ChristiansUnite Forums

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE? (Part 1)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)


For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Our examination of this important subject will by no means be exhaustive, given the space available to us here, but we hope to give the reader enough information that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as to which Bible is reliable and which version in not.

A bit of background to begin with: In 1881 there was introduced into public circulation a new Bible text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee which produced the (English) Revised Version, 1881, and the American Standard Version, 1901.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations. It has been used to replace the Received Text of the KJV and its predecessors. There is, however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is not reliable-and more and more are returning, we have, to the KJV.

As we compare verses, we will see why this is true. We have objective evidence as the reliability of the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions-overwhelming evidence that new versions are not simply better translations. Nor are they simply revisions of the KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts which often question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

In Matthew 1:25 the words "her firstborn son" are consistently omitted by modern versions. In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and 23:14 are omitted entirely, while in Matthew 24:36 the words "nor the Son" are added.

There are literally hundreds of these type textual alternations which have nothing to do with translation. They come because of the difference in what is being translated-the Greek texts being used are substantially different. And the difference is by no means insignificant.

In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God's Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:

In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" is changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting life" (NIV) The words "on me" are left out [footnote 1].

John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God "the Father instead of "my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).

Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily "for us" (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by Himself purged our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause "through His blood" is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for redemption.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up into heaven," referring to our Lord's ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the Father" are omitted.

By now it should be obvious that the new versions are not simply "better translations" or a revision of KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor changes which do not affect basic meanings.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

We are using the New International Version for comparison quotes because of its present popularity. What is true of it however, is consistently true of other versions.

------------------------------------------------------------

(Part 2)

SERIOUS QUESTIONS

Because of the subtle nature of the deception used to corrupt God's Word, we want to offer three examples of the absolute devastation caused by these new versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in regard to these issues has caused some to pass off as only a minor irritant the numerous passages which are altered so as to eliminate or dilute statements on the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of this, and the emotional allegiance often attached to those recommending the modern versions, we ask our readers to consider the impact of these three passages on their faith. These three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are unsafe.

1. Matthew 5:22: Often it is difficult to grasp the impact of what seems to an innocent omission. Here is a verse where this syndrome is demonstrated to be a subtle trap leading to spiritual destruction. In KJV the verse reads,

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The NIV renders the verse thus:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Did you catch the omission? The phrase "without a cause" is omitted from the statement "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This does not seem to be too very consequential at first glance. But for a Bible student who is serious about believing and honoring the Word of God, this verse is devastating.

If the reader is diligent it will not be long before he comes upon Mark 3:5, were we are told about our Lord:

"And when he had LOOKED ROUND ABOUT ON THEM WITH ANGER, BEING GRIEVED FOR THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS..."

The problem is obvious: If the NIV reading is to stand, our lord is condemned by His own words.

This is no small matter! By this seemingly unimportant omission in Matthew 5:22 the modern versions have destroyed the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ and established him as a sinner, condemned for failure to live by His own declaration.

2. Mark 1:2: This verse brings up the dementia associated with the use of modern versions. The following change is so amazing that we doubt anyone would believe it if the record was not clear. In KJV the verse reads,

"As IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

The NIV rendering is consistent with other modern versions:

"IT IS WRITTEN IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way."

Any reference edition or center column reference will quickly establish the problem for modern versions: The quotation in Mark 1:2 is not from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1. Mark 1:3 is a quote from Isaiah 40:3. Thus two prophets are being quoted, not one. The statement in NIV (and other new versions) is simply false.

This is simply a case of the Greek text and resultant English translation being wrong. It is a mistake, plain and simple. No amount of sophistry can argue around it. Notice the verse does not say, "It was spoken in Isaiah" (as in the case of Matthew 27:9's quote of Jeremiah). No. The quote is clearly said to have been "written in Isaiah."

Two possibilities exits: Either Isaiah, as we have it, is incomplete, omitting the quote (and thus the Bible itself so not complete), or Mark is mistaken, having given the wrong reference (which would mean that the Holy Spirit made a mistake writing the Scripture).

These two choices leave us in the unenviable position of having to adjust our understanding of Biblical infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility will not stand the test if the reading of the new versions is accepted.

3. Hebrews 3:16: We add this reference because it too seems to be too impossible to be real. Unfortunately it is all too real-and illustrative of the caliber of modern versions. KJV renders the verse this way:

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit NOT ALL THAT CAME OUT OF EGYPT BY MOSES."

The verses changed in NIV to read:

"Who were they who heard and rebelled? WHERE THEY NOT ALL THOSE MOSES LED OUT OF EGYPT?"

In others words, KJV says that "not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" rebelled while NIV indicates that "all those Moses led out of Egypt" did rebel. Any junior in Sunday School knows which of the two is right!

After four decades of wilderness wanderings, Moses addressed Israel as she prepares to enter the promised land. Deuteronomy 29:2 tells us,

"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE LAND OF EGYPT UNTO PHARAOH..."
(cf. Deuteronomy 1:30).

Obviously some of these who were in Egypt and saw with their own eyes what God had done there also entered into the promised land, having not rebelled in the wilderness. As we said, any junior aged boy or girl could name two of them: Joshua and Caleb! One wonders what the translators of the NIV and other versions have been reading.

Why should we accept a Bible version that is not true-especially when we have one that is? Why would we accept a Bible that openly denies the sinlessness of our Lord and that makes the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility a falsehood?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BOOK WILL DEFEND ITSELF
We do not fear for God's Word, He'll take care of it! We fear only for its readers. These new versions are simply unsafe to rely on.

We trust this information will help our readers to understand this issue more clearly. Compare the verses for yourself and you will see that we do have a reliable, dependable copy of the Word of God in our own language. God has preserved His Word and made it available to us in our own language in an absolutely dependable form, the King James Bible.

By Pastor Richard Jordan

Only by the small minority of Christians that happen to speak English.

a translation of the Word of God, surely.  The translators make it clear in the preface that they didn't think they had done a perfect job.

There have always been multiple translations available.  Well, not always, but the AV was not the first translation into English.


As reliable as the AV, yes.

Many?   A tiny few.



Not exclusively, no.   Most modern translations use an eclectic mix of texts, including but not limited to Westcott & Hort's work.

Lets get this into perspective - the bible is about 1500 pages long. The discrepencies are small and few, are mostly not of doctrinal importance, and very very few would actually affect any doctrine not made clear in another undesputed passage.

SOME DIFFERENCES SNIPPED

The fact of differences does not and cannot prove which of the two texts is the more accurate.  In fact, it's pretty much certain that the AV will be right in some cases, and the new translations in others.

eh?
Are you claiming the new translators chucked out the doxology to make it fit the version preferred by the Roman Catholic church, or that the RC based their prayer on the modern texts?  You can't have both.

Such "changes" are based on what the greek manuscripts say.  They didn't go around changing stuff because they felt like it - they translated what they believed to be the best supported greek texts.

Who on earth do you think carried out this conspiricy?  A group of 2nd and 3rd century devil worshipers planting very slighlty corrupted manuscripts in places for people to find 1500 years later?   Talk about paranoid.

umm


Brother Love :)

No they are not.

You have to prove that the AV is perfect (something its translators did not claim) before you have demonstrated that a differing translation is corrupt.
Until you have done that, quoting differences only proves they are different, not which (if either) is correct.

Thanks  Bro Love,

Know one can see, why the WatchTower loves this 1881, translation, since it waters down or rejects the diety of Jesus;

It them becomes easier to teach, faith in other things, the church, oneself, for the faith necessary to be saved.

This is really the issue, in notg being able to agree with doctrine, nor unite in one faith, since those who love and read the new watered down transaltions, can let their imaginations run wild, and figbure their own works into the picture for their eternal life.

Unfortunately, claiming ignorance of the truth in that day, won't be much of an excuse.

Those who like to read the Bible in the vernacular languages, are simply to lazy to look up words, to find out what their true meanings are, or even to see if those words are subsatntiated in the original text (Hebrew-Greek).

They argue the KJV, is to formal and archaic, and hard to understand;  well the only other alternative is to learn Heberew or Greek, either way studying the scriptures, or making an effort learning the languages, isn't something they care  to do  and, I am sure they have their excuses for not doing that either.


Blessings,  

Petro.

No-one has demonstrated that the AV is closer to the original than the modern translations, so your whole post is built on sand.

ebia,


I suggest it is, the other way around, you, need to infrom yourself  mo-bettehhh..

For you and others that may not realize it, the KJV, contains pratically 80% of Wm Tyndale's translation "word for word", and the remainder would agree with  John Wycliffe's version of 1384.

So to make a claim, that the KJV the only Authorized Version, somehow or other is foreign to previous english translations is lacking in substance.

The KJV, in many instances contain the exact english words translated by Tyndales translation, ei: The entire Chapter of Gen 33.

http://jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/nwt/tyndale.htm
Here are little exerts, of thei article.

"In matters of accuracy Tyndale also set a high standard. For example, in translating from Hebrew, he tried to be as literal as possible while maintaining an easy, flowing English style. He was careful even to reproduce the Hebrew fullness of description with its frequent repetition of the word "and" joining clause after clause in a sentence. (See Genesis chapter 33 in the King James Version, which retains Tyndale's wording almost entirely.) He paid close attention to the context and avoided additions to or omissions from the original text, even though paraphrasing was resorted to by most translators of the time."

"Tyndale's word choice was also careful and accurate. For example, he used "love" instead of "charity," "congregation" for "church," and "elder" rather than "priest" where appropriate. This infuriated critics like Sir Thomas More because it changed words that had come to be venerated through tradition. Where the original demanded the repetition of a word, Tyndale was careful to reproduce it. To illustrate: At Genesis 3:15, his translation twice speaks of 'treading' done by the seed of the woman and by the serpent. Tyndale was also responsible for introducing God's personal name, Jehovah, into the English Bible. As writer J. F. Mozley observes, Tyndale used it "more than twenty times in his Old Testament" translations."

"But by translating the Bible into English, Tyndale incurred the wrath of the authorities. Why? Because as early as 1408 a council of clergymen met at Oxford, England, to decide whether the common people should be allowed to have copies of the Bible in their own tongue for personal use. The decision read, in part: "We therefore decree and ordain, that from henceforward no unauthórised person shall translate any part of the holy Scripture into English or any other language ... under the penalty of the greater excommunication, till the said translation shall be approved either by the bishop of the diocese, or a provincial council as occasion shall require."

Now, I assume you know the rest of the story concerning William Tyndale, and how he was arrested by the authorities, with the help of the Catholic church, for printing and distributing Bibles, so the common man could possess them in the english language, and was strangled and burned at the stake, for this heinous crime..of being a HERETIC, because he didn't obey the teachings of rome and the pope.

"To escape the persecution of the authorities, Tyndale fled to mainland Europe to continue his work. But he was at last caught. Convicted of heresy, he was strangled and burned at the stake in October 1536. His final prayer was: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." Little did he know how soon the situation would change. In August 1537, less than a year after Tyndale's death, King Henry VIII gave authorization to the Bible generally known as Matthew's Bible. He decreed that it should be freely sold and read within his realm."

God Bless,

Petro

Here's the problem: the AV folk will attest to their translation being most accurate because it follows their transcripts.  They will attest that their transcripts are the best because - why?  Usually because they will hold to the belief that theirs are more numerous.  However, I've said before, that the other side will claim the same with equal proofs.  The AV side will then try and use scripture to support their view.  Here's the problem with that - it only applies to God's word - not their view.  They will hold that the KJV alone (and the transcripts from which they came unless their Ruckmanite theologians) fits these scriptures.  Upon what do they base this?  Their opinion.  It cannot be upon anything but.  It cannot be upon the durability of the AV and Majority text families, unless they take the supporting passages out of context.  It cannot be upon the age of the texts as the other texts are also of aged composition.  Let me say here, that I do not argue for the NIV.  I personally don't care for the dynamic equivalency used in its renderings.  However, to down-play a 90-95% agreement between the texts due to word changes, or man-made omissions or inclusions, I believe to be short sighted.  

In turn, the AV folk will attest that the newer translations are in error, because they do not follow their transcripts for their translational work.  Again, faulty transcripts because they do not agree with the one's used for a longer period of time.  The longer time period of use making their version the only one acceptable because of miscontexted scriptural interpretation for support.  Basically, it becomes a large mess of "I'm rights" and "You're wrongs" that get us nowhere.   :(

Actually you are partially correct.

The KJV was produced in 1611, and since that time, thousands of older manuscripts have been found which corroborate, the later ones used to translate the translation, so it stands to reason, that the older manuscripts should be used to correct the later ones. Providinf they can be verified  as being original, unfortunately this may not be possible unless corroborated with older versiona which may be non existent, at this point.

So the answer should be no changes should be made until this is possible (to verify the text is authentic), otherwise you have problems with the newer version which publishers want to publish for the sake of monetary return.

We have a real can of worms on our hands, with the new english translations begining with the NIV, so one must use discernment, and seek wisdom from the Spirit of God on this matter.

As I said before when you have the cults, agreeing with a translation, then christians should take notice, because it usually means something is not right in the translation if it agrees with their version of the scriptures and their teaching.

Blessings,

Petro

Again, this is assuming that the transcripts currently found and used for the AV, are the authentic original.  This is where we come to the crux.  Why do we assume this?  Why do the "minority text" folk assume this of their transcriptural basis?  Hence, I believe to be truly true to the word, one must be ecclectic.  Regardless, one must adhere to the word.  The greatest argument for the AV folk is that the missing verses, or words change or weaken doctrine.  Uniquely, no bible doctrine is based upon one verse!  I also argue that as I fail to see this to be true.


I agree!  However, when I tell others of your viewpoint that I have done so...it is met with sceptical disbelief.  How could I come to this conclusion by the same Spirit you've come to your conclusion by?  The answer I give is pointed.  I have studied both sides, both from a scriptural and a tutorial basis.  That is, I have studied the books, lectures, and teachings of the TR side - studied under Dr. Clinton Branine.  I then studied under the other side with the same practices.  I came to the decision I have come to by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and am convinced that this is where the truth lies.  There are few on the AV side who have done this.  Many have accepted what others have said, or shown them in the scriptures at face value.  These are, btw, good men showing them these things!  However, it is not man that we are to look to.  It is God.

I am not, just as a side note, implying that this is what you, or the others are doing.  Rather, I say this if on the occasion that this happens to be true, you might take my course as a confirmation or condemnation of your current position.

We reflect those under whose tutelage we sit.  I would rather reflect the Spirit than any man - whomever he might be.

I am perfectly well aware of this, but what has it got to do with the current discussion.

I never made such a claim.

Try as I might, I can't figure out what you mean here.  Maybe its not important, but if it is can you spell it out?

I know.

So what?

This is still a pathetic argument, but just to demonstrate how pathetic.

1.  JW's do not like the NIV - they prefer it to some others, but they still prefer their own translation because the NIV still contains the foundation of much doctrine that contradicts JW teachings (eg the beginning of the Gospel according to St John).

2.  If the fact that a cult or heretical group uses your translation is damning evidence, then the King James Only crowd are in big trouble, because the Mormon's insist on using that version.

Other than that, I think Allinall summed it up pretty well.

What Bible version do you think is the most accurate anyone?

Opps. I now what you are going to say.  I mean ones that are in english.

KJV  :)

Brother Love :)

Define accurate.
Translated from the most authentic text?
Closest to the original words (which may make little sense to the current audience, given that idioms have changed)?
Closest to conveying the original meaning, even if that means using significantly different words and idioms?

Aucuracy of translation is a bit of a moving target - different translations are aiming at different things.   Most modern translations are based on similar greek texts, but have different aims, so it is a good idea if using a "paraphrase" translation like the Message or the Good News for ease of reading and understanding, to compare to a more word-for-word translation like the NRSV when closely studying the text.  The NIV is something of a compromise between the two camps, so is a decent "all-rounder" rather than a master of either.

Single-author translations, particularly, can give fresh insight into a passage (especially the "Luke for Everyone", "Matthew for Everyone", etc series by Tom Wright), but you have to bear in mind that ultimately they represents single person's view of how to translate a difficult to translate passage, rather than a consensus.

ebia,

Whats pathetic, is your presumpotion like Tibby's, to my claiming the JW's like the NIV, translation, I was refering to the Wescott & Hort Transalation of 1881.

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

Petro

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

Yes.

Love each other.

Did I say that right? Are those words of the Devil? I did not quote any Bible (that I know of) yet the Holy Spirit can and does use those words, because the Spirit is Truth. I remember hearing people at parties use the name of Jesus as a cuss word. His name convicted me because the Spirit of Truth was there working in my heart. I wonder, which version did they quote from? All they said was Jesus Christ and I was convicted about my sins. The Spirit still leads into all Truth because He is Truth.

God Loves Ya,

asaph

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.


What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

Well said and true.  Thank you!  :)

I hope so, because I still don't understand what his position is.

And please be quite clear about what exactly you are taking as "the original text".

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.  The reason may be that you, and others, keep referring to the "Westcott & Hort Translation".  in 1881 Westcott and Hort put together what they considered to be the best original Greek text.  They didn't translate anything, so calling it a translation is confusing.

Never the less, my point still stands that the fact that certain cults prefer one version over another does not offer evidence as to which is the more correct version.

Allinall,

You can back track to my reply#7, and check the website I provided, but above all else, spend time in learning the historical record of both Wycliffe, and Tyndale and the record of their translations.

It makes no never mind, who you studied under, no person has the corner on the truth, but history can prove or disprove, what you ahave been taught.

The fact is, the NIV, has ommited words or tweecked it enough in certain verses, to make quite a difference to the verses meaning,

I say look at the Comparison Table of Bible verses, provided.

I have never heard of the person, you studied under, just like you probaly have never heard of the bible translation experts the JW's put forth to justify their translation.

And even the history put forth by sides distort the truth, but, discerning individuals can cull it, by carefull consideration of it, by the Spirt.


Blessings,

Petro

Amen Petro Amen ;D

Do you plan to do any of the following:
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.
2.  Address any of the issues raised by other people?
3.  Acknowledge that, no matter how many differences you can find between the NIV and the AV, that cannot prove which (if either) is more accurate.
4.  Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).
5.  Put your commas in the correct place in sentences, so other people can understand what you are trying to say.

Actually the Mormons have to use an extra book to declare their beliefs.  Without it they have no case for their beliefs.  You see, if they just stuck to the bible, they wouldn't have so many silly extra beliefs.

I know, and I agree, but it doesn't nullify my point.

ebia,

What, you want me to teach you everything??

The answer is no, to all of the above..

Petro

ebia,

In answer to your questions.


I made my point twice, I say re read my answers..


What  are they??


Wrong...changing the words as the NIV, has done, changes the context, which then becomes a pre text.



Well here is a preview;

We know there is only 1 God. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (De. 6:4).

Now, turn to Daniel 3:25. In this verse, Shadrach, Messach and Abednego have been thrown into the fiery furnace.

However, they are not alone. Another one (a fourth) is there to help them.

Look at this verse in a the NIV.

Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, the NIVersion has a reading similar to the following:

   "... and the fourth looks like a son of the gods..."  
   A son of the gods?!  

(ebia, you see, anything wrong with this verse??)

There is only 1 God! (How about Isa 44:6)

Look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized (KJV) Bible says:

"... and the form of the fourth is like The Son of God"

Reffering of course to, The Lord Jesus Christ.

It was Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was with Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus protected them from the fiery furnace; and it's Jesus who will protect you and me from the fiery furnace (hell).

Now, who would think there is more than 1 God?  Well, Satan does. Remember what he said to Eve in Genesis 3:5 ?

   "... ye shall be as gods ..."!

Satan believes there is more than 1 God just as he believes that HE is EQUAL to God.



This is a dumb conclusion, the mormons can no more prove their doctrines, than the JW's could before they came out with their own translation, that is why, they use the "Book of Mormon", as their principle book to teach them, in effect they have elevated "The Book of Mormon" above the Bible and use the bible  only as a reference text.


Here are some more verses for you, since you are to lazy to go to the Comprison Table I posted;

  http://www.angelfire.com/wa/jasonsaling/images/textbox1.gif
 (ftp://http://www.angelfire.com/wa/jasonsaling/images/textbox1.gif)
Petro

ebia,

you said;


It doesn't matter what you think they did or didn't do, they call their work a translation, where do you think the verse in the NIV, came from, it wasn't from the AV.

You need to familiarize yourself with the historical facts, before you start posting, stuff like this..

I will help you;  here is a website on the history of the NIV, and where i came from.

I post it as sson as I can.





Petro

I've read them several times - they may make perfect sense to you, but to someone who doesn't know what you are talking about, they make no sense whatsoever.

2.  Like answering the above.
Like acknowledging that Westcott & Hort produced a greek text, not a translation.
Like acknowledging that the Erasmus was a Catholic, so the fact that W & H were Anglicans is no different.
Most importantly, acknowledging that demostrating differences between the NIV and AV doesn't prove that the NIV changed anything, any more than it proves that the authours of the AV changed the same verse.

3.  "... and the fourth looks like a son of the gods..."   is quoting Nebuchadnezzar.  A man who does believe (incorrectly) that there is more than one God.

 Exactly.
The fact that the Mormons like the AV doesn't prove that it is rubbish.   The fact that the JWs like the NIV or the Westcott & Hort text does not prove that they are rubbish.  Now can we please leave the Mormons, the JWs and all the other non-Trinitarians out of the discussion.

I'm not too lazy to look at it.  I've looked at stuff like this plenty of times before.  You can quote differences until you are blue in the face.   Spotting a difference does not prove which is correct.

Now lets try and get something quite clear.  Which of the following are you asserting:
1.  The translators of the NIV deliberately made unsupportable changes in translating from the Greek Text they were using into English.

2.  The translators of the NIV accidentally made unsupportable changes in translating from the Greek Text they were using into English.

3.  The translators of the NIV deliberately used an inappropriate choice of Greek texts.

4.   The translators of the NIV based their Greek text on Westcott & Hort and others in good faith, but W & H deliberately produced a corrupt text.

5.   The translators of the NIV based their Greek text on Westcott & Hort and others in good faith, but W & H accidentally produced a corrupt text.

6.   God is an Englishman and wanted us to all read the bible in 16th Century English all along, writing it in Greek and Hebrew was a mistake in first place, and any translation that doesn't use the exact words of the AV is clearly the work of satan.

ebia,

Here the website;  I say look at  it and argue with it..  there are links to others and if you are not satisfied, you can look, others up on your own.

Petro

You have to be joking.

If you don't want to debate this, that fine.

If you think I'm going to waste my time picking through someone else's website to post refutations here, you are very much mistaken.

ebia,


The reason why JW's like it is because it agrees more so with theirs, than the KJV does.


Who knows what their motive was, the fact is there are verses that are not there, and yet appear in manuscripts, and the verses which are butchered, by ommission, change thye text considerably, to the point that the gospel is not the same gosple, priuor to the changes.


You need to determine this for yourself.  The NIV, is continually being changed, the gender neutral version, won't sell in this country so, it isn't soemthing, this generation will deal with, but, in other country's it sells well,;

the version for young children, is deceitfull, in that it includes the number of the verses omitted with the previvious or latter verse, giving the reader the impression, that the verse is included in the text of that verse, when in fact it is totally not their.

As for your rendition, that Daniel 3:25 is speaking of Nebuchadnezer, is false, verse 26, places nebuchadnezer as one of the observers, to what others were seeing in the pit.

What version are you reading anyhow??

wheeeeww...........

Petro

BTW, is that how you do your evangelising:  "Here's a bible, read through it, if you have any questions try google."

And vice-versa for the Mormons.


I'm trying to work out what you believe, so I can concentrate on dealing with that rather than waste time on side issues.
I'm quite happy I know what I believe.


I wan't aware there was a gender neutral version of the NIV - I've not seen one in England or Australia.  They are not something I'm happy about, but that really is a separate issue.


I couldn't really comment, not having looked at one, but a young child's bible is, by it's nature, an imperfect comprimise.


As for your rendition, that Daniel 3:25 is speaking of Nebuchadnezer, is false, verse 26, places nebuchadnezer as one of the observers, to what others were seeing in the pit.

What version are you reading anyhow??
I was looking at the NIV as that was what you were railing against:
So it is the King saying it.

Likewise the AV:
which has "Son of God", but still has the King saying it:
King:  Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?
Advisors:  True O King
King:  Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

(Lack of quote marks in the AV do make life harder).

Oops, missed this bit:

In some manuscripts.  They leave out verses that are included in the AV, where other manuscripts have thrown considerable doubt on whether or not those verses are original.  In most if not all cases footnotes are present to alert the reader that a choice has had to be made.

Erasmus had to make exactly the same sort of choices when he put together the texts that were eventually translated into the AV, but with less information.

ebia,

I am not trying to evangelize you, what gave you such a notion, I recognize someone who is unteachable.

And you are that kind of person.

By your own account, the fact you believe the true word of God, includes the deuterocanonicall books, betrays where you have placed your faith.

I am giving you information, you can do with it what you will, it is plain you don't read the post addressed to you anyhow..

Another thing, is I wonder if you are able to process the information given to you??

This is probaly where your problem lies..inability or better yet unwillingness, to consider what is true.

You believe you already have it, but I hate to break your bubble, you don't..it isd plain.

Petro

DITTO ;D

Petro,

You've failed to give me scriptural support.  You've rather, sent me to past posts concerning the historical background of your favored translations renderings - Tyndale/Wycliffe.  What scripture do you use to support this?  If you've posted it and I missed it, please forgive me.  I'm old and tend to miss things sometimes.  :D  You also make note of the "tweeking" of the NIV; how they have changed words.  Realize, you are saying that they are changing words that inevitably make the NIV disagree with the KJV - not itself/its own transcripts from which it is derived.  As for the gender specific issue - I agree.  That is tampering at its worse level.  The point I mean to make here is that when you say the translation changes something, it only changes from the perspective of the TR - not from its transcript.

As for the website you listed for ebia, I'll check it and post later.  We must not stand on historical precedent but on scriptural principle.

Oklahoma Howdy to Brother Love,

I've been waiting for a proper time to do this again.

DITTO!   ;)

One plain KJV for reading, and one KJV with Strong's Numbers for deeper study.

In Christ.

That was a joke. Not the best I've ever made, but there you go.

LOL

In God, ta.

I've read everything on the thread, thank you very much.

The point of debate is not to see who can post the largest quantity of irrelevent or semi-revelent information, but to persuade people with relevent information tied together with ideas and logic.


An inability to fall down when bombarded with quotes, more like.

Test Your Knowledge of the King James Version
and other translations: A Brief Survey
by Rick Norris

True or False
1._____The King James Version became the official version of the Church of England, replacing the Bishops' Bible.
2. _____The KJV was the first English Bible to be published without the Apocrypha.
3. _____There were two different editions of the KJV published in 1611.
4. _____Some of the translators of the KJV were involved in persecuting other believers, even to the point of burning two men at the stake for their religious beliefs.
5._____Some of the KJV translators claimed that one man, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, made fourteen changes in their translation without their approval.
6. _____Some of the translators of the KJV were Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Independents while the rest were Anglicans.
7. _____One of the KJV translators had a brother that was one of the translators of the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.
8. _____The publishing of English-language Bibles including the KJV was permitted in America before the Revolutionary War.
9. _____ The KJV did not update or revise any of the words in the earlier English Bibles.
10._____Tyndale's Old Testament used the rendering "Jehovah" at least fifteen times where the KJV does not.
11. _____ The 1611 KJV has "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 while present KJV's have "seek God."
12. _____ In the book of Acts, the Great Bible has over 100 words that are not found in the KJV.
13. _____ The 1535 Coverdale's Bible does not have the rendering "penance," which was sometimes used in the earlier 1389 Wycliffe's Bible from the Latin Vulgate.
14. _____ The KJV N.T. was the seventh English translation of the New Testament.
15. _____ Erasmus was a Reformer like Martin Luther.
16. _____ Charles Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress, made the first English translation from the Septuagint and the first complete English translation by an American.
17. _____ The KJV updated some archaic uses of "quick" with "living" at some verses in the earlier English Bibles.
18. _____ The earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's do not have any missing verses and phrases when compared to the KJV.
19. _____ Erasmus admired Jerome, translator of the Vulgate.
20. _____ King James was a great, godly king, who loved the Puritans.

Answers to Survey about Bible Translations
with some brief explanations
by Rick Norris

True or False
1. True
2. False - The first English Bible published without the Apocrypha was an 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible.
3. True - (the famous "He" and "She" Bibles plus other differences)
4. True
5. True
6. False - All the translators of the KJV were Anglicans or members of the Church of England. A few were Puritans, but they were members of the Church of England.
7. True - (John Reynolds--KJV; William--Douay-Rheims)
8. False - No English Bibles were permitted to be published in America before Revolutionary War.
9. False - The KJV did revise or update the earlier Bibles.
10. True
11. True
12. True - The Great Bible has over 100 additional words from Latin Vulgate in book of Acts.
13. False - Coverdale's Bible does have "penance" a few times.
14. False - (Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, 1538 Coverdale's Latin-English N.T., Great, Taverner's, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', 1551 Bishop Becke's Bible, 1552 Richard Jugge's N.T., KJV)
15. False - Erasmus remained a Roman Catholic.
16. True
17. True
18. False - (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's did not have Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36 because they were not in Erasmus's Greek N.T. plus many phrases)
19. True
20. False - James hated the Puritans, and he was guilty of many ungodly actions such as persecuting believers.

Allinall,

You are focusing (fixated) on something other than the issue I have raised.

You don't have to go far to see the glaring differences of the translations, If you care to look at the Table of Comparisons, you can see the verses which have been changeed,m by ommission or additons or words.

What you are asking, you can resolve for yourself, by looking up how it came to be, I have supplied enough info, to help with that.

I am interested in taking alot of time for arguing the merits for the translations, as much as the actual results of the translation work, by these who have corrupted the good Word.

As for your query, concerning my favorite Tyndale&Wyclife renderings, specifically what is your question, I stated that the KJV (AV) is at least 80%+ verbatim with Tyndales, and a good portion of Wycliffes is also, found verbatim, in the KJV. I even pointed out Genesis 33, is word for words Tyndales.  This a historical fact.

I gave ebia, Dan 3:25, and the two renderings in the KJV and NIV, there is a substantial difference of between both of these translations at this verse, the  agrees with the New World Translation of John 1:1, refering to Jesus as a God.

There are many many more, I say look at the Table of Comparison, and by the way, you don't have to ask me, whats wrong with the verses.

If you can't see the problems, (like ebia there, he focus's on something other than the translation s) then  am not going to be able to explain them to your satisfaction anyhow.

Asking what is wrong with these two translations, when it is obvious to other chirstians, will only cause some to wonder, .........where are you here??

Blessings,

Petro

How many times to people have to point it out?

Showing there are differences does not and can not prove which is right.

The AV is not the original.   ::)

Ho hum.  I thought we'd dealt with this one - since they are the words of a king who did believe there is more than one God, the translation is perfectly reasonable.
Besides, the Aramaic is pretty clearly plural, so the translators of the AV seem to have made a mistake (or possibly perpetuated a mistake already present in the Vulgage).

This is all irrelevent though, because:
Showing there are differences does not and can not prove which is right.

Maybe I should put that as my signature line, to save repeating it.

If the KJV was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me and my family.


Brother Love :)

The point I have tried to make Petro is that you base these changes upon the transcripts/translations of the KJV.  The NIV and others disagree by changing those words.  You have neglected to address how they have remained true to the transcripts from which they were interrpreted.  You are either willingly or ignorantly unconcerned with this issue.  Nevermind the fact that the more numerous transcripts agree, and are those from which the other translations are derived.  The issue - as always - is whether or not those translations agree with the KJV and TR texts/transcripts.  Understand, when I say transcript, I am not referring to the translation, but that from which the translation has come.

HAHAHAHAH  ;D

Although now I have the clincher on you.  I know beyond a shodow of a doubt you are the same person as A4C because he gave the exact same answer before.

One of the best things I have yet to see you mention nor anyone else is that the "secondary"  :P Transcripts don't even agree with each other.  Let alone the fact some of them were picked out of a trashbin or more correctly "burn recptical".

Old Saying among KJV Only Believers.

Nope Your wrong Brother, I am really John the Baptist :)

Brother Love :)

More than less of them do agree (as there are more of these), hence the leaving out of verses found only in the TR text families.  And who's burn receptical were they pulled out of?  ;D

A Roman catholic monastery there sir.  That's for anyone who didn't know.  I have a feeling AIA you know very well where they came from, you'd just like to brush this off else where as it isn't good for your "side".

Yup!  I'm bein a little dickens here!  ;D  Seriously though, we attest great insight to the burners of these documents here, where it fits our viewpoint, yet condemn them on other areas there where it fits scripturally.  One problem: only one of those approaches is right!

Does the Holy Spirit have anything to do wth it?
Does it prick your heart as the sword of the Holy Spirit to lead you to faith in Jesus Christ and to love one another and to have no other Gods but Jehovah?
 Does it produce the fruits of the Holy Spirit in you?
Does it cause you to be watchful for the Lord's return and ready?
 Does it cause you to do good unto evil?
 Does it admonish and exhort you daily to assemble with fellow saints for the purpose of edifying and building one another up in the Lord?
 Does it make you want to sing and pray and shout praises to God and thank Him for His gift through Jesus Christ?
 Does it make you want to be with God where there will be no more pain or tears, or death or evil or bad?
 Does it make you want to lift holy hands to God and thank Him for all your daily physical blessings needed to sustain this life and also for all spiritual blessings in Christ now and to come?
Does it fill you with the love of God so much that you want to share this love with others?

If the answer is yes, you have the right Bible!

Thats why I have the right B-I-B-L-E The K.J.V. ;D

Strange, I feel the same way when I read my B-I-B-L-E.  The ESV... ;D

Not strange for you ;D

Allinall,

Well blow me down..............  the ESV, is, of all the vernacular versions, the one which most closely, follows the KJV.

Interesting you defend the transcripts used to change the AV, found in the trash can at the monastery, to be inspired.

The monk that placed it there, was more honest than you, he  recognized this is the place where these needed to be filed.

If I would have been the fellow that found them, and went on to use them, I would never have mentioned the fact they were in the trash receptacle.

But there you go, the Holy Spirit, makes this little fact known for those who want to know what the truth of all this is.

Petro

The monk.  The Catholic monk.  The Catholic monk who practiced the doctrines of the Catholic church which holds that the word of God is the word of God because the Catholic church says so above the assertions made within the scriptures themselves; holds to baptismal/sacremental regeneration; holds to the veneration of the Virgin Mary...shall I go on?  These are the same folks who "recognized the place where these (transcripts) need to be filed?"  And you say my honesty is in question?  :P  

As for the ESV, I chose it due to its ecclectic nature my friend.  Ecclectic.  Means I like the KJV too!  

<======KJV ONLY


Brother Love :)

Oklahoma HowwwwwDEEE To All,

In case you are wondering, Oklahoma Howdy is talking fairly softly and in a normal tone of voice. The above is very loud, almost yelling, and is designed to say hello to everyone in the general area.  ;D

I use the KJV only for the following reasons:

1 - I'm convinced that it is accurate to the extent that I don't have to labor with the original Hebrew and Greek very often.

2 - I really don't enjoy trying to translate from the original Hebrew and Greek unless I am really confused or I have a question that requires confirmation from the original language.

3 - Many of the best study aids, dictionaries, commentaries, and topic notes are designed specifically for the KJV.

4 - I love the poetic quality of the words and writing in the KJV. The KJV flows and is beautiful in my opinion.

5 - I don't wish to worry about inaccurate or liberal translations. I'm certainly not interested at all in a politically correct or gender sensitive translation designed to make men happy and not step on toes. I'm not saying that all of the other translations do this, but I don't want to worry about this issue.

If you are saved and growing in Christ using a different translation, good for you. However, for me, I'll use the KJV.

In Christ.

Aia,

Well there you go, one mans trash is another mans treasure.

Mariology and sacramentalism together with baptismal renegeration is the result of incorporating, doctrines of men, into the teaching s of scripture.

As for ecclectic ways, I would say this is why, you have such a problem understanding the teaching of scripture, since the NEW World Translation is part of your world of ecclecticISM.

And as for the KJV, you really don't like it at all, afterall isn't this the reason why you defend the vernacular versions, your arguments have been against the TR, and the AV.



Petro

I just remembered somehting;

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "eclectic" as: "to select, to pick out, to choose -- 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems."

It's like cherry picking, and if you have an agenda like Wescott and Hort had, the word of God can and was changed to suit there goals.

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

I have taken excerpts from the site, to  point out deficiencies in the  Wescott & Hort Theory; I would encourage anyone who is not familiar with the contraversy, to inform themselves.

The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation.

Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts..

In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as "Bibles."

However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, "They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ." .
It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is "the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity."

Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort's design..

This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text.

Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. .

So much for the use of this suave word, which can be used to make a claim like;

"Ecclectic.  Means I like the KJV too!"

Hah........... what a joke!

Now,, you know the rest of the story.


Petro

Once again, you've missed the point.  It was never to down the KJV.  I, for one, find it beautiful as well, albeit difficult to commonly, and correctly understand.  My point has been, and always will be, that if you attempt to marry scripture with this viewpoint you will be forced to take scriptures out of context.  I have hermenuetically refuted each scriptural support given without being rebutted.  Let me just say something else here: I do not have issue with others preferring one translation over another.  I do that afterall!   :)  It is when our preferences are presented as biblical principles when no such principle exists that the problem arises.  I know.  I say this and will most likely be considered unlearned as I have failed to see what you've pulled out of a passage that has nothing to do with what you've found in it.  But that's the point.  If it is your preference, then remain true to the scriptures you hold closest too: keep it as just that.  Preference.  If God has not said "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" then we've no business putting words in His mouth.  

As for the heretical gender changes and politically correct approaches found in the liberal translations, I do not agree with the truth of those translations.  That is, I don't believe such translational work to be correct.  In the beginning, I showed how no translation is correct, as they all use "baptize" and "church."  This does not make them right in removing gender, nor does it make the any of the translators right with their transliteration.


The teaching of scripture would be what? That the KJV is the only proper translation? Again, I've asked for more supporting scripture than what was given.  What was given was taken out of context to prove an incorrect point.  What other proof have you to make principle of a preference?

Allinall,

The onus is not on me to prove anything, better men than I have proven the false theories, and agendas porported by these, so called translators, who have preverted the Word of God and His Savior.

You ignorance of this matter, is not one of being decieved, you willfully chose to be deceived, this matter isn't new, it's been around for many years, you can inform yourslef if you so desire.

You knew about the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket in a Catholic convent at the base of Mt. Sinai, or do you now plead ignorance to these;  the history behind these is quite evident.

You are blind to this because you chose is to be so.

Petro

Allinall,


In order to teach and learn scripture one must have a reliable translation.

As I stated before, when the cults take and interest in a certain transaltion (the Watchtower Society in this case) that ought to signify something is not right.

If you have to ask ;

The teaching of scripture would be what? That the KJV is the only proper translation?

Only, indicates you have missed the point..

I have given you two more sights, which inform you, whats wrong..

http://home.mweb.co.za/en/enoque/Mark%2016%20in%20the%20Vaticanus.htm

About the omission of Mark 16:9-20 in the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
The space left open in the Vaticanus is more or less the same as in the Sinaiticus before it was tampered with: one full column and a little bit of the other. Compare with the normal way of ending a book, never leaving an open column and wasting space (see end of Matthew and beginning of Mark in the Vaticanus Vaticanus End of Matthew.jpg 123Kb)
Please, check page 1303 of the Vaticanus (see file Vaticanus End of Mark.jpg 105Kb) and compare with page 29 of the Sinaiticus (see file Sinaiticus29.htm ).
We know that the Codex Vaticanus is superstitiously kept locked in the Library of Vatican, and nobody can analyze it closely. It is suspected that monks, centuries ago, re-wrote many letters that were fading away, and tampered with the text. We also know that it contains the apocryphal books that were rejected by the Reformation and its Bibles and that Revelation is omitted (Sinaiticus ends not on Revelation, but adds two books of the occult: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas).
The copy presented here was obtained at the Johannesburg Reference Library (in 1997), from a facsimile of a copy of the transcript of the original into Modern Greek type. The open space at the end of Mark is exactly and accurately kept as in the original manuscript.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today.
How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?

Petro

So I take it you have no scriptural support for this viewpoint?  Quaint.  I'd love to base something I'd willingly deride others concerning on something other than scripture.  You hold a strong opinion without scriptural support.  You are willing to say that I am unlearned, though I have repeatedly pointed out that I have studied this and have come to the conclusion that I have.  That conclusion, according to you, is willful ignorance.  Am I then to begin questioning my very salvation because I disagree with your position as well?  Will I be considered antichrist?  If each of these seem a bit extreme, I only state them because I have heard such arguments from those who support your position.  The only point I've tried to make is to know the word and what it says.  You've failed to show me in this area such discernment.  You've shown it in other areas, but not here.  Here, the contextual approach you so freely and willingly take in other areas, you fail to take because it denies the scriptural support you seek for your position.  I have yet to find an author, or a pastor, or a lay person that holds to your position that rationally deals with this when confronted with the error of their usage of scripture.  It simply becomes a heated argument, and the opposition is labled anathema.  "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  Does God approve of misinterpreting a passage to support our good intentions?  Is that rightly dividing the truth?  Does God approve of downgrading a brother in Christ who disagrees with you?  Does He?

I ask these questions because in this argument over which word is the word, we lose the focus of that word.  God.  If I am wrong (which I don't believe I am for reasons stated before), then is this how we are to treat a brother in error?  By calling him ignorant?  For a believer who holds to the scriptures as firmly as you, brother, you lack in your accordance thereto.

Allinall,

Your asking the wrong question.

The mere changing of the interpretation of text, supports the viewpoint.

The points are made very well in these sites, what do I have to add to this??

I use the vernacular english versions, but don't take the words written at face value; I cross refernece words, and look at my interlinear, lexicon to see if what is written agrees.

Keep studying I say..

Petro

I would like to pick up on an erroneous statement made in the opening post of this thread.

"the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large".

This is not true.  The King James Version of the Bible was, obviously, only used in the English speaking world, and not by all of it.  

During this same period there were other English translations (e.g. the Douay-Rheims), translations into other languages (Louis Segond in French, William Morgan's in Welsh and the indigenous languages of the lands where Orthodox Christians worshipped) - therefore it is simply not true to say that the KJV was anywhere near used by "the Body of Christ" at large.  

Those who did not speak English or were part of the Roman, Lutheran and Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe (and those who emigrated to the Americas) certainly did not use the KJV.  Many of them would have been hard-pressed to know who King James was.

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE? (Part 1)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)


For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?


Brother Love :)

Brother Love:

Reassertion is not the same thing as addressing a point.

Oh man, how lame. He's not even reasserting his own thoughts. When I saw that the words 'veritable' and 'variable' were confused, I got suspicious and googled the line quoted above. Brother Love's posts on this thread are all written by someone else. The URL isn't up any more but it's clear he cribbed an article from someplace.

http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Now+we+are+faced+with+a+variable+Babel+%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&btnG=Google+Suche&meta= (http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Now+we+are+faced+with+a+variable+Babel+%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&btnG=Google+Suche&meta=)

Brother Love, some friendly advice from a lawyer - just saying the same things over and over again don't prove your point.  I have argued that your assertion is wrong - it is still wrong even if you post it again.  Is it safe for me to assume that, by not being able to rebut my point, you accept it?

It is attributed in the second post.

Nevertheless, Brother Love has done nothing to actually argue his case - just statement and restatement.  This is not debate.

UM??, I thought the debate was over and Brother Love won. I guess we could have a poll and confirm that.

 Maybe someone has brought this up before, but I'll would like to ask a question if I may.

     The KJV is just another transilation, I am not saying its wrong, or right. Its just that everyone scream JKV only, NIV is easier to read, the new addtions of such and such, so and so. If we really want to read as it was written we would all need to know Hebrew Greek, then latin, finally the KJV came to life.  So isn't it safe to say that the only "true" reading would be from the original transcripts. But at the same time I wonder is God really going to let his word become so twisted that the mulitudes are being lead astray by it, but then we have the watch tower people, and the LDS that have added to.? I thing is in Thes that his word is for the equipting of the saint. The word is our spiritual sword, not dull, not with out and edge, not with out a sharp point, or even a sheath to carry it in.......it is whole and complete. . With warning not to change or take away. SO those who rewrite the Scripture to twist it to fullfill thier personal gain will be in BIG troulbe with the boss.

Eh? What debate? If this thread is what you call a debate, this Brother Love didn't win it - or even take part in it. He posted an article then interjected a few one or two sentence comments into the discussion that followed.

DITTO ;D

ROFLOL ;D ;D ;D

Knox,

Why don't you post a poll and find out. Something like:  What is the most accurate translation of the Holy Bible:

1 - KJV
2 - KJV with Strong's Numbers.

That should be plenty of choices.   ;D

For me and my family its King James Only.

The Crusader

Oklahoma Howdy to Crusader,


The KJV is trusted and all my family needs. I read back a little bit in this older thread and remembered a little bit of fun in ganging up on Knox, one of our resident trolls at the time.   :D

In Christ,
Tom

I prefer the KJV even over the NKJV.



Blessings,
Petro

While Shakespeare is a good author, I like my bible written by Moses and Paul and the rest ;)

No translation is infallible. I use NKJV, NRSV, and NIV. One of them is bound to get it right ;D

What is everyone thoughts on "the message" Version?

I don't like it - the real paraphrasey one's just down sound right to me.  On the same token, I don't like the CEV or the Good News.

Having said that, I do like Tom Wright's translations, as they really do shed a new light on stuff.

For general use, I like the New Jerusalem.

Musicllover:

Would to God that the KJV was "just another translation" out of many reliable and faithful ones.  The truth is quite the opposite, and few have researched this issue thoroughly.  Most who promote the NIV and other modern versions do so because of propaganda, not proof.

The facts in a nutshell are that there are two "streams" of Bible translations -- (1)the pure and (2) the polluted.  

THE PURE STREAM
The Authorized Version (KJV) and all other Reformation Bibles (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops', Geneva, KJV, Luther's, Diodati, etc.) are solidly based upon the Hebrew Masoretic [traditional] Text and the Greek Majority [received] Text.  THE BULK OF THE EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS STAND BEHIND THESE TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS, and are in remarkable agreement other than very minor differences.

THE POLLUTED STREAM
When it comes to modern translations, starting with the Revised Version of 1881 and coming right down to every modern "bible", the translations are based upon the corrupted Biblia Hebraica [Hebrew text with emendations or changes to the text based upon the guesswork of critics] and the Minority Text of Westcott and Hort in which a handful of Greek manuscripts which came from the Gnostic School at Alexandria became "the best", "the most trustworthy". "the oldest and the best", "the most reliable". Of course, the Gnostics were heretics, and made deliberate changes to the Bible text to suit their heresies. Yet today the NIV translators have gone to these polluted sources for more "light" on the subject, and Christians have "bought" this!

CALLING GOOD "EVIL", AND EVIL "GOOD"
In other words, "critics" began to call the good "evil", and the evil "good", and evangelical Christianity, by and large, swallowed this propaganda hook, line and sinker. The entire theory of Westcott and Hort was a fabrication conconted in their own imaginations. Yet today, the KJV has been discarded by the bulk of English-reading Christians because Satan is behind this move to confuse Christians and to sow discord among the brethren. The fact is, the modern versions weaken or bring into question many bible doctrines, starting with the primary doctrine that the Word of God is INERRANT, INFALLIBLE, AND UNCHANGING (2 Tim. 3:16-17;1 Pet.1:23-25).  

THE CONFLICT
The Lord Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken". If your NIV says that the last twelve verses of Mark are NOT the Word of God, and my KJV and all the Greek manuscripts other than 2 say that it is ABSOLUTELY THE WORD OF WORD, do we not bring into question the inerrancy and eternality of God's Word and in fact teach that Scripture can be broken? There are hundreds of changes which have been made to the new translations which is totally unwarranted. If God is eternal, and His Word is eternal, WHY HAS THE BIBLE BECOME LIKE A NEWSPAPER TODAY, with a new translation coming out every year or so? If we cannot see a sinister and diabolical plot to attack God's Word in all of this, then we need to ask the Lord for the gift of discernment.

Oklahoma Howdy to Sower,

AMEN!

Brother, I'm seeing more and more about the corruption of the new translations almost by the day.

I guess the biggest thing you hear by some is the new translations are easier to read. That would be a matter of opinion, and there would be some other comments about the changed texts. I see a poetic quality and beauty in the KJV that is gone in the new translations. From cover to cover, the Authorized King James Version is a masterpiece that can never be duplicated or improved. I would agree that choosing a new translation would be a matter of determining how much pollution one would accept.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Howdy, Bro. Tom:

Praise God He is showing you the difference. Most Christians are not even aware that there were a few faithful men in the 19th century who took a very firm stand against the corrupt text. One of them was an outstanding scholar by the name of Dean John William Burgon (see The Bible for Today web site for his writings). Here is what he had to say regarding corruption of the sacred text by heretics:

"But there remains after all an ALARMINGLY LARGE ASSORTMENT of textual perterbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads of classification already enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is, which occasions our present embarrassment.  They are in truth SO EXCEEDINGLY NUMEROUS; they are often so considerable; they are as a rule, SO VERY LICENTIOUS; they transgress to such an extent all regulations; THEY USURP SO PERSISTENTLY THE OFFICE OF TRUTH AND FAITHFULNESS, that we really know not what to think about them.  Sometimes we are presented with GROSS INTERPOLATIONS, -- apocryphal stories; more often WITH SYSTEMATIC LACERATIONS OF THE TEXT, or transformations as from an angel of light".

The Causes of Textual Corruption, 1896, p.p. 191-192.

              I was a Catholic when I was young but from the time i was in highschool until I got saved, I've been reading the NIV.  That Bible changed my life, and made me a better person.  When I got saved, my mentor who led me to Christ, taught me how to defend the Trinity, Eternal Security, and the reliability of scripture used not the KJV but the New American Standard Bible or NASB.  It was not until I found my home church that i embraced the Authorized Verson, and strangely, I cant seem to read anything else but the KJV.  
              I looked at sites that supports the KJV and it has all these stories of how demonic the modern versions are and even stories that nearly led one person to heresy just because he read the NIV - wait a minute, I just read the NIV, and it hasnt lead me to anything other than just Bible in plain english.  We must be careful how we classify such version but I do understand that the numbers of Bible versions are growing, and that there are differences that makes the KJV unique to all bibles.  
              Personally, I think, particularly the NKJV, NASB, and ASV, they simply say the same thing.  All of them one way or another supports the Trinity, Salvation, Church, even though some words are missing.  In speaking about the missing words that is so called, "Omitted," I'd say it is due to the fact that they are based simply on the Oldest Manuscript.  It is like writing a draft which at first, simple, but with more revisons, it becomes clean, clear, and complete.  For the old manuscript, it is simple because at that time, things are not as well established but in time, the text improves, they are not necessarily adding to the bible as they are sharpening the meaning by adding "On Him" and others.
              The KJV is the most literal of all versions except the ASV but the NASB and NKJV is also the most literal but easier to read.  Speaking about easy reading, it reminds me about the people not understanding the priest because the mass is in Latin.  Like latin, the old english is hard to understand for most English readers, but thanks to the NASB, and NKJV, the Bible is more readable, so it is easier to understand.
              The debate over Bible version is growing but i have to say that it is also a dangerous thing because it can set believers apart and thats what satan wants.  Right now, I am divided over this, but I want to give my own thoughts on this issue.  Ill be asking people at my new church about it, they are also KJV only church but I welcome your thoughts on this matter

God Bless

agur

  Some advocate exclusive use of the King James Bible.  I see King James Bibles being used as pew Bibles in some churches.  Yet the King James translation is actually quite dated and prone to misunderstanding.
  For instance, in 2 Samuel, King David’s army conquers the cities of the Ammonites.  “And he [David] brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln...”  2 Samuel 12:31 KJV
  I read an irreligious author who had seen this passage, King James version, and formed a clear picture of what happened.  David had cities full of people either sawed in half, chopped up in pieces with axes, or burned alive.
  A parallel passage in Chronicles, if anything, makes the conquest of the Ammonites sound even worse.  “And he brought out the people that were in it [city of the Ammonites], and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes.” 1 Chronicles 20:3 KJV
  Did this massacre happen?  It did not.  As the Revised Standard version, and I believe, all later translations, make clear, it was all a confusion of language.  King David laid a tribute on the Ammonites, of timber and brick to be sent to Jerusalem.  “And he brought forth the people that were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them toil at the brickkilns; and thus he did to all the cities of the Ammonites.” 2 Samuel 12:31 RSV
  “And he brought forth the people who were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and axes...” 1 Chronicles 20:3 RSV
  When modern Christians continue to use the King James Bible, it seems to me that we are putting our worst foot forward.  We have better translations, lacking nothing in scholarship.
<>

The KJV is fearless but some modern translations are wimpy and politically-correct,but useful for cross-reference.
A good yardstick by which other versions can be compared to the KJV is to look at how they've mutilated the beautiful 23rd Psalm.
Log in to one of the websites like Bible Gateway which allow a selection of passages from different versions to be viewed onscreen simultaneously.

I must admit that I did not read every little reply to all of this....I got through to page 3 and then skipped to page 6 and finished it up....and it was not until Mick touched upon it.

Some thing here are this.  

The KJV is a very good translation.  One that was based upon manuscripts and such that were available at the time.  However since there there have been thousands of other manuscripts that have been found since.  Literally thousands and 10's of thousands.  Some of these newer translations also examine those and translate from them.  One reason you see new translations coming out is because in the past 100 years there has been a veritable boom in archaeology as to uncover many manuscripts and fragments.  The KJV may have been based on the oldest known manuscripts at the time...however with the finding of the DSS there are even older manuscripts of several of the books of the OT.

Now I am not knocking the KJV, and I use it.  I also use an NIV as well as NASB.

Mick has mentioned cross referencing.  And that is one of the keys I have found in my studies.  I use all three as well as Greens Literal and Youngs Literal in my studies.  I have found that no single Bible has all of the answers for me and I have usually gone back into study if there happened to be a verse in one version that I did not exactly understand.

And in my honest opinion I have found that the NASB does a very good job of bringing the message to modern English without loss of words or meaning.  And quite often during our Pastors Sunday school class or Sermon when he reads a verse and then states the meaning, usually by 'what so and so means there is...', I already have an understanding from reading my NASB.  I have found that pastors spend more time interpreting what the KJV means in modern English than what the author meant by the verse.

Now I also do not state that I am fearful of some of the versions coming out and put out already.  The 'politically correct' versions and such which attempt to change "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" with "Parent, Child, and Holy Ghost".  I would advise anyone who reads those to abandon that thought and stick with as close as possible to literal translations.  

In answer to the original question of the post.  I do not believe that any Bible is the "right" one, but that any Bible that allows a person to grow in Christ is the right one.  

NKJV: A Deadly Translation  

By James L. Melton





We will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market--the New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because it's editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points: (1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and (2) that it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth). The following information should be helpful when dealing with Christians who have been swindled by the Laodicean lovers of filthy lucre:
1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)

3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.

6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.

8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?

12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?

14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage.

15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."

16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS!


+++++++++++++++++++++++

A4C AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!

Dear, oh dear.  This rubbish again.

Just to pick out a couple of the more absurdly silly ones:


Wrong.  The A.V. is covered by the equivalent of a perpetual copyright - belonging to the crown of the United Kingdom - that never expires (unlike a conventional copyright).  The fact that this has no legal standing and is therefore ignored outside of the U.K. does not mean it doesn't exist.


The main point of the NKJV is to update the language, and the meaning of the word "science" has changed hugely since the AV was written.

Why do you bother posting your rubbish ebia?

I agree Ambassador

Thanks

The Crusader

I'm sorry.  :'(   I wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of your propaganda.

ebia, your facts are as real as you.

The Crusader

               NKJV ingores Textus Receptus?  I didn't know...that is troubling....  Hmmm...

Um - Thank you very much for that information Ambassedor4Christ

God bless'

agur

 ;D

KJV 1611 is my B-I-B-L-E that's the Book for me the B-I-B-L-E!!!! ;D


Blessings,  \o/

My Bible I use reguraly was printed in 1959, by Collins' clear-type press. Red Letter,  reference edition, and illustrated. This Bible belonged to my grandmother.
My Bible also has a Dedication page, from King James. ;D

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

I'm not a KJV only person, but I'm close. Further, I don't consider folks who refuse to use anything else a cult. I think that the cult statement is silly.

I primarily use the KJV and the KJV with Strong's Numbers. I love to use them, and they fit perfectly with the majority of my study aids. I'm addicted to a Bible Study package called e-Sword. It comes with numerous ancient language translations and a host of other translations. I sometimes enjoy using the Amplified Bible and Young's Literal Translation. I have a parallel area of e-Sword set up to use four translations at once, all on one page and side to side:  KJV, KJV with Strong's Numbers, Amplified Bible, and Young's Literal Translation. I can do the same thing with ancient languages, including some Greek translations with Strong's Numbers.

I would have to say that I see some massive problems with some translations that actually omit or change the meaning of important passages of Scripture. I won't argue or debate this, but corruption of HIS WORD is a serious problem. Now, I'll tell you that I have over 40 translations of the Bible to study when I wish to, but I don't wish to very often. I find that the KJV and the KJV with Strong's Numbers fills all of my needs 98% of the time, and I'm careful with the 2%.   :D  So, I could probably be called an old stuffed-shirt, but I like being called that.   :D

Love In Christ,
Tom

I'm new here. I just read someone that crossreferences their bible with others i think that it's a great idea to do that.  I have nothing against the KJV but someone has pointed out that there have been older manuscripts then the ones used to make the kjv that have been discovered such as in the DSS.  To overlook this i think is just well one sided.

By the way i have 2 KJV that i know of. I might have one more somewhere.  

I think also to point out that there will be differences with the KJV and other modern Bibles. Since most modern Bibles use the DSS ands the KJV doesn't.  There are some that are just well  :-X.  There is nothing wrong with the KJV or NASB. Just the different manuscripts that were used to translated it and that's no one's fault. Just used what was there.

Hello Jsmith,

I see this is your first post, so WELCOME!!!! I think that discussions over various translations has been going on for well over 1,000 years. There are many ancient texts that are not part of the Holy Bible, and there are some ancient texts that have been accepted by some and rejected by others as being part of the Holy Bible. It's a very complicated but important discussion. If you read the entire thread, you will see there are some pretty dramatic problems with some of the new translations. It's good to be informed, especially on some major issues that are either distorted or deleted completely. There are also some good links in this thread for more specific material.

I really hope that you enjoy Christians Unite.


Love In Christ,
Tom

One does not have to prove that the AV is "perfect" before we can assert with confidence that a differing translation is corrupt, because it's underlying text is corrupt.  

All we have to prove is that the overwhelming mass of manuscript evidence, which includes manuscripts of the Scriptures, early translations, lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church [which have prevailed since very early times], and Patristic quotations [quotations of the Scriptures in the writings of the Early Church Fathers] support the readings found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus [which differs little from the Majority Text].
This has been thoroughly proven by many scholars such as Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Hoskier, etc. who have done extensive and intensive research into this matter.

If there are 1000 witnesses in a court of law and five or six are false witnesses, we would accept the testimony of the overwhelming mass of true witnesses and ignore the false. The same should apply to the text of Scripture, but a fabricated theory about the value of two old manuscripts has overturned common sense. This is the Westcott-Hort Theory, which is like the theory of evolution -- a pure fabrication.

The truth is that the testimony of ONLY TWO FALSE WITNESSES -- Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus] and B [Codex Vaticanus] has established the "critical text' of the scholars, which is the foundation of all modern bible versions. The first false witness was found in a waste basket, the other false witness lay almost dead in the pope's library for over 1600 years.  These two manuscripts are claimed to be "the oldest", but they are nowehere even close to the age of the original autographs of the New  Testament -- they are about 350-400 years older, and a lot of Bible corruption occurred during that time.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have not been overlooked in establishing the value of the KJV and it's underlying texts -- in particular the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

As a matter of fact, THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE OVERWHELMING PROOF OF THE FAITHFUL PRESERVATION OF THE HEBREW OT over a period of more than 3,500 years!

Before the DSS were discovered, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts dated from about 900 A.D. Then they discovered a scroll of Isaiah among the DSS which dated from about 100 B.C. So a difference of 1,000 years separated these two texts. Did that make a difference?  Absolutely not. Isaiah in the Masoretic Text matched Isaiah from the DSS, except for some very minor and minute variances.

This is a testimony to the overshadowing hand of God over His Word. The Hebrew scribes were so utterly meticulous and careful about transcribing, that what Moses wrote is literally what Christ read in the synagogue at Nazareth 1500 years later. And what we read today is also what Moses wrote, because the KJV translators were scrupulous to a fault. They did their utmost to preserve the words and the spirit of the original, since they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

It would be erroneous to call the KJV "inspired", since only the original autographs were inspired. But if we want to be certain and confident that we are reading the uncorrupted Word of God, then we cannot fail with the KJV [or it's equivalent in other languages]. The same can only be said for the Reformation Bibles, not modern versions after 1881.

Brother Sower,

I think that "witness" is an excellent term to use when talking about ancient manuscripts. It is also important to note that the witnesses talked in the ancient times and many of them were scholars. There is a very logical reason why many ancient manuscripts were not included in the Holy Bible. Many witnesses knew the writers and spoke as actual witnesses. The use of the term "witness" is an interesting comparison if you use it in a court setting and consider the value of each witness. The testimony of some "witnesses" in a court of law have little or no value. In fact, some testimony in court is not relevant, and some testimony is false.

Brother, I would simply say that I'm not a scholar, and I'm glad that I don't have to make all of those decisions. I can't cross examine the witnesses, and I don't know many of the witnesses. For the above reasons, I choose the KJV as my primary Bible for study. I also make a distinction between the Old KJV and the new. I simply don't want to worry about distortions and omissions. I really don't know how good the other two translations are that I use from time to time: The Amplified Bible and Young's Literal Translation. However, I don't have to worry about it. I don't use them that often, and I use them in parallel with the KJV and KJV with Strong's numbers.

Brother, please give me your opinion of The Amplified Bible and Young's Literal Translation. I don't use them very often, but I would appreciate you sharing with me.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Brother Tom:

The Amplified New Testament, by it's own admission is at odds with the KJV: "The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort was pursued with meticulous care", and unfortunately, that text was based on the corrupt manuscripts.


Young's Literal Translation parallels the KJV, but, by it's own admission, is not to be regarded as a substitute but a study help:

"...The following translation need not, and ought not, to be considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and profitable. The change of a single word, or collocation of words, is often found to throw an entirely new shade of meaning over the Scripture. This advantage is well known to all who have compared the various ancient versions, or even the English versions that successively formed what was popularly called "the authorized version," i.e., Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, &c.

The Greek Text followed is that generally recognized as the "Received Text," not because it is thought perfect, but because the department of Translation is quite distinct from that of Textual Criticism, and few are qualified for both. If the original text be altered by a translator, (except he give his reasons for and against each emendation,) the reader is left in uncertainty whether the translation given is to be considered as that of the old or of the new reading. And, after all, the differences in sense to be found in the 100,000 various Greek readings are so trifling compared with those to be derived from an exact translation of the Received Text, that the writer willingly leaves them to other hands; at the same time, it is contemplated, in a future edition, to give, in an Appendix, all the various readings of the Greek MSS. that are capable of being expressed in English...."

...some things never change.

The word of God is. Ask Him.

peace
Gracey

AMEN Gracey!! ;D


Hey sweetie it's Very Nice to see you back Sister!  Where have ya been, what are ya up too?

Love ya Sis,  \o/

Sower,

Thanks Brother, I really appreciate the information. I was thinking that would be the case.  I really don't need them anyway since nearly all of my study aids are geared to the old KJV and Strong's Numbers. I also have an extensive work from Dr. Zodiates (SP) that is geared to the old KJV. Some complain about the old style English used in the KJV, but I would quickly state that language is beautiful, at least for me. It appears to have a flowing rhythm, much like poetry in many portions.

I have numerous ancient language translations, but I don't really enjoy ancient languages unless I have a specific need for them in my studies. They involve a lot of work, so maybe I'm just lazy.  :D

Love In Christ,
Tom

Amen Gracey.

God said it.  I believe it.  Through The Spirit we discern.    
 :)

I've got the same one Brother!  I have the New Testament with Strongs + his notes + the extra book of his notes on each word and the Old Testament with Strongs and his notes.  Catch all that?   ;D Pretty helpful really.

 :D  Yes Brother, I did catch all of that. Did I mention that I can put mine in however large a font that I wish?   ;D  I do like using Strong's, and my software is gentle on old folks, the bifocal crowd.  I use large fonts in all of my Bible studies. UM?? - Maybe it's time to get a new pair of bifocals. I did it with books for many years, but the adjustable settings on my computer have spoiled me.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Is my bible the right one?

Hmmmm. Not sure.

I've got a 1917 Scofield, a '65 Scofield, a Ryrie, an 1870 Blue Letter (my Grammaw's), a '70 Zondervan Marked Reference (KJV), a Parallel (KJV, NAS, NIV, AMP), a '32 Stephanus TR, two Strong's Complete (one veerrryyy old, one fairly new), Vine's, a complete set of Henry's Commentaries, and a few others.

It's almost amazing, though....seem's that when I read them all, and do a side by side on the essentials, they all say the same thing.

God is.
Man ain't.
God loves.
Man doesn't.
Jesus Saves.
Man can't do doodly.
If man don't believe, he's toast.
If man do believe, he's apple pie in the sky!

 ;D

God is.
Man ain't.
God loves.
Man doesn't.
Jesus Saves.
Man can't do doodly.
If man don't believe, he's toast.
If man do believe, he's apple pie in the sky!


Now THAT is some good preachin'!  ;D

If  anyone thinks Scofield is credible  witness for the truth of Scripture they are  hurten.

After getting rear-ended yesterday on the way home, I woke up this morning with some aches and pains....yes, I'm "hurten" a little.  ;D

On the other hand, I don't think I mentioned anything about relying on Scofield as a credible witness....only that  a couple of bibles were his editions (although, only the notes are his....the words belong to God, as delivered in the KJV).  

I imagine that Dr. Scofield is just as good, or bad, or mediocre, or illuminating, as any of the other so-called scholars that abound. Besides, I'd rather read Scofields comments than, say, Kirby, or Crosson.....at least Scofield believes in Jesus.  ;)

HEY, a sermon in a minute or less.......got anymore of these ;D
My kids might acctualy hear these.
musicllover

Brother, you are sounding more and more like a good, old-fashioned country preacher that folks in my neck of the woods would latch onto and keep. However, your grammar is far too refined.   :D  Have I thanked you recently for your web site?  If not, THANKS!. I have received a blessing there and many ideas for my personal Bible study. I'll hire an English teacher to help you with your grammar. Her name is "Bubba Sue".   ;D

Love In Christ,
Tom

Sorry, BEP....I weren't on my stump when I started talkin'.


   

Why, thanky, son....thanky.


I think I done met her....she was my teecher in third grade, and evertime I said "I'm not" she whomped me with her peach tree limb and said "AIN'T.....WON'T YOU EVER GIT IT? IT'S AIN'T!!"  I 'member she used to ride bulls on the weekend, too.

Ahhhh, yup....got a few.

From Mat. 24:

Goats do goat things.
Sheep do sheep things.
Goats go in the barbeque.
Sheep sleep in the house.

What do you want to be? Goat, or Sheep? Make up your mind, the coals are just right.

Rely not on your own understanding. I'm paraphrasing that passage. I believe that God is watching over his Word.
I've got about eight Bibles plus study guides. I check the
most difficult passages out, don't you? I don't doubt the Word of God, however. There isn't that much difference from one version to another.

God bless you,
bluelake

CROSSROADS GRACE FELLOWSHIP
REFLECTIONS


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Your Problem Is That Bible Of Yours"

I would like to take a moment to share with you a personal thought. A thought about my search for the truth. By truth I am referring to the word of God. By the grace of God and the use of technology, I am able to discuss with you some thoughts that are on my mind, as I study the truth in the written word of God (II Tim. 3:15-17). Technology can be a wonderful thing. It gives someone like me the ability to get information out to an unlimited number of people by the use of the Internet. I am an average guy, trying to do my part for my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I do not hold a degree from a college or a seminary. My only qualification is that I am a serious student of the Bible saved by God's grace (I Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 3:24). I have a personal co-interest in maintaining this web site, which helps.

As a lost man, it was hard for me to understand why men and women could make such a fuss over a book. The book of course is the Bible. I rarely read the Bible in my younger years, except when I attended church or when I got together with a few family members, who always seemed to have a copy with them. One thing is certain, the words never really made much sense to me. The sad truth about the matter is that I didn't care. But now as a saved man (Eph. 1:14; & 2:8,9), with some study, the Bible simply and straightforwardly states the reason why, (John 8:47; and II Cor. 4:3,4). Being a new Christian, I wanted to learn about the God of the Bible, my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. However, it never occurred to me that those who claimed to be saved would not take the word of God seriously. Now, before you get upset, just realize that there is work involved in studying the word of God (II Tim. 2:15). The fact is, not everyone will put forth the effort needed to be firmly grounded in truth (I Cor.3:1,2).

To all of you who are content with daily devotionals, or maybe weekly Bible studies, or just an annual visit to your local church, the Bible version issue will probably seem like a waste of time. You might ask, what is the Bible version issue? It is quite possible that you are completely unaware that there is something called a Bible version issue. Some of you might wish it would go away, while others just ignore the whole discussion, believing that all will eventually work itself out. Some people might believe this creates unnecessary divisions among the body of Christ. I felt the same way at one time, but by studying the word, it has come to my attention that Jesus Christ did not compromise doctrine for the sake of unity, (John 6:22-71). Something else to think about is that people have been corrupting the word of God throughout time. We have been warned of this in scripture, (II Cor. 2:17; II Cor 4:2). So for everyone that believes this is something new, guess what, it isn't.

I thank God, a brother in Christ had patience with me, asked questions, and pointed out that the word and Jesus Christ are synonymous. This same gentleman placed an extreme importance on the written word. Now I hear people claim that they have an innerant Bible, then proceed to correct its words. A common phrase I hear is "a better translation would be", or "the Greek says". Through studying, you too, can see for yourselves the two natures between the written and living word. Notice the key is to truly study. Of course the key to studying is to rightly divide the word, (II Tim. 2:15). Compare these verses in regard to the written word, (Heb. 4:12,13; Rev. 19:11)-(Heb. 7:25; James 1:21)-(Acts 17:31; John 12:48)-(John 12:34; I Pet. 1:23)-(John 1:12; Thess. 2:13).

For me, this raised questions, as to the validity of what I was reading. The Bible says that my faith comes from the word of God, (Rom. 10:17). How many different versions of the word of God are available today? Do all the versions say the same thing? If all the versions are not the same, which one is correct? Are the differences worth fighting for? Look at what Paul had to say, (II Tim. 4:1-7). I truly believe that if you're serious about hearing the truth, and are willing to walk by faith, with some prayerful study, you will see this is an absolutely critical issue. The word of God is what we base our salvation on! Nothing else!

It is my experience while witnessing, or studying with a group of people using different versions, at some point there will be a disagreement. I am not suggesting a falling out, I am saying a lack of understanding. A debate over what the verse should say, not what the verse says. The way this is usually resolved is by the individual with the most education or experience answering the question. Now if you are looking for the thought of a passage, and the words on the page are not important, then you will probably never be challenged by this. What can really get things moving is pick up the AV1611, commonly called the King James Bible, and state that it does not have errors. It is quite possible that when you make this statement, you open yourself up to quite a debate.

Most of the time everyone would rather compromise and agree that all versions of the Bibles have errors, and only the originals are inspired anyway. I have an interesting thought for you. What does the Bible say about the originals. I personally have used many different versions, and all of them seem to have the same conclusion on the originals, Nothing. The AV1611 does not have the word original in its pages. The one subject I have been unable to locate in the Bible is the design for God to preserve the originals. You can show in the Bible where God has designed the preservation of His word by a multiplicity of copies, (Jer. 36;1-32; Deut. 31:24,25; Deut. 17:14-20; Prov. 25:1; Dan. 9:2; Acts 12:24; Acts 19:20; II Tim. 3:15 ). The Bible clearly states that it will be preserved without error, (Psalms 112:6,7; Matt. 5:18; I Pet. 1:23-25; Is. 40:8). God also stated the priority of His word, (Psalms 138:2).

So what does this mean, you might ask. Absolutely nothing if God can't do what he says he can do. I choose to believe, by faith that God can. I realize that there are many complicated discussions on manuscript evidence. An individual can study for years on the topic of textual criticism, and the amount of information available to us is enormous. There are individuals who have studied the technical side of this all of their lives. The one unmistakable issue, in this whole debate, is there are TWO distinct lines of manuscripts. In these two lines, one represents the majority with 95% of all manuscripts agreeing. This line is where the King James Bible comes from. All new versions of the English Bibles, come from the other line, except the New King James which uses both. For the NKJ reliability, just look at (Heb. 3:16). I can only prayerfully hope that you study the information for yourself.

To the saint that is standing on the word of God, and is catching grief from all sides, we are in the fight together. The next time you have someone try to explain "that your problem is that Bible" you need to know that you are not alone. God said he would preserve it, you just happen to be someone who believes it. As for me, I will continue to fight for the preserved word of God.

Your brother in Christ,

Lee


Posted By Brother Love :)

<:)))><

I do not excusively use the King James, and I do not feel any less Christian than those that do.  I each their own.

     I use all versions of the Holy Bible, KJV, New King James, NIV, mostly the NIV. I believe that God's Holy word is annoited, and it doesn't not return void, so therefore it will continue to be with out error as the incarned word of God, not matter what versions you are reading. It really annoys me when someone wants to say that its the KJV only, if you want to use that agruement, then the KJV is a transilation itself, we would all need to learn Hebrew, then Latin...... if (for example) the NIV has errors, then so does any scripture that is transilated into Japaneese, German, Russian, Spanish, ect ect ect. The scriptures are For the equiping of the saints, God is NOT going to let his saints go into battle unarmed. Did Jesus tell the disciples to go into all the world.......... YEP, did Jesus know they were going to write the scriptures.....I am sure he did as we warned not to add to or take away from, impling that God knew there would be other books written, and that if anyone added or takes away from his Holy Word will stand in judgement? I KNOW that the transilations ( except those who have taken and rewrote to suit there own rituals) of today remain pure, because John 1:1 tells us a very important point,  In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was GOD. We are also told that God is never chaning the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. John 1:14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is the word. For this very reason we are warned not to add to or take away from the word Jesus did all that was necessary, and the Holy Bible is all that is necessary.........The reason we have the KJV was for political purpose only not some good devote Christian bringing it about. Eventually It began Christianity in earnest for the America's.  Jesus wanted his word spread, we are commanded to go out to all the world, when the transilations begin it was a good thing for the Kingdom of God and fullfills what he told us to do.

blessings,
musicllover  

Your right, the translations do vary a little, but not to the extent that a person can't understand the text.
It's best to have three or four Bibles and put your trust in the Lord.  ;)

God bless,
bluelake

Yes, All 10 or 12 of them.  ;)

bluelake

You may have unwittingly been swept up in this rush to have "A Better Translation." But be aware that that these "New" Bibles have over 5,000 differences in them when compared to the King James Bible.
These "easier to read" Bibles come from a corrupted text. They read differently than the KJV because the manuscripts they come from are not the same as the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken. The issue is NOT translation but TEXT.

If you want to know if you have one of these corrupted Bibles turn to Colossians 1:14. If this verse does not include the phrase "through his blood" then you have a bible that has been translated from a corrupt text.


Remember, you cannot translate what is not there.


(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

Amen Brother, I agree totally. "You cannot translate what is not there", but it can be made more corrupt with each new version that comes out.


 Isaiah 34: 14

NRSV
14Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest.


KJV

Isa 34:14  The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.


Do you know who "Lilith" is!

Pastor Roger,

Brother, if I remember correctly, "Lilith" is a mythical queen of demons. I only know that because of trying to investigate some messages of a recently banned user named "Ha Lilith".

WOW!, the differences you just quoted between two different versions are worlds apart.

I have used a few other versions for study, but my Bible is the Old KJV.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Lilith originated with an outcast sect of Hebrews. She was supposedly an evil goddess, a fallen angel and the first wife of Adam. Talk about blasphemy! Putting her name in the Word of God is definitely that! The NSRV (New Standard Revised Version)is used by some pagans. Definitely a book (I refuse to call it a Bible) to stay clear of.

And this is a problem because???  It is not as if some major, fundamental Bible doctrine is changed because of it.


Prove that the Critical Text is corrupted, and that the TR is the only viable alternative.  And if the issue is indeed text and NOT translation, then I can translate from the TR, get a different translation than the KJV, and that's ok?


If that was not originally in the text, then why is that a problem?  Just because THAT PARTICULAR TEXT does not contain "through his blood" does not mean that the translation is somehow changing the doctrine of the atonement.



Very true, which is why we should strive for textual accuracy, whether that leads us away from the TR or not.

Joel

Brother, that's sick and disgusting. I'm not familiar with the NSRV, but I won't bother. I do have several versions that I use for side-by-side comparisons from time to time. Some are fairly good part of the time, and some are bad quite often.

I really don't like the idea that lost people and babes in Christs many times get terribly confused with some of the newer translations. Some might say that it's OK if it helps to bring someone to Christ. I'll be happy to be called an old square, but I firmly believe what's called a Bible matters greatly. An older and stronger Christian might easily recognize distorted or omitted text, but the same would not be true for the lost and the babes. Men already create enough confusion without corrupt texts.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Thanks Pastor, for the good info


(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

Here is another one that causes a lot of problems.

KJV
1Co 14:14  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

NIV
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

The NIV which deletes (or casts doubt upon the authenticity of) Mt. 17:21, Mt. 18:11, Mt. 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:27, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, and 1 John 5:7; as well as portions of Mt. 27:35, Luke 9:55-56, John 3:13, Acts 15:18, Romans 8:1, Romans 11:6, 1 Cor. 10:28, Colossians 1:14, 1 John 4:3, Rev. 1:8, Rev. 1:11, Rev. 5:14, Rev. 11:17, and Rev. 21:24. Just to name a few.


(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

My wife's good friend is going to a Bible college in Idaho and she sent my wife one of the books they use at the college. It is titled, "Walking With Jesus: Growing Deep in Christian Life & Ministry" by Benje Graves with Gregg Peterson. I have been reading it a little and found that it has a section devoted to this very subject. So I am going to post it here for all to read. I think it sheds a lot of light on this subject. Here goes...




I hope this helps some people who are curious and concerned concerning what Bible version they are and should be reading. I personally like the NKJV (New King James Version), but that's just my personal preference.

God Bless,
Robert

Wow! some threads never die!   :-X

Just like me, we just keep ticking :)

From the article above.

"One might ask, if the translators were inspired the first time, why do they need to keep changing it?"

No Bible translator other than cults has claimed to be inspired in their translation work, including the translators who produced the KJV.

Marv

Marv,

Countless scholars have examined the KJV, and that's why it is a trusted translation. If you wish to study the ancient language texts, they are available to anyone at little or no cost.

However, I seriously doubt that is the reason for your comments. If so, I'll be happy to help you get the ancient texts.

Love In Christ,
Tom

I can not read Greek or Hebrew anyway, so I guess I'll stick with the KJV for now and if it is wrong, I guess I"ll and alot more will be in hell together.ENOUGH!!!!!

Hope it's ok to post a link here. The following link is for reading the KJV online and included is the Strongs reference.

http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html

Thanks Joey, its a keeper


(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/bljpg2.jpg)

Brother Love

Your Welcomed Brother. This is definetly one of the best online bible sites that i have seen  :)

blackeyedpeas,

I did not say there was anything wrong with the KJV.  It is a good translation, especially with the limited resources available to the translators.  Most of it follows Tynsdale.  I think many people think the traslators had this great big pile of Greek manuscripts from which they worked.  They actually were rather limited,

The article was about the NIV and commented about if the original translators were inspired, why keep changing it.  I assumed the article would be referring as if the NIV were inspired.  Reading it several times.  I can see were the person might be referring to the KJV as inspired.  Would be a couple of problems with that.

First the traslators themselves clearly did not claim it, and even expected the work they did to continue.

Secondly, they weren't the original translators, as I said above, they mostly followed Tynsdale.  So if it would be the "original" that would be inspired, then you would have to say Tynsdale was inspired, and then you would be caught in the problem of if Tynsdale was inspired why the revision by the KJV?  People might find this series on the traslation into English of the Bible helpful
 http://www.bible.org/series.asp?series_id=117 (http://www.bible.org/series.asp?series_id=117)

Thirdly, I will just point to 1 John 5:7-8, the verse as it is used in the KJV was from a Greek manuscript clearly fabricated to get Erasmus to put it into his Greek New Testament that way.  Now having it the correct way, doesn't change that the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity, what it does do is show that there was an error in the KJV and as such the KJV is not inspired by definition.  Here is a link to an article on this very thing.  
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665)

Last, I would point to Matthew 23:24 Instead of the "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" in the KJV it clearly should be "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".  Those who can read Greek can check it for themselves.  It is an error in translation.  Nothing great, just shows again that the translators were not inspired and without errror.

The KJV is a fine translation, and there is nothing particularly wrong with it especially for those who study enough to be able to know, for instance, what "by and by" means and the other words that have changed their meanings.  It should not be elevated to something it is not, it is a tool to help trasmit God's word to English speaking people.  It has been a good tool for that.

The problem would be if one claimed the KJV is inspired and hence infallible, or if one claimed the KJV is the only English Bible to read.

The Protestant reformation was in large part a call away from tradition, it would be too bad that one of the great fruits of the Reformation would itself be used to establish another traditon.  Which, as you know, has already happened.   So once again people insist on a tradition, insist on rejecting God's grace by creating another law.  It is so sad.

Marv

New International Version Bible Authority Test

Doug Dodd s.b.g. - Berean Bible Church - Edgewater, Florida - 09/28/99

The Church That Preaches What The Bible Teaches

 

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.
Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"


Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.
(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of the NIV as an "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?  


If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.  

(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

Amen, Bother Love, no goose egg for me.   ;D

Noone said that people should read and study only the NIV.

The basic question would be why do you seem to believe that only a small subset of the Byzantine Greek Manuscripts should be used and all others excluded?  Actually, the translators did not use Greek manuscripts they used a Greek text, the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition), which, in turn, relied essentially on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522.

The Greek used for the KJV relied heavily on the work of Eramus, a Catholic Priest.  He back-translated the end of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate.  That is why in Revelation 22:19 Eramus had that "God shall take away his part out of the book of life"  and book should be tree.  Book only appears in Latin manuscripts not in Greek.  

So again why should a translation be based on a text from about a half a dozen manuscripts when we currently have thousands of manuscripts available.  Why just those few?

Marv

BUMP

2Ti 3:16 All (3956) scripture (1124) [is] given by inspiration of God (2315), and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof (1650), for  correction, for instruction in righteousness 1343:[/i]

There are some key words here to consider when translating a passage:

All 3956 -

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types

I agree with the translation of all in this case.  All[/b] scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Scripture - 1124 -

1) a writing, thing written

2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents

3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture

I also agree with this translation.  This is the words, the sentences, punctuation and meaning of those grammatical constructions.  All Scripture[/b] is given by inspiration of God...

Given by inspiration of God - 2315 - theopneustos

According to Strong's this means inspired by God.  The word Theos, translating as God and the derivative root of pneo, translating to breathe do not translate accurately "given by inspiration of God."  Rather, the text properly translates "God breathed."  This is important.  Why?  Because if not, we then can take it to  mean that it is the men who were inspired, and not the word.  Take the text folks.  It's the words, not the men that were inspired in this regard.

But, what of...

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy (4394) came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved (5342) by (5259) the Holy Ghost.[/i]

Again, some key words:

Prophecy - 4394 -

1) prophecy

a) a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events

There are other definitions, but not ones that fit with this passage contextually.  I agree with this translation.  A prophecy.  A God inspired declaration of His purposes.  Usually, not to be picky, but God's spoken word.  Words...breathed out.     :)

Moved - 5342 -

1) to carry

a) to carry some burden

1) to bear with one's self

b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion of force or speed

1) of persons borne in a ship over the sea

2) of a gust of wind, to rush

3) of the mind, to be moved inwardly, prompted


c) to bear up i.e. uphold (keep from falling)

1) of Christ, the preserver of the universe

2) to bear, i.e. endure, to endure the rigour of a thing, to bear patiently one's conduct, or spare one (abstain from punishing or destroying)

3) to bring, bring to, bring forward

a) to move to, apply

b) to bring in by announcing, to announce

c) to bear i.e. bring forth, produce; to bring forward in a speech

d) to lead, conduct

To be moved, by whatever means to action.

Here's my problem with stating that the writers were inspired: it doesn't say that.  It says that the scriptures were God-breathed, and the men were moved.  Doesn't say that the men were God-breathed to do this.  They were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak the God-breathed words He purposed for them to speak.

I did all that to make a very simple point!   :D  If God then didn't inspire the men, but rather the words in the original, why did He decide to inspire the men, and not the words of the translation?  And if He chose to inspire the translated words as He did His first, what verse can be used to claim thusly?  The concept simply doesn't contextually fit with God's Word.

Allinall,

A good point.

I would like to add one other.

If the KJV was inspired (God-breathed) then why would the traslators have needed any other writings?  They could have written God's message to the English speaking people without consulting the Greek text, or the Latin Vulgate, or Martin Luther's German translation, or Tyndale's, or the Bishop's Bible which they were supposed to retain the wording of when possible.

The answer of course, is they wouldn't have needed those other writings.  There would be no need to translate since God's inspiration would have assured agreement.

Sometimes people will use the word inspired for when someone does something very well.  Like Wilt Chamberlain's individual high scoring basketball game.  I could agree that the KJV was inspired in that sense, but the KJV only people do indeed seem to use the word inspired in the God breathed sense, and that is just incorrect.

Marv

YUP

NOPE!!! ;D


(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

Brother Love,

It seems you, and others here as well are still clinging to the idea that the KJV is God-breathed.

Then please answer this,
Why in Revelation 22:19 is the proper wording the wording of the KJV where it talks about the book of life and not the tree of life as other translations render it.  (Translations not based on the KJV or the Textus Receptus)

KJV Rev 22:19  And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.

Eramus' text for Revelation was the basis for the book of life rendering in the Textus Receptus.  When his work came out, he only had one manuscript with Revelations, and some of Revelations such as the last 6 verses weren't even in that manuscript.

So he back translated from a Latin manuscript.

The Latin words for book and tree are similar so a relatively easy mistake to make especially since the book of life is referred to in other well known verses.  The Greek words are very different so it would be an unlikely error in Greek.  The original Vulgate had tree(ligno) not book(libro) 19et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto , but the Latin manuscript he had had an mistaken libro for the bold faced word ligno.

When you study Greek manuscripts, there is no support for the word book even the majority text has tree, so the Textus Receptus, which is really based on no Greek at all at this place in the Bible stands alone.  It is a case not of some evidence against some evidence but of no evidence against all evidence.

So why should we accept the word based on a mistake in a Latin Manuscript and reject the word found in the Greek manuscripts, including the Majority text, not to mention the original Vulgate?

Marv

From the preface to the original 1611 King James Bible:

"Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margins, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

This was part of the original KJV.  The translators of the KJV said that variety in translation was good.  If the KJV translators were indeed inspired, then this part is inspired, which means that there should be variety in translation.  If this part is not inspired, then it is not necessary that the KJV as a translation is inspired.  

A marginal note at Luke 17:36 in the original 1611 KJV says, "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

[edited to add]If the translators themselves did acknowledged that part of what they put in there was not accurate, then obviously the text of the KJV is not inspired.  I personally would argue that not only is it not the only valid translation, but also that it is not the best translation, and is inferior to others in matters of text.[end of edit]

Inspired KJV?  KJV translation only right translation?

I think not.  

Joel

Its about time Joel (Your starting to think) Joel do you have Eternal Life (OSAS)?


(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Yes I have eternal life, and I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.  

I find it interesting, though, that you did not answer my argument, nor did you answer my previous argument in this thread.  

Joel

He won't...

 ;D Your my favorite ;D

Brothers and Sisters,

Reference the KJV, I will simply say that hosts of scholars over many generations have confirmed the reason why the Old King James Version of the Holy Bible has served us faithfully and well.

The work of scholars on more recent translations indicates the opposite. That does not mean they don't have value, but it does mean the newer versions are not nearly as accurate. I won't mention the newer versions that I'm thinking about, but I will say that some of the new versions water down and pervert the Holy Bible.

I, for one, am not interested in watered down or perverted texts. I would also say that I have no interest in politically correct or gender neutral texts that appear to serve man, not God. I think that it would be completely true to say that some of the newer translations are pretty accurate and faithful to God's Word, but there are still some pretty serious errors in most of them.

I, for one, am not really that interested in modern language. To take it one step further, I would be completely against modern meanings, corruption, and perversion in many translations. I think that many of the worst translations do not serve God at all.

What errors there are in the KJV are few, not many. It's also important to note that we still have the ancient texts. One can use the KJV in conjunction with Strong's Numbers, Zodiates, and many other outstanding language helps to see just how accurate the KJV is. One can also do side by side comparisons between the ancient texts and the KJV to easily confirm that the KJV is a scholarly masterpiece. The translators of the KJV didn't claim they were inspired by God, but it is pretty evident their large degree of accuracy was not an accident.

I use several translations during some Bible studies, but my primary text is the old KJV. I don't say "KJV ONLY", but I do say "KJV BEST". I have no interest at all in trying to insult someone who uses a different translation. I know there are varying degrees of accuracy, and some newer translations would be pretty good. However, many of the newer translations fall in the category of horrible to bad.

I certainly don't think Christians should divide over this issue or become angry with each other.

Love In Christ,
Tom

(http://forums.christiansunite.com/YaBBImages/thumbup.gif)

AMEN!!!

I'm saying that the KJV itself proves that it is not the Only translation we should use as Christians.  

And I don't believe the KJV is even the best.  The Textus Receptus is simply not as accurate (partially because at the time it was compiled, there were not as many manuscripts available from which to translate as there are today) as the Critical Text.  

I would agree that some modern "translations" should be avoided.  But that doesn't mean they all should.  Some are better than the KJV in many ways.  And trying to stick to the old English words in a world where no one speaks like that doesn't make sense.  

Joel

I don't feel like arguing over this too much however.... The "newer" texts found are iffy and found in undesirable places as well.  I'm not interested in texts found and used by the unsaved.  Text that are little or barley "used" (as in though they are old they have not been "used").  As we all should know any good bible believing person wears out his bible from much use.  As my Pastor likes to say often "Dirty bible = clean heart, Clean bible = dirty heart".  So ancient unused texts are shady at best to me.  There are many arguments on both sides about the texus receptus verses the modern texts in both how they were written and preserved etc.


The old english of the KJV is when english was really at it's best and most defined.  By that I mean that I mean things were not as all inclusive as the language is now which makes it quite easy to play the ambiguous card on meaning and hence "interpretation" which is the biggest excuse for shaky and unknowledgable or even worse man pleasing "christians".

If taking time to learn the LORD's word and the english of the KJV is silly well.... that's your opinion.  I find it worth my time to learn it and in fact it's not very difficult for some of the lower levels of readers.  The LORD's word is worth my time to study and read and taking that little extra to understand superior english is worth it as well.  As I've said many times before I had to study even older english than the KJV in school and children have used it for centuries.  Stop being lazy.

The KJV is simply the best.   :P

"TWO"Thumbs UP Saved_4ever :)



(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/blgif1.gif)

 

Wonderful point, Brother Love. ;D

As I belong to a small church, that applys only Bibble doctrine to the lessons. We learn, only what is in scripture. What a wonderful way God has with words. So simple, yet so refined.

Resting with the Lord.
Bob

Amen.

KJV Bible verses in conflict with each other.

2Ch 22:2  Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

2Ki 8:26  Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Ch 36:9  Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2Ki 24:8  Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Ch 2:2  And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred to oversee them.

2Ch 2:17  And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred.
2Ch 2:18  And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens, and fourscore thousand to be hewers in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people a work.

1Ki 5:15  And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains;
1Ki 5:16  Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Sa 15:7  And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.

1Ki 2:10  So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.
1Ki 2:11  And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 12:4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Easter is wrong the Greek word means passover.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 19:37  For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

Should read robbers of temples rather than robbers of Churches.

(http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-006.gif) Brother?  I must say that, while I disagree with you on virtually everything you tend to say, and think that you are without a doubt the most backward believer I've ever met, you still have one of the most solid basis' and understandings of God's saving grace and willingness to share that with others I've seen here.  With all that said...


 :) ;) :)

Heavy Dude, thanks and Merry Christmas to you and yours. :) ;D

Honestly, all this fuss about translations. I prefer the KJV for general reading and believe it to be the most accurate simply because it makes clear, points that, in other translations can be muddied. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use other translations. I have about 5 translations and look at them all when studying the Word.

Translation may be important to people in their posh middle class living rooms.. sipping tea while studying their bible.. but you try telling a street kid in a dope addicted New York jitterbugging gang that he must only read the KJV. Good luck with that one.

The Holy Spirit is not limited by us..He can speak to people via any means He chooses, one of the most powerful ways being us allowing Him to work through us and show Christs love to people. If people are truly trusting in God and relying on the Holy Spirit He will reveal the truth to them, no matter which translation they use.

Certain versions of the bible simply aren't translations.. like the street bible, or the message... i think they too perhaps have their place in street evangelism, though I wouldn't encourage someone to continue with them once they had become Christians. Just my 2 pence worth :)

While I'm enjoying this whole debate, you've made a beautiful observation, Ollie.

I have several different versions of the Bible including the KJV so was interested in the differences noted in the very first post of this thread since the differences cause a change in meaning between the versions.

I know many people look at the Bible as the inerrant and infallible word of God and that the translations are divinely inspired.  I never have and look at is more as an inspirational book and a guide for living my life.  I do not interpret it literally.

My question is to those who believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God and that the translations are divinely inspired *and* who believe that the various versions each have their own merit and one is not necessarily better than the other.  Since some of these changes (see original post) change the meaning of the text, how do you reconcile that they are all the infallible word of God?  Don't you have to choose one as the correct book and one as incorrect because it's inaccurate?

I have a few more questions, but I'll do a new post.

EMPHASIS ON EVANGELISM


"...to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery" Eph. 3:9a

by Oscar Woodall

A MOST TREACHEROUS DOCTRINE

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"

Galatians 1:6-12.

In my 33 years of assurance of salvation, my foremost desire has been to be a part of observing lost souls being saved and saints being encouraged in their faith in the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

One of the doctrines proclaimed that brings most confusion to lost and saved people is the one that will agree in the inspiration and preservation of God*s infallible word regarding the doctrines of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ; his sinless life; his death, burial, and resurrection for the payment of our sins; his second coming to reign on earth; as well as other essential teachings of the faith; and then state that a person can be saved and subsequently lost. Having confessed these first positions, the one of eternal security (mentioned last) has a striking effect at the heart of the gospel of the grace of God.

A leading "Christian psychologist," broadcasting on many radio stations, openly admits that he believes a saved person can later be lost. He agrees with his party-line denomination that an individual can "will" to enter God*s family and then can "will" to get out of it. Do you think a person of this persuasion is a fellow believer in Christ? I would not! Why not? I know that NONE of my brothers or sisters in Christ are going to hell. Anyone who thinks they can get in and then back out of God*s family has one of two problems. Either they have not trusted in Christ and him alone, or they have been placed (or have placed themselves) under a law/performance system.

Our great comfort and task in training soldiers for spiritual warfare is the following assurances:

1. We cannot judge a man, however we can judge a message. "...The Lord knoweth them that are his..." 2 Tim. 2:19.

2. We should be suspiciously vigilant and anxiously concerned for others being deceived.

"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another her gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" 2Cor 11:1-4.

So BEWARE! May each of us who are saved saints of the Most High God develop and increase the ministry of "CAREFRONTATION." Aggressive personal soul winning is the order for today for us as the ambassadors for Christ. Interesting and exciting war stories will follow, not classroom or theoretical events, but front-line experiences.


Mr. Woodall lives near Orlando, Florida, with his wife, Dorothy. He is the founder of Eternal Life Ministries, and is active in personal evangelism everywhere he goes. He ministers the Word of God regularly in jails and prisions.

Posted By Brother Love

  <:)))><

BL,
Interesting post but I don't see that it answers my question as to how the Bible can be the inerrant and infallible word of God when the Bibles differ in their wording which seems to change meaning.  I'm not sure you can answer this since, if I understand your previous posts, you believe the KJV is the only accurate Bible.

Looking forward to responses.  Thanks.

Melody,

That is why we get to statement such as this about the Bible.

The Bible, including both Old and New Testaments as originally given, is the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God and is free from error in the whole and in the part, and is therefore the final authoritative guide for faith and conduct.

While a KJVO person would hold up the KJV as the standard.  I hold that the originals were and are perfect and are the standard.

Many people have dedicated their lives to working diligently to make sure the translations we have are a close to the originals as possible.  We trap ourselves if we say every word of a translation is perfect because we end all need for futher scholarship.  The whole art and science of textual criticism is toward the goal of understanding written language such that we can be very sure about what the originals were like. Anyone that translates languages knows that it is really impossible to translate all the subtleties of one language into another.  But that doesn't mean we can't try.

When arguing translations, it is popular to take a verse here and a verse there and say either the text behind it is not the most likely to be correct, or that the translation job itself did not do the best job of rendering the meaning to the reader.  Those indeed are often valid criticisms of a particular translation.

That being said, very very seldom does a doctrine hang totally on one verse, and never in the foundational truths.

So do you have any examples of where doctrine is changed by a translation that was done by people sincerely trying to do a good job?  I don't include "translations" done specifically to hide truth, though even there it does tend to show through.  I won't say there aren't any (I haven't found them), but I do say there aren't any that can't be handled with a little study into the matter.  I am not asking for an example where its like these three words are left off a verse and so you can't tell this from that verse, I mean where the translation is so bad that a truth is lost from the translation.

Marv

<<I won't say there aren't any (I haven't found them), but I do say there aren't any that can't be handled with a little study into the matter.  I am not asking for an example where its like these three words are left off a verse and so you can't tell this from that verse, I mean where the translation is so bad that a truth is lost from the translation.>>

Ok....I think I see now.  So you're saying that the "doctrine" is inerrant and infallible....not that the text has to be word for word exact?

Melody,

The very act of translation changes the word.  How can I say the particular English word is directly inspired by God to be infallible, inerrant.... especially true for those words added by the translators to make the English grammar and sentence work better.

The originals are indeed word for word perfect.  Even if we had them, could you or I sit down and read them and perfectly understand everything?  Doubtful that our scholarship would be so good that we could understand those languages so well that we would get it perfect, but that doesn't mean the Word isn't perfect, only that our understanding would not be perfect.  Even if we read in English our understanding is slightly different.

With the process of transmission of the scriptures, can we say that we have a perfect reproduction of the originals?  No, probably not, though it may be, we cannot be absolutely sure until we find the originals and recognize them.  We do the best we can with what we have.  However, we are very very sure that we are very very close.  The things that we are least sure of are not matters of doctrine or faith, of those we are indeed very sure because they are repeated in different places and with different words, and the witnesses are in such good agreement.  What we are least sure of is numbers.  Numbers are very hard to copy correctly over and over.  Here's a number 300098873333333348876, I'll be back in a few thousand years to see if you have it correctly copied :)  It is difficult especially because of the repeated numbers and the fact that no commas are used.  Remove or add a digit and it doesn't become obviously wrong like many (though not all) words.  This is very much like some of the ancient numbers.  Thirty for instance would very much be tententen so it is easy for a scribe to miss a ten or add it and hard to catch it when proofed.

Now the scriptures are held in such esteem that very few take the freedom to change the text just based on what we think should be correct.  Take this example:
In the KJV:  We have the "problem" of the how old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).
That was what the evidence the translators had at the time said.  Rather than pick the more likely eighteen, they let it stand as they had it, until scholarship and finding new witnesses could truly resolve the issue.  We could sit down and make a translation that eliminated those things, but would it be right to do so?  We will know in time, and they don't really affect us anyway.

The NET Bible now shows eighteen for both with this footnote:
tc The Hebrew text reads “eight,” but some ancient textual witnesses, as well as the parallel text in 2 Kgs 24:8, have “eighteen.”

NIV uses eighteen for both with this footnote: 2Ch_36:9 One Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 2Ki_24:8) most Hebrew manuscripts eight
The NKJV leaves it at eight but has the same footnote as the NIV.  So they are agreeing on the evidence but haven't all agreed that the evidence is sufficient.

Manuscripts are in agreement in the eighteen in 2 Kgs.  

So we are really pretty sure that Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rein, but we are really really sure a King, Jehoiachin existed and ruled.

We get even more sure in matters like Jesus was true God, and true man.  That there is but one God in the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  That Jesus died for our sins and was raised again physically, and so on.

We know those things to the extent that it could not be called a reasonable doubt to question their truth, it would have to be called an unreasonable doubt, and it doesn't matter which sincere translation you would use in order to make that statement.

There is very little doubt indeed from what we know today concerning what God's message is to us.  As such it is much more than a guideline document, but rather it really is reasonable to follow what we have as scripture itself.  To consider it the very Word of God.  To not do so means we will miss the mark by much more than if we do.  Noone gets more truth by ignoring the whole Bible due to some little copyist error on the age of Jehoiachin , only less truth.  Nothing available is closer to God's absolutely pure Word than the Bible we have.  By that I don't mean one translation, but the whole knowledge we have as to what God said.  Each translation has a few little weaknesses, but that's no excuse to throw any or all away as untrustworthy.  Or to neglect their study.

Marv

Marv,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly.  Excellent explanation.  I'm reading your post and saying to myself, "Duh."  This was obviously one of those occasions when I couldn't see the trees for the mountain.

I've always believed the Bible to be the word of God but had problems with the "inerrant and infallible" part because I was equating that with the translation having to be the exact word for word of the original.  Apparently one of my blond moments.

It is my honor to have been a help.  May God bless you abundantly.

Marv

Didn't mean to steal your thread Brother Love, my apologies.

You might be interested that I am working on typing in the 1611 "he" KJV into e-Sword.  It's still going to be awhile before its done though.  What I find online as the 1611 KJV isn't true to the actual text.  

The general idea is to provide an easy to use interface with a dictionary and word helps for those that want to study from the original KJV.

Those "s"s are enough to drive me batty!

Marv

No problem Marv, you may feel free to share at anytime. :)

Is the 21st Century KJV OK?

asaph

To love God is to enjoy Him

Which ONE?   How many people who love to study scripture just have one Bible?  I think last count my husband and I have about eight different Bibles in our home and some on the computer.  I love to compare the different translations and sometimes even look up the words one by one in Strong's concordance is to see the original Hebrew or Greek word.  I suppose I should try to learn to read Hebrew and Greek.  

Another question might be what is your favorite translation of the Bible and why do you like it?  We still need to Holy Spirit to teach us.  

I use the KJV a lot but I also like my NIV "Life Application" Bible when I'm not sure what it's saying.

That wasn't a very love-filled post, brother.   I think it is incorrigible to suggest such a thing when even the authors clearly  said it was not so, I do not think that they would consider your statement a compliment.   I like the KJV but it wasn't taken from  the best  text.  The Latin version by Jerome  was taken from many different texts most of which are no longer available today and he knew the languages perfectly.  So that's the one I vote for.  

Mathurin,

After reading some of your other posts, I would be very curious which Bible you are talking about. You've already stated that you believe one gets to heaven by doing good deeds and belief in Jesus Christ is just a bonus. Does the Bible you use hint at such a doctrine? If so, you need to throw it away and get a real Bible to study.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Hebrews 12:2  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Those aren't  my  beliefs, just a computer error.  I generally read at least the language from two different versions if it is an important or confusing passage.  So,  I guess I can't say exactly which one I use, I do like to use the KJV because it is what others use so if I am going to witness to someone it will be in familiar terms for them.  As far as accuracy goes I think that the English translation of Jeromes Latin Bible is probably the most accurate because of when it was written, the resources he had to use, his mastery of the languages involved, and he lived a good life in the service of Christ.

I thought the same thing as Blackeyedpeas when I read your previous post on the other thread, but I see now that you were trying to quote Sleeker (who by the way is not with us anymore).

There is a little box in each persons post in the upper right hand corner of that post that says "quote" in the box. Clicking on that will quote the entire persons post.

Or if you click on reply as you did then you can look at the "Add YABBC tags". Under that there is a button with a picture of a "page with an arrow". Clicking on it will give you the "quotes" function and you can cut and paste portions of a post into it.

Try those for starters I am sure it will reduce the confusion.

Mathurin,

I did misunderstand your post. Please accept my apology.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Hey no problem, it was understandable.  Thanks for the info, Roger.

What happened to sleeker?

Raoooul,

So, which translation of the Holy Bible do you use, OR do you call the Koran your Bible?

To those who defend the KJVO position:

Would you prefer to use your KJV or (if you knew Greek and Hebrew, which I don't know if you do or not) would you rather use the original languages?

Joel

Brother Joel,

I don't claim KJV Only. I simply believe that the KJV is the most accurate translation in the English language. I won't mention them, but some of the newer translations butcher the Bible, make it politically correct, change many important messages into distortion, and eliminate many messages entirely.

I have studied with the ancient languages many times, and I still do from time to time. BUT, I'm horribly slow with it, dislike it, and don't do it unless I have a really good reason to. Multiply the study time for one Verse by at least 100 times, and you will know why I don't enjoy studies using solely the ancient languages. That's why I use the KJV as my primary study Bible. I have at least 40 other translations, including the ancient texts, but I don't use them very often.

There are some pretty good translations in English, other than the KJV. BUT, there are many newer translations that are horrible. I understand completely why some people like some of the newer translations. The most common comment is they have modern language and they are easier to read. For the better ones, some accuracy is lost, and it goes downhill from there.

If I was fluent in ALL of the ancient languages used, I would try studying only the ancient texts, but there are still problems with that. I don't have to worry about it since I haven't mastered English yet.   :D   Further, I'm positive that I never will.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Luke 2:11  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

"I further believe that Satan, counterfeiting every possible phase of God’s work he possibly can, will produce his counterfeit ecumenical Bible. It appears entirely possible that the NIV or a successor to it, founded upon it, may accomplish that objective. A false Christ will lead humanity into a false faith, based upon a false text acceptable to all, but with a distinctly evangelical face, in order to deceive the last holdout against the ‘New World Order’—the professing conservative ‘evangelical’ or fundamentalist Christian."

Some KJV supporters go as far as to give this version "divine status" and that all other interpretations are Satanic.  Presumably anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian and uses something other than the KJV, runs the risk of having a "false faith."

I characterize this as some Christians recreating God in their own "made in America" image.

You make a lot of grandiose statements with absolutely no examples of even a single "satanic" interpretations or false additions which you claim can be found in KJV and or NIV.

 Unless you're just blowing off hot air, I trust you have examples ready to go...right? or are you recreating God in your own "made in your mind" image?


Bronzesnake

Is this Bible OK?
It's the 1611 KJ Bible.
Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.
Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7  And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8  And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters vnder the heauen be gathered together vnto one place, and let the dry land appeare: and it was so.
Gen 1:10  And God called the drie land, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called hee, Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12  And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13  And the euening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen, to diuide the day from the night: and let them be for signes and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres.
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the starres also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth:
Gen 1:18  And to rule ouer the day, and ouer the night, and to diuide the light from the darkenesse: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19  And the euening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20  And God said, Let the waters bring foorth aboundantly the mouing creature that hath life, and foule that may flie aboue the earth in the open firmament of heauen.
Gen 1:21  And God created great whales, and euery liuing creature that moueth, which the waters brought forth aboundantly after their kinde, and euery winged foule after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas, and let foule multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23  And the euening and the morning were the fift day.
Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the liuing creature after his kinde, cattell, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kinde: and it was so.
Gen 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kinde, and cattell after their kinde, and euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26  And God said, Let vs make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth.
Gen 1:27  So God created man in his owne Image, in the Image of God created hee him; male and female created hee them.
Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.
Gen 1:29  And God said, Behold, I haue giuen you euery herbe bearing seede, which is vpon the face of all the earth, and euery tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yeelding seed, to you it shall be for meat:
Gen 1:30  And to euery beast of the earth, and to euery foule of the aire, and to euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, wherein there is life, I haue giuen euery greene herbe for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31  And God saw euery thing that hee had made: and behold, it was very good. And the euening and the morning were the sixth day.

If not, Why not?
If so, Why so?
Why was it later changed?

asaph

asaph,

I cee no Probleme with the uerses youue cyted?

And evry won sade A Man!   ;D

Grace and Peace!