IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[musicllover]

 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.

[Knox]

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

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.

[Ambassador4Christ]

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?

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

DITTO

[Ambassador4Christ]

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion

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=

ROFLOL

[nChrist]

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

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.

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.  

[The Crusader]

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

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.

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.  

For me and my family its King James Only.

The Crusader

[nChrist]

Oklahoma Howdy to Crusader,

For me and my family its King James Only.

The 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.  

In Christ,
Tom

[Petro]

I prefer the KJV even over the NKJV.



Blessings,
Petro

[Tibby]

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

What is everyone thoughts on "the message" Version?

[ebia]

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.

[Sower]

The KJV is just another transilation, I am not saying its wrong, or right. Its just that everyone scream KJV only, NIV is easier to read, the new addtions of such and such, so and so.

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.

[nChrist]

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

[Sower]

Oklahoma Howdy to Sower,

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

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.

[Agur3046]

              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

[Dale]

  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.
<>