Which translation is correct?

[Jemand]

One of the most important qualifications for an investigator is an objective, analytical mind. Reading maliciously false propaganda written by men and women whose goal is not to promote the objective, analytical reading of the Bible but to deceive their readers into believing what is known to be false does not constitute investigating the truth—it constitutes giving into the powers of darkness and believing maliciously false lies.

Are the words of Hort propaganda? Are the words of Tischendorf propaganda? Are the words in the archives of "The Guardian Newspaper propaganda"? How about the memoirs of Henry Bradshaw? How about the examination of the Alexandrian manuscripts? Are these all propaganda? I hardly think so. My friend, you are making false statements. [/COLOR]

Greek is not the only language that is required to study and evaluate ancient manuscripts of the New Testament—one must also have a good knowledge of English or German (preferably both) so that one can read and understand what others have written. Having at hand at least a very basic but reliable English dictionary is a must for English-speaking students of the Bible. The best of these is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. This excellent very basic English dictionary gives us three definitions of the English word propaganda:

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Is all of the propaganda published in the literature of the KJVO movement “maliciously false”? No, but the part of it which may be true is of no relevance to the topic at hand because the English Revised Version and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort fell into disuse many years ago. The propagators of the KJVO movement know this, but they are so full of hate of even the very best translations of the Bible that they will go to any length to deceive the public about them.

Studying the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to determine the most likely original text begins with learning how to read Greek. The next step is to learn the basics of textual criticism—not just of the Biblical texts, but also of old literature in general, such as the writings of William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra where the original text is in doubt. The third step is to learn the basics of textual criticism as it applies specifically to the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The fourth step is to commit many years of one’s life to, as fairly and objectively as possible, the study of the ancient Greek manuscripts while continuing to learn the methodology of New Testament textual criticism.

If we had to do that to catch criminals, they would never be caught. When you see a fox raiding the hen house, how does reading William Shakespeare help save the chickens?

I believe that it is a good idea for a farmer or a rancher to know the difference between a fox and a chicken.

[rejoice44]

Greek is not the only language that is required to study and evaluate ancient manuscripts of the New Testament—one must also have a good knowledge of English or German (preferably both) so that one can read and understand what others have written. Having at hand at least a very basic but reliable English dictionary is a must for English-speaking students of the Bible. The best of these is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. This excellent very basic English dictionary gives us three definitions of the English word propaganda:

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Is all of the propaganda published in the literature of the KJVO movement “maliciously false”? No, but the part of it which may be true is of no relevance to the topic at hand because the English Revised Version and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort fell into disuse many years ago. The propagators of the KJVO movement know this, but they are so full of hate of even the very best translations of the Bible that they will go to any length to deceive the public about them.

I believe that it is a good idea for a farmer or a rancher to know the difference between a fox and a chicken.

When you don't like the message, and you can't answer the charges, then you can always resort to attacking the messenger.

[rejoice44]

[QUOTE]

even the translators themselves said that their version was neither perfect, nor the last one to come, as theirs would be updated just they updated prior versions!

That was sure true wasn't it? The problem was that there was only one version in use at the time, and the revisers were only to change words that were out dated, and they were not to create a second Bible. in 1800 there was only one English bible in use, by 1881 there became two; and now how many are in use?

The 1881 edition was authorized by the Parliament of Britain to due a revision, but the finished work was not authorized.

see Revised version 1881/asv 1901, as 2 that even KJV supporters saw as legimate updates to KJV!

This is not true at all. They sold a number of copies in the beginning, but the people were not happy with it. The copyright went up for sale because the publisher couldn't sell enough bibles to make it worth holding on to.

[Pointy]

I'm by no means a translation snob (I.E. I won't claim one is perfect), and a lot of times they invoke the same exact ideas to mind when I read the verses from different versions. I've never found that one is a complete contradiction to another, though occasionally one has more depth and it is nice to have more than one translation at hand. Some of the more recent pushes to "make Christianity user friendly" have caused some pretty extreme exemptions that really lose the potency of the Word in my opinion.

The Message is one of those pushes that really bothers me in a few places. Matthew 6:11 has been "Give us this day our daily bread" in pretty much every version out there, but in the Message it says "Keep us alive with three square meals." Bread has a lot of connotations in various places in the Bible (the last supper, the unleavened bread, "man cannot live by bread alone", etc...) that are completely lost when they change the wording and remove this.

Another example (that's stirred a lot of controversy lately) is when The Message replaces "On Earth as it is in Heaven" with "As above, so below". You really have to start wondering who was confused by the concepts of Earth and Heaven here... Even non-Christians have typically been introduced to some concept of a pleasant afterlife by the name of "Heaven".

It's definitely a dangerous road we're on and it's important to remember that while spreading the Word is good, it should be *the Word* and not just "my version of what God sort of said". I'm glad things are translated so I don't have to learn all the ancient languages just to gain access to God's message, but it's certainly dangerous. It's not just new translations either. People take only a partial understanding of God's Word and claim it proves some agenda they're trying to progress daily in churches across the world.

In every case discernment is key. Fellowship as well as prayer are necessary if we want to avoid all the mis/reinterpretation landmines that exist today.

[Yahweh1]

have tio reakise that there were the Bishop/Geneva/Vulgate etc Bible out before KJV!

MANY hold that the geneva was/is actually superior to the KJV, based upon same manuscripts as it...

As the translators themselves of KJV stated in preface...

KJV was NOT to be seen as the end English translation, but that it furthered word of God into English, just as there would be future bersions buildin gupon their work! They built on and improved prior versions, and future versions do same with theirs!

[rejoice44]

have tio reakise that there were the Bishop/Geneva/Vulgate etc Bible out before KJV!

MANY hold that the geneva was/is actually superior to the KJV, based upon same manuscripts as it...

As the translators themselves of KJV stated in preface...

KJV was NOT to be seen as the end English translation, but that it furthered word of God into English, just as there would be future bersions buildin gupon their work! They built on and improved prior versions, and future versions do same with theirs!

You have to compare these verses and see how they all agreed up until 1881. The spelling varied but the words did not, at least their meaning did not change. Also notice that Noah Webster, the man that gave us our dictionary also translated the bible. Webster changed words but not the meaning of the words.

1 TIMOTHY 3:16

Codex (A) 400 + or - AD--And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.

Bishops Bible 1568-------And without doubt, great is that misterie of godlynesse; God was shewed in the flesshe, was justified in the spirite, was seene among the angels, was preached vnto the gentiles, was beleeued on in the world, and was receiued vp in glorie.

Geneva Bible 1587--------And without controuersie, great is the mysterie of godlinesse: God is manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seene of Angels, preached vnto the Gentiles, beleeued on in the world, and received up in glorie.

King James Bible 1611---And without controuersie, great is the mysterie of godlinesse: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seene of Angels, preached vnto the Gentiles, beleeued on in the world, received up into glory.

Webster’s Bible 1833-----And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory. (Noah Webster)

King James Bible 1850---And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

International Standard Version 2008--By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great: In flesh was he revealed to sight, kept righteous by the Spirit's might, adored by angels singing. To nations was he manifest, believing souls found peace and rest, our Lord in heaven reigning!

All versions past 1880 ommitted “God manifested in the flesh”

[CarolLoves]

I agree with the person who said hta tno Bible translation is 100% acccurate. It is after all Hebrew and Greek that the Bible was originally written in, and there are words that do not even exist in English. And actually the oldest currently existent Hebrew version of the Old Testament is not authentic, because originally interpretation of the Bible was transmitted orally (eg. the original Hebrew did not have vowels in it, while the currently existent Hebrew Bible does.

I do also agree that attempts to make the Bible more user-friendly do away with its accuracy. However, this does help spread the essence of the Word to more people. Also, any translation is subject to interpretation of the translator, in the context of their life and times. For example, the original wording of one of the pieces translated as "homosexual" in most modern Biblbe versions (I forgot which of the uses of that word it was, I think in Romans) says simply "sexual sin" in Hebrew, and used to be translated as "mastubation" in older Bible versions. (This is not an attempt to argue doctrine, but merely an exampe of how Bible translations are influenced by the life and times of translators.) Edit: of course I mean Greek, Romans wasn't written in Hebrew. Stupid me.

I personally prefer the NIV because it is most readable, but I like to compare it too the KJV when discussing or debating the Bible, such as here.

[rejoice44]

The benefits of having one Bible

1. No more debates over what the Bible says.

2. Superior advantage in memorization.

3. The Muslims wouldn’t be able to claim that we don’t know what the Word of God is.

4. A uniting effect at bible studies

5. It would help build confidence in unbelievers that we do have the Word of God, instead of confusion.

6. God would be happy that we acknowledge that we are incapable of knowing God’s thoughts.



The benefits of having many Bibles, which contain a great variety of words.

1. Helps lower unemployment numbers.

[Yahweh1]

By all means let us have just one Bible, that being the Greek?hebrew texts!

Kidding aside, would have to say that the problem is that God never had JUST a single bible, and that modern versions are just as much the word of God to us today in English as ole KJV is!

[Brother Mark]

The benefits of having one Bible

1. No more debates over what the Bible says.

Wow! You really believe that there would be no Saducees or Pharisees? Dude, people today argue about whether world means world or love means love. There will still be endless debates over what the bible says.

2. Superior advantage in memorization.

Not if I have to memorize it in a language I don't speak, i.e. the kings english of the 1600s!

3. The Muslims wouldn’t be able to claim that we don’t know what the Word of God is.

Not a valid point, IMO. The book didn't save me. God did. The book was important to me AFTER I got saved.

4. A uniting effect at bible studies

See my response to point 1. I've seen more disunity in KJVO churches than I care to discuss and they believe in only 1 book for the bible. It certainly didn't help them be united.

5. It would help build confidence in unbelievers that we do have the Word of God, instead of confusion.

Even if one is raised from the dead, some won't believe. The problem with unbelief is not the translations. Your arguments seem very similar to the rich man that lifted up his eyes in hell. "If only X, they would believe". Not so.

6. God would be happy that we acknowledge that we are incapable of knowing God’s thoughts.

And this would come from having one book?

The benefits of having many Bibles, which contain a great variety of words.

1. Helps lower unemployment numbers.

Or gets the word out to more people so they can better understand what God is trying to tell them.

[rejoice44]

By all means let us have just one Bible, that being the Greek?hebrew texts!

Kidding aside, would have to say that the problem is that God never had JUST a single bible, and that modern versions are just as much the word of God to us today in English as ole KJV is!

My friend there was only one bible prior to 1881. If you read the foreword to the new translations, since 1881, they will attest to the fact that the King James was the authority.

Consider the opening preface of the NASB. "In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious."

For two hundred and fifty years it was the lone English bible that was used in the Protestant churches. Ninety years after the 1881 version came out the NASB committee still recognized the King James as the most prestigious English Bible. They did it because that was a fact. The 1881 version was in disuse in 1971.

People use to believe they actually had the Word of God, but what do we have now. Now they believe that only the original manuscripts were the Word of God. That the Word of God has been lost, and that perhaps some day they might find it. Can't you see what has happened? The many manuscripts, with many different words, has become the tower of Babel.

[rejoice44]

Wow! You really believe that there would be no Saducees or Pharisees? Dude, people today argue about whether world means world or love means love. There will still be endless debates over what the bible says.

Yes, you are right. I should have written "no more debates over what is the Word of God".

Not if I have to memorize it in a language I don't speak, i.e. the kings english of the 1600s!

Give me a break. The English in the Authorized Version was updated twice, without removing words.

Not a valid point, IMO. The book didn't save me. God did. The book was important to me AFTER I got saved.

I never said the book saved you. You are adding words.

See my response to point 1. I've seen more disunity in KJVO churches than I care to discuss and they believe in only 1 book for the bible. It certainly didn't help them be united.

A uniting effect in that everyone can follow, without getting confused, where they are reading. Time and time again people unfamiliar with the Bible attending a Bible study get lost in trying to follow the reader.

There you go again using that title again. It is not about the KJV, it is about having one bible, like they did for more than two hundred years. It is about not having a dozen translations out there with no purpose but to confuse. If no doctrines have been changed, then why introduce so many translations. Do you want the Bible to read like a comic book, or a book that a person can read once, and be finished with it, because he knows everything about what is in it, in one reading?

Even if one is raised from the dead, some won't believe. The problem with unbelief is not the translations. Your arguments seem very similar to the rich man that lifted up his eyes in hell. "If only X, they would believe". Not so.

So you are saying it is better to add confusion?

And this would come from having one book?

Do you think it is alright for man to determine what God was really thinking, and replace God's words with man's thoughts?

Or gets the word out to more people so they can better understand what God is trying to tell them.

Even if one is raised from the dead, some won't believe. The problem with unbelief is not the translations. Your arguments seem very similar to the rich man that lifted up his eyes in hell. "If only X, they would believe".

[Boo]

My friend there was only one bible prior to 1881. If you read the foreword to the new translations, since 1881, they will attest to the fact that the King James was the authority.

Only if history started is about 1650. Before that, there were other versions.

Consider the opening preface of the NASB. "In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious."

Because the royal family of England prohibited printing of the other versions.

For two hundred and fifty years it was the lone English bible that was used in the Protestant churches. Ninety years after the 1881 version came out the NASB committee still recognized the King James as the most prestigious English Bible. They did it because that was a fact. The 1881 version was in disuse in 1971.

I think you are using the term "prestigious" out of context. That does not mean "most accurate."

People use to believe they actually had the Word of God, but what do we have now. Now they believe that only the original manuscripts were the Word of God. That the Word of God has been lost, and that perhaps some day they might find it. Can't you see what has happened? The many manuscripts, with many different words, has become the tower of Babel.

Yes, because we now have the source manuscripts, now we know better. Before, people had to accept the KJV because they had little other choice. Fortunately, God fixed that problem for us.

You seem to be trying awfully hard to make something that is not true a universal fact. At one time, your King James was the new "perversion" of scripture and people didn't want to use it. It was forced on them. I have noticed that those who advocate that someone the KJV was inspired by God as the only accurate word seem to think that world history started about 1650 and forget all about what happened prior to then.

There are so many errors in the KJV that I refuse to bother with it except in a comparitive sense. Those who actually start looking at the text prior to rewording by linguists start seeing these errors and look for more accurate versions. We lose nothing in some of these good new translations that wasn't lost, or even worse, in the King James. Much of the international world is finding Jesus because of the word of these translators. Can you imagine a person who speaks English as a second language being forced to learn about God in archaic English?

Perhaps we should just be happy that people will go through the trouble of accurately translating the manuscripts for the world and thank God that that.

[Zack702]

If we cannot understand english that was written 600 years ago, and we speak english.
Then it is not likely to understand Greek or Hebrew that was written thousands of years ago.

Search as you wish and study the lexicons but to trust them is like trusting any book.

Some things must also be considered, for example a person who is being paid to translate would not likely confess there ignorance, but rather they would fill in the blanks to appease the senses. How much more then a person who teaches a language and is expected to be perfect ? If people believe that we are creating a more perfect word of God by rewording it in a way that is suitable to our culture then I say we are mistaken.

[rejoice44]

If we cannot understand english that was written 600 years ago, and we speak english.
Then it is not likely to understand Greek or Hebrew that was written thousands of years ago.

Search as you wish and study the lexicons but to trust them is like trusting any book.

Some things must also be considered, for example a person who is being paid to translate would not likely confess there ignorance, but rather they would fill in the blanks to appease the senses. How much more then a person who teaches a language and is expected to be perfect ? If people believe that we are creating a more perfect word of God by rewording it in a way that is suitable to our culture then I say we are mistaken.

Well said my friend, at last, somebody that makes sense.