ChristiansUnite Forums

Below is from an article written by George H. Anderson Jr – I usually don’t cut and paste other people’s work but I thought he did a good job and I agree with his stand.  Your thoughts?

1. ALL of the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS to the Bible are LOST!

2. The Major Battle over which WORDS "belong" in the Bible has taken place in the New Testament Text. (As opposed to the Old Testament)

3. The Major Battle over which MANUSCRIPTS are to be "trusted" has taken place over the known New Testament Manuscripts. (As opposed to the known Old Testament Manuscripts)

4. From 100 A.D. to 1611 A.D. There were fewer than ten (10) Bibles in English. (partial or complete)

5. From A.D. 1611 - first printing of the AUTHORIZED VERSION [A.V.] (Now known as The King James Bible) - until 1881 individuals made a few new translations, usually unhappy with the A.V. 1611, and without any success.

6. From 1881 to the present day - NEARLY ONE (1) NEW TRANSLATION PER YEAR has come off the presses, again without much lasting success.

7. Nearly all the "new" Translations are based on just a FEW, A VERY FEW, MANUSCRIPTS: (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus - Primary "Authorities")

8. The many GREEK TEXTS for the "new" Translations are different from the GREEK TEXT of the A.V. 1611 in over 5000 places!

9. ALL the GREEK TEXTS for the "new" Translations are derived from and modeled after the Westcott and Hort GREEK TEXT.

10. The vast majority of the "Textual Critics" and "Biblical Scholars" subscribe, at least in part, to the complex Westcott and Hort Textual "THEORY".

11. Most of the "critics" and "scholars" embrace Griesbach’s elaborate Manuscript FAMILIES "HYPOTHESIS".

12. Most of the "new" Translations DIFFER from the A.V. 1611 in as many as 5000 places in the New Testament alone!

13. ALL The "new" Translations are ALIKE, that is they RESEMBLE EACH OTHER in contrast to the A.V. 1611, King James Bible.

George H. Anderson Jr

 Please stop starting new threads on the same topic my friend. I may move some, or all of these related topics into one thread.

 As far as this post - No one is claiming the KJV is not the closest to the origional manuscripts from antiquity. My contention is that the NIV does not corrupt any biblical doctrine. You haven't given any examples of where it does. The best you can do is point out "differences" which do not rise up to the level of doctrinal change.

bronzesnake

That's fine - move them if you see fit - makes sense - I'm easy to get along with.

God bless

Let me just say this. You have been civilized in your posts, although I don't fully agree with your contention that the NIV is an evil, corrupted text.

 Having said that, I may be beginning to see your point.
I still do not believe the NIV is as harmful as you claim - I may be persuaded differently, but as it stands right now, I don't think so.


Bronzesnake

1. Thanks for those kind words - sometimes I make a mess of things and go further than i shouild have but I try to stay civilized.

2. That's all I can ask - just a reasonable and objective look at a "not-so-popular" stand.  Yes, I understand it is a tough thing to do - to look at the other side when the majority is against it.  

I will seek to be even more civilized.  My apology for thinking you were "against" the KJV.  I've come away from some forums where  I was in the minority (as usual) against some hard-core KJKV rejectors and had some difficult "chats" so I carried the "atmosphere" here and should have slowed down and regrouped and observed more before I "shot off my mouth".

God bless

LOL  :D You and I are very similar my friend!  :D

Bronzesnake

Scary, huh!!!!  ;D

This whole doctrin is a raciest as British Israelism. It stinks of  white supremacy.

The AV1611 was correct in 1613 anyway..

I think that there is only one Bible that Christians should be reading, all others are corrupt.  Let me explain why:

Theological Reasons

Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Revised Standard Version)

The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that, “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V translation of this verse. The word used in the original Hebrew has long been understood to mean specifically a virgin in this context, and is incorrectly rendered “young woman” by the R.S.V. To make matters worse, this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the Revised Standard Version, but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No Christian should accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the R.S.V.

The Good News Bible, (or properly, Today’s English Version) Was translated by neo-orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word “blood” with the word “death” in many of the New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word “virgin” with “girl” in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Philips translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox religionists. For this reason we will not use them.

Textual Reasons

Many Christians do not know that most of the more than one hundred new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain version in the King James Version is “unfortunate,” usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800s, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee, This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

When the reader comes to John 7:53-8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this:

(“The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11.”)

Something similar is done to the Great Commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, and what the new versions are saying, is that a large amount of New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new textual theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4). Every man needs every word of God! A man’s needs will not be met unless he has received “every word” that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35). With this promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved through the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation.

So-called “textual criticism” is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions that one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guesswork and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James.

Practical Reasons

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the “thees” and “thous.” The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise from of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is “you.” Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is “I,” while the plural is “we.” The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is “he.” While the plural is “they.” Modern English, however, has only “you” for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the scripture means a singular “you” or a plural “you.” “Thou” or “thee” mean one person is being addressed, and “ye” or “you” mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.

We also find the use of italics in the old Bible a great help. The translators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language. The new translations do not do this. We appreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know what was added and what was original, and are disappointed that modern translators have let us down in this area.

The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. The King James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not have them. The reader determines where the quotation begins and ends by the context, and by other means of interpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us the luxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because they have inserted quote marks according to the translators’ interpretations of the various passages. John 1:15-18 and 3:27-36 presents examples of places in the Bible where the length of the quotations is a matter of interpretation.

Such features make the King James Version the most helpful translation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the “New King James,” which is partially translated from the traditional texts, denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, and the absence of quotation marks.

For all these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative, Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as their standard text. The new versions present too many problems and simply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for so long. Let’s stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it will move us from clarity to confusion, form authority to anarchy, from faith to doubt. We ought not to make such a move!
The following material was developed by Dr. Richard Flanders, Pastor of Juniata Baptist church in Vassar Michigan. For more information and pamphlets, call Dr. Flanders at 517-823-7848

Nice work Walter - thanks for the KJV support - rare these days.

God bless

Thanks...The only Bible I will ever recommend to anyone is the KJV, it is completely reliable, and has the closet, and best translations.

In His Service,
Walter

Brother,

I actually think there are a large number of Christians who believe KJV only, KJV best, or KJV among the best translations.

The problem on many forums and in person is that some folks go to war and almost come to blows in the discussion of this topic. We have at least one thread here that had to be locked because it elevated into name-calling and bashing. I've seen and heard many discussions on this topic that remained quite reasonable and informative. It's a shame that many discussions of differences between Christians resemble gladiators instead of Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I'm sure that maturity is a large factor in this.

So, I would conclude that many are closer to agreement than some would think. They just don't want to cut and slash with swords to discuss it.  :D

By the way, I would say KJV best and I rarely use anything else. On the other side of the coin, I know that other translations can be and are used by God to draw the lost to Christ. Along those same lines, I pray that God uses us and our words, however simple, to share the Gospel of God's Grace with the lost.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1Corinthians 1:18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

DID YOU KNOW---------------


That the New Testament part (Rheims) of The Rheims Douay Bible (catholic) was used extensively by the King James revisers?

That King James, in 1603, was presented with a petition of grievances by the clergy of Puritan convictions which led King James to call a conference "for hearing and for the determining of things pretended to be amiss in the church."  It was at this Hampton Court Conference that Dr. John Reynolds, the leader of the Puritan Party and the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, made the motion that a new translation of the bible be undertaken.  Even though the majority were against it, it appealed to King James.  He ordered that such a translation be undertaken.  While this 1611 version is called the "authorized version", no act of parliment was ever passed approving it.  There were a considerable number of misprints in the next 3 editions.  Thirty-nine percent of the vocabulary of the KJV is unique.  All controversial notes were excluded, but there were over 4000 marginal notes, giving the literal meaning of Hebrew words, and 765 in the NT indicating variant or alternative renderings.  The chapter summaries and page headings were new, and some of these chapter headings are an indication of current theology and then prevalent principles of Biblical interpretation.  The OT rested upon the same Masoretic Hebrew text as all subsequent versions, but inasmuch as no ancient manuscripts of the Greek NT arrived in England until 1628, those responsible for this greatest of all versions did not have the advantage of the best Greek text.

In 1613, the text showed over 300 differences from the original 1611 version.  Thirty thousand new marginal references were added in versions appearing in the late 1760's.

The KJV gradually came to be accepted as so far absolute that in the minds of myriads there was no distinction between this version and the original texts, and they may almost be said to have believed in the literal inspiration of the very words which composed it.-------Albert S. Cook

Great points Cris.  The main reason I don't read the KJV is that my comprehension of it, even with work, is far less than with say the NASB or NKJV.  

And I've always wondered what the whole KJV only debate amounts to for a native of India, Mexico, or Ukraine?  They don't speak english, let alone old english.  What should they do?  Learn old english?  They might aswell try Ancient Greek.  And if they shouldn't have to learn another language inorder to have God's Word, then why should I?  Old English is not my language either.  I'm interested in the greek manuscripts and accurate translations from them, not an outdated translation authorized by King James, though other good english language translations preceded it and followed it.  

If the debate is all about manuscripts, then what's wrong with the NKJV?  It would take a lot of convincing before I buy into any universal conspiracy theories.    

That said I don't care whether anyone or everyone reads the KJV as long as they understand it.  I just don't like being looked down upon or disregarded over the issue.  I've seen that happen as many of us have.  My parents were once told that if they don't have the KJV, they don't have God's Word, they just have some other book.  AVBunyan seems to not be divisive over the issue, which shows wisdom on his part (Jas 3).  Following God's Word is what really matters most.    

Anyway just my two cents.  If a KJV onlyer would answer my questions I would listen.  

Ben          

I believe what your parents were told is accurate.  The only reason it seems that that no one can accept the KJV is because of pride of being different then the norm.  Be humble, and take heed with an open heart.  I have looked into the new versions, and the greek mauscripts, and there are many contextual disagreements between the both.  The KJV seems to have the most accurate translation, but everyone has a right to thier opionion, just don't have a different one, just to say so...That would be moronic, not to say anyone is like that, but I am sure there are souls that feel just that way.

In His Service,
Walter

Romans1013@walterkarroll.com

So you don't view the KJV as directly inspired, just the most accurate translation of them all?  I don't have a problem with that position.  I'm not a textual critic or a Greek scholar though I've studied a bit of both.  

My own persuasion against the KJV has largely come from the faulty biased reasoning of KJV only advocates.  Having listened to sermons with titles like, "Logic must prove the KJV" and read articles by others with the same views, I found their arguments to be weak.  If there is a legitimate case to be made they ought to put their best foot forward.  The whole thing never made any sense to me anyway.  Nobody's yet answered my question about what I am to do if I don't speak english.  I'm sure it's answerable.  


Ben  

They have Bibles that are translated into hundreds of lanquages.  That shouldn't be a problem at all.  I know one of my churches missionaries is in Romainia, and I believe he is working with some firm, and are planning on  making a Romainian Bible translation.  Not sure if I spelt that wrong, but I am positive that is what was said.  KJV is translated to most languages, but there are some that are not because of the extreme varience in context.  So in that case, they would need to make translations from original mauscripts, which I believe they already do.

In His Service,
Walter

Romans1013@walterkarroll.com

For my own part in the "bashing" occurred in the other thread on this topic, I apologize.

Let me state my view more succinctly:

I do not believe that the KJV is the only version that we can use as Christians, and I do not even think it is the best one.  

However, I would never discourage someone from using it if they wanted to, telling them it is not the Word of God.  And many respected men and women have supported the KJV, and I laud them for their desire to defend God's Word.  Some I believe, have come with shaky arguments to support their conclusions; others have done a much better job.

It seems that without proper perspective, we miss Christ for translation issues.  Not to minimize the Word of God, but perhaps the time I spent in the last discussion could better have spent in a discussion on the supremacy and excellency of Christ?  

Just some thoughts.

Joel

:)

AMEN Joel, that is well said!

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Jehemiah 5:13 Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and emptied. And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people did according to this promise.

I agree - at the same time I firmly believe that many miss Christ in their readings because they are reading very 'watered-down"  versions.  Hence one of the reasons for my bringing up the issue - the AV1611 is very clear and precise on the major doctrines, such as Christ, while the mdoern versions are not.

God bless

Seems the young one can be the most grown-up. Nice post Joel.