IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Mick]

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.

[Tog_Neve]

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.  

[Ambassador4Christ]

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!!!

[ebia]

Dear, oh dear.  This rubbish again.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

[The Crusader]

Dear, oh dear.  This rubbish again.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

[ebia]

Why do you bother posting your rubbish ebia?

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

[The Crusader]

Why do you bother posting your rubbish ebia?

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

[Agur3046]

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

Um - Thank you very much for that information Ambassedor4Christ

God bless'

agur

[Brother Love]

 

[Kristi Ann]

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


Blessings,  \o/

[Shammu]

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.

[nChrist]

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%.    So, I could probably be called an old stuffed-shirt, but I like being called that.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

[jsmith]

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  .  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.

[nChrist]

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

[Sower]

These three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are unsafe.

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.

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.