly is getting hard to tell the world from the church.I would that you examine yourselves before making fun of some one else and laughing at their expense, Not showing a lot of brotherly kindness there ,are we,you can make fun of me some more now or forget it either one,I will not revist this post any more and apologize for starting it to any one else it may have hurt

Denny606
Feb 4th 2009, 08:25 AM
Uh... are you aware that the KJV wasn't in print until 1611? It was done for the Anglican church in England. That's about 1,559 or so years after the last writings of the apostles who wrote the New Testiment. Pretty sure they were dead by then. And - the apostles weren't denominational.

Not to mention - no mass printing until the after Reformation, which began in the early 1500's. All the apostles had were the OT documents, the scrolls, which were few and far between. I can gaurantee that not everyone had a copy sitting on their coffee table.
I have sat back and not defended my position and now I want to ask you a question about a statement you just made here that the KJV was not in print until 1611 and no mass printing until the early 1500,s and I suppose that you ,are saying that there was no technology for mass printing until then.And you think that all the apostles had were the scrolls /OT and they didn't have any thing else to go by.Yes the apostles were dead by 1611,are you saying that the threw away everything that was written down by the very ones who walked with Jesus Here on Earth,saw him after he was raised from the dead and some saw ascend back to the Father,do you think that the early Christians would not keep as accurate record as they could have,and the argument that it is not translated perfectly from the Hebrew and Greek,does not hold water when it is also not translated perfectly from the Kings English into modern terms either.And I am also disappointed that two or three members would hijack a post to make fun of people that don't agree with their views.It truly is getting hard to tell the world from the church.I would that you examine yourselves before making fun of some one else and laughing at their expense, Not showing a lot of brotherly kindness there ,are we,you can make fun of me some mor now or forget it either one,I will not revist this post any more and apologize for starting it to any one else it may have hurt

Scruffy Kid
Feb 4th 2009, 01:28 PM
Dear Denny606,
Welcome to Bibleforums! :hug:
It's really good to have you here!!!! :pp :pp :pp :pp
And thanks for your good questions!

I want to try to straighten out the tangle the thread has gotten into, a bit.
I don't think that anyone really wanted to make fun of you. But if anyone did behave insensitively, it was only Yukerboy. I'm not necessarily criticizing him on this -- just pointing out that his several early posts were spoofs, parodies, as he's now told us plainly, and the others were reacting to him, not you.

In your initial post you expressed several concerns, all of them proper and serious. (1) you were bothered that you've experienced people seeking to discredit things someone said, when that one quotes from the KJ. (2) You were concerned about people watering down the Bible, and the Christian faith, and searching around for ways to excuse this -- such as by finding translations that softened hard-hitting elements in the Bible. (3) This was in the context of feeling that society has decayed morally. (4) You were concerned about slippery slopes, by which we get away from what God has instructed us, in the Bible.

These are all important matters, and listening to your posts, I'm so happy that you are here, and that you take all these things seriously.

Of course, as you know, that's different from necessarily agreeing with you on every single point.


About Translations

Usually when I quote the Bible here, I quote the KJV, simply because it's the easiest to get on line, and because I know lots of the phrases, so it's often easier for me to search for verses I want using that version. However, the KJV is not a perfect translation, and even if it were, or had been when it was made, it could not remain in every respect ideal forever. Thus, as Metzger (chairman of the translation committee of the RSV in the fifties and the NRSV in the nineties) there are at least three ways in which there can occasionally be problems with the KJV.

(i) Some of the English used means different things now than it did in 1611. The verb "suffer" is used in the KJV, as it was in England at the time, to mean "allow." Jesus is translated as saying "Suffer the little children to come to me", and means "allow them to come." But there have been people -- for instance Max Rafferty in the 1960s -- who quoted that phrase "Suffer little children" to imply that it meant punish little children (to make them behave, or something like that). Particularly for people who aren't deeply schooled in the history of the English language, such phrases can be misleading, which is one reason why people sometimes think a more modern translation might, at some verses, convey the meaning of the original better. Similarly, "let" is used, sometimes, in the KJV to mean "hinder" (like "let ball" in tennis; this usage also survives in certain legal phrases).

(ii) The Greek and Hebrew texts from which the KJ translaters worked were somewhat imperfect. They were based on a few late manuscripts, whereas now, because of much broader search for old manuscripts, we have quite a few very old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and can know much more accurately what the Greek and Hebrew originals read. Thus, at a few points where the KJ is based on an inaccuracy in the Greek or Hebrew manuscript from which they were working, it needs to be corrected.

(iii) Also, in the case of the NT, we understand the language of the original text much better than did the KJ translators. At the time, they had almost no non-biblical literature which was written in the style of the Greek New Testament -- the popular Greek spoken by common people throughout the Mediterranean (especially Eastern Mediterranean) in the 1st century AD. The translators knew classical Greek well, because there were many books in classical Greek; but they didn't know popular 1st century Greek well. It would be like someone trying to understand a contemporary conversation in English who had read Shakespeare and Milton, but had no experience with contemporary English and American speech. You just couldn't understand all the idioms. But since that time, we have discovered lots and lots of material from the 1st century, written in everyday Greek from that period. As a result, we understand the grammar and vocabulary used in the NT better. This can aid us in making better translations.

For exactly the same reason that you are rightly and properly concerned about people watering down the Bible's teaching, others are concerned to try to get our understanding of the Bible as accurate as possible, and as accessible to people as possible. This is one reason why people like more modern translations.

Another reason is that some people find the language of the KJV hard to understand, even when it's not misleading. Therefore they want translations into a kind of English that they find easier to understand. After all, the reason we have an English Bible at all is that Tyndale, and others, wanted ordinary people to be able to read the Bible in a language that they found easy to understand, rather than in Latin (which is what almost all scholars used in their research in any field, at the time). So people want contemporary translations because they find them easier to read.

None of those points, however, am I saying against what you said. There are ways in which many contemporary translations aren't as precise in their phrasing as the KJ. They want to get rid of difficult to understand words -- like "remission" for which they want to substitute "forgiveness" and "propitiation" which is the best and clearest translation of "hilasmon" and related Greek words -- because these are theological words that don't occur in everyone's daily speech. I oppose this, not so much because I think such substitutions are trying to "water down" the message of Scripture, as because I think they are "dumbing down" the theological language on the theory that "people will find it difficult to read", and that doesn't seem to me like the best way to translate for most people's best understanding.

You are of course welcome to disagree on these points, or object to what I say! We all make many mistakes, and I know I certainly do. It's helpful when others argue a different point of view: I learn from it, and sometimes change my mind.


Briefly, about other points

Mocking people

One of your points from the start, as I understand, was that you don't like people going around mocking or discrediting others for no good reason.

I fully agree, and apologize for anything in this thread that may have seemed to mock you. I really don't think that was anyone's intention. Especially, 3BigRocks, whom you quoted in your complaint about how people have talked, was responding to Yukerboy -- who was (jestingly as we now know) pretending to be a KJ only person and to think that the Bible was originally written in English -- and not to you. 3BigRocks is a very sensible and kind and helpful person, and would not mock your sincere beliefs, I assure you, whether or not she disagreed.

Watering down Scripture

I'm very concerned that in our day and age, the moral (and theological) teaching of Christianity is watered down in society, even by people who regard themselves as Christians; and that some translations also do this.

So I'm sympathetic with your concerns, and very glad that you feel strongly about them. I also appreciate your humble and tolerant attitude when you say "I am not trying to run any body down for their beliefs ...Draw your line people ,it may not be where mine is but you had better have that line you won't cross"

The big problem in watering-down, though, in my opinion, is not in translations, but in people wanting to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture. Of course, there are differences about how to interpret which are legitimate, but some people want to start getting away from fundamental teachings, morally and theologically. I agree that to do this is doing no one a favor, but rather leading people to get themselves in big trouble, now and hereafter -- "leading them to torment" as you say.

There are other good points to discuss in what you say, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now!

Blessings on you!
In friendship, :hug:

Scruff
Scruffy Kid

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 01:57 PM
I have sat back and not defended my position and now I want to ask you a question about a statement you just made here that the KJV was not in print until 1611 and no mass printing until the early 1500,s and I suppose that you ,are saying that there was no technology for mass printing until then.And you think that all the apostles had were the scrolls /OT and they didn't have any thing else to go by.Yes the apostles were dead by 1611,are you saying that the threw away everything that was written down by the very ones who walked with Jesus Here on Earth,saw him after he was raised from the dead and some saw ascend back to the Father,do you think that the early Christians would not keep as accurate record as they could have,and the argument that it is not translated perfectly from the Hebrew and Greek,does not hold water when it is also not translated perfectly from the Kings English into modern terms either.And I am also disappointed that two or three members would hijack a post to make fun of people that don't agree with their views.It truly is getting hard to tell the world from the church.I would that you examine yourselves before making fun of some one else and laughing at their expense, Not showing a lot of brotherly kindness there ,are we,you can make fun of me some more now or forget it either one,I will not revist this post any more and apologize for starting it to any one else it may have hurt

Denny, if you look at my first post in this thread, you will see I start the post with what I thought to be a funny, then went on to show where the KJV translated a verse incorrectly, yet the NIV nailed it.

Also, do not think that I mock the KJV. If I were stranded on a deserted island and had a choice of one Bible version to have with me, it would be the KJV.

No one was making fun of you, nor those who believe the KJV to be the only correct English translation. I exaggerated the postings of people who only use the KJV from earlier threads and the others responded to me in kind.

Although, I'll tell you this...the story of Moses getting the KJV from God was going to be classic. :D