King James Version 100% pure

[Soldier4Christ]

A second Amen to that Sammi.

[brandplucked]

There are numerous good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and the KJV is only one of them. Arguing about translations and putting down various translations simply hurts God's Work.

Hi blackeyedpeas, You talk about good to excellent translations and how putting down various translations hurts God's work.  You seem to be unaware of the facts that it was the promoters of the modern versions who first started all the criticisms of the King James Bible, telling us what a horrible translation it is.

Here are some facts you may not be aware of.



On page 103 of his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"

Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".

I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.

This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.

Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.

"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."

Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible. "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."

"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .

Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!

"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered - in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds - even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.

Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)

These men have swallowed the lies about the so called "oldest and best" (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and continue to harshly criticize the King James Bible, all the while promoting such versions as the RSV and the NIV which both reject many clear Hebrew readings and pervert sound doctrine in various places.  The irony is overwhelming.

And, bep, it is your side which now is telling everyone that there is no inspired and inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth.

In my next post, I will show you what the men behind these modern perversions really think about the Bible.

Will K

[brandplucked]

What do some of the men behind these modern versions actually believe about the Bible itself? I'm not talking about their character or their doctrinal stance on "the fundamentals", but what they actually believe about the Scriptures they are forming and translating into the modern versions.

The beliefs of Westcott and Hort have been well documented, so I will only mention in passing that never once did either of these men profess a faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God.

Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69).

What about some of the men who are alive today and are responsible for the modern bible versions? Bruce Metzger is one of the chief editors of the Greek text of the United Bible Society, which is the basis for such versions as the NASB, NIV, Holman Christian Standard, and the ESV. What are his views of the Bible itself?

Bruce Metzger wrote the introductions to each of the books of the Reader's Digest Bible, and questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses."

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul's other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul."

1 Peter: "According to tradition, the apostle Peter wrote the letter from Rome, perhaps after the outbreak of persecution by the emperor Nero in A.D. 64. But this is questioned by some modern scholars, who prefer to date the letter nearer A.D. 100, with authorship unknown"

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as 'scripture,' a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul's death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter's name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Bruce Metzger co-edited the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. Mr. Metzger wrote many of the notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider the folowing from the notes to this version:

NOTES ON GENESIS:

"Genesis 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB:

"The ANCIENT FOLKTALE of a patient Job circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON JONAH:

"The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of POPULAR LEGEND and put it to a new, more consequential use."

Notes from "How to read the Bible with Understanding":

"The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They ARE NOT TO BE READ AS HISTORY... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, though THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS STRICTLY HISTORICAL. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are LEGENDARY ELEMENTS ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and NOT WITH A DULL, PROSAIC AND LITERALISTIC MIND."

Gleason "scribal error" Archer is one of the Hebrew scholars who worked on both the NASB and the NIV translations. He reveals a great deal about his own personal beliefs regarding the Bible itself in his book titled Bible Difficulties. This book is highly recommended by Hank Hannegraff.

Mr. Archer's book is full of statements such as these: "the Masoretic text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript." (p.171); "the eye of the Hebrew scribe unfortunately jumped passing over 26 Hebrew words in between, but the LXX supplies us with all the missing words" (p. 40); "a word has been lost in the received Hebrew text. Sometimes this omission occurred before the third century B.C., and so not even the LXX can retrieve it for us" (p. 40); "probably a scribal error"; "in the course of transmission the notation was miscopied. The accurate preservation of statistics is notoriously difficult, and 1 Samuel has more than its share of textual errors." (p.173).

Mr. Archer recommends several "lost readings", including whole verses, that not even the NIV or the NASB adopt, but they are found in the more liberal RSV. All of these versions, the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV depart scores of times from the Hebrew texts and often not even in the same places as the others.

In the Scofield edition of the NIV we read these faith destroying words in a footnote at 1 Chronicles 11:11. "mistakes in numbers sometimes occur. Many disagreements between numbers in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are alleged. Actually, out of the approximately 150 instances of parallel numbers, fewer than one-sixth disagree...God gave us a Bible free from error in the original manuscripts. In its preservation, He providentially kept is from SERIOUS ERROR, although He permitted a few scribal mistakes...Some say that Chronicles has exaggerated numbers so as to enhance the reputation of ancient Israel."

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 -5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.


Can't you see where this whole thing is headed?

None of you believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God.  

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Psalm 11:3

Will K

[Allinall]

There seems to me to be a great deal of back-pedalling by the KJV onlyists.  First, God is sovereign enough to keep His word in the hands of His people, and has, though scripture itself denies this, done so.  Then they have determined that He has also done so in the form of the KJV, because it agrees with the transcripts that they agree are acceptable.  They ardently defend this, again, without biblical support for doing so, to the tearing down of brothers and sisters in Christ who hunger for the word, in that, they are hungering for the wrong word.  They put question into the minds of those who never had questions, and had never been led astray.  Is God sovereign (I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe so  ) or is He not?  Does He need you to defend His word?  Has He ever?  Note:  I said need not command.  There are those who will post the passage from Jude about defending the faith as well as others.  Again, I have certain contextual disagreements with the necessity of this defense/application of this defence.

Next, they claim doctrinal changes in the exclusion/inclusion of certain verse/passages, basing their entire theology on one verse.  Their theology, and rightly so, is not based thusly, but their argumentation is.  Again, which is it?  One verse, or the whole?

They ardently defend the character of the 1611 translators, but ardently deny the salvation of any Catholic.  News flash: the 1611 translators were Catholic for the most part if not in their entirety!  You would trust the work of a doctrinal approach you deny while arguing the theology from whence it came?  Then to argue the men who translated the newer versions.  When will we stop looking at the men God used to get the job done and start looking at the God Who used the men?  When will we realize that we're all a little theologically out of tune, get off of our pedastals and humbly seek to know our God - and in turn help others to do the same.

This, my friends, is simple logic.  Please, don't get me started on the biblical ramifications of such a juxtaposed position as this.

Again, I've waged this battle for so long that I've come to view it in a sympathetic fashion, albeit an aggrevation.  I do speak/write in love brothers.  

[cris]

Good post Allinall.  Glad to see logic and common sense used.  God gave us a brain and I see you're using yours.

[brandplucked]

Hi Allinall, thanks for your comments.  I, in turn, would like to make a few observations about what you say here.

I agree with you that God is sovereign and that He has promised to preserve His words here on this earth in a Book.  Do you deny this?  It seems from your remarks that you do not believe in the preservation of God's words.  If I am wrong in this, please correct my misunderstanding.


You criticize the KJB believer saying: "They put question into the minds of those who never had questions, and had never been led astray."

Brother, (I'm assuming you are a "he"), it is the modern version promoters who are now the ones who are openly stating that "NO Bible is Inerrant or Inspired".  All the recent polls show that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is fast fading all over the world.  God is sovereign. I completely agree.  And God Himself has predicted in His word that the last days will be characterized by a falling away from the faith, and that many will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned unto fables.  This is happening now and no one is going to stop it.


It is an undeniable fact that most Christians today know very little about The Bible and hardly ever read it.  The pendulum is swinging towards a mystical, subjective, and all inclusive New Age type of watered down Christianity.  

God doesn't "need" me or other KJB defenders for anything.  But I believe He has called me to defend the truth of an inerrant and pure Holy Bible in the face of the modern apostasy of unbelief.  I don't care whether you think I am right or wrong about this.  I'll leave it up to God and I'm sure He will let me know one way or the other very soon.


And Yes we do claim that several doctrines are being perverted in all the modern multiple-choice and contradicting versions - but part of the falling away from the faith includes "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" - 2 Timothy 4:3.

The absolute Truth is found in EVERY VERSE of the King James Bible.  All modern versions pervert Truth in several individual verses.  If it is not 100% truth, then it is a false witness.  This is God's Standard, not mine.

You then say:  "News flash: the 1611 translators were Catholic for the most part if not in their entirety!  You would trust the work of a doctrinal approach you deny while arguing the theology from whence it came?"

Allinall, this is unmitigated BALONEY.  How you could possibly speak such a bald faced Lie as this is utterly amazing.  By the way, I do not defend the KJB translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could be assembled today.  But to say they were Catholic is beyond all reason.  In addition to this, I do believe there are some Catholics who are true born again, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb children of God - and this, in spite of their false church.  I likewise by no means believe that every professing Protestant or Evangelical is a true Christian just because he/she makes a profession of faith.  

Brother, the central issue is this.  Is there such a thing as an inerrant, complete, 100% true Holy Bible on this earth or not?

What is clearly happening in the Christian church, is that more and more professing Christians no longer believe ANY BIBLE or any text in any language IS NOW the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  Apparently God has lied to us and His words are not true after all.

All you guys with no infallible Bible keep giving us your theories and pious sounding phrases about "good and reliable translations", but none of you comes right out and tells us exactly where we can find The 100% True Holy Bible today.

Instead, each of you sets up his own mind as his final authority, and each of your favorite versions or mystical bibles that exist solely in your own imaginations, differs from all the others.  "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."


Will K

[Sammi]

Hi Allinall, thanks for your comments.  I, in turn, would like to make a few observations about what you say here.

I agree with you that God is sovereign and that He has promised to preserve His words here on this earth in a Book.  Do you deny this?  It seems from your remarks that you do not believe in the preservation of God's words.  If I am wrong in this, please correct my misunderstanding.


You criticize the KJB believer saying: "They put question into the minds of those who never had questions, and had never been led astray."

Brother, (I'm assuming you are a "he"), it is the modern version promoters who are now the ones who are openly stating that "NO Bible is Inerrant or Inspired".  All the recent polls show that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is fast fading all over the world.  God is sovereign. I completely agree.  And God Himself has predicted in His word that the last days will be characterized by a falling away from the faith, and that many will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned unto fables.  This is happening now and no one is going to stop it.


It is an undeniable fact that most Christians today know very little about The Bible and hardly ever read it.  The pendulum is swinging towards a mystical, subjective, and all inclusive New Age type of watered down Christianity.  

God doesn't "need" me or other KJB defenders for anything.  But I believe He has called me to defend the truth of an inerrant and pure Holy Bible in the face of the modern apostasy of unbelief.  I don't care whether you think I am right or wrong about this.  I'll leave it up to God and I'm sure He will let me know one way or the other very soon.


And Yes we do claim that several doctrines are being perverted in all the modern multiple-choice and contradicting versions - but part of the falling away from the faith includes "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" - 2 Timothy 4:3.

The absolute Truth is found in EVERY VERSE of the King James Bible.  All modern versions pervert Truth in several individual verses.  If it is not 100% truth, then it is a false witness.  This is God's Standard, not mine.

You then say:  "News flash: the 1611 translators were Catholic for the most part if not in their entirety!  You would trust the work of a doctrinal approach you deny while arguing the theology from whence it came?"

Allinall, this is unmitigated BALONEY.  How you could possibly speak such a bald faced Lie as this is utterly amazing.  By the way, I do not defend the KJB translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could be assembled today.  But to say they were Catholic is beyond all reason.  In addition to this, I do believe there are some Catholics who are true born again, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb children of God - and this, in spite of their false church.  I likewise by no means believe that every professing Protestant or Evangelical is a true Christian just because he/she makes a profession of faith.  

Brother, the central issue is this.  Is there such a thing as an inerrant, complete, 100% true Holy Bible on this earth or not?

What is clearly happening in the Christian church, is that more and more professing Christians no longer believe ANY BIBLE or any text in any language IS NOW the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  Apparently God has lied to us and His words are not true after all.

All you guys with no infallible Bible keep giving us your theories and pious sounding phrases about "good and reliable translations", but none of you comes right out and tells us exactly where we can find The 100% True Holy Bible today.

Instead, each of you sets up his own mind as his final authority, and each of your favorite versions or mystical bibles that exist solely in your own imaginations, differs from all the others.  "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."


Will K

I would like to repeat that there are people, pastors and preachers general Christians etc.  who take the word of God, no matter which version, KJV included, and twist it to fit their purpose. It doesn't really matter WHICH version is being read, if you are TWISTED and CORRUPT, you are twisted and corrupt. Period. I have seen fellow Christians who are more spirit-filled reading the NIV then a lot of people I've seen reading the KJV, and vice versa. The falling away isn't caused by the translation they are reading, IT'S CAUSED BY THE STATUS OF THEIR HEARTS. I sincerely hope you realize this.

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen, Sammi. The NIV came out in 1978. There were many churches already formed prior to that time that had twisted and corrupted the word of God. These churches primarily used the KJV.

The falling away as you said is not because of the Bible being used but rather how people are using them. How people interpret them the way they want to in order to fit their desire to substantiate their sin.

[Sammi]

What I find truly sad about the KJV only movement is that Christians not only get attacked by nonbelievers but by fellow Christians as well. I don't feel like I should have to defend my faith against a fellow believer for reading the Bible, it just sounds so , idiotic.

[Shammu]

What I find truly sad about the KJV only movement is that Christians not only get attacked by nonbelievers but by fellow Christians as well. I don't feel like I should have to defend my faith against a fellow believer for reading the Bible, it just sounds so , idiotic.

 The word you used, idiotic I think is a great choice of words! Sister, I think you hit the nail, on its head.

Your friend, and brother in Christ.
Bob

Ephesians 2:16 And [He designed] to reconcile to God both [Jew and Gentile, united] in a single body by means of His cross, thereby killing the mutual enmity and bringing the feud to an end.

[nChrist]

gotcha104,

See a post I made to you in another thread.  I won't repeat it all here. I will simply make some completely true statements.

Many of the criticisms of the KJV are 100% accurate. The original 1611 version represents the truth by the translators with the inclusion of thousands of footnotes and margin notes that offered alternate readings and interpretations. The KJV is obviously not complete, nor is it anywhere near accurate and true to the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. The KJV was and is ONLY A TRANSLATION!

Brother Will, please don't think that the readers here can't check the origin and steps in the translation of the KJV for themselves. When and if they do check for themselves, they will immediately find out that you made completely false statements, either intentionally or not makes no difference.

The instructions of King James and the step by step methodology of the translators of the KJV make it exceptionally clear that the KJV is NOT complete, NOT original, NOT inspired, NOT anywhere near accurate, and NOT the ONLY ANYTHING in talking about the Word of God. So, many of the criticisms of the KJV are completely accurate. Many of the biggest problems were with the New Testament and involved limited and improper sources of information. Everyone here can read it for themselves. My intent is not to tear down the KJV, rather present the TRUTH for damage control in God's Work. Gross misrepresentations and false information never serve God.

Will, remove the smoke screens. The quality of the translation is the only thing that matters. The side issues of who said what, what they believe, and etc. is not material, and the same thing can be done with those associated with the KJV. It's not material, so it's just a smoke screen for the truth.

The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are the standard for comparison, NOT THE KJV! The KJV is just a translation, and that's all it's ever been. Problems, errors, and all, the KJV is still a masterpiece and remains one of the better or best translations of the Holy Bible. Manufacturing or fabricating a doctrine that the KJV is the only complete, pure, and perfect Word of God is discovered as completely false in minutes by just about anyone, so why keep wasting your time with something obviously false? The location of the complete and perfectly preserved Word of God is also not material because it couldn't possibly be the KJV. The KJV is a translation of a translation, and much of the source material was either incomplete or improper. The KJV really represents a major upgrade and rewrite of the Bishops Bible with use of the ancient text they had access to, and that would include the Latin Vulgate. Everyone can check this for themselves, and I recommend that they do. The complete list of methods, instructions, and sources clearly show why many of the criticisms of the KJV are completely accurate. Many of the criticisms of other translations are also accurate.

Every translation of the Holy Bible has strengths and weaknesses. It is completely accurate to say that many of the more modern translators had access to huge amounts of material that the KJV translators didn't have. As a result, portions of some of the newer translations are more accurate than the KJV. However, the reverse is still true with other portions, so the KJV is still an excellent translation. Demonizing the newer translations simply makes people look at the OBVIOUS WEAKNESSES OF THE KJV!

Mud throwing contests against various translations of the Holy Bible do nothing but hurt God's Work. There is no irony that the KJV also gets covered in mud during these contests. The truth of the matter is really simple: God is using the KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NASB and many more good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and none of these translations are complete, correct, pure, and certainly not the ONLY Word of God. One must still do Hebrew and Greek word studies with all of them. Trying to demonize something that God is OBVIOUSLY using in His Work will always backfire. Those who are involved in this type of activity should check the truth and pray about what they are doing.  Finally for this 2 cents worth: we should be spending our time preaching JESUS, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace - not arguing about translations or preaching doctrines about translations.

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

Love in Christ,
Tom

1 John 5:4-5 ASV  For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.  And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

[nChrist]

QUICK GUIDE TO BIBLE VERSIONS

Historic - Major Catholic, Anglican/Protestant Versions ( -1800)

· Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

· Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850].

· Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran].

· Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style.

· Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer.

· Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions].

· Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches".

· Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America.

· Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV.

· Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"].

· King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's].


Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990)

· Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics.

· American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same.

· Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible.

· Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time.

· Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version.

· Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual).

· Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV.

· Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

· Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)].

· New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.

· New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale.

· New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated.

· Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation".

· New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.

· Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader.

· New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text .

· New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations.

· New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV .

· Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.

[nChrist]

Sammi Said

I would like to repeat that there are people, pastors and preachers general Christians etc.  who take the word of God, no matter which version, KJV included, and twist it to fit their purpose. It doesn't really matter WHICH version is being read, if you are TWISTED and CORRUPT, you are twisted and corrupt. Period. I have seen fellow Christians who are more spirit-filled reading the NIV then a lot of people I've seen reading the KJV, and vice versa. The falling away isn't caused by the translation they are reading, IT'S CAUSED BY THE STATUS OF THEIR HEARTS. I sincerely hope you realize this.

Sammi,

ANOTHER AMEN!!

It makes me very sad that some folks use what limited time we might have left in this age by preaching translations, demonizing other translations, and hurting the Work of God with books and materials HE is obviously using. The mudslinging contest puts just as much mud or more on the KJV than the other translations being targeted. The whole process is in fact a waste of time that causes confusion, doubt, and division for the children of God who should have better and hopefully productive things to do for God.

It is time to forget this nonsense and preach JESUS CHRIST, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace.

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

Love in Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 2:9-10 ASV  but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[JudgeNot]

BEP posted

QUICK GUIDE TO BIBLE VERSIONS

Whoa BEP!  Quick guide?  My cat has fewer fleas.  (Well - if i HAD a cat it would have fewer fleas...).

Now - when you take each of these versions and "convert" (translate) them into French, German, Portugese, Spanish, Swahili, Ebonics, Cherokee, Polish, Russian, Arabic, Togala, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Hebrew and Italian - we have how many versions?

Hmm - but only the 1611 KJV is valid?    Sure seems like a lot of wasted ink and paper.  Why not just tell the world that in order to be saved one must speak and read the King's English of the 17th century.  That should settle it.  

(Please note that Arabic is struck-out because we all know that to introduce the Holy Bible to a muslim is an instant death sentence imposed by the 'Religion of Peace'.)

[Soldier4Christ]

For anyone that is interested in learning the history of English Bibles the following is an excellant source of information. It is a little biased against the Latin Vulgate but it does explain why they consider the Latin Vulgate a corrupt source with historical evidence to prove it.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/