PDA

View Full Version : The KJB is Perfect



Cody1611
Oct 14th 2008, 12:26 PM
Why the King James Bible is the Word of God

The other day I went to Wal-Mart and noticed something strange. There is hardly any King James Bibles on the book shelves. All I see anymore is the NIV, NKJV and all the other new versions. A lot of people will tell you that those new versions are just the same, but easier to read. Whoever tells you that is either a liar or they do not know what is going on.

The new versions are not just the same. They take away and add not only words, but complete verses! Read below in Luke 4:4 and guess what part the NIV takes out, “but by every word of God.” The devil is watering down the word of God with these new versions.

Luke 4:4
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” KJV

I will use the NIV for example, since it is one of the most sold bible versions in America. The NIV takes away 64,576 words and 17 complete verses. Here is another shocker, in 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by HarperCollins Publishers. HarperCollins publishes pro-homosexual books and I do not even want to name off the names of the book titles. If you want to check it out, go to their publishers’ website. Oh, and if that is not enough, HarperCollins also publishes a satanic bible! I could go on and on and expose those other new versions, but that would take forever. I will leave it up to you to study to see the major differences between the King James Bible and the new versions.

The new “bibles” take away the blood of Christ out of Colossians 1:4. They take away the word “Lord” out of the dying thief’s mouth in Luke 23:42. In Isaiah 7:14, the new versions deny the virgin birth by replacing “virgin” with “young woman”. There are so many other examples that I could bring up, but it would take a too many pages to list them all. If you do not believe me, compare those above verses using the King James Bible and the NIV. The devil is using these new versions to destroy the truth in the word of God.


Jeremiah 23:36
“..for ye have perverted the words of the living God..” KJV


People often tell me that it is hard for them to read the King James Bible. Well, I am here to tell you that those new versions are not easier than the King James Bible. Tests have proved that the King James Bible is on a lower reading grade level than the new versions. There are a bunch of times where in the new versions it is hard to read, but in the King James Bible it is crystal clear. If you think the King James Bible is hard to read it is because you are too lazy to study the word of God. All you need to understand God’s Word is the Holy Spirit and some of your time, not a new “bible”.

Proverbs 8:8-9
8 “All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.” KJV

I am sure there are people thinking, “What about the originals?” There are no more originals. There are only copies of 100's of Greek texts and they all differ from each other. Greek “scholars” will try to tell you that we need to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning. That is a lie, all you need to do to understand the Bible is to read it in the correct context that it is suppose to be read. Next time someone tells you to go to the Greek, tell them to go preach a whole sermon in Greek(I am sure they cannot). All they do is quote a couple of Greek words and try to act smart. They tell you what their teachers told them and I believe their putting more faith in their interpretation than they put in the word of God.

Another reason I believe the King James Bible is the word of God is because the manuscripts that the translators used were from Antioch. Let us see what the Bible says about Antioch…

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

There is a coincidence for you. The place where the King James Bible manuscripts are from is the same place where the first Christians originated. Maybe you are wondering about where the new versions get their texts. The new versions get their manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. Let us read what the Bible says about that place…

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

How about that, God led people away from Egypt. If God led people away from Egypt, there is no way I want a “bible” that gets the manuscripts from a place like that.


Some of you are probably thinking that the King James Bible is only a translation and translations cannot be perfect. I want to show you in scripture where translations are perfect three times.

2 Samuel 3:10 "To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." KJV

It was God who translated Saul's kingdom to David.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" KJV

God translated Christians into the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." KJV

God translated Enoch that he should not see death.

So you see, a translation can be perfect. I believe God was involved in the translating of the King James Bible because the translators referred themselves as "poor instruments", while all the new version translators boast. God will use people when they have a humble heart. Oh, and isn't weird how all the other translations compare themselves to the King James Bible? Why not compare themselves with each other? It is obvious that the devil is attacking God's word, the King James Bible.


Did you know that the only Bible without a copyright is the King James Bible? All the other versions have copyrights. What are copyrights made for? Money. What does the Bible say about the love of money?

1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” KJV

If your King James Bible has a copyright, do you know why it does? Because of the side notes, dictionary, concordance and etc. If you buy a plain King James Bible without any notes or anything, you will have no copyright. Anyone can freely reprint the King James Bible without getting into copyright trouble. The reason I bring this up is because the Bible says…

2 Timothy 2:9
“..the word of God is not bound.” KJV

Did you see that? It says “the word of God is not bound.” I do not believe that the word of God should be bound by human copyright and that is why I am against the new “bibles”.

Some people bring up that the King James Bible was copyrighted by the English Crown, but this was only done so others would not misprint it. This copyright was done to protect the text and was not done for profit. Another thing to know is that this copyright has no effect on us today, unlike the new versions' copyright that does and are definitely for profit.


I believe the King James Bible is inspired by God. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that God had something to do with the King James Bible. Did you know that the King James Bible was the seventh English Bible made? Read these below verses carefully.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

You see that? The words of the Lord are pure, purified SEVEN times, and then God goes on to say that He would preserve His words FOREVER. God said He would preserve His words forever and I will believe Him over any religious “scholar”. Oh, and the fact that the King James Bible is the SEVENTH English Bible and God said His Words are purified SEVEN times is just a coincidence. ;)

1. The Tyndale Bible, 1534
2. Coverdale Bible, 1535
3. Matthews Bible, 1537
4. The Great Bible, 1539
5. The Geneva Bible, 1560
6. The Bishops’ Bible, 1568
7. The Authorized Version of the Bible, 1611

Here is a question. Out of all the languages, why did God use English to preserve His word? Why not Mandarin Chinese since it is the most spoken language in the world? The answer is simple. God did not use Mandarin Chinese because most the people in China are not even Christian. God wants His word to be spread. Therefore, He used the language that most Christians in the world speak in, English.

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it was published under the authority of a king, unlike the modern new versions. It makes perfect sense for the word of God to be translated under the authority of a king, rather than a democracy. King James wanted the Bible to be printed in English, so the common people could all read the Bible whenever they wanted.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV

Did you know England holds absolute time and location? Zero degrees longitude is located in England. If that is true, why would England not hold absolute truth? Now there is something to think about.

Dear reader, those were some of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the word of God. Here is just another fact to consider. Over the last 400 years God has used the King James Bible to save the lost and guide Christians. No other translation in history has done as much as the King James Bible has done for the cause of Christ. That leads me to say this, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

If you have a King James Bible, thank God for it everyday. It is a blessing for us to have the very words of God in our own hands and we should thank Him for that. If you are reading this and you read one of the new versions, I do not hold a grudge against you, but I plead with you to pray and study about this subject. This is a serious issue that needs to be looked at and not ignored. People can get saved by reading a different language bible and the new versions, but if a reader wants to become a true student of the word of God, I stress for them to get a King James Bible.



Love in Christ and God Bless
Cody Watters

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 12:35 PM
Wal-Mart is not perfect. ;)

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 12:37 PM
BTW:
I just noticed that this is your first post.
Welcome, Cody! :)

Richard

daughter
Oct 14th 2008, 12:39 PM
You can buy a bible in US supermarkets. :o

Wow.

You can barely buy a bible in a regular bookshop over here. You go the biggest bookstore you can find, they might have a few tucked away into a corner somewhere. In the "Mind Body Soul" section, next to the satanic bible, and how yogic tantra can revolutionise your chakras.

You have no idea how lucky you are!

Athanasius
Oct 14th 2008, 12:42 PM
Welcome to BibleForums... But I hate to be the one to break it to you, the KJB is not perfect. No Bible translation is perfect, because it's just that: a translation.

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 12:46 PM
You can buy a bible in US supermarkets. :o

Wow.

You can barely buy a bible in a regular bookshop over here. You go the biggest bookstore you can find, they might have a few tucked away into a corner somewhere. In the "Mind Body Soul" section, next to the satanic bible, and how yogic tantra can revolutionise your chakras.

You have no idea how lucky you are!
:o We need to air-lift Bibles to the UK. ;)

daughter
Oct 14th 2008, 12:54 PM
We are a post Christian nation, sadly.

David Taylor
Oct 14th 2008, 01:05 PM
Luke 4:4
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” KJV

Jeremiah 23:36
“..for ye have perverted the words of the living God..” KJV

Proverbs 8:8-9
8 “All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.” KJV

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

2 Samuel 3:10 "To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." KJV

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" KJV

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." KJV


1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” KJV

2 Timothy 2:9
“..the word of God is not bound.” KJV

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

Ecclesiastes 8:4
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV


Cody,
With you being so zealous for the 1611 KJV in your first post,

Why is it that none of the above verses you listed are from the 1611 KJV?

Those quotes are most likely from the 1850 KJV; but definitely not the 1611 KJV.:( Kinda diminishes your argument, using the wrong year.

maasive10
Oct 14th 2008, 01:53 PM
I always was told that the NIV is not a translation per say but a paraphrase and should be read as such.

AliveinChristDave
Oct 14th 2008, 02:13 PM
Cody,
With you being so zealous for the 1611 KJV in your first post,

Why is it that none of the above verses you listed are from the 1611 KJV?

Those quotes are most likely from the 1850 KJV; but definitely not the 1611 KJV.:( Kinda diminishes your argument, using the wrong year.

I'm not an expert but most likely the verses quoted by Cody were from the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611 version.
The 1769 edition put it into modern English without changing any major words or sentence structure.
Most of us would grow weary from trying to read the kings language of 1611.
I love the King James Bible. To me, it's living words. Maybe just because I'm familiar with it and have never used anything else because there just isn't any need to.
I really have a problem with those who say because we don't have the originals we don't have the Word of God.
God is able to preserve His Word. He's done this through translations. It's our duty to be in tune with God enough to know which translation through which He has preserved His Word.
Holy men of God can still speak and write--

moonglow
Oct 14th 2008, 02:22 PM
You can buy a bible in US supermarkets. :o

Wow.

You can barely buy a bible in a regular bookshop over here. You go the biggest bookstore you can find, they might have a few tucked away into a corner somewhere. In the "Mind Body Soul" section, next to the satanic bible, and how yogic tantra can revolutionise your chakras.

You have no idea how lucky you are!

Here a dumb question for you (sorry) but what is the pope doing over there? why is he allowing this to happen...no bibles in the stores! :eek: Ok maybe a new thread on this needs to be started. Here we were all upset because some hotels and motels were taking the bibles out of their rooms!

God bless

Theophilus
Oct 14th 2008, 02:22 PM
You can buy a bible in US supermarkets. :o

Wow.

You can barely buy a bible in a regular bookshop over here. You go the biggest bookstore you can find, they might have a few tucked away into a corner somewhere. In the "Mind Body Soul" section, next to the satanic bible, and how yogic tantra can revolutionise your chakras.

You have no idea how lucky you are!

My chakras were removed surgically in 1994.


:lol:

Friend of Jesus
Oct 14th 2008, 02:32 PM
Maybe it's just me but I can't stand reading the KJB. The language is hundreds of years old and as a result bogs me down in thees, thous, thines, eths and other old language. When the New Testement was first written it was written in the everyday language of the time.

No translation is perfect. But when it comes down to practicality and being user friendly, the newer translations are a better bet than James V's translation.

Personally I'm looking forward to Colin Urquart's translation of the New Testement when it comes out next year.

moonglow
Oct 14th 2008, 02:44 PM
Maybe it's just me but I can't stand reading the KJB. The language is hundreds of years old and as a result bogs me down in thees, thous, thines, eths and other old language. When the New Testement was first written it was written in the everyday language of the time.

No translation is perfect. But when it comes down to practicality and being user friendly, the newer translations are a better bet than James V's translation.

Personally I'm looking forward to Colin Urquart's translation of the New Testement when it comes out next year.

Me neither..Jesus didn't speak old english..He didn't speak english at all in fact! While I was raised on the KJV and had to memorize some bible passages that way ...and some do sound better at least to me in KJV my daily reading bible is most certainly not KJV. Its very difficult to read since people just don't talk that way anymore. It was translated in old english simply because that is how they spoke at the time...but there are alot of errors in it too. I can't even read Shakespeare and understand it! :rolleyes:

God bless

*Hope*
Oct 14th 2008, 03:05 PM
Are you the same Cody that has posted this same article on about 15 other websites?

keck553
Oct 14th 2008, 03:21 PM
I've added Aramaic to my Hebrew and Greek studies. They are all rich languages because they are older than english. Many concepts we can't even translate well are contained in one-word combinations in all three languages.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is a perfect example of the inability of english to properly translate Y'shua's fullfilment of the Yom Kippur scape goat, resulting in a false teaching.

threebigrocks
Oct 14th 2008, 04:16 PM
The other day I went to Wal-Mart and noticed something strange. There is hardly any King James Bibles on the book shelves. All I see anymore is the NIV, NKJV and all the other new versions. A lot of people will tell you that those new versions are just the same, but easier to read. Whoever tells you that is either a liar or they do not know what is going on.

WalMart goes by market demand, plain and simple. They aren't going to put stuff on their shelves that people don't buy. From socks to shampoo, they will only put up the popular items. They are out to make a buck, they don't much care about the translation. They've got the NY Times best sellers out there too. Doubt they sell something like War and Peace. :rolleyes:



The new versions are not just the same. They take away and add not only words, but complete verses! Read below in Luke 4:4 and guess what part the NIV takes out, “but by every word of God.” The devil is watering down the word of God with these new versions.

Luke 4:4
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” KJV

I will use the NIV for example, since it is one of the most sold bible versions in America. The NIV takes away 64,576 words and 17 complete verses. Here is another shocker, in 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by HarperCollins Publishers. HarperCollins publishes pro-homosexual books and I do not even want to name off the names of the book titles. If you want to check it out, go to their publishers’ website. Oh, and if that is not enough, HarperCollins also publishes a satanic bible! I could go on and on and expose those other new versions, but that would take forever. I will leave it up to you to study to see the major differences between the King James Bible and the new versions. Good verse. :) One to live by!

Publishers are also a business, out to make money off of what people will buy no matter the content. I'm seeing that you recognize the way things of the world have gone. Kinda cuts out a path for the work ahead for those who are zealous for the Word. Use that to reach out, can't imagine it wouldn't be pleasing to God.


The new “bibles” take away the blood of Christ out of Colossians 1:4. They take away the word “Lord” out of the dying thief’s mouth in Luke 23:42. In Isaiah 7:14, the new versions deny the virgin birth by replacing “virgin” with “young woman”. There are so many other examples that I could bring up, but it would take a too many pages to list them all. If you do not believe me, compare those above verses using the King James Bible and the NIV. The devil is using these new versions to destroy the truth in the word of God. I agree, and there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to God or His Word. But do let me say this. My first Bible which is marked up to no end was an NIV. God spoke to me greatly and constantly through that version. I had the word of God in my hands and digested it. Soaked it right up. When I moved to different versions I didn't see the error, but still saw the same truths. I'd rather have some reading an NIV than no scripture at all. If that's what can be placed in their hands, it can be used by God in despite of the differences.


If you think the King James Bible is hard to read it is because you are too lazy to study the word of God. All you need to understand God’s Word is the Holy Spirit and some of your time, not a new “bible”. Wow, please - careful with your words. My 7 year old who likes to read her Bible cannot understand the KJV without someone to explain it to her. Then there is the interpretation of that person which she must go by. A simple person can and does struggle with the KJV. The Spirit can and does work in all believers regardless of which version they are reading. (Paraphrases are a whole different story...)

Relying on the Spirit to reveal the meaning of the words and their Truth is where it's at. That I fully agree with you on.




Another reason I believe the King James Bible is the word of God is because the manuscripts that the translators used were from Antioch. Let us see what the Bible says about Antioch…

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

There is a coincidence for you. The place where the King James Bible manuscripts are from is the same place where the first Christians originated. Maybe you are wondering about where the new versions get their texts. The new versions get their manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. Let us read what the Bible says about that place…

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

How about that, God led people away from Egypt. If God led people away from Egypt, there is no way I want a “bible” that gets the manuscripts from a place like that.
Since you are into the history of the manuscripts, check out this thread by TheParson. (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=128677)


Some of you are probably thinking that the King James Bible is only a translation and translations cannot be perfect. I want to show you in scripture where translations are perfect three times.

2 Samuel 3:10 "To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." KJV

It was God who translated Saul's kingdom to David.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" KJV

God translated Christians into the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." KJV

God translated Enoch that he should not see death.

So you see, a translation can be perfect. I believe God was involved in the translating of the King James Bible because the translators referred themselves as "poor instruments", while all the new version translators boast. God will use people when they have a humble heart. Oh, and isn't weird how all the other translations compare themselves to the King James Bible? Why not compare themselves with each other? It is obvious that the devil is attacking God's word, the King James Bible.
Interesting to see you pick out those words from scripture. Are you certain that the use of the word there is the same in context as a translation of scripture? I am not seeing that the most perfect version referred to specifically as these other things were is the KJV. God keeps His words true through the Spirit.


Did you know that the only Bible without a copyright is the King James Bible? All the other versions have copyrights. What are copyrights made for? Money. What does the Bible say about the love of money?Lots of time goes into a translation, and they aren't free to mass produce. Paper, binding, shipping, etc. all cost money. Now, no matter what translation it is I think they are mostly too expensive. No issue with publishers making money, it's their living. They have every right to recoup the costs in getting Bibles to WalMart. :P



If your King James Bible has a copyright, do you know why it does? Because of the side notes, dictionary, concordance and etc. If you buy a plain King James Bible without any notes or anything, you will have no copyright. Anyone can freely reprint the King James Bible without getting into copyright trouble. The reason I bring this up is because the Bible says…

2 Timothy 2:9
“..the word of God is not bound.” KJV

Did you see that? It says “the word of God is not bound.” I do not believe that the word of God should be bound by human copyright and that is why I am against the new “bibles”.

Some people bring up that the King James Bible was copyrighted by the English Crown, but this was only done so others would not misprint it. This copyright was done to protect the text and was not done for profit. Another thing to know is that this copyright has no effect on us today, unlike the new versions' copyright that does and are definitely for profit.
The Word of God is not bound because the One who teaches us, guiding us into all knowledge is the Holy Spirit. He cannot be bound.


I believe the King James Bible is inspired by God. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that God had something to do with the King James Bible. Did you know that the King James Bible was the seventh English Bible made? Read these below verses carefully.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

You see that? The words of the Lord are pure, purified SEVEN times, and then God goes on to say that He would preserve His words FOREVER. God said He would preserve His words forever and I will believe Him over any religious “scholar”. Oh, and the fact that the King James Bible is the SEVENTH English Bible and God said His Words are purified SEVEN times is just a coincidence. ;)The KJV was inspired by God? :confused What about the original manuscripts? This reasoning is a bit sketchy at best.




Here is a question. Out of all the languages, why did God use English to preserve His word? Why not Mandarin Chinese since it is the most spoken language in the world? The answer is simple. God did not use Mandarin Chinese because most the people in China are not even Christian. God wants His word to be spread. Therefore, He used the language that most Christians in the world speak in, English. Maybe, just maybe, he used the english language because it got it into the hands of the people. Since English came from other root languages, it could be translated from there. When it was put into English, it was also in the location where it could be mass printed.


I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it was published under the authority of a king, unlike the modern new versions. It makes perfect sense for the word of God to be translated under the authority of a king, rather than a democracy. King James wanted the Bible to be printed in English, so the common people could all read the Bible whenever they wanted.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJVAnd rule over God's people by man was never what God intended. When Israel asked for a king, they just wanted to keep up with the Jones'. God ask them "I thought I was your king?" Because governmental rule is in place by God we must follow the law of the land. But it was never what God intended. He was to be their King in all things.


Did you know England holds absolute time and location? Zero degrees longitude is located in England. If that is true, why would England not hold absolute truth? Now there is something to think about.What else lays along zero latitude? This doesn't hold water.


Dear reader, those were some of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the word of God. Here is just another fact to consider. Over the last 400 years God has used the King James Bible to save the lost and guide Christians. No other translation in history has done as much as the King James Bible has done for the cause of Christ. That leads me to say this, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” I use the KJV on occation. I am not by any means against it. God can work through many things to get His word into the hearts of the people. It's a beautiful thing to have scripture in the hands of someone. But to say that the word of God is the KJ is a bit much.

scourge39
Oct 14th 2008, 04:20 PM
Why the King James Bible is the Word of God

The other day I went to Wal-Mart and noticed something strange. There is hardly any King James Bibles on the book shelves. All I see anymore is the NIV, NKJV and all the other new versions. A lot of people will tell you that those new versions are just the same, but easier to read. Whoever tells you that is either a liar or they do not know what is going on.

The new versions are not just the same. They take away and add not only words, but complete verses! Read below in Luke 4:4 and guess what part the NIV takes out, “but by every word of God.” The devil is watering down the word of God with these new versions.

Luke 4:4
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” KJV

I will use the NIV for example, since it is one of the most sold bible versions in America. The NIV takes away 64,576 words and 17 complete verses. Here is another shocker, in 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by HarperCollins Publishers. HarperCollins publishes pro-homosexual books and I do not even want to name off the names of the book titles. If you want to check it out, go to their publishers’ website. Oh, and if that is not enough, HarperCollins also publishes a satanic bible! I could go on and on and expose those other new versions, but that would take forever. I will leave it up to you to study to see the major differences between the King James Bible and the new versions.

The new “bibles” take away the blood of Christ out of Colossians 1:4. They take away the word “Lord” out of the dying thief’s mouth in Luke 23:42. In Isaiah 7:14, the new versions deny the virgin birth by replacing “virgin” with “young woman”. There are so many other examples that I could bring up, but it would take a too many pages to list them all. If you do not believe me, compare those above verses using the King James Bible and the NIV. The devil is using these new versions to destroy the truth in the word of God.


Jeremiah 23:36
“..for ye have perverted the words of the living God..” KJV


People often tell me that it is hard for them to read the King James Bible. Well, I am here to tell you that those new versions are not easier than the King James Bible. Tests have proved that the King James Bible is on a lower reading grade level than the new versions. There are a bunch of times where in the new versions it is hard to read, but in the King James Bible it is crystal clear. If you think the King James Bible is hard to read it is because you are too lazy to study the word of God. All you need to understand God’s Word is the Holy Spirit and some of your time, not a new “bible”.

Proverbs 8:8-9
8 “All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.” KJV

I am sure there are people thinking, “What about the originals?” There are no more originals. There are only copies of 100's of Greek texts and they all differ from each other. Greek “scholars” will try to tell you that we need to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning. That is a lie, all you need to do to understand the Bible is to read it in the correct context that it is suppose to be read. Next time someone tells you to go to the Greek, tell them to go preach a whole sermon in Greek(I am sure they cannot). All they do is quote a couple of Greek words and try to act smart. They tell you what their teachers told them and I believe their putting more faith in their interpretation than they put in the word of God.

Another reason I believe the King James Bible is the word of God is because the manuscripts that the translators used were from Antioch. Let us see what the Bible says about Antioch…

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

There is a coincidence for you. The place where the King James Bible manuscripts are from is the same place where the first Christians originated. Maybe you are wondering about where the new versions get their texts. The new versions get their manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. Let us read what the Bible says about that place…

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

How about that, God led people away from Egypt. If God led people away from Egypt, there is no way I want a “bible” that gets the manuscripts from a place like that.


Some of you are probably thinking that the King James Bible is only a translation and translations cannot be perfect. I want to show you in scripture where translations are perfect three times.

2 Samuel 3:10 "To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." KJV

It was God who translated Saul's kingdom to David.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" KJV

God translated Christians into the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." KJV

God translated Enoch that he should not see death.

So you see, a translation can be perfect. I believe God was involved in the translating of the King James Bible because the translators referred themselves as "poor instruments", while all the new version translators boast. God will use people when they have a humble heart. Oh, and isn't weird how all the other translations compare themselves to the King James Bible? Why not compare themselves with each other? It is obvious that the devil is attacking God's word, the King James Bible.


Did you know that the only Bible without a copyright is the King James Bible? All the other versions have copyrights. What are copyrights made for? Money. What does the Bible say about the love of money?

1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” KJV

If your King James Bible has a copyright, do you know why it does? Because of the side notes, dictionary, concordance and etc. If you buy a plain King James Bible without any notes or anything, you will have no copyright. Anyone can freely reprint the King James Bible without getting into copyright trouble. The reason I bring this up is because the Bible says…

2 Timothy 2:9
“..the word of God is not bound.” KJV

Did you see that? It says “the word of God is not bound.” I do not believe that the word of God should be bound by human copyright and that is why I am against the new “bibles”.

Some people bring up that the King James Bible was copyrighted by the English Crown, but this was only done so others would not misprint it. This copyright was done to protect the text and was not done for profit. Another thing to know is that this copyright has no effect on us today, unlike the new versions' copyright that does and are definitely for profit.


I believe the King James Bible is inspired by God. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that God had something to do with the King James Bible. Did you know that the King James Bible was the seventh English Bible made? Read these below verses carefully.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

You see that? The words of the Lord are pure, purified SEVEN times, and then God goes on to say that He would preserve His words FOREVER. God said He would preserve His words forever and I will believe Him over any religious “scholar”. Oh, and the fact that the King James Bible is the SEVENTH English Bible and God said His Words are purified SEVEN times is just a coincidence. ;)

1. The Tyndale Bible, 1534
2. Coverdale Bible, 1535
3. Matthews Bible, 1537
4. The Great Bible, 1539
5. The Geneva Bible, 1560
6. The Bishops’ Bible, 1568
7. The Authorized Version of the Bible, 1611

Here is a question. Out of all the languages, why did God use English to preserve His word? Why not Mandarin Chinese since it is the most spoken language in the world? The answer is simple. God did not use Mandarin Chinese because most the people in China are not even Christian. God wants His word to be spread. Therefore, He used the language that most Christians in the world speak in, English.

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it was published under the authority of a king, unlike the modern new versions. It makes perfect sense for the word of God to be translated under the authority of a king, rather than a democracy. King James wanted the Bible to be printed in English, so the common people could all read the Bible whenever they wanted.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV

Did you know England holds absolute time and location? Zero degrees longitude is located in England. If that is true, why would England not hold absolute truth? Now there is something to think about.

Dear reader, those were some of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the word of God. Here is just another fact to consider. Over the last 400 years God has used the King James Bible to save the lost and guide Christians. No other translation in history has done as much as the King James Bible has done for the cause of Christ. That leads me to say this, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

If you have a King James Bible, thank God for it everyday. It is a blessing for us to have the very words of God in our own hands and we should thank Him for that. If you are reading this and you read one of the new versions, I do not hold a grudge against you, but I plead with you to pray and study about this subject. This is a serious issue that needs to be looked at and not ignored. People can get saved by reading a different language bible and the new versions, but if a reader wants to become a true student of the word of God, I stress for them to get a King James Bible.



Love in Christ and God Bless
Cody Watters

Anyone got a hankerin' for some gelatinous SPAM?:)

David Taylor
Oct 14th 2008, 04:46 PM
I'm not an expert but most likely the verses quoted by Cody were from the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611 version.
The 1769 edition put it into modern English without changing any major words or sentence structure.
Most of us would grow weary from trying to read the kings language of 1611.
I love the King James Bible.

Yeah I love the KJV too, I use it 95% of the time myself....and your probably right, the 1769 version instead of the 1850 version; those verses could be from either of those similar ones....just that they're not from the 1611.

I always find it strange when someone who is KJV1611-only drops by and wants to share there zeal for the 1611KJV only, yet they don't use the 1611; but a later KJV.

Had he said, '1769KJV' then his plea would have at least been consistent on that regard.

BTW,
Here are some passages from a true 1611KJV.

No doubt God's Word is found and preserved within them...however, these excerpts show clearly; that if someone is claiming to be an advocate of the 1611KJV, and the verses they quote don't resemble these; they probably aren't using the 1611KJV after all.
Excerpts from a 1611 KJV
"Why doe yee not vnderftand my fpeech? euen becaufe yee cannot heare my word. Which of you conuinceth mee of finne? And if I fay the trueth, why doe ye not beleeue me?" John 8:43,46

"faide Iefuf vnto them, When yee haue lift vp the fonne of man, then fhall ye know that I am he, and that I doe nothing of my felfe: but af my Father hath taught mee, I fpeake thefe thingf. And he that fent me, if with me: the Father hath not left mee alone: for I doe alwayef thofe thingf that pleafe him. Af hee fpake thofe wordf, many beleeued on him. Then faid Iefuf to thofe Iewef which beleeued on him, If ye continue in my word, then are yee my difciplef indeed." John 8:28

"Iefuf faid vnto her, I am the refurrection, and the life: hee that beleeueth in me, though he were dead, yet fhall he liue. And whofoeuer liueth, and beleeueth in mee, fhall neuer die. Beleeueft thou thif? " John 11:25

"And when he fowed, fome feedef fell by the wayef fide, and the foulef came, and deuoured them vp. fome fell vpon ftony placef, where they had not much earth: and foorth with they fprung vp, becaufe they had no deepeneffe of earth. And when the Sunne waf vp, they were fcorched: and becaufe they had not root, they withered away. And fome fell among thornf: and the thornef fprung vp, & choked them. But other fell into good ground, and brought foorth fruit, fome an hundred folde, fome fixtie folde, fome thirty folde. Who hath earef to heare, let him heare." Matthew 13:4

Literalist-Luke
Oct 14th 2008, 04:46 PM
The other day I went to Wal-Mart and noticed something strange. There is hardly any King James Bibles on the book shelves. All I see anymore is the NIV, NKJV and all the other new versions.That’s because they’re not going to use up shelf space with something that won’t make any money for them.
A lot of people will tell you that those new versions are just the same, but easier to read. Whoever tells you that is either a liar or they do not know what is going on.I agree they’re not the same – they’re superior.
The new versions are not just the same. They take away and add not only words, but complete verses!I notice that you’re assuming the KJV is the one that got it right.
Read below in Luke 4:4 and guess what part the NIV takes out, “but by every word of God.” The devil is watering down the word of God with these new versions. Or maybe the devil is cluttering up the KJV by adding extra words.
I will use the NIV for example, since it is one of the most sold bible versions in America. The NIV takes away 64,576 words and 17 complete verses. You mean it cleans them out.
Here is another shocker, in 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by HarperCollins Publishers. HarperCollins publishes pro-homosexual books and I do not even want to name off the names of the book titles.Oh, go ahead, we can handle it.
If you want to check it out, go to their publishers’ website. No, you’re the one who’s decided to attack the NIV and other modern translations, so you provide the evidence.
Oh, and if that is not enough, HarperCollins also publishes a satanic bible!OK, this is all very interesting, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the accuracy/inaccuracy of the translation in question, does it?
I could go on and on and expose those other new versions, but that would take forever. Yet here you are. So get on with it.
The new “bibles” take away the blood of Christ out of Colossians 1:4. They take away the word “Lord” out of the dying thief’s mouth in Luke 23:42. Prove that the KJV didn’t add them and that the newer version isn’t the more accurate one.
In Isaiah 7:14, the new versions deny the virgin birth by replacing “virgin” with “young woman”.My TNIV Bible specifically says “virgin”. You need to double check your facts.
There are so many other examples that I could bring up, but it would take a too many pages to list them all.OK, if you want to talk about mistranslations, let’s talk about Ezekiel 39:2 for one example.

KJV – “And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel.”

According to the KJV, a sixth of the invaders in the Gog/Magog invasion will be left alive at the end of this invasion. But is that true? Look at the original Hebrew for “and leave but the sixth part” –

ששא – this is the word “shawshaw”.

Strong's Ref. # 8338
Romanized shawshaw
Pronounced shaw-shaw'
a primitive root; apparently, to annihilate:
KJV--leave by the sixth part [by confusion with HSN8341].

And here is Strong's entry # 8341 to see what the KJV translators thought they were looking at:

Strong's Number: 8341
Transliterated: shashah
Phonetic: shaw-shaw'
Text: a denominative from 8337; to sixth or divide into sixths: --give the sixth participle

The Hebrew word that appears in the original text is "shawshaw", which means "to annihilate" As you'll see from the Strong's data listed here the KJV translaters made a mistake ("by confusion" to use the wording in Strong's concordance) and thought they were looking at another word that is admittedly close: "shashah", which does indeed mean "one sixth", but is not the word written by Ezekiel. The KJV team did an outstanding job of converting William Tyndale's one-man translation into excellent king's English and correcting his rare errors, but in this particular item, they made a mistake.

Fortunately, this error is corrected in the TNIV –

Ezekiel 39:2 – “ I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. ”

Considering the vast implications of the idea of one-sixth of the invaders being left alive, I would say that was a pretty serious error on the KJV’s part.

There are other translation error in the KJV that I could cite, but I’m lazy, and besides, my point, merely that the KJV is indeed not perfect has now been made.
If you do not believe me, compare those above verses using the King James Bible and the NIV. The devil is using these new versions to destroy the truth in the word of God.I did compare. As I said, your information regarding Isaiah 7:14 is simply not true. Sounds like you’re the one who needs to do the comparison.
People often tell me that it is hard for them to read the King James Bible. Well, I am here to tell you that those new versions are not easier than the King James Bible. Tests have proved that the King James Bible is on a lower reading grade level than the new versions. There are a bunch of times where in the new versions it is hard to read, but in the King James Bible it is crystal clear. If you think the King James Bible is hard to read it is because you are too lazy to study the word of God. All you need to understand God’s Word is the Holy Spirit and some of your time, not a new “bible”.I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. If that were a valid argument, then you should reasonably be able to expect a person who only speaks German or Spanish to also be able to read the KJV. The KJV’s manner of speaking is one that is no longer used today. Yes, yes, if somebody were just bound and determined to read it, you can learn king’s English, just like a German speaker can learn English. The point is that we don’t have to. You keep on insisting that the KJV is the superior, “perfect” version, yet you’ve failed to demonstrate it.
I am sure there are people thinking, “What about the originals?” There are no more originals. There are only copies of 100's of Greek texts and they all differ from each other. Greek “scholars” will try to tell you that we need to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning. That is a lie, all you need to do to understand the Bible is to read it in the correct context that it is suppose to be read.And we’re just supposed to take your word for it that the KJV is the place to get that “correct” context? Thanks, but I’m not going to throw away my lexicons just yet. Especially with errors in the KJV like Ezekiel 39:2.
Next time someone tells you to go to the Greek, tell them to go preach a whole sermon in Greek(I am sure they cannot). This kind of vitriol is accomplishing nothing.
All they do is quote a couple of Greek words and try to act smart. They tell you what their teachers told them and I believe their putting more faith in their interpretation than they put in the word of God. I’m not really sure how to answer that, because essentially what you’re saying is that, even if somebody goes closer to the original source, the original language texts, you’re going to reject it simply on the grounds that it doesn’t agree with you. That kind of narrow-mindedness is not only unChristlike, it’s also just plain foolish.
Another reason I believe the King James Bible is the word of God is because the manuscripts that the translators used were from Antioch. Let us see what the Bible says about Antioch…

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

There is a coincidence for you. The place where the King James Bible manuscripts are from is the same place where the first Christians originated. Maybe you are wondering about where the new versions get their texts. The new versions get their manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. Let us read what the Bible says about that place…

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

How about that, God led people away from Egypt. If God led people away from Egypt, there is no way I want a “bible” that gets the manuscripts from a place like that. This still has nothing to do with translational accuracy. Your argument is nothing more than mere guilt by association. I could just as easily argue that because Jesus hung around with “sinners” and “tax collectors”, then what does that say about His character? I say we can’t trust the man, because if He was really the Son of God, there’s no way He would hang around with such riff-raff. Ridiculous, you say? Show me how that’s any different from your argument about Antioch/Alexandria. Now, can we please talk about the accuracy of the translations instead of associational guilt?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 14th 2008, 04:47 PM
Some of you are probably thinking that the King James Bible is only a translation and translations cannot be perfect. I want to show you in scripture where translations are perfect three times.

2 Samuel 3:10 "To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." KJV

It was God who translated Saul's kingdom to David.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" KJV

God translated Christians into the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." KJV

God translated Enoch that he should not see death.

So you see, a translation can be perfect.I’m sitting here trying not to laugh at how ridiculous this is. I can’t believe this is even being put forth as a serious argument. None of those three quotes has anything to do with language. And if you’re attempting to use those three quotes to say that God supposedly translated the KJV Himself, then how can you prove that He didn’t personally translate the NIV?
I believe God was involved in the translating of the King James Bible because the translators referred themselves as "poor instruments", while all the new version translators boast.Really? Provide some quotes please.

How about this one, from the Preface to the TNIV – “The (translating) committee has again been reminded that every human effort is flawed – including this revision of the NIV.”

That hardly sounds like boasting to me.
God will use people when they have a humble heart. Oh, and isn't weird how all the other translations compare themselves to the King James Bible? Why not compare themselves with each other? It is obvious that the devil is attacking God's word, the King James Bible.That’s hardly surprising since the KJV was the main English-speaking Bible for centuries.
Did you know that the only Bible without a copyright is the King James Bible? All the other versions have copyrights. The KJV has "passed out" of the copyright in some parts of the world and is freely published, but that does not mean it's the most accurate just because it doesn't have a "copyright" date in the US. Besides, in the UK, it's under perpetual copyright. Your information is false.
What are copyrights made for? Money. What does the Bible say about the love of money?

1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” KJVand what does the Bible have to say about a professional minister (including a full-time translator) having th right to earn a living off of their work in the ministry?

I Corinthians 9:7-12 – “ Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when farmers plow and thresh, they should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more? ”

But you would deny the people who put in months of work on the translation the right to earn a living off of it. The only reason this isn’t a problem for the KJV is because the translators just happen to all be dead. Besides, as I said, your information about copyright isn’t even true anyway.
If your King James Bible has a copyright, do you know why it does? Because of the side notes, dictionary, concordance and etc. If you buy a plain King James Bible without any notes or anything, you will have no copyright. Anyone can freely reprint the King James Bible without getting into copyright trouble. Not in the UK.
The reason I bring this up is because the Bible says…

2 Timothy 2:9
“..the word of God is not bound.” KJV

Did you see that? It says “the word of God is not bound.” I do not believe that the word of God should be bound by human copyright and that is why I am against the new “bibles”. 2 Timothy 2:9 has to do with Paul being in prison, not copyright law.
Some people bring up that the King James Bible was copyrighted by the English Crown, but this was only done so others would not misprint it. This copyright was done to protect the text and was not done for profit. Do you have objective evidence to support this? Please provide a quote from the English crown that says they weren’t interested in money.
Another thing to know is that this copyright has no effect on us today, unlike the new versions' copyright that does and are definitely for profit. As they have a right to be, according to the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 9:7-12. Or are you suggesting that Paul is a liar?
I believe the King James Bible is inspired by God.Then God made mistakes, including the one I cited from Ezekiel.
I believe without a shadow of a doubt that God had something to do with the King James Bible. I believe He also did with the NIV/TNIV.
Did you know that the King James Bible was the seventh English Bible made? Read these below verses carefully.

Psalms 12:6-7
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

You see that? The words of the Lord are pure, purified SEVEN times, and then God goes on to say that He would preserve His words FOREVER. God said He would preserve His words forever and I will believe Him over any religious “scholar”. Oh, and the fact that the King James Bible is the SEVENTH English Bible and God said His Words are purified SEVEN times is just a coincidence. ;)

1. The Tyndale Bible, 1534
2. Coverdale Bible, 1535
3. Matthews Bible, 1537
4. The Great Bible, 1539
5. The Geneva Bible, 1560
6. The Bishops’ Bible, 1568
7. The Authorized Version of the Bible, 1611

You forgot the Wyclif Bible. Oops, that makes eight. Well, so much for the Psalm 12:6-7 theory.
Here is a question. Out of all the languages, why did God use English to preserve His word?He didn’t. He used Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Why not Mandarin Chinese since it is the most spoken language in the world? The answer is simple. God did not use Mandarin Chinese because most the people in China are not even Christian.Oh my, that is one of the most bigoted statements I’ve seen here in a long time. If you believe the English-speaking world is mostly Christian, you are truly living a sheltered life. There are thousands of very devoted Christians in China who literally risk their lives to worship the true Son of God. They were saved and are on the road to heaven using a Chinese translation of the original language texts. I doubt you can say that you’re literally risking your life every time you walk into your church.
God wants His word to be spread. Therefore, He used the language that most Christians in the world speak in, English.If He were concerned about the language for spreading His word, and most Christians are English-speaking, wouldn’t it make more sense to spread the word in a language of people who still need the Lord, as in something other than English?????????
I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it was published under the authority of a king, unlike the modern new versions. It makes perfect sense for the word of God to be translated under the authority of a king, rather than a democracy. That’s just plain foolish. Please explain what that has to do with the accuracy of the KJV.
King James wanted the Bible to be printed in English, so the common people could all read the Bible whenever they wanted.That’s also what the publishers of the NIV wanted, so I guess we’re all in agreement about that part, huh?
Did you know England holds absolute time and location? Zero degrees longitude is located in England. If that is true, why would England not hold absolute truth? Now there is something to think about. your information is false. The Prime Meridian was in Paris until 1884, long after the KJV was published. You can read about it right here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Meridian).
Dear reader, those were some of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the word of God. Here is just another fact to consider. Over the last 400 years God has used the King James Bible to save the lost and guide Christians. No other translation in history has done as much as the King James Bible has done for the cause of Christ. That leads me to say this, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” That is very true that much has been accomplished by the KJV. It’s translators are indeed to be saluted for a historic work that did indeed change the world.
If you have a King James Bible, thank God for it everyday. It is a blessing for us to have the very words of God in our own hands and we should thank Him for that. If you are reading this and you read one of the new versions, I do not hold a grudge against you, but I plead with you to pray and study about this subject. I’m years ahead of you on that, and I’m very comfortable with my TNIV. If you prefer the KJV, that’s fine, but don’t try to impose it on other people.
This is a serious issue that needs to be looked at and not ignored. People can get saved by reading a different language bible and the new versions, but if a reader wants to become a true student of the word of God, I stress for them to get a King James Bible. Sorry, but that’s just narrow-minded. I know, I know, I sound like a liberal when I say that, but it’s true.

David Taylor
Oct 14th 2008, 05:01 PM
You forgot the Wyclif Bible. Oops, that makes eight. Well, so much for the Psalm 12:6-7 theory.

The West Saxon Gospels would argue 9, not 8.

Matthew 6:9-13 10th century West Saxon Gospels
"Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Si þin nama gehalgod.To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice."

Literalist-Luke
Oct 14th 2008, 05:15 PM
The West Saxon Gospels would argue 9, not 8.Rats, I forgot that one. Thanks. :D

Emanate
Oct 14th 2008, 06:12 PM
My TNIV Bible specifically says “virgin”. You need to double check your facts.


The Hebrew almah, used in the mentioned verse, is literally translated "young woman" as opposed to the Hebrew betulah, which is not used in this verse, that means virgin. The Septuagaint did translate almah with the Greek word meaning 'virgin' (I forget the Greek word).

Cody1611
Oct 14th 2008, 06:44 PM
Changing the font does not change the text. I believe God inspired the Originals and the King James Bible, but you're not going to find the Originals today. You are going to find hundreds of Greek texts that all say different things.

Maybe you're asking, "Why would God inspire both the originals and the King James Bible?" Maybe you're also doubting that God inspired the Ten Commandments 2 times.

Rufus_1611
Oct 14th 2008, 06:55 PM
Maybe it's just me but I can't stand reading the KJB. The language is hundreds of years old and as a result bogs me down in thees, thous, thines, eths and other old language. When the New Testement was first written it was written in the everyday language of the time.

No translation is perfect. But when it comes down to practicality and being user friendly, the newer translations are a better bet than James V's translation. I believe you mean King James VI (Scotland) & I (England).


Personally I'm looking forward to Colin Urquart's translation of the New Testement when it comes out next year. Who is he?

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 06:57 PM
In the US, our reading levels are way down.
Forcing an alleged and perhaps rightly so - more accurate version on a new convert is like feeding a very young infant steak.

If public education continues to decline, King James will have to come back to authorize a picture book. :rolleyes:

In the ages prior to education for the masses, even pre-Gutenberg, the people needed illustrations to “read” for themselves.

So I say, let people have a readable version with 99% accuracy (or whatever) –
rather than chase them away with 100% accuracy (or whatever) which they cannot read and understand.

If one reads the Preface of the KJV (1850 AD)
It's clear that the translators' intent was to bring readable Scripture to the masses.
Along with being able to please good old King James. J

Once, the Holy Spirit begins to open the Word to a new-born, and they begin to grow in understanding, then they can be graduated to more accuracy
even delving into the original languages

:2cents:
Richard

David Taylor
Oct 14th 2008, 07:31 PM
Maybe you're asking, "Why would God inspire both the originals and the King James Bible?" Maybe you're also doubting that God inspired the Ten Commandments 2 times.


And perhaps also you are asking, "Why would God inspire both the originals and the Wycliffe Bible, and the Geneva Bible, and all the King James Bible versions, and the NASB Bible, and the ESV Bible, and the Holman Standard Bible. as well as the Gutenberg Bible or the La Biblia Reina-Valera?"

God is able to preserve His Word in all of those Bible translations; not solely into only the Original autographs and only the 1611 KJV; which you don't even choose to quote from.

The KJV is a great Bible, faithfully preserving within it God's Holy Word unto mankind; but it isn't the only Bible and only language faithfully preserving God's Holy Word unto mankind.


Hecho trece: cuarenteseite
"Así nos lo ha mandado el Señor: Te he puesto por luz para las naciones, a fin de que lleves mi salvación hasta los confines de la tierra. Al oír esto, los gentiles se alegraron y celebraron la palabra del Señor; y creyeron todos los que estaban destinados a la vida eterna. La palabra del Señor se difundía por toda la región."


Not the KJV1611 at all, but very much God's Word to man!

p.s.
Yo puedo tenier un amen de mis hermonos de otras idiomas aqui, quin amor la palabra de Dios?

Rufus_1611
Oct 14th 2008, 07:49 PM
In the US, our reading levels are way down.
Forcing an alleged and perhaps rightly so - more accurate version on a new convert is like feeding a very young infant steak. I appreciate you equating the AV to steak and, perhaps, milk is better for the young infants. However, I would think the more mature, Christians would desire the steak.


If public education continues to decline, King James will have to come back to authorize a picture book. :rolleyes: In times gone by, many learned to read with the Holy Bible as their primary educational tool.


In the ages prior to education for the masses, even pre-Gutenberg, the people needed illustrations to “read” for themselves.

So I say, let people have a readable version with 99% accuracy (or whatever) –
rather than chase them away with 100% accuracy (or whatever) which they cannot read and understand. But see, they can read it but only if they have faith to do so. If one goes up to the plate thinking he's going to strike out...he likely will.


If one reads the Preface of the KJV (1850 AD)
It's clear that the translators' intent was to bring readable Scripture to the masses.
Along with being able to please good old King James. J
It's good to please a King.

Once, the Holy Spirit begins to open the Word to a new-born, and they begin to grow in understanding, then they can be graduated to more accuracy
even delving into the original languages

:2cents:
Richard

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 08:30 PM
I appreciate you equating the AV to steak and, perhaps, milk is better for the young infants. However, I would think the more mature, Christians would desire the steak.
Perhaps. Perhaps readability is a good thing too. I gave up my NASB - only because the pages fell apart (cheap price). When I needed to read Scripture to others, I elected for a good NIV so I wouldn't stumble and stammer so much.

Now I have the NASB along with the free versions avail w/ e-Sword.

The first Bible I actually read was the KJV. After reading the NT, I started the whole thing through - including the Preface. It was tough!
The Holy Spirit needs time to bring all this to life for us. (our limitation)


In times gone by, many learned to read with the Holy Bible as their primary educational tool.
Yes. But this is not then and we have very little home schooling either.

I don't know the stats, but I think the US reading level is 4th or 5th grade now.


But see, they can read it but only if they have faith to do so. If one goes up to the plate thinking he's going to strike out...he likely will.
How can one get faith if one does not have the reading skills to read the word?
Yes I know faith comes by "hearing...", but one needs ears to hear.


It's good to please a King.
Not just ANY King. :) But I know you mean THE King.

Richard

Semi-tortured
Oct 14th 2008, 08:34 PM
And now we have a...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e9/Pogomako/can.jpg

Emanate
Oct 14th 2008, 08:42 PM
And now we have a...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e9/Pogomako/can.jpg


Tin full of fish food?

keck553
Oct 14th 2008, 08:46 PM
Tin full of fish food?

I hope it's for fish. I don't think this is kashrut for humans

Semi-tortured
Oct 14th 2008, 08:52 PM
Cmon guys. It is implying we opened a can of worms. ;)

keck553
Oct 14th 2008, 09:09 PM
Our sense of humor doesn't translate well in words....Kinda like Paul's sarcasm.

Rufus_1611
Oct 14th 2008, 10:03 PM
Perhaps. Perhaps readability is a good thing too. I gave up my NASB - only because the pages fell apart (cheap price). When I needed to read Scripture to others, I elected for a good NIV so I wouldn't stumble and stammer so much. Readability is a good thing. Go to your electronic Bible of choice, copy a passage of NIV words into Microsoft Word, copy the same passage from the KJV into a new Word document. Now do the following:


Click the Microsoft Office Button, and then click Word Options.
Click Proofing.
Make sure Check grammar with spelling is selected.
Under When correcting grammar in Word, select the Show readability statistics check box.


The KJV most always wins in the category of readability.


Now I have the NASB along with the free versions avail w/ e-Sword.

The first Bible I actually read was the KJV. After reading the NT, I started the whole thing through - including the Preface. It was tough!
The Holy Spirit needs time to bring all this to life for us. (our limitation)

Yes. But this is not then and we have very little home schooling either.

I don't know the stats, but I think the US reading level is 4th or 5th grade now. Well the NIV is certainly not written at a 4th or 5th grade level...how do people get by?


How can one get faith if one does not have the reading skills to read the word?
Yes I know faith comes by "hearing...", but one needs ears to hear.

Not just ANY King. :) But I know you mean THE King. No, I pretty much mean any king. It is the Lord that establishes Kings. Unless, a King asks you to sin, it is right to submit and obey him.


Richard

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 10:15 PM
Nay! I sayith unto you, readability is more than mere grammatical correctness.
The mind which perceiveth not, hath no understanding.

keck553
Oct 14th 2008, 10:38 PM
Wow. Nowe is the time to gird vp thy loines like a man, gird thy sword vpon thy thigh, and giue eare all farre countreys.

So thine enemy gird themselues with sackcloth, and wallowe thine selvues in ashes, and provoke most bitter lamentation.

Whispering Grace
Oct 14th 2008, 11:10 PM
Hey Rufus_1611, are you any relation to Cody1611?

:D

Dragonfighter1
Oct 15th 2008, 12:12 AM
Cody,
With you being so zealous for the 1611 KJV in your first post,

Why is it that none of the above verses you listed are from the 1611 KJV?

Those quotes are most likely from the 1850 KJV; but definitely not the 1611 KJV.:( Kinda diminishes your argument, using the wrong year.


Amen! Bingo! and finally....Oh brother! What a waste of talent.

Brother you are obviously a sincere believer. But please, take your time and think slower. The 7 times purified argument is insulting. the preceding translations were not "re purified" to produce succeeding versions. I will say no more about this point though as it is ridiculous and your time would be better spend getting upset about more important issues than 7 purifications!

(For the record: I believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, the verbal plenary authority of the scriptures, and etc..) for those who don't know what plenary means ...look it up its worth understanding:)

Now, also the KJV was corrupted by The Roman catholic churches influence concerning the imposition of indulgences in that era. If you don't know about indulgences look it up... its important for this discussion. This impacted the translation of several points in the text... however the most obvious is Rom 8:1 which I will now quote(to do justice I must quote 4 verses I will explain shortly)

From the online Bible at Biblegateway.com
Romans 8:1-4 (King James Version)

King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9) (KJV) Public Domain (http://www.biblegateway.com/help/faq/?id=2#10)
Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.




Please note the underlined part of verse 1. This did not exist in ANY OF THE TEXTS THEY WERE USING. However, because of the indulgences issue and the whole guilt manipulation for profit issue it was decided that verse one could not be allowed to stand unaltered. (think though the economic impact of salvation that didnt include works and salvation that requires it). So the translators took part of verse 4 (this is using a technique called plausable editing- it is plausable to use verses from nearby text to alter the meaning if the "experts" say it is plausable) (another term is circular arguement but they would never agree to that term:rofl:.


So you see because of religio-political exegencies, and the potential cash loss of verse 4 standing alone, they altered the text.


So, if we take what you said in the original text brother about not adulterating the Bible we already have a problem.



Further: if a man who speaks say... Argentinian becomes a missionary to say the auca indians of south america and doesnt speak their language he must according to your twisted logic first learn British (not American as it it a different language skill set that most americans don't understand the nuances of--likely including you) Then he must learn the auca language then he can translate a BIble for them from KJV to AUCA KJV. How rediculous! Would it not make sense to have the ORIGINAL GREEK(or hebrew/Aramaic etc) be used uniformly through out all languages as GOD originally intended? Would it not be better to not question GODS intelligence in selecting the languages HE thought best for the purpose.


The British English language is highly imperfect compared to the Greek.. I ought to know I am British, & studied Greek at a conservative BABTIST college. British or AMerican for that matter lacks several tenses that other languages make use of. Take the ending "ING" that you see on many words. What tense it that to you? Try this: "He was shooting his gun" Tell me what tense is that. Past, present, future, pluperfect, imperfect,????


The ing ending on British words is the best we can do to communicate a tense that our stupidly simple language doesn't have but other languages not only have, but make particular and special use of in describing actions. Would you have us take a seriously disabled language and use it to create a text for a people group that could benefit greatly form a text that uses a tense they are very familiar with.


The whole KJV argument is held by simnpletons who love to get upety about things they know truly little about. They will quote scriptures like bullets from a machine gun but they are frequently out of context and often used to cow others who disagree into silience.


I won't back down to willful ignorance.


I have no problem with you liking to use, or prefering it for any number of reasons you choose. But dont you DARE tell me that it is the only valid text until you have done a lot more studying... Which will defintely change your heart if you are sincere.:hug:

Dragonfighter1
Oct 15th 2008, 12:16 AM
Are you the same Cody that has posted this same article on about 15 other websites?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Rufus_1611
Oct 15th 2008, 12:26 AM
Hey Rufus_1611, are you any relation to Cody1611?

:D I don't know him but I'm quite certain he's my brother. :)

Dragonfighter1
Oct 15th 2008, 12:27 AM
Changing the font does not change the text. I believe God inspired the Originals and the King James Bible, but you're not going to find the Originals today. You are going to find hundreds of Greek texts that all say different things.


What a load of HOGWASH. hundreds of Greek text say the SAME thing not Different things. Oh and since your 1611 was a translation from an originating text/manuscript would you kindly tell us which one so we can start worshiping it?:rofl:

Dragonfighter1
Oct 15th 2008, 12:29 AM
In the US, our reading levels are way down.
Forcing an alleged and perhaps rightly so - more accurate version on a new convert is like feeding a very young infant steak.

If public education continues to decline, King James will have to come back to authorize a picture book. :rolleyes:

In the ages prior to education for the masses, even pre-Gutenberg, the people needed illustrations to “read” for themselves.

So I say, let people have a readable version with 99% accuracy (or whatever) –
rather than chase them away with 100% accuracy (or whatever) which they cannot read and understand.

If one reads the Preface of the KJV (1850 AD)
It's clear that the translators' intent was to bring readable Scripture to the masses.
Along with being able to please good old King James. J

Once, the Holy Spirit begins to open the Word to a new-born, and they begin to grow in understanding, then they can be graduated to more accuracy
even delving into the original languages

:2cents:
Richard
An awesome response... Kudos to your thoughts!

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 01:50 AM
Changing the font does not change the text. I believe God inspired the Originals and the King James Bible, but you're not going to find the Originals today. You are going to find hundreds of Greek texts that all say different things.

Maybe you're asking, "Why would God inspire both the originals and the King James Bible?" Maybe you're also doubting that God inspired the Ten Commandments 2 times.Prove He didn't inspire the NIV/TNIV.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 01:52 AM
Cmon guys. It is implying we opened a can of worms. ;)I got it. :lol:

Dani H
Oct 15th 2008, 01:54 AM
I'm personally quite fond of The Message. :)

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 01:56 AM
I'm personally quite fond of The Message. :)I've heard that The Message has some translational/doctrinal issues, although I haven't checked into it myself. You might want to do some checking on that. However, I'm certainly not about to tell you that you need to immediately go chuck it. We should be careful with any translation, The Message, NIV/TNIV, or KJV. :)

Rufus_1611
Oct 15th 2008, 02:01 AM
Nay! I sayith unto you, readability is more than mere grammatical correctness.
The mind which perceiveth not, hath no understanding. Readability is readability. It is what it is, unless you are intending to redefine what the word means.

Dani H
Oct 15th 2008, 02:08 AM
I've heard that The Message has some translational/doctrinal issues, although I haven't checked into it myself. You might want to do some checking on that. However, I'm certainly not about to tell you that you need to immediately go chuck it. We should be careful with any translation, The Message, NIV/TNIV, or KJV. :)

I don't use it for studying, just for reading. :)

If I want to study down into the meat of things, I get out my Hebrew/Greek Interlinear Bible. :)

When I go for my walks with God, I get out my iPod with my worship music and grab my pocket-sized NKJV (which, by the way, has been my favorite for 16 years and always will be).

And, let's not get into the riches that sites like Biblegateway.com offers us.

I consider myself immensely blessed to have so many translations at my fingertips. Just kind of adds to the richness of things, doesn't it?

Then again, some folks can't appreciate something outside their holes that they've holed themselves in ...

And, to me, no translation is worth anything unless the person studying it actually lives the truth of it. What good does a 99% accuracy do you versus a 80% accuracy if you don't bother living any of it?

And wouldn't it be just a hoot if God had all the translations open, in every language and edition, at the Throne Judgment, to judge us by? Then what would we do?

"Hmm. You didn't see that in your Bible? You used the New York City version from 7/11? I have that here. Okay, let's see. 'Love the fella in the apartment next door who came over from China as much as you love yourself.' Yup. Well, did you? I have some proof stating you didn't. What do you say for yourself?"

Yes, these are the things I think about. :)

threebigrocks
Oct 15th 2008, 03:16 AM
I've heard that The Message has some translational/doctrinal issues, although I haven't checked into it myself. You might want to do some checking on that. However, I'm certainly not about to tell you that you need to immediately go chuck it. We should be careful with any translation, The Message, NIV/TNIV, or KJV. :)

The Message isn't exactly a translation. It's a paraphrase.

AliveinChristDave
Oct 15th 2008, 04:25 AM
This is an interesting discussion that I'm enjoying.

As I said, I use the KJB but I don't judge a brother or sisters spirituality by what Bible they read. As long as the reader is determined in his heart that they have the Word of God I will not argue with them.

I wish I was a Hebrew and Greek scholar but I'm not. I have to depend on books for my Greek and Hebrew learning. All I know is what I read.

Down through the centuries there have been many people who came to the Lord and who grew spiritually with only portions of the scriptures.

We limit God when we say every word translated by man has to be right on and has to teach the right doctrine. God is able to manifest Himself to us in ways we don't understand.

Jesus Christ is The living stone and so are we. His power is our power. His wisdom is our wisdom. All that He is we possess.

No one will ever stand before God unprepared and blame it on the fact they didn't have the purified, preserved Word available to them.

The Preacher
Oct 15th 2008, 04:51 AM
This errant view has been propagated by Jack Chick and his group for decades. I fell into this trap as a young Christian. While it may be true that certain verses are left out such as a reference to the blood in col. This in no wyt affects the doctrine of blood atonement in the NIV. These later bibles were produced using earlier manuscripts that Eramus had access to when he compiled the received text. In fact some of latest translations even use the Chester Beatty papyri that dates from the second century. The claims that the King James is an inspired translation over and above the current versions is in error. In fact ALL of the translations we have back up every major doctrine that comprises Christianity. No doctrine is affected by the differences in the greek texts. In fact this whole issue is what prompted me to study greek. I still prefer the King James but that is due to the fact that I memorized large portions in that translation and not due to the fact that it is more accurate.

keck553
Oct 15th 2008, 06:13 AM
At any rate, KJB/NKJB does stand up pretty good. Although I enjoy the readibility of NASB.

Although a Greek NT, Hebrew OT, Strong's and even a Septuagint is mighty handy.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 06:38 AM
I don't use it for studying, just for reading. :)

If I want to study down into the meat of things, I get out my Hebrew/Greek Interlinear Bible. :)

When I go for my walks with God, I get out my iPod with my worship music and grab my pocket-sized NKJV (which, by the way, has been my favorite for 16 years and always will be).

And, let's not get into the riches that sites like Biblegateway.com offers us.

I consider myself immensely blessed to have so many translations at my fingertips. Just kind of adds to the richness of things, doesn't it?

Then again, some folks can't appreciate something outside their holes that they've holed themselves in ...

And, to me, no translation is worth anything unless the person studying it actually lives the truth of it. What good does a 99% accuracy do you versus a 80% accuracy if you don't bother living any of it?

And wouldn't it be just a hoot if God had all the translations open, in every language and edition, at the Throne Judgment, to judge us by? Then what would we do?

"Hmm. You didn't see that in your Bible? You used the New York City version from 7/11? I have that here. Okay, let's see. 'Love the fella in the apartment next door who came over from China as much as you love yourself.' Yup. Well, did you? I have some proof stating you didn't. What do you say for yourself?"

Yes, these are the things I think about. :)Sounds like a good approach. :thumbsup:

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 06:39 AM
The Message isn't exactly a translation. It's a paraphrase.I guess that would tend to explain the "translational" issues, huh? :D

Br. Barnabas
Oct 15th 2008, 12:18 PM
The Message isn't exactly a translation. It's a paraphrase.

The Message is a translation. Eugene H. Peterson, a Professor at Regent College B.C., actually knows Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and has translated the Message from those languages.

Quote from the beginning of the Message: "The Message is a contemporary rendering of the Bible from the original languages, crafted to present its tone, rhythm, events, and ideas in everyday language."

Cody1611
Oct 15th 2008, 12:31 PM
Prove He didn't inspire the NIV/TNIV.

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!

Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High."And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish!
ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR".

BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR".

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!
ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?

Quotes from: http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

You tell me if God would inspire the NIV.

Also check out these links..

NKJV
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
The

The Message
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mess_bible.html

NASV
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm

Don't just take their word for it. Compare your bibles.

Do you really think God would inspire "bibles" that pervert the deity of Jesus Christ? Or do you even care? Is it all about how easy it is to read to you?

Let us put God's word on High

Psalms 138:2 "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." KJB

Dragonfighter1
Oct 15th 2008, 12:50 PM
....Post number 3.

And still struggling to be cordial...

Dragonfighter1
Oct 15th 2008, 01:07 PM
ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?


Perhaps because the original manuscript that the KJV was translated from: used the words "Hell" and the "grave" interchangeably. In the original text used for the KJV the actual phrase was: irkthi (recesses-of) bur (crypt)

But of course, anger and shouting make so much better theology than facts.

Hell meant the grave dude. It was not a reference to eternal damnation.

If you read a little further you will see Satan referred to as a man... shall we take that out of context too. I'm sure we could make a case that Satan is not a man and therefore even the KJV is blasphemy!!!


OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo!:B

moonglow
Oct 15th 2008, 01:57 PM
Perhaps because the original manuscript that the KJV was translated from: used the words "Hell" and the "grave" interchangeably. In the original text used for the KJV the actual phrase was: irkthi (recesses-of) bur (crypt)

But of course, anger and shouting make so much better theology than facts.

Hell meant the grave dude. It was not a reference to eternal damnation.

If you read a little further you will see Satan referred to as a man... shall we take that out of context too. I'm sure we could make a case that Satan is not a man and therefore even the KJV is blasphemy!!!


OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo!:B

Good post...

Sheol; Hades; GEHENNA, Hell, Pit, Grave pretty much all mean the same thing...The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T4253)

I think people are plenty smart enough to check out other translations and a serious student in bible studies will go back to the original language to get a clearer meaning of a passage anyway.

ISAIAH 14:12..is debated quite alot about who this is talking about exactly...many scholars do not believe its about satan before he fell, at all. Some think its satan's weak attempt to be a counterfeit Christ...by trying to imitate Christ.

God bless

Richard H
Oct 15th 2008, 02:02 PM
The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!
It all depends on how one translates this word below.

Morning Star (NIV/NASB) - Lucifer (KJV/Darby)
הילל- hêylêl - hay-lale'
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.

Most everyone who have gotten to the book of Isaiah understands that this instance does not refer to Jesus.
The context of the WHOLE version does NOT support it. We understand that this is a translation issue.

Most people, with the leading of the Spirit, seek the greater context - rather than focusing on one instance to re-interpret the entire Bible.

In this case, I would agree with the KJV and even Darby,
but I would NOT agree with you in your assertion the NIV and the NASB are trying to say that Jesus is Lucifer.

The entire context of these versions does not support your assertion.

Let everything be established by TWO or more witnesses.
Therefore you must find ONE other instance to validate your claim.

Richard

scourge39
Oct 15th 2008, 02:05 PM
Perhaps because the original manuscript that the KJV was translated from: used the words "Hell" and the "grave" interchangeably. In the original text used for the KJV the actual phrase was: irkthi (recesses-of) bur (crypt)

But of course, anger and shouting make so much better theology than facts.

Hell meant the grave dude. It was not a reference to eternal damnation.

If you read a little further you will see Satan referred to as a man... shall we take that out of context too. I'm sure we could make a case that Satan is not a man and therefore even the KJV is blasphemy!!!


OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo!:B

Excellent post! Don't forget the reference to Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4.

threebigrocks
Oct 15th 2008, 02:41 PM
Due to the tone this topic is taking, this thread is being moved into Contro for continued discussion.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 02:51 PM
The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer! OK, you can stop the shouting. I mean, we get the point without the banner headline font, caps lock, and colors, thanks. Let’s take a look at your points….
Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High."And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish!
ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR".OK, first of all the NIV identifies the person being addressed here as the “king of Babylon” in Isaiah 14:4, so clearly the Son of God is not the one being addressed. Any idiot can see that. That should be pretty obvious to any reader of the passage. You just chose to conveniently ignore it because it doesn’t support your pet argument.

Secondly, the Hebrew word rendered by the KJV as “Lucifer” is הילל , which is transliterated as “heylel”. This Hebrew word means “light bearer”. All Satanic associations aside, if you were to go to somebody who knows both Hebrew and English and tell them this one word and ask them what it means, they would say “light bearer”. The word “lucifer” is the Latin translation of “heylel”. So what the KJV translators did was to simply not translate the word into English, but instead left it in the Latin translation that was originally supplied by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate translation. The Catholic Church had picked up on the Latin word “lucifer” and started expressing it as a proper noun. So by insisting that we use the name “Lucifer”, you and the KJV are actually defending a Catholic tradition that has no roots in the original language. On a side note, if God really intended for us to call him “Lucifer”, then why did Jesus not use that name? Jesus only referred to him as “Satan”. Why is that name insufficient for you when it got the job done just fine for your Lord and Savior?
BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR". OK, two things here: First, the NIV renders the Isaiah 14:12 reference in lower case – “morning star”. The Revelation 22:16 reference is in title case – “Morning Star”, so the NIV is indeed making a distinction there. I notice you conveniently didn’t mention that. In addition, here is a quote from the TNIV Study Bible notes on the same page as Isaiah 14:12 – “The Hebrew for this expression is translated lucifer in the Latin Vulgate, the origin of “Lucifer” in early English translations of this verse. For the true Morning Star, see Rev 22:16.” So the TNIV Study Notes are even going a step further to differentiate between the “morning star” and the “true Morning Star”. That should protect the uninformed masses from accidentally going to hell because of the similar wording from halfway across the Bible.
The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! If it’s so “clear” and “blatant” then you should have no trouble producing at least one person who was hopelessly confused by this “perversion”. Please feel free to show us any statistics you have regarding anybody who is on their way to hell because of this “perversion”. Honestly, you’re so clearly grasping as straws here that it’s almost comically tragic. If this is the best you can come up with after my response to your opening post, then you’re only exposing the weakness of your own position.
WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"! Well, it is a better translation.
ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?OK, here we go again with you assuming that the KJV rendering is the one to be preferred. I notice that you have never once offered any evidence in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to support your assertions that the KJV rendering is the one to be preferred. If you’re not even going to go to the trouble of doing that, then how are we to know that the NIV’s rendering is not the superior of the two????
Quotes from: http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

You tell me if God would inspire the NIV.

Also check out these links..

NKJV
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
The

The Message
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mess_bible.html

NASV
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm You’re the one making the case here, so you provide the quotes that you’re wanting us to see. I’m not going to go digging around on some website to find whatever it is you’re wanting us to see.
Don't just take their word for it. Compare your bibles. I did, as I already said. The KJV came up wanting.
Do you really think God would inspire "bibles" that pervert the deity of Jesus Christ? Or do you even care? Is it all about how easy it is to read to you?Do you really think God would want us using a Bible that can’t even get Ezekiel 39:2 right? I notice you conveniently ignore that little detail.
Let us put God's word on HighI did put it on High – which is precisely why I enjoy my TNIV Study Bible so much.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 02:56 PM
Due to the tone this topic is taking, this thread is being moved into Contro for continued discussion.Will that prevent the OP from being able to access the thread? I notice he only has three posts as of this writing. I'd hate for him to think he was being shut out of his own thread.

Whispering Grace
Oct 15th 2008, 04:00 PM
Okay, I'm going to lay it all out here.

I belong to a KJV-only church. I absolutely love my church, but this is the one issue I have struggled with.

When I was saved, the only Bible translation I read was NKJV. I had no issues with it, and for the years before I went to this church, I happily read my NKJV Bible, and The Holy Spirit was faithful in guiding me and teaching me from this NKJV.

Then I started attending the church I go to now, and quickly realized my NKJV was not welcome there. So I went out and bought a KJV, which I faithfully take with me whenever I go to church.

However, I have tried and tried and tried to read the KJV, but to be quite honest, nothing clicks with me when I read it. I have tried and tried and tried to use it when I read the Bible to my kids, but each and every time I give up in frustration and go back to my NKJV.

When I read the NKJV, it is rich and fresh and very enjoyable for me. When I read the KJV, I don't experience much of anything but frustration.

So I guess my question is....if KJV is the only acceptable version of the Bible, WHY am I having such a difficult time with it? And WHY can I struggle so much with the KJV and then pick up my NKJV and read the same passage and have the Lord use it to minister to me and nourish me and teach me?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 15th 2008, 04:13 PM
Okay, I'm going to lay it all out here.

I belong to a KJV-only church. I absolutely love my church, but this is the one issue I have struggled with.

When I was saved, the only Bible translation I read was NKJV. I had no issues with it, and for the years before I went to this church, I happily read my NKJV Bible, and The Holy Spirit was faithful in guiding me and teaching me from this NKJV.

Then I started attending the church I go to now, and quickly realized my NKJV was not welcome there. So I went out and bought a KJV, which I faithfully take with me whenever I go to church.

However, I have tried and tried and tried to read the KJV, but to be quite honest, nothing clicks with me when I read it. I have tried and tried and tried to use it when I read the Bible to my kids, but each and every time I give up in frustration and go back to my NKJV.

When I read the NKJV, it is rich and fresh and very enjoyable for me. When I read the KJV, I don't experience much of anything but frustration.

So I guess my question is....if KJV is the only acceptable version of the Bible, WHY am I having such a difficult time with it? And WHY can I struggle so much with the KJV and then pick up my NKJV and read the same passage and have the Lord use it to minister to me and nourish me and teach me?You need to give yourself permission to use your NKJV without reservation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Do not allow KJV-only legalists to come between you and your Savior.

I'm not about to tell you where to go to church, but if I walked into a church that I was considering and found out it was a KJV-only church, I'd be back out that door so fast that everybody would be wondering where the cloud of dust came from. I refuse to allow any other sinner to tell me how I can relate to my Savior and Father in heaven.

Friend of Jesus
Oct 15th 2008, 04:32 PM
Who is he?

Colin Urquhart is this dude: http://www.kingdomfaith.com/AboutUs/ColinUrquhart/

LadyinWaiting
Oct 17th 2008, 12:54 AM
Just one quick comment since many are beating the "readability" up.

In my classes in college (to become an English teacher), they taught us how to determine the reading level of pieces of literature to see if they are appropriate for our classes.

While a good tool, it is flawed in usage on items that are written in older versions of English (as in the middle English KJV).

Depending on the method being used, various algorythms are used to determine how easily a passage can be read.

In many cases, it means that short sentences with short words are rewarded as being more "readable" while other methods may consider sentences including words more than three syllables long as "difficult" (regardless of the actual word choice).

This is why simply copying and pasting from the various versions isn't a legitimate comparison. There are many short words used in the KJV. The problem is that many people do not understand those short words and cannot make the differentiation between thy vs. thee. vs. thine. Notice, those are all one-syllable words. However, they are higher levels of difficulty since in a version of English no longer taught or spoken.


Here is some additional information regarding various readability tests:
Readability Tests
Gunning Fog, Flesch Reading Ease, and Flesch-Kincaid are reading level algorithms that can be helpful in determining how readable your content is. Reading level algorithms only provide a rough guide, as they tend to reward short sentences made up of short words. Whilst they're rough guides, they can give a useful indication as to whether you've pitched your content at the right level for your intended audience.

Gunning-Fog Index
The following is the algorithm to determine the Gunning-Fog index.

Calculate the average number of words you use per sentence.
Calculate the percentage of difficult words in the sample (words with three or more syllables).
Add the totals together, and multiply the sum by 0.4.
Algorithm: (average_words_sentence + number_words_three_syllables_plus) * 0.4
The result is your Gunning-Fog index, which is a rough measure of how many years of schooling it would take someone to understand the content. The lower the number, the more understandable the content will be to your visitors. Results over seventeen are reported as seventeen, where seventeen is considered post-graduate level.

Flesch Reading Ease
The following is the algorithm to determine the Flesch Reading Ease.

Calculate the average number of words you use per sentence.
Calculate the average number of syllables per word.
Multiply the average number of syllables per word multiplied by 84.6 and subtract it from the average number of words multiplied by 1.015.
Subtract the result from 206.835.
Algorithm: 206.835 - (1.015 * average_words_sentence) - (84.6 * average_syllables_word)
The result is an index number that rates the text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. Authors are encouraged to aim for a score of approximately 60 to 70.


Flesch-Kincaid grade level
The following is the algorithm to determine the Flesch-Kincaid grade level.

Calculate the average number of words you use per sentence.
Calculate the average number of syllables per word.
Multiply the average number of words by 0.39 and add it to the average number of syllables per word multiplied by 11.8.
Subtract 15.50 from the result.
Algorithm: (0.39 * average_words_sentence) + (11.8 * average_syllables_word) - 15.9
The result is the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Like the Gunning-Fog index, it is a rough measure of how many years of schooling it would take someone to understand the content. Negative results are reported as zero, and numbers over twelve are reported as twelve.

"Being mathematically based, readability tests are unable to determine the likelihood that the document is comprehensible, interesting, or enjoyable. It's possible to obtain good readability scores with gobbledygook, providing the content contains short sentences made up of monosyllabic words. "


Here's a fairly reliable (based on what I read immediately) website that focuses on the benefits and drawbacks of readability tests.
http://plainlanguage.com/newreadability.html

Bottom line - While the grade level is important, a child can and often does understand the NIV prior to being able to gnaw on the KJV just due to the ease of language. The number game only indicates that, a number. It does not take under account the types of words being used, except in terms of their number of syllables.

Also, make sure you're aware of how reading levels are determined and how difficulty is assessed before using that to compare an apple to an orange since the KJV and the NIV (or NASB or ESV or....you get the picture) are variations of the English language and cannot be compared on equal levels due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the older style of speaking in Britain vs. modern day America.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 17th 2008, 01:21 AM
The KJV is nice, but inadequate and incorrect on some of its translations portions. The ESV and NASB are far more accurate in their translation of the Greek.

As for only the originals and KJV being perfect - what about the Spanish, Russian, Italian, etc translations of the Bible? Are they inspired as well?

Athanasius
Oct 19th 2008, 10:15 PM
As for only the originals and KJV being perfect - what about the Spanish, Russian, Italian, etc translations of the Bible? Are they inspired as well?

Depends, is it the Spanish, Russian, Italian, etc. KJV translation? ;)

Firefighter
Oct 20th 2008, 05:02 PM
I will believe the KJV is perfect just as soon as someone shows me unicorns...:o

Literalist-Luke
Oct 20th 2008, 05:51 PM
I will believe the KJV is perfect just as soon as someone shows me unicorns...:oHey, I'm going to have to remember that, thanks. :lol:

Firefighter
Oct 20th 2008, 07:12 PM
Which version of the KJB is perfect? I know of at least five different versions.

For Example...When did Jesus give the Children of Israel rest?

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV-1611 text) For if Iesus had giuen them rest, then would he not afterward haue spoken of another day.

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV-1759 text) For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Was it Jesus or Joshua? Only one can be right. So... which version of the KJB is wrong?

Br. Barnabas
Oct 20th 2008, 07:36 PM
Which version of the KJB is perfect? I know of at least five different versions.

For Example...When did Jesus give the Children of Israel rest?

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV-1611 text) For if Iesus had giuen them rest, then would he not afterward haue spoken of another day.

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV-1759 text) For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Was it Jesus or Joshua? Only one can be right. So... which version of the KJB is wrong?

Actually the Hebrew of the name Jesus is Joshua and Iesus is a translation of the Hebrew and the English translation is Jesus. And all the names that have a "J" should have "Y"s if we wanted to be literal in our translation but because German, the language the Bible was translated into largely in the beginning of modern translation, has no "Y" we get "J"s. So just a little translation trivia and history for everyone.

So really both of the versions above can be considered correct. I am by no means a KJV-Onliest. Kinda hard since I don't even own a KJV translation. Don't really need one since I know Greek and Hebrew but read the NRSV and TNIV mainly, because it is a lot easier then translating all the time. But I do translate if there is a big question on a word or verse.

Firefighter
Oct 21st 2008, 11:49 AM
They are exactly the same name in the Greek ( Ἰησοῦς ), but as we all know, context determines usage, and in this case it is obviously speaking of Joshua, not Jesus.

So I ask my fellow brothers that are KJO, which version of your KJB is wrong?

Br. Barnabas
Oct 21st 2008, 12:43 PM
They are exactly the same name in the Greek ( Ἰησοῦς ), but as we all know, context determines usage, and in this case it is obviously speaking of Joshua, not Jesus.

So I ask my fellow brothers that are KJO, which version of your KJB is wrong?

My bad just looked at the bold underlined word not at the context of the passage or anything else like that. But that is what happens when you are posting things on a message board when you should be working.

Firefighter
Oct 21st 2008, 01:38 PM
Understand, do it all the time...:lol:

Buzzword
Oct 21st 2008, 02:11 PM
Every time someone creates a thread about how one version of the Bible is THE WORD or how another version is FROM SATAN.....it makes baby Jesus cry.


There's a very cool-sounding word for the type of obsession demonstrated in this threads:

bib·li·ol·a·try
1 : having excessive reverence for the letter of the Bible
2 : revering the Bible above God

Firefighter
Oct 21st 2008, 02:23 PM
Buzzword, I think they all left...:cry:

Whispering Grace
Oct 21st 2008, 05:05 PM
Every time someone creates a thread about how one version of the Bible is THE WORD or how another version is FROM SATAN.....it makes baby Jesus cry.



Regarding your comment "it makes baby Jesus cry", is that supposed to be sarcastic?

Any time I have heard that phrase it has been by unbelievers mocking the Lord. I'm honestly a little shocked to see it used on this board.

Surely you know the Lord Jesus grew to be a man. He's not a baby anymore...He is the risen Lord and King of the universe.

Buzzword
Oct 21st 2008, 08:42 PM
Regarding your comment "it makes baby Jesus cry", is that supposed to be sarcastic?

Any time I have heard that phrase it has been by unbelievers mocking the Lord. I'm honestly a little shocked to see it used on this board.

Surely you know the Lord Jesus grew to be a man. He's not a baby anymore...He is the risen Lord and King of the universe.

Sarcasm.

The fact that you take it that seriously shows another serious problem on these boards (lack of sense of humor) but that's for another thread.

I was debating doing the old "every time you,......God kills a kitten, so please think of the kittens" joke, but oh well.

Fact is, these threads are numerous, divisive, and unnecessary.
To argue about translations of the bible (paraphrases not included) does NOTHING for the everyday Christian, and can HARM baby Christians.

Stop putting the Bible on a higher pedestal than God!

He is not limited in what He can speak through, so stop acting like you believe He is!

Whispering Grace
Oct 21st 2008, 08:50 PM
Sarcasm.

The fact that you take it that seriously shows another serious problem on these boards (lack of sense of humor) but that's for another thread.

If you think I lack a sense of humor, you are sadly mistaken.

What I DO NOT find humorous, however, is the mocking of the Lord I love and Whom this board purposes to glorify.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 21st 2008, 08:57 PM
OK, everybody just calm down, let's not air our dirty laundry in front of the whole internet. Maybe a little PMing would be appropriate?

Buzzword
Oct 21st 2008, 08:59 PM
If you think I lack a sense of humor, you are sadly mistaken.

What I DO NOT find humorous, however, is the mocking of the Lord I love and Whom this board purposes to glorify.

Have you now TWICE ignored the rest of my post?

Waiting for a response to my POINTS, not my anecdotes.

Whispering Grace
Oct 21st 2008, 09:03 PM
OK, everybody just calm down, let's not air our dirty laundry in front of the whole internet. Maybe a little PMing would be appropriate?

This is in contro, so it's not "in front of the whole internet".

And I don't consider standing up against the mockery of Jesus Christ to be "airing dirty laundry".

Whispering Grace
Oct 21st 2008, 09:16 PM
Have you now TWICE ignored the rest of my post?

Waiting for a response to my POINTS, not my anecdotes.

I'm not sure what you want me to say? I'm not the one with 1611 after my name.

Richard H
Oct 21st 2008, 11:53 PM
Has Cody1611 qualified for Contro yet?

I'm still waiting for another Scripture (post #62)

You know... two or more witnesses and like that?

Richard

Literalist-Luke
Oct 22nd 2008, 01:09 AM
Has Cody1611 qualified for Contro yet?

I'm still waiting for another Scripture (post #62)

You know... two or more witnesses and like that?

RichardNo, he hasn't qualified yet. It wouldn't matter at this point, however. According to his information page, he hasn't been back to this site since he made that post where he tried to claim the NIV equates Jesus with Lucifer.

Richard H
Oct 22nd 2008, 01:25 AM
No, he hasn't qualified yet. It wouldn't matter at this point, however. According to his information page, he hasn't been back to this site since he made that post where he tried to claim the NIV equates Jesus with Lucifer.
OK, Thanks Luke. :)

<not really addressed to Luke>
So... we got that all figured out. Right?
Even as a babe, I knew that's not what it was saying.

So... what are we fighting about now? :confused

Firefighter
Oct 22nd 2008, 02:39 PM
Cody 1611 logged on this morning. I guess he doesn't want to play with us anymore...:(

Rufus_1611
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:32 PM
Sarcasm.

The fact that you take it that seriously shows another serious problem on these boards (lack of sense of humor) but that's for another thread.

I was debating doing the old "every time you,......God kills a kitten, so please think of the kittens" joke, but oh well.

Fact is, these threads are numerous, divisive, and unnecessary.
To argue about translations of the bible (paraphrases not included) does NOTHING for the everyday Christian, and can HARM baby Christians.

Stop putting the Bible on a higher pedestal than God!


"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." - Psalms 138:2


He is not limited in what He can speak through, so stop acting like you believe He is!

Richard H
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:45 PM
Cody 1611 logged on this morning. I guess he doesn't want to play with us anymore...:(
Awww..._____:(
Maybe he still needs time to pass, B4 he can access Contro.
I have a feeling we've not heard the last. ;)

Richard

Buzzword
Oct 22nd 2008, 04:47 PM
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." - Psalms 138:2


Was there an argument OR affirmation somewhere in there?

You know the Hebrews didn't call the Torah "God's Word," right?

Same thing in NIV:
2 I will bow down toward your holy temple
and will praise your name
for your love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.

And in New Living Translation:
2 I bow before your holy Temple as I worship.
I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness;
for your promises are backed
by all the honor of your name.

And in NASB:
2I will bow down (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234A))toward Your holy temple
And (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234B))give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234C))magnified Your word according to all Your name.

Seems to me that He exalts His WORDS, not some vague "word".
Also notice that in none of these is "word" capitalized.

Vhayes
Oct 22nd 2008, 04:56 PM
Here's my humble opinion (so yes, feel free to trash it at will!)

Jesus is the Living Word. Scripture is a combination of "words" to lead us to THE Word. God doesn't care if you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by way of Swahili, middle English, Greek or hieroglyphics - what matters is that you DO come to that knowledge.

Ok - trash away...
V

Richard H
Oct 22nd 2008, 05:03 PM
Was there an argument OR affirmation somewhere in there?

You know the Hebrews didn't call the Torah "God's Word," right?

Same thing in NIV:
2 I will bow down toward your holy temple
and will praise your name
for your love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.

And in New Living Translation:
2 I bow before your holy Temple as I worship.
I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness;
for your promises are backed
by all the honor of your name.

And in NASB:
2I will bow down (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234A))toward Your holy temple
And (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234B))give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234C))magnified Your word according to all Your name.

Seems to me that He exalts His WORDS, not some vague "word".
Also notice that in none of these is "word" capitalized.

Strongs (JKV)
H565
אמרה אמרה
'imrâh 'emrâh
im-raw', em-raw'
The second form is the feminine of H561, and meaning the same: - commandment, speech, word.

Rufus_1611
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:21 PM
Was there an argument OR affirmation somewhere in there? The argument is you ought to understand that God thinks his Word is pretty important...so important that he magnifies it above His name. Thus, you ought to appreciate it a bit more then you are expressing and when someone calls you out on your ridiculous "baby Jesus" comment, you might consider saying..."You know what, I was wrong and you were right and I ought to treat a Holy God in a more reverent fashion." Just my opinion of course.


You know the Hebrews didn't call the Torah "God's Word," right?[

Same thing in NIV:
2 I will bow down toward your holy temple
and will praise your name
for your love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.

And in New Living Translation:
2 I bow before your holy Temple as I worship.
I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness;
for your promises are backed
by all the honor of your name.

And in NASB:
2I will bow down (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234A))toward Your holy temple
And (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234B))give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16234C))magnified Your word according to all Your name.

Seems to me that He exalts His WORDS, not some vague "word".
Also notice that in none of these is "word" capitalized.

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 11:33 AM
Rufus, please address my posts. Thank you.

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 12:34 PM
Rufus, please address my posts. Thank you. I don't have any unicorns to show you. The Oxford is the purified AV. Please restate anything I'm missing or not addressing.

Athanasius
Oct 23rd 2008, 12:54 PM
Is no one going to bring up that the 'Book of James' exists only in the English Bible? Whereas it's the book of 'Jacob' in every other Bible?

Buzzword
Oct 23rd 2008, 02:04 PM
Is no one going to bring up that the 'Book of James' exists only in the English Bible? Whereas it's the book of 'Jacob' in every other Bible?

Say what? I've never heard anything about that.

Richard H
Oct 23rd 2008, 02:14 PM
Is no one going to bring up that the 'Book of James' exists only in the English Bible? Whereas it's the book of 'Jacob' in every other Bible?
What?!!! :o
I googled it.

The Book of Jacob is the third book of the Book of Mormon. :no:

wikisomething.com <not a real link>

Athanasius
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:00 PM
Say what? I've never heard anything about that.


What?!!! :o
I googled it.

The Book of Jacob is the third book of the Book of Mormon. :no:

wikisomething.com <not a real link>

King James authorized his English version of the Bible on one condition: his name be in it. The translators changed the name of Jacob to James, and that's why we have James in the English Bible and Jacob on every other Bible (same book, different name: it's not the Jacob from the book of Mormon I don't believe). It's no big deal, I wouldn't get people caught up over it... But it's to just point out that the KJB isn't so perfect after all.

Richard H
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:09 PM
King James authorized his English version of the Bible on one condition: his name be in it. The translators changed the name of Jacob to James, and that's why we have James in the English Bible and Jacob on every other Bible (same book, different name: it's not the Jacob from the book of Mormon I don't believe). It's no big deal, I wouldn't get people caught up over it... But it's to just point out that the KJB isn't so perfect after all.
IOC. Thanks for 'splainin'.
I couldn't see you as a Mormon, anyway. :D

BTW: 'Looked in Strongs (James1:1 word one=James):
Ἰάκωβος
Iakōbos
ee-ak'-o-bos
The same as G2384 Graecized; Jacobus, the name of three Israelites: - James.

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:26 PM
King James authorized his English version of the Bible on one condition: his name be in it. Prove it.

.........


The translators changed the name of Jacob to James, and that's why we have James in the English Bible and Jacob on every other Bible (same book, different name: it's not the Jacob from the book of Mormon I don't believe). It's no big deal, I wouldn't get people caught up over it... But it's to just point out that the KJB isn't so perfect after all.

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:52 PM
I don't have any unicorns to show you. The Oxford is the purified AV. Please restate anything I'm missing or not addressing.

What version of the KJV do you consider perfect? Based on your answer, I can only assume that you do not consider the 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, or 1762 to be perfect leaving only the Standard text of 1769. Is that the one you consider to be perfect?

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:00 PM
What version of the KJV do you consider perfect? Based on your answer, I can only assume that you do not consider the 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, or 1762 to be perfect leaving only the Standard text of 1769. Is that the one you consider to be perfect? The 20th century Oxford is the one I believe to be the purified word of God.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:03 PM
The 20th century Oxford is the one I believe to be the purified word of God.How did you objectively arrive at that conclusion?

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:04 PM
How did you objectively arrive at that conclusion?Studied the differences between the editions and judged which one had the printing errors removed.

Richard H
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:08 PM
Studied the differences between the editions and judged which one had the printing errors removed.
Who removed 'em?

Athanasius
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:11 PM
Prove it.

I hate to pull a Jesus, but I've given you the truth; it's up to you whether or not you listen. I'm not saying it's any sort of huge problem, normally. But when you claim that the KJB is GOD'S ONLY TRANSLATION then that's where something that was originally a non-issue becomes an issue.

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:11 PM
20th Century KJVs -

Pure Cambridge Edition Family
1900-1980 (incl. Pitt editions)

Concord Edition
1980-present

Standard Text Edition
1993-present

Surely you don't mean that modern, new fangled Standard Text of 1993...:o

The NIV (1978 Text) has at least 15 years on that one...;)

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:22 PM
I hate to pull a Jesus, but I've given you the truth; it's up to you whether or not you listen. I'm not saying it's any sort of huge problem, normally. But when you claim that the KJB is GOD'S ONLY TRANSLATION then that's where something that was originally a non-issue becomes an issue. The condition you stated is not part of the record. Making outlandish claims and not substantiating them is bad form.

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:23 PM
20th Century KJVs -

Pure Cambridge Edition Family
1900-1980 (incl. Pitt editions)

Concord Edition
1980-present

Standard Text Edition
1993-present

Surely you don't mean that modern, new fangled Standard Text of 1993...:o

The NIV (1978 Text) has at least 15 years on that one...;) I surely do not.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:26 PM
Studied the differences between the editions and judged which one had the printing errors removed.And how did you objectively determine that all the errors are now removed?

Athanasius
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:27 PM
The condition you stated is not part of the record. Making outlandish claims and not substantiating them is bad form.

The thing is; the "claim" is not beyond substantiation. The problem is you don't have an open mind, so I'm not going to bother spending my ten minutes to find a link you won't ignore. You either going to believe it or you aren't. Even if I substantiated it, you wouldn't believe it.

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:18 PM
Please tell us which edition of the KJV you use then...

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:18 PM
And how did you objectively determine that all the errors are now removed? I can't find any more.

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:26 PM
The thing is; the "claim" is not beyond substantiation. The problem is you don't have an open mind, so I'm not going to bother spending my ten minutes to find a link you won't ignore. You either going to believe it or you aren't. Even if I substantiated it, you wouldn't believe it. Chances are I wouldn't believe it, for it is not true. However, if you had a good enough argument, I could be persuaded. I believed something else before I came to believe what I believe now. Which leads me to...How do you know the extent to which my mind is opened or closed? If I wasn't interested in your argument, I wouldn't ask you to substantiate your outlandish claims. I get it though you don't have time to bother with it so that's cool.

Hey, by the way...John McCain is the brother of Edgar from Men in Black. Don't ask me to substantiate it, for your mind is too closed and I don't want to spend time finding you a link that you'll just ignore.

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:28 PM
Please tell us which edition of the KJV you use then...

Holy Bible
Authorized / King James Version
Oxford Edition

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:32 PM
According to my records, there were no new editions out of Oxford in the 20th Century. The one they print today in Oxford is The Standard Text of 1769. Is that the one that you think is perfect?

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:28 PM
According to my records, there were no new editions out of Oxford in the 20th Century. The one they print today in Oxford is The Standard Text of 1769. Is that the one that you think is perfect? May I see your records please?

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 07:58 PM
I just gave them to you. I collect old, rare Bibles. The only KJV Bibles that oxford printed in the 20th century are the Schofield Study Bible (1901 edition, Released in 1909) The Authorized Version and the 1993 remake. The Schofield Study Bible (1901, Released in 1909) and The Authorized Version use the Standard Text of 1769.

Oh wait...:blush:

I almost forgot, there is a 1967 Schofield that DID include word changes to rid the text of some archaic words.

Is that it???

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 08:43 PM
I just gave them to you. I collect old, rare Bibles. The only KJV Bibles that oxford printed in the 20th century are the Schofield Study Bible (1901 edition, Released in 1909) The Authorized Version and the 1993 remake. The Schofield Study Bible (1901, Released in 1909) and The Authorized Version use the Standard Text of 1769.

Oh wait...:blush:

I almost forgot, there is a 1967 Schofield that DID include word changes to rid the text of some archaic words.

Is that it??? No. I am very much opposed to the Schofield Bibles.

Richard H
Oct 23rd 2008, 09:02 PM
No. I am very much opposed to the Schofield Bibles. So... you found one that's Just Right? Good! :)

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 09:15 PM
So... you found one that's Just Right? Good! :) Thank you sir.

.........

Richard H
Oct 23rd 2008, 09:47 PM
Thank you sir.

.........Now I feel old. :rofl: :rofl::rofl::)

Rufus_1611
Oct 23rd 2008, 10:09 PM
Now I feel old. :rofl: :rofl::rofl::) Don't feel old, I pretty much call everyone "sir" regardless of their quantity of gray. :)

Whispering Grace
Oct 23rd 2008, 11:23 PM
Don't feel old, I pretty much call everyone "sir"...

Even me?

:hmm:


;)

Rufus_1611
Oct 24th 2008, 01:14 AM
Even me?

:hmm:


;) No ma'am.

..........

Literalist-Luke
Oct 24th 2008, 01:19 AM
I can't find any more.Ezekiel 39:2 - you might want to check it out.

Firefighter
Oct 24th 2008, 02:38 AM
Let me get this straight...

You have found a version of the KJB that is "the purified word of God" but you will not share which text it is? How polite.

Do you not care to share "the purified word of God" along with any objective evidence that it is better than other versions with the rest of us?

Or are you concerned that if you actually reveal the text that you use you will be confronted with evidence to suggest otherwise?

If I had found "the purified word of God" and was completely convinced that it was without error, I would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Rufus_1611
Oct 24th 2008, 01:20 PM
Let me get this straight...

You have found a version of the KJB that is "the purified word of God" but you will not share which text it is? How polite. I have...like four times now.


Do you not care to share "the purified word of God" along with any objective evidence that it is better than other versions with the rest of us? What would you like to know specifically?


Or are you concerned that if you actually reveal the text that you use you will be confronted with evidence to suggest otherwise? No. If I have the wrong Bible, I would desire to know and would be glad to hear contrary arguments. What Bible do you believe is perfectly preserved and purified?


If I had found "the purified word of God" and was completely convinced that it was without error, I would be shouting it from the rooftops. "If"? Are you saying you haven't?

Rufus_1611
Oct 24th 2008, 01:21 PM
Ezekiel 39:2 - you might want to check it out. I've checked it out per your request...what's the error?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 24th 2008, 01:47 PM
I've checked it out per your request...what's the error?KJV – “And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel.”

According to the KJV, a sixth of the invaders in the Gog/Magog invasion will be left alive at the end of this invasion. But is that true? Look at the original Hebrew for “and leave but the sixth part” –

ששא – this is the word “shawshaw”.

Strong's Ref. # 8338
Romanized shawshaw
Pronounced shaw-shaw'
a primitive root; apparently, to annihilate:
KJV--leave by the sixth part [by confusion with HSN8341].

And here is Strong's entry # 8341 to see what the KJV translators thought they were looking at:

Strong's Number: 8341
Transliterated: shashah
Phonetic: shaw-shaw'
Text: a denominative from 8337; to sixth or divide into sixths: --give the sixth participle

The Hebrew word that appears in the original text is "shawshaw", which means "to annihilate" As you'll see from the Strong's data listed here the KJV translaters made a mistake ("by confusion" to use the wording in Strong's concordance) and thought they were looking at another word that is admittedly close: "shashah", which does indeed mean "one sixth", but is not the word written by Ezekiel. The KJV team did an outstanding job of converting William Tyndale's one-man translation into excellent king's English and correcting his rare errors, but in this particular item, they made a mistake.

Fortunately, this error is corrected in the TNIV –

Ezekiel 39:2 – “ I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. ”

Considering the vast implications of the idea of one-sixth of the invaders being left alive, I would say that was a pretty serious error on the KJV’s part.

Firefighter
Oct 24th 2008, 03:04 PM
^That has got to hurt ^

No, I haven't. I have a plethora of Bibles in various languages/versions/editions including Hebrew and Greek texts, but I would not dare to guess which one "is perfectly preserved and purified."

You have settled on a text, and that is great, except for the fact that

1.) You have no idea what text it really is.
2.) You have no objective means of coming to that conclusion. And...
3.) You have no idea what the original languages said much less the autographs.

Do you have an ISBN for that Bible?

Rufus_1611
Oct 24th 2008, 03:29 PM
KJV – “And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel.”

According to the KJV, a sixth of the invaders in the Gog/Magog invasion will be left alive at the end of this invasion. But is that true? Look at the original Hebrew for “and leave but the sixth part” –

ששא – this is the word “shawshaw”.

Strong's Ref. # 8338
Romanized shawshaw
Pronounced shaw-shaw'
a primitive root; apparently, to annihilate:
KJV--leave by the sixth part [by confusion with HSN8341].

And here is Strong's entry # 8341 to see what the KJV translators thought they were looking at:

Strong's Number: 8341
Transliterated: shashah
Phonetic: shaw-shaw'
Text: a denominative from 8337; to sixth or divide into sixths: --give the sixth participle

The Hebrew word that appears in the original text is "shawshaw", which means "to annihilate" As you'll see from the Strong's data listed here the KJV translaters made a mistake ("by confusion" to use the wording in Strong's concordance) and thought they were looking at another word that is admittedly close: "shashah", which does indeed mean "one sixth", but is not the word written by Ezekiel. The KJV team did an outstanding job of converting William Tyndale's one-man translation into excellent king's English and correcting his rare errors, but in this particular item, they made a mistake.

Fortunately, this error is corrected in the TNIV –

Ezekiel 39:2 – “ I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. ”

Considering the vast implications of the idea of one-sixth of the invaders being left alive, I would say that was a pretty serious error on the KJV’s part. I appreciate your argument but we're in different places. I speak and understand English fluently and I do not hold to Jack Strong being my final authority.

Rufus_1611
Oct 24th 2008, 03:31 PM
^That has got to hurt ^ It really didn't.


No, I haven't. I have a plethora of Bibles in various languages/versions/editions including Hebrew and Greek texts, but I would not dare to guess which one "is perfectly preserved and purified." What a sad state to be in to walk around not knowing what God hath said.


You have settled on a text, and that is great, except for the fact that

1.) You have no idea what text it really is. I have an idea.


2.) You have no objective means of coming to that conclusion. And... I have an objective means.



3.) You have no idea what the original languages said much less the autographs. This is true. Couldn't care less. I speak English and God gave me a Holy Bible to read in my language. I'm sorry you don't have one of these.


Do you have an ISBN for that Bible? Yes.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 24th 2008, 03:40 PM
I appreciate your argument but we're in different places. I speak and understand English fluently and I do not hold to Jack Strong being my final authority.So you're saying that the KJV Bible supersedes the original language texts?

Rufus_1611
Oct 24th 2008, 03:45 PM
So you're saying that the KJV Bible supersedes the original language texts? I'm saying I have a Bible, a Holy one, in my language. I read it, I believe it and I strive to obey it. If you believe that you do not have one, in your language and it's in the original languages then that's where you should be. If you are fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek and you have the incorruptible seed in those languages, then that's where you ought to be spending your time studying. Wherever, the pure word of God is, that's where you should be.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 24th 2008, 03:52 PM
I'm saying I have a Bible, a Holy one, in my language. I read it, I believe it and I strive to obey it. If you believe that you do not have one, in your language and it's in the original languages then that's where you should be. If you are fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek and you have the incorruptible seed in those languages, then that's where you ought to be spending your time studying. Wherever, the pure word of God is, that's where you should be.I'll take that as a "yes".

TrustGzus
Oct 24th 2008, 09:34 PM
I'm saying I have a Bible, a Holy one, in my language. I read it, I believe it and I strive to obey it. If you believe that you do not have one, in your language and it's in the original languages then that's where you should be. If you are fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek and you have the incorruptible seed in those languages, then that's where you ought to be spending your time studying. Wherever, the pure word of God is, that's where you should be.Hey Rufus, I agree that you have a Holy Bible. The KJV is wonderful. It's too bad Cody isn't qualified to participate where this thread has been moved.

The main problem I see with KJV only people (I don't know if you are in the "only" category or not) is that they really don't how the Bible in their hand got to be in their hand, i.e. what the process was that caused it to become what it is.

The KJV translators worked with different Greek texts. The primary editions they used were Stephanus' 1550 Greek text and Beza' 1598. Those two agree a lot. However, when they disagree, the KJV translators had to choose one over the other. When they made a choice, do you have a guarantee that they made the right one?

What's the impact if they chose the wrong one? It's minimal.

That question brings up a second common problem and misunderstanding of KJV onlyism. Verses are part of a context. If the KJV translators chose Stephanus over Beza (or vice versa) the impact is minimal because a single choice does not change the entire context of the passage. KJV onlyism thrives by isolating single verses out of context. They show a single verse out of context and say see the NIV (or whatever other Bible) deletes this.

Two problems with the assumption that various Bibles have deleted _____ (fill in the blank).


This is begging the question. How does the KJV only advocate know that the other Bibles deleted it instead of the KJV adding it? They assume their conclusion. They don't demonstrate that they know the original writing contained the phrase. They assume the KJV has it right and the new version has it wrong without ever proving the assumption. This is lousy reasoning.
Reading the context almost always takes care of the so-called deletion. The "deleted" part is most of the time somewhere else in the same passage.

For the second point let me use John 6:47 as an example. KJV only advocates love to use this verse. Let's look at the NIV and KJV:


KJV -- Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
NIV -- I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

So you see the two key words in question. When we take that verse in isolation, it looks alarming. The KJV only advocate has committed another logical fallacy at this point; the fallacy of special pleading, i.e. showing only the information that helps make his/her case.

Let's look at the context in the NIV . . .

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”


The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Jn 6:35-51). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Can anyone miss the point of who it is we are to believe in? After reading verses 35 and 40, will they forget those verses by the time they get to verse 47?

Reading the context makes it very clear. And that is how we read our Bible (or it is how we should). So whether one reads the KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, NRSV, RSV or any number of other translations, they have a Holy Bible.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

tgallison
Oct 24th 2008, 10:40 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;1839637]

Reading the context makes it very clear. And that is how we read our Bible (or it is how we should). So whether one reads the KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, NRSV, RSV or any number of other translations, they have a Holy Bible.

Greetings Joe

Well at least they have a partial Bible.

KJB Job 33:6 "Behold I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay."

NIV Job 33:6 "I am just like you before God; I too have been taken from the clay."

NASB Job 33:6 "Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay."

"Behold I am according to thy wish in God's stead:-" is one of the most profound statements in the Bible. Not even Jacob or Joseph claimed to be standing in the place of God.

Genesis 30:2 "And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?"

Genesis 50:19 "And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?"

To say the KJB translators were in error is to say they were terribly stupid, or terribly incompetent, to put one of the most profound statements in the Bible, without extreme justification to do so.

Also the NIV would seem to be careless in their translation, when they say Elihu was taken from the clay. Did he fall into the clay? Was he hiding in the clay? Do you get my point?

Best regards, terrell

LadyinWaiting
Oct 25th 2008, 12:59 AM
Also the NIV would seem to be careless in their translation, when they say Elihu was taken from the clay. Did he fall into the clay? Was he hiding in the clay? Do you get my point?

Surely you're not implying that people are so daft to actually believe that "taken from the clay" means he fell into or was removed from clay literally because it doesn't have the word "formed" in it. If that's the case, I find it insulting for someone to assume that about me. Putting it into the context of the Bible, even children can understand that.
Saying they are careless and it can be misunderstood in that way really puts down the common sense of Christians (you don't normally catch a non-Christian reading through Job for fun...at least I never have).

Additionally, when I put Job 33:6 into context of the rest of the chapter, Elihu is talking to Job. He is not saying that he is claiming is actually standing in the place of God. Due to Job's actions, he is acting on God's behalf to intercede and admonish him.

The commentaries I've read do seem to agree that he's acting on God's behalf, not in place of God; that he's receiving and dealing with Job's plea in place of God (since Job was getting upset with God).

Your example of Jacob is a totally different scenario where Rachel was miffed over not having children and became angry with Jacob, demanding that he give her children. He snaps back with the equivalent of "Do I look like God to you? Take it up with Him!"

This is in no way similar to the situation with Elihu.

Similarly, Joseph was being worshipped (basically) by his brothers - so he's showing mercy and saying that he will not "deal" with him since he's not in the place to dole out punishment as that's God's job.

So, neither of those are even truly comparable to the situation in Job where Elihu does state that according to JOB'S wishes (it say's "your wishes" and he's speaking to Job) Elihu is actually saying that Job is the one who is putting him in God's place and so he's going to answer as if he were since Job's forced his hand.

Putting it into context, as one should ALWAYS do rather than lifting out a specific phrase or verse independently, one gets a very different story - one that is consistent between versions.

AliveinChristDave
Oct 25th 2008, 02:15 AM
Hey Rufus, I agree that you have a Holy Bible. The KJV is wonderful. It's too bad Cody isn't qualified to participate where this thread has been moved.

The main problem I see with KJV only people (I don't know if you are in the "only" category or not) is that they really don't how the Bible in their hand got to be in their hand, i.e. what the process was that caused it to become what it is.

The KJV translators worked with different Greek texts. The primary editions they used were Stephanus' 1550 Greek text and Beza' 1598. Those two agree a lot. However, when they disagree, the KJV translators had to choose one over the other. When they made a choice, do you have a guarantee that they made the right one?

What's the impact if they chose the wrong one? It's minimal.

That question brings up a second common problem and misunderstanding of KJV onlyism. Verses are part of a context. If the KJV translators chose Stephanus over Beza (or vice versa) the impact is minimal because a single choice does not change the entire context of the passage. KJV onlyism thrives by isolating single verses out of context. They show a single verse out of context and say see the NIV (or whatever other Bible) deletes this.

Two problems with the assumption that various Bibles have deleted _____ (fill in the blank).


This is begging the question. How does the KJV only advocate know that the other Bibles deleted it instead of the KJV adding it? They assume their conclusion. They don't demonstrate that they know the original writing contained the phrase. They assume the KJV has it right and the new version has it wrong without ever proving the assumption. This is lousy reasoning.
Reading the context almost always takes care of the so-called deletion. The "deleted" part is most of the time somewhere else in the same passage.
For the second point let me use John 6:47 as an example. KJV only advocates love to use this verse. Let's look at the NIV and KJV:


KJV -- Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
NIV -- I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
So you see the two key words in question. When we take that verse in isolation, it looks alarming. The KJV only advocate has committed another logical fallacy at this point; the fallacy of special pleading, i.e. showing only the information that helps make his/her case.

Let's look at the context in the NIV . . .Can anyone miss the point of who it is we are to believe in? After reading verses 35 and 40, will they forget those verses by the time they get to verse 47?

Reading the context makes it very clear. And that is how we read our Bible (or it is how we should). So whether one reads the KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, NRSV, RSV or any number of other translations, they have a Holy Bible.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

God has to give us revelation before we can understand His Word. Without revelation, they're just words on paper.
As I said before, I use the King James. In my opinion it's perfect because God gives me revelation of Him from it's words.
Could He do the same from another version? Probably. I just don't need another version.
One thing about the King James and other versions is where they come from.
You mentioned the two Texts, The Stephanus and the Beza.

There are several editions of the Greek Received Text that was the basis for all of the Protestant Bibles until the late 19th century. Erasmus published five editions (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535). Robert Stephanus published four editions (1546, 1549, 1550, 1551). Theodore Beza published at least four independent editions (1556, 1582, 1688-89, 1598). The Elziver family printed two editions (1624, 1633). Another edition of the Greek Received Text was published in the Complutensian Polyglot. Finally in 1881 Frederick Scrivener, under contract to the Cambridge University Press, published the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. This edition of the Received Text has been republished many times, most recently by the Trinitarian Bible Society and by the Dean Burgon Society.
There are around 250 differences in all these texts and they are minor.

When you compare this with Westcott and Hort who used the Alexanderian Texts you find that in the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Codex D. there are many differences. In the Gospel of Mark alone, Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with one another in more than 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone.

I can understand where the idea comes from that say we don't have a accurate English Bible in the modern translations.

I believe, although I can't prove it, that the English Language as spoken by the Lollards in England was the tongue used in Acts 2 that everyone understood.
God has chosen to preserve His Word. That's why the originals ceased to exist.

For the Word to be from God in another language it would have to originate from the Received Text. (Texus Receptus) I perfer the one from the Dean Burgon Society.

It would be beneficial for anyone to google Dean Burgon Society and read with an open mind the information they have on their web pages.

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 02:39 AM
[quote=LadyinWaiting;1839862]Surely you're not implying that people are so daft to actually believe that "taken from the clay" means he fell into or was removed from clay literally because it doesn't have the word "formed" in it. If that's the case, I find it insulting for someone to assume that about me. Putting it into the context of the Bible, even children can understand that.
Saying they are careless and it can be misunderstood in that way really puts down the common sense of Christians (you don't normally catch a non-Christian reading through Job for fun...at least I never have).

You don't get it. What I presented was a demonstration of the lack of conciseness in the wording of the NIV in order to present a copyrightable translation. They could have used formed, and been more precise, but they were more interested in having a variation, and it lacks clarity. This a problem throughout the NIV.



Your example of Jacob is a totally different scenario where Rachel was miffed over not having children and became angry with Jacob, demanding that he give her children. He snaps back with the equivalent of "Do I look like God to you? Take it up with Him!"

This is in no way similar to the situation with Elihu.Again you do not understand what I presented. It was to show the profoundness of the statement. Elihu said, "I am in God's stead. Jacob said, am I in God's stead? This shows the profoundness of the statement, and requires one to look at the KJB translators and say, were they really that incompentent, or were they compelled to put that statement in that form?


Similarly, Joseph was being worshipped (basically) by his brothers - so he's showing mercy and saying that he will not "deal" with him since he's not in the place to dole out punishment as that's God's job.The same thing again. I never presented it as being similar. It was to show the profoundness of what Elihu said, in contrast to what Jacob and Joseph said. The profoundness of the statement, I am in God's stead.


So, neither of those are even truly comparable to the situation in Job where Elihu does state that according to JOB'S wishes (it say's "your wishes" and he's speaking to Job) Elihu is actually saying that Job is the one who is putting him in God's place and so he's going to answer as if he were since Job's forced his hand.

Elihu was Job's daysman that Job requested repeatedly. God sent him at Job's bequest. Elihu was standing in the place of God.

CHAPTER 13 CONTINUED

Verse 19-“Who is he that will plead with me? for now, if I hold my tongue, I shall give up the ghost.” Perhaps this is the patience or endurance of Job, that he didn’t give up the ghost.

Job is asking for a daysman to plead his case before.(Job 13:19) In Job 9:19 he asked for a date for his trial. “If I speak of strength, lo he is strong: and if of judgment, who shall set me a time to plead?”

In these 2 verses Job has requested a judge for the trial, and a date for the trial. Job doesn’t know it yet, but the date for the trial is set for chapter 33. And the daysman will be Elihu.

After asking for a trial date, verse 19, Job requests two things from God, verse 20.

1. “With draw thine hand far from me:” (Job 13:21)

2. “Let not thy dread make me afraid.” (Job 13:21)

Then Job says, “Then call thou, and I will answer: or let me speak, and answer thou me,” (Job 13:22)

This is the second time for Job to make this request. Job 9:34

1. “Let him take his rod away from me,” (Job 9:34)

2. “Let not his fear terrify me:” (Job 9:34)

Then Job says, “Then would I speak, and not fear him; but it is not so with me.” (Job 9:35)

Look at theses two separate yet similar requests, along with Job’s statement about speaking, and compare them with what Elihu says. Job chapter 33.

First you have Elihu saying, “Behold, I am according to your wish in God’s stead.” (Job 33:6) And then—

1. “Neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee” (Job 33:7)

2. “Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid,” (Job 33:7)

And Elihu says, “If thou hast anything to say, answer me: speak, for I desire to justify thee.” (Job 33:32) There can be no doubt Elihu is Job’s daysman.




http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif

Literalist-Luke
Oct 25th 2008, 03:03 AM
Greetings Joe

Well at least they have a partial Bible.

KJB Job 33:6 "Behold I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay."

NIV Job 33:6 "I am just like you before God; I too have been taken from the clay."

NASB Job 33:6 "Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay."

"Behold I am according to thy wish in God's stead:-" is one of the most profound statements in the Bible. Not even Jacob or Joseph claimed to be standing in the place of God.

Genesis 30:2 "And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?"

Genesis 50:19 "And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?"

To say the KJB translators were in error is to say they were terribly stupid, or terribly incompetent, to put one of the most profound statements in the Bible, without extreme justification to do so.

Also the NIV would seem to be careless in their translation, when they say Elihu was taken from the clay. Did he fall into the clay? Was he hiding in the clay? Do you get my point?

Best regards, terrellWhat about Ezekiel 39:2?

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 03:33 AM
Well at least they have a partial Bible.This is the circular reasoning I spoke of in my post. You assume your conclusion that modern Bibles removed stuff. They have a partial Bible. In your reply you offered no proof. I repeat, you offered no proof. Zero. All you did was offer evidence of my claim that it is assumed the KJV is correct. You also provided evidence of my claim that single verses are used to prove the KJV point of view as single verses are all you quoted. No reference to context. No reference to manuscript evidence. Just using the KJV to prove the KJV. Thank you for providing evidence of my points.
To say the KJB translators were in error is to say they were terribly stupid, or terribly incompetent, to put one of the most profound statements in the Bible, without extreme justification to do so.It is neither to say they were stupid nor to say they were incompetent. It is to say they were simply human. It is simply to say sometimes Stephanus read one way and Beza read another. This is a fact. The KJV translators had to make a choice. The KJB is perfect position (the title of the thread) must assume they got the right choice every time. I simply am asking how do the "KJV is perfect" people know they got it right every time?

Instead of answering my question Terrell, you twist my statement into an ad hominem against the KJV translators. Do as you wish. But as you twist my statements into something they are not, readers will see what you do and it makes your case weaker.
Also the NIV would seem to be careless in their translation, when they say Elihu was taken from the clay. Did he fall into the clay? Was he hiding in the clay? Do you get my point?LadyinWaiting addressed this well. Who is going to interpret this in the goofy alternatives you offered? Only "KJB is perfect" advocates in a weak attempt to prove modern versions wrong.

Do you really want to go back and forth with me on this subject again? Doesn't it get old? What's the point?

Joe

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 03:42 AM
What about Ezekiel 39:2?

You will have to forgive me, I am not familiar with what you must perceive as a problem.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 25th 2008, 03:46 AM
You will have to forgive me, I am not familiar with what you must perceive as a problem.This is the third time I've posted this in this thread, but that's OK.

KJV – “And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel.”

According to the KJV, a sixth of the invaders in the Gog/Magog invasion will be left alive at the end of this invasion. But is that true? Look at the original Hebrew for “and leave but the sixth part” –

ששא – this is the word “shawshaw”.

Strong's Ref. # 8338
Romanized shawshaw
Pronounced shaw-shaw'
a primitive root; apparently, to annihilate:
KJV--leave by the sixth part [by confusion with HSN8341].

And here is Strong's entry # 8341 to see what the KJV translators thought they were looking at:

Strong's Number: 8341
Transliterated: shashah
Phonetic: shaw-shaw'
Text: a denominative from 8337; to sixth or divide into sixths: --give the sixth participle

The Hebrew word that appears in the original text is "shawshaw", which means "to annihilate" As you'll see from the Strong's data listed here the KJV translaters made a mistake ("by confusion" to use the wording in Strong's concordance) and thought they were looking at another word that is admittedly close: "shashah", which does indeed mean "one sixth", but is not the word written by Ezekiel. The KJV team did an outstanding job of converting William Tyndale's one-man translation into excellent king's English and correcting his rare errors, but in this particular item, they made a mistake.

Fortunately, this error is corrected in the TNIV –

Ezekiel 39:2 – “ I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. ”

Considering the vast implications of the idea of one-sixth of the invaders being left alive, I would say that was a pretty serious error on the KJV’s part.

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 04:01 AM
God has to give us revelation before we can understand His Word. Without revelation, they're just words on paper.I agree.
As I said before, I use the King James. In my opinion it's perfect because God gives me revelation of Him from it's words.Could He do the same from another version? Probably. I just don't need another version.So if God provides revelation to someone through another translation, does that make that other translation perfect?

One thing about the King James and other versions is where they come from.
You mentioned the two Texts, The Stephanus and the Beza.

There are several editions of the Greek Received Text that was the basis for all of the Protestant Bibles until the late 19th century. Erasmus published five editions (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535). Robert Stephanus published four editions (1546, 1549, 1550, 1551). Theodore Beza published at least four independent editions (1556, 1582, 1688-89, 1598). The Elziver family printed two editions (1624, 1633). Another edition of the Greek Received Text was published in the Complutensian Polyglot. Finally in 1881 Frederick Scrivener, under contract to the Cambridge University Press, published the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. This edition of the Received Text has been republished many times, most recently by the Trinitarian Bible Society and by the Dean Burgon Society.
There are around 250 differences in all these texts and they are minor.Yes, but they are differences and the translators had to make choices. This brings us back to my original question. How do "KJB is perfect" people know that they made the correct choice every time.
When you compare this with Westcott and Hort who used the Alexanderian Texts you find that in the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Codex D. there are many differences. In the Gospel of Mark alone, Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with one another in more than 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone.How do you know these statistics are accurate? And what if they are mostly minor?
I can understand where the idea comes from that say we don't have a accurate English Bible in the modern translations.

I believe, although I can't prove it, that the English Language as spoken by the Lollards in England was the tongue used in Acts 2 that everyone understood.Interesting idea. It's off topic. Acts 2 clearly states they each heard each other in their own languages. From the King James . . .
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
God has chosen to preserve His Word. That's why the originals ceased to exist.I agree God has preserved his word. Why did they originals cease to exist? People would probably worship the originals like the Israelites worshipped the serpent from Numbers.




For the Word to be from God in another language it would have to originate from the Received Text. (Texus Receptus) I perfer the one from the Dean Burgon Society.

It would be beneficial for anyone to google Dean Burgon Society and read with an open mind the information they have on their web pages.Which Received Text? I own several of them and they all have dfferences. Which is the perfect one? I've been involved in several of these discussion and no one ever answers these kind of questions.

I'll do a seperate post for these.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 04:12 AM
I mentioned that the KJV translators largely used Stephanus' 1550 Greek text and Beza' 1598. How did they decide which to use when there were differences?

Let's look at Luke 2:22 for example. The KJV reads:
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; Stephanus reads:
22 και οτε επλησθησαν αι ημεραι του καθαρισμου αυτων κατα τον νομον μωσεως ανηγαγον αυτον εις ιεροσολυμα παραστησαι τω κυριω Stephanus states their purification. Beza uses αυτης which is her purification. When I discuss modern translations with "KJB is perfect" believers, they often question why I often go with a minority of manuscripts and don't go with the majority as the KJV does. Well, in this case the choice Stephanus made matches the majority of manuscripts and Beza, which the KJV translators chose, goes with a minority.

How about this one?

Luke 17:36 in the KJV:
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Stephanus doesn't even have this verse! That isn't minor, is it? The KJV translators chose to go with Beza. Why? What do the majority of manuscripts show? They show that Stephanus was correct.

So for those who think the KJB is perfect, can you give me a reason to go with the KJV in Luke 17:36? Can you give me a reason other than appealing to the KJV and arguing in a circle?

Again, let me state, I'm not quoting some persons book. I own these Greek texts. I'm looking at them directly.

Grace & peace to you.

Joe

Literalist-Luke
Oct 25th 2008, 04:15 AM
I mentioned that the KJV translators largely used Stephanus' 1550 Greek text and Beza' 1598. How did they decide which to use when there were differences?

Let's look at Luke 2:22 for example. The KJV reads:Stephanus reads:Stephanus states their purification. Beza uses αυτης which is her purification. When I discuss modern translations with "KJB is perfect" believers, they often question why I often go with a minority of manuscripts and don't go with the majority as the KJV does. Well, in this case the choice Stephanus made matches the majority of manuscripts and Beza, which the KJV translators chose, goes with a minority.

How about this one?

Luke 17:36 in the KJV: Stephanus doesn't even have this verse! That isn't minor, is it? The KJV translators chose to go with Beza. Why? What do the majority of manuscripts show? They show that Stephanus was correct.

So for those who think the KJB is perfect, can you give me a reason to go with the KJV in Luke 17:36? Can you give me a reason other than appealing to the KJV and arguing in a circle?

Again, let me state, I'm not quoting some persons book. I own these Greek texts. I'm looking at them directly.

Grace & peace to you.

JoeMan, I wish I'd had your help back on page two of this thread. :D

AliveinChristDave
Oct 25th 2008, 06:49 AM
I agree.So if God provides revelation to someone through another translation, does that make that other translation perfect

No, Revelation is always perfect regardless of it's source


?Yes, but they are differences and the translators had to make choices.

All I know is what I read and I read there are very few differences and they are minor. Yes, any translator has to make choices just as we have to make choices when we read God's Word. I've changed words in my King James because through revelation God has shown me the words used by the translatior wasn't quit right for the context. I have the right to do that because With Christ in me, I am as much of the living Word as anyone.




[quote=TrustGzus;1840069]This brings us back to my original question. How do "KJB is perfect" people know that they made the correct choice every time.

I don't think they did know they made the perfect choice everytime. You can read their prefence and see what they said about that.


How do you know these statistics are accurate? And what if they are mostly minor?
All I know is what I read. I personally perfer one particular Received Text.
Is it totally accurate and complete? Probably not. But if it is the vehicle through which God is preserving His Word, then it's living and will empower knowledge to anyone who uses it.


Interesting idea. It's off topic. Acts 2 clearly states they each heard each other in their own languages. From the King James .

As I said, I have n o concrete proof. Just speculation based on putting many events and thoughts together. Notice I said "English language" not the King James Bible. Actually the Lollards were before the King James existance.


. .I agree God has preserved his word. Why did they originals cease to exist? People would probably worship the originals like the Israelites worshipped the serpent from Numbers.

That's probably the main reason.



Which Received Text? I own several of them and they all have dfferences. Which is the perfect one? I've been involved in several of these discussion and no one ever answers these kind of questions.

I think which received text you use depends on how the Lord leads you. I know how He's lead me but I'm old enough and wise enough to know He doesn't take us all on one route of learning.




I'll do a seperate post for these.

Grace & peace to you,

Thanks for the questions. I will be gone for the weekend so won't be back on here until Monday
God bless. I will look forward to your post.

Joe

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 01:14 PM
This is the third time I've posted this in this thread, but that's OK.

KJV – “And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel.”

According to the KJV, a sixth of the invaders in the Gog/Magog invasion will be left alive at the end of this invasion. But is that true? Look at the original Hebrew for “and leave but the sixth part” –

ששא – this is the word “shawshaw”.

Strong's Ref. # 8338
Romanized shawshaw
Pronounced shaw-shaw'
a primitive root; apparently, to annihilate:
KJV--leave by the sixth part [by confusion with HSN8341].

And here is Strong's entry # 8341 to see what the KJV translators thought they were looking at:

Strong's Number: 8341
Transliterated: shashah
Phonetic: shaw-shaw'
Text: a denominative from 8337; to sixth or divide into sixths: --give the sixth participle

The Hebrew word that appears in the original text is "shawshaw", which means "to annihilate" As you'll see from the Strong's data listed here the KJV translaters made a mistake ("by confusion" to use the wording in Strong's concordance) and thought they were looking at another word that is admittedly close: "shashah", which does indeed mean "one sixth", but is not the word written by Ezekiel. The KJV team did an outstanding job of converting William Tyndale's one-man translation into excellent king's English and correcting his rare errors, but in this particular item, they made a mistake.

Fortunately, this error is corrected in the TNIV –

Ezekiel 39:2 – “ I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. ”

Considering the vast implications of the idea of one-sixth of the invaders being left alive, I would say that was a pretty serious error on the KJV’s part.

The difference between us is that you are trusting what men have told you and I am trusting what I have come to know as the word of God.

There have been many times over the years were I thought the KJB had it wrong, only to find out later that I had lacked knowledge.

LadyinWaiting
Oct 25th 2008, 02:30 PM
[quote]You don't get it. What I presented was a demonstration of the lack of conciseness in the wording of the NIV in order to present a copyrightable translation. They could have used formed, and been more precise, but they were more interested in having a variation, and it lacks clarity. This a problem throughout the NIV.

No, I understand what you're saying. What you fail to realize is that you're trying to nitpick and say something isn't the word of God because YOU think it lacks precision. Is it understandable? Yes. Does it make the same point? Yes.

You don't have to like the NIV. You can prefer whichever legitimate version you like. But just because you don't like the way in which it's written doesn't mean that it's false.

BTW - no one has YET to come up with any figure that demands a newly translated version of the Bible to be X amount different from it's predecessor. Furthermore, no one has yet to prove that creating a linguistic variation among words changes the meaning of the verse. I can read the same thing in both versions and be spoken to in the same way. I'm sorry you're unable to do so.


[quote]
Again you do not understand what I presented. It was to show the profoundness of the statement. Elihu said, "I am in God's stead. Jacob said, am I in God's stead? This shows the profoundness of the statement, and requires one to look at the KJB translators and say, were they really that incompentent, or were they compelled to put that statement in that form?

I'm sorry. I see nothing "profound" in someone saying to his friend who is being belligerent, I am ACCORDING TO YOUR WISHES (according to what JOB is demanding of him) in God's stead. The verse would basically mean, "You're making me stand in the place of God due to your reactions, so let's have it out now." I don't see anything overly profound here that changes my opinion of anything in the Bible. If you are actually believing that Elihu is stating that he deserves to stand in the place of judgement rather than God, then I think you need to go back and read it in the light of the fact that there is NO ONE worthy to stand in the place of God. Elihu would have known that and would never have made a statement assuming equal position with God.

Therefore, if reading in the appropriate context, I don't find a "profound" statement farther than a friend trying to convince his devestated, tested friend that he needs to reshape his thinking and cool off before demanding such things of God.



[quote]
The same thing again. I never presented it as being similar. It was to show the profoundness of what Elihu said, in contrast to what Jacob and Joseph said. The profoundness of the statement, I am in God's stead.

Elihu was Job's daysman that Job requested repeatedly. God sent him at Job's bequest. Elihu was standing in the place of God.

He wasn't actually standing in the place of God. You fail to read the part where he says that he's acting on behalf of Job's wishes (not saying that "God sent me as his stand-in to persuade you.")

As far as the remainder of Job's verses you posted...I have no doubt that God allowed Elihu to go to Job in order to deal with him. However, I do not believe that he was going in the place of God. God usually deals with people on his own. Job needed a friend, his friend was sent. His friend then tries to basically talk him down by reminding him that he is NOT God and doesn't have the traits of God, but due to Job's pleading and belligerence he is there to remind him of the mercy and goodness of God.



Furthermore, outside of Job, I feel that those who are of KJV-only belief are those who hold so tightly to a language they refuse to accept that God can and does speak to whomever he pleases through any translation. To believe that you cannot receive the Word of God through the NASB, NIV, ESB, or whatever, means that you are putting God into a box and saying that even those who are truly seeking after him will not receive him because they are not doing something right. Since they aren't reading the right words, God won't honor that person by revealing himself through the Bible they're reading.

The words aren't as important as the meaning. The meaning is unchanged in translations (paraphrases are a little iffy since those do rely on mankind to alter and restate verses, which means more people have the chance to misunderstand then give that over to others).

I think that Biblical text is a choice that can be guided by the Holy Spirit, and that choice can be different based on the needs of the person. For the same reason we all don't believe quite the same thing about many topics because the Holy Spirit does move us all slightly differently at different times in our lives. For anyone to tell another person that the conviction they are under by God to use a particular version would be incorrect. By the same token, our movement by the Holy Spirit to a particular version that does not make us come under conviction by the Holy Spirit that the text is incorrect or wrong cannot be pushed onto another person.

Some people need very specific, detailed, expanded verses; some must deal with more modern language because they don't get the phrasing, word order, or meaning of some of the older texts. But if they are not under conviction of the Holy Spirit for doing something wrong, then far be it for any of us to take the place of God in their lives to convince them they are not being instructed by the Holy Spirit or that they cannot possibly receive the Word of God and understand God through the book in their hands.

Notice translation doesn't affect this:

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."

Jeremiah 29:13

Neither of those verses say that God will be found if you seek him ONLY through the KJV or only through the Greek or Aramaic. If one is truly seeking, one will find him regardless of what text is on a page of paper - ALL printed at a profit.

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 03:21 PM
[quote=tgallison;1839973]

[quote] No, I understand what you're saying. What you fail to realize is that you're trying to nitpick and say something isn't the word of God because YOU think it lacks precision. Is it understandable? Yes. Does it make the same point? Yes.I believe that there is much more to the Bible that we do not understand, then what we do. Words are important, without them we would be nothing more than animals. You change the words, you change the meaning.
The things we do not understand will be lost in the muddle.


You don't have to like the NIV. You can prefer whichever legitimate version you like. But just because you don't like the way in which it's written doesn't mean that it's false. What does legitimate version mean? Was it approved by God?

KJB John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

NIV John 1:1 "In the beginning was the thoughts, and the thoughts was with God, and the thoughts was God."(Paraphrased by TGA)


BTW - no one has YET to come up with any figure that demands a newly translated version of the Bible to be X amount different from it's predecessor. It may not be a written law, but it is an unwritten law. If it was not so, then the NIV lovers would be all over it, to prove it was not true.

Richard H
Oct 25th 2008, 03:32 PM
What does legitimate version mean? Was it approved by God?These are good questions! :idea:

How does one discern which version is approved by God? :hmm:
It's not like some come with a Good House Keeping Seal or anything. :rolleyes:

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 03:53 PM
KJB John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

NIV John 1:1 "In the beginning was the thoughts, and the thoughts was with God, and the thoughts was God."Terrell, what are you doing here? That's not how the NIV reads. What am I missing?

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 03:59 PM
These are good questions! :idea:

How does one discern which version is approved by God? :hmm:
It's not like some come with a Good House Keeping Seal or anything. :rolleyes:God obviously doesn't come down and put a stamp on any translation. However, something that can help with this issue is to note that many times the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) when the Septuagint doesn't read exactly like the Hebrew. "KJB is perfect" jump through various hoops with this. But it's a fact. Take NT quotes of the OT and go read the original verse in the OT. It isn't always identical. Many times it's because it's the Septuagint that is quoted.

So it seems God doesn't get worked up with little variances from the Hebrew as he put his stamp of approval on the New Testament, including Septuagint quotes.

This doesn't mean people should do whatever they want with a text. However, it helps illustrate that minor variations can't undo the meaning of an entire context.

Grace & peace,

Joe

Richard H
Oct 25th 2008, 04:02 PM
God obviously doesn't come down and put a stamp on any translation. However, something that can help with this issue is to note that many times the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) when the Septuagint doesn't read exactly like the Hebrew. "KJB is perfect" jump through various hoops with this. But it's a fact. Take NT quotes of the OT and go read the original verse in the OT. It isn't always identical. Many times it's because it's the Septuagint that is quoted.

So it seems God doesn't get worked up with little variances from the Hebrew as he put his stamp of approval on the New Testament, including Septuagint quotes.

This doesn't mean people should do whatever they want with a text. However, it helps illustrate that minor variations can't undo the meaning of an entire context.

Grace & peace,

JoeThanks Joe! :)

I guess it's sort of like the difference between: "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law". :hmm:

Richard

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 04:03 PM
AliveinChristDave,

Thanks for your reply. I like what you're saying. You are blessed reading the KJV as are many others (as was I when that was my main translation). You know what you like and you use that and yet you haven't put God in a box on translations.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 04:05 PM
Terrell, what are you doing here? That's not how the NIV reads. What am I missing?

Joe greetings

Here is a quote from LadyinWaiting- "The words aren't as important as the meaning." If that is true, then I ought to be justified in my formation of John 1:1 in the NIV.

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 04:06 PM
Man, I wish I'd had your help back on page two of this thread. :DSorry. My laptop was out of commission for about two weeks.

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 04:17 PM
Joe greetings

Here is a quote from LadyinWaiting- "The words aren't as important as the meaning." If that is true, then I ought to be justified in my formation of John 1:1 in the NIV.Terrell, a suggestion. I'd recommending editing that post and re-wording it. The NIV does not read the way you put it and you can put your proposed rendition of John 1:1 and ask Lady the question without attributing something to the NIV that the NIV didn't do in that verse.

Better yet, why not use an actual verse from the NIV that you don't care for and talk to Lady about one of those rather than a non-existent rendition of John 1:1 and attributing that to the NIV? I think that would be clearer and more profitable.

I missed your point. Others probably will too.

Joe

Literalist-Luke
Oct 25th 2008, 04:22 PM
The difference between us is that you are trusting what men have told you and I am trusting what I have come to know as the word of God.

There have been many times over the years were I thought the KJB had it wrong, only to find out later that I had lacked knowledge.This is the 2nd time in one thread that somebody has rejected the original texts over an erroneous translation. What's that word for Bible idolatry? Bibleolatry or something like that? Incredible. This kind of "reasoning" cannot even be negotiated with. My work here is done. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/ohno.gif

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 04:23 PM
These are good questions! :idea:

How does one discern which version is approved by God? :hmm:
It's not like some come with a Good House Keeping Seal or anything. :rolleyes:

Richard greetings

I cannot clearly answer your question.

If you have a translation that God has evidently given to man for four hundred years, and along comes a dozen or more other translations all based on each other, though not worded the same. How are you to memorize scripture, or teach your children to memorize scripture, if you are working with a dozen translations?

If we want to hide the word of God in our hearts we have to stick with one translation, otherwise you can forget memorization.

So then what version do we go with for memorization? The NIV that is thought for thought, and has a new version every several years, or do we stick with the one that has been so productive for so many years, and everyones memorization is the same?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 25th 2008, 04:27 PM
Richard greetings

I cannot clearly answer your question.

If you have a translation that God has evidently given to man for four hundred years, and along comes a dozen or more other translations all based on each other, though not worded the same. How are you to memorize scripture, or teach your children to memorize scripture, if you are working with a dozen translations?

If we want to hide the word of God in our hearts we have to stick with one translation, otherwise you can forget memorization.

So then what version do we go with for memorization? The NIV that is thought for thought, and has a new version every several years, or do we stick with the one that has been so productive for so many years, and everyones memorization is the same?Everyone's memorization would not be the same anyway, because you have various editions of the KJV, then you've also got your German, Chinese, Spanish, French, Russian (and so on) speaking Christians. So your goal of standardization is unattainable from the get go.

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 04:27 PM
This is the 2nd time in one thread that somebody has rejected the original texts over an erroneous translation. What's that word for Bible idolatry? Bibleolatry or something like that? Incredible. This kind of "reasoning" cannot even be negotiated with. My work here is done. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/ohno.gif

Original texts is a misnomer on your part.

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 04:33 PM
Everyone's memorization would not be the same anyway, because you have various editions of the KJV, then you've also got your German, Chinese, Spanish, French, Russian (and so on) speaking Christians. So your goal of standardization is unattainable from the get go.

Maybe not in your world, but in my world it has been attainable. It has been
only the last fifteen years or less that it has been unattainable, due to new translations.

tgallison
Oct 25th 2008, 04:41 PM
Terrell, a suggestion. I'd recommending editing that post and re-wording it. The NIV does not read the way you put it and you can put your proposed rendition of John 1:1 and ask Lady the question without attributing something to the NIV that the NIV didn't do in that verse.

Better yet, why not use an actual verse from the NIV that you don't care for and talk to Lady about one of those rather than a non-existent rendition of John 1:1 and attributing that to the NIV? I think that would be clearer and more profitable.

I missed your point. Others probably will too.

Joe

Now Joe isn't this a paradox? The NIV can take God's words and change them into thoughts, but I can't take the NIV thoughts and change them into words.

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 05:27 PM
If you have a translation that God has evidently given to man for four hundred years, and along comes a dozen or more other translations all based on each other, though not worded the same. How are you to memorize scripture, or teach your children to memorize scripture, if you are working with a dozen translations?

If we want to hide the word of God in our hearts we have to stick with one translation, otherwise you can forget memorization.This thread is called "the KJV is perfect". Are we arguing for this now over memorization?

How are we to memorize and teach our children working with a dozen translations? No one uses a dozen translations to do this. This isn't hard.


become part of a local church.
stick with a church. Don't church hop every couple years.
use the translation that is that church's pew Bible.
memorzie that.
read entire chapters, i.e. context.

Again, KJB is perfect mentality only thrives by taking isolated verses out of context. People often memorize isolated verses out of context. However, when memorizing a verse, a person should always get familiar with the context so they don't use the verse incorrectly. Context cleans up all the supposed mess. When someone quotes a verse from a version I don't have memorzied, I'm not left wondering what was quoted. I can recognize it. I also don't sit there thinking the meaning has been changed. It hasn't.

This is all smoke-and-mirrors.
The NIV that is thought for thought, and has a new version every several years . . . As for the NIV changing every few years . . . first of all, we're on what revision of the KJV? This was true of the KJV. For 158 years a new revision came out every once in a while. Is the same criticism not valid of the KJV for those 158 years? The KJV didn't get locked in its current form until 1769. The NIV hasn't been revised since 1984 and it never will again to an agreement that was signed at Colorado Springs. People that memorized the NIV have had the same Bible for a quarter century now. Eventually that will become 400 years. Give it time. Hopefully we don't have an "NIV only" group or "the NIV is perfect" form in a couple centuries.
or do we stick with the one that has been so productive for so many years, and everyones memorization is the same?The KJV has been productive for so many years . . . First of all, we've now narrowed that down to 239 years since the KJV kept getting revised until our current 1769 edition. So we've only had that edition to memorize for 239 years. If you tried memorizing before that, the KJV was getting revised every once in a while.

So we shouldn't produce more modern, understandable Bibles that match the current English language? This is an argument for tradition. "KJB is perfect" people often are some of the most vocal critics of tradition in the Roman Catholic Church. But in the process of attempting to get the problem removed from the RCC fail to see the same problem in their own situation.

So memorizing . . . let's memorize 2 Corinthians 6:12. Here's the KJV . . .
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

The Holy Bible : King James Version.What? Let's look at the NIV . . .
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. Should we stick to the KJV so we all memorize the same thing or should we go with something modern so we understand what in the world it is we're memorizing?

To all KJV lovers:

If you like the KJV, that's awesome! Use it. Memorize it. Preach it. Teach it. Don't try to convince others it's perfect. It's not perfect. Don't try to tell people they have a bad Bible (unless it's the New World Translation). Their Bible isn't a bad Bible. It's different than your preference. English has changed. The KJV is not as understandable to 21st century readers. It's manuscript evidence is not as good in places it differs from modern versions. That doesn't make it bad. I know you don't believe it, but the documentation is undisputable really. I'd encourage you to use a modern version, but if you don't want to, that's fine. Use what blesses you.

The modern versions still teach:


Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead
We're saved by grace alone through faith alone by Jesus alone
The Bible is the word of God
Jesus was virgin born and is fully human
Jesus is fully God
The Trinity
Jesus is coming again to establish his kingdom

We don't miss a beat with the modern versions.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Oct 25th 2008, 05:32 PM
Now Joe isn't this a paradox? The NIV can take God's words and change them into thoughts, but I can't take the NIV thoughts and change them into words.Thanks for the reply. I wish you would address my point. I hope you see my point. Since you are not an NIV fan, there are plenty of actual NIV verses to make your point that you can probably use without rewording a verse and then labeling it NIV in your post. Why should anyone discuss your fictional John 1:1? Use an actual NIV rendition to make your point. Quit with "paradox" talk. Terrell, you know that I can pull out verses where the KJV doesn't do word-for-word but does exactly what you are talking about. The KJV has plenty of places where it leaves words out and inserts words that are never in the original languages. See my post above where I mention double-standards. When the NIV does it, it's wrong; when the KJV does it, it's okay. How come the KJV can add or remove from God's words and you don't point all those times out?

LadyinWaiting
Oct 26th 2008, 02:40 AM
I believe that there is much more to the Bible that we do not understand, then what we do. Words are important, without them we would be nothing more than animals. You change the words, you change the meaning. The things we do not understand will be lost in the muddle.

If I say it's raining hard outside or if I say it's pouring outside - does the meaning change? Pouring means raining hard. Changing a word to a synonym or similar phrase does not change meaning.

I, too, believe there is much we don't understand about the Bible. I don't think that one version of the Bible is the only God-inspired text as I believe all translations are from the God inspired texts.



What does legitimate version mean? Was it approved by God?

Legitmate meaning that it's a translation, not a paraphrase (as clarified later in my post) and not a perversion of the Bible that includes gnostic gospels or additions that don't belong there (as in many of the LDS or JW authorized "scriptures" since many are altered to reflect their belief system as opposed to Christianity).



KJB John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

NIV John 1:1 "In the beginning was the thoughts, and the thoughts was with God, and the thoughts was God."(Paraphrased by TGA)

^ Invalid argument and supposition. This is not the NIV and the NIV is not a paraphrase. You cannot do comparisons unless they are both accurate to the texts or you paraphrase both.

NIV John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

KJV John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

^Wow, miraculous. They are identical down to the punctuation.





It may not be a written law, but it is an unwritten law. If it was not so, then the NIV lovers would be all over it, to prove it was not true.

Or maybe the "NIV lovers" (I'm a version neutral since I read and understand both NIV and KJV) don't really care to disprove a bogus theory. There is no such law, basically. That makes the theory that 10% must be different a non-issue and not worth discussing. It makes it something that KJV-only people hold to even though they don't have any proof to back it up (or at least I haven't see it yet).

That idea shows a distinct lack of attention to copyright laws or what it means to have a "difference" since simply using a different word to mean the same exact thing would actually be a violation of copyright (otherwise, I should find a best-selling novel, "re-translate" it using synonyms and then sell it under my own name for profit - - - that is basically what KJV-only people inappropriately believe the NIV and all other translations did when that isn't the case).

In the US legal systems, there are no such things as "unwritten laws" since you cannot be punished for something that is not in writing. You cannot be held accountable for some unwritten rule in some person's mind in the copyright offices.


Maybe not in your world, but in my world it has been attainable. It has been
only the last fifteen years or less that it has been unattainable, due to new translations.

I think you're missing Luke's point here. What I think he's saying is that there are versions of even the KJV in other languages, but they are not word-for-word translations of English KJV to French/Russian/Spanish/ETC KJV because the same words and expressions are not able to be translated from language to languages. It simply is impossible.

Therefore, someone reading a Spanish KJV Bible is still getting aproximations of the KJV due to translation issues. Therefore, there is no actual standardization possible in any world unless everyone on the face of the planet learns English, Middle/Elizabethan English to be specific, and then reads the Bible. That, obviously, is not feasible.

livingwaters
Oct 26th 2008, 03:42 AM
I love the King James Version bible. When I first started reading it, I found it a bit hard to understand. But, through the years of continuing to read it, the Holy Spirit has revealed many meanings of scripture. I have also learned to dig, dig, dig, ask, ask, ask if I don't understand.

That's my opinion!!!!:hug:

TrustGzus
Oct 26th 2008, 04:08 AM
I love the King James Version bible. When I first started reading it, I found it a bit hard to understand. But, through the years of continuing to read it, the Holy Spirit has revealed many meanings of scripture. I have also learned to dig, dig, dig, ask, ask, ask if I don't understand.

That's my opinion!!!!:hug:That's great, livingwaters. I can agree with your comment entirely. I don't mind using a KJV. I like the KJV.

The thread title however, is The KJB is Perfect. That I don't agree with. I'm open to the idea. Sure, the KJV could be perfect. But objective study reveals that while it's a wonderful Bible, it's not perfect. Your comment doesn't state that and thus, I can respect your love for the KJV. You're honest about the fact that it's hard to understand. However, one can learn to read it and understand it if they so desire as you pointed out. People on both sides of this discussion agree on this point.

Thanks.

Firefighter
Oct 30th 2008, 11:55 AM
I am looking forward to the ISBN Rufus_1611...

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 01:11 PM
I am looking forward to the ISBN Rufus_1611...
:giveup:

...............

Soj
Nov 11th 2008, 09:34 AM
I am in full agreement with the OP, Cody1611, on this one. :pp

All you who oppose him are wrong and I feel sorry for you, you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and I pray that God delivers you from the deception you are under concerning the King James Bible being anything but PERFECT.

Athanasius
Nov 11th 2008, 10:24 AM
I am in full agreement with the OP, Cody1611, on this one. :pp

All you who oppose him are wrong and I feel sorry for you, you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and I pray that God delivers you from the deception you are under concerning the King James Bible being anything but PERFECT.

Just when you thought it was over...

Richard H
Nov 11th 2008, 02:24 PM
Just when you thought it was over...:rofl:

Some topics never die. :lol:


Hi Soj,
I may not be able to speak for all who you see as your opposition.

I for one see the KJV as "perfect", but it is only because the Word of God is perfect.
Not the works and effort of the translators.

As such, other versions are just as valid, because the Word of God is perfect.
Some translations are better than others, and consulting multiple versions is helpful.
Researching the original language meaning and understanding historical context adds great benefit also.

And so... perhaps, I've not stirred the pot too much and things will settle once again. :)

'Sort of the "spirit" of the Word and not the letter of the Word.

EDIT: Newer versions are more understandable to a reader who is not Elizabethan.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 11th 2008, 04:50 PM
I am in full agreement with the OP, Cody1611, on this one. :pp

All you who oppose him are wrong and I feel sorry for you, you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and I pray that God delivers you from the deception you are under concerning the King James Bible being anything but PERFECT.You haven't even read this thread, have you? Excuse me while I have a wonderful time with the Lord with my TNIV Bible........

Soj
Nov 13th 2008, 06:57 AM
You haven't even read this thread, have you?Careful now brother. Proverbs 18:13 (KJV)

Literalist-Luke
Nov 13th 2008, 07:31 AM
Careful now brother. Proverbs 18:13 (KJV)"To answer before listening - that is folly and shame." - Proverbs 18:13 (TNIV)

Before you attempt to use Scripture verses to lecture me or whatever it is you're doing, you might want to "listen" to this thread and apply that verse to yourself. After you've read this thread and are willing to discuss the things that have already been said in here, I'll be happy to discuss it at as great a length as your heart desires.

And perhaps you'll also be kind enough to explain precisely in what way the KJV is superior to NIV/TNIV or other popular modern translations instead of just expecting others to take your word for it. Enlighten us.

Soj
Nov 13th 2008, 07:54 AM
After you've read this thread and are willing to discuss the things that have already been said in here, I'll be happy to discuss it at as great a length as your heart desires.I have read the thread, and the scripture verse was for you Luke because you asserted to know the answer to your question before I had given it to you. Take it as a reproof. (Proverbs 9:8, Proverbs 17:10 KJV)

As for this topic, it's just like salvation, you either fully accept it or fully reject it, there's no middle ground.

That's all I desire to say.

Whispering Grace
Nov 13th 2008, 01:04 PM
As for this topic, it's just like salvation, you either fully accept it or fully reject it, there's no middle ground.

That's all I desire to say.

Actually, if you will read my pleading post somewhere in this thread, I don't "fully accept it or fully reject it". I was actually looking for some answers regarding my struggles with the KJV (which I would love to use exclusively), and my post was virtually ignored.

If you would care to address my concerns, I would appreciate it.

ETA...my post was #67. I will be happy to repost it if you wish.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 13th 2008, 03:47 PM
I have read the thread, and the scripture verse was for you Luke because you asserted to know the answer to your question before I had given it to you. Take it as a reproof. (Proverbs 9:8, Proverbs 17:10 KJV)

As for this topic, it's just like salvation, you either fully accept it or fully reject it, there's no middle ground.

That's all I desire to say.Then it's been nice "visiting" with you.

JesusPhreak27
Nov 14th 2008, 04:31 PM
So basically the 1611 (or whatever year) version of the KJV is infallibly perfect even though it was translated by man?

Somehow Im just not buying that.....

I will ask the KJV Only people the SAME exact question I have always asked:

If God is the author of the Bible and it is HIS Word why whould he allow/ordain people such as Eugene Peterson to write different translations?

Wouldnt it be fair to say that God in His awesome glory has the foresight and understanding of His fallen children to allow (give) us different translations as each of us are different?

Its much like how He used different people in different situations all through out the Bible. He doesnt always stick to the same plan.

He created us and knows that I can not truly understand His Word reading it in the KJV hence the reason He allowed / ordained others to write translations such as the NIV or The Message.

Just my 2 cents though.....

Rufus_1611
Nov 14th 2008, 04:40 PM
So basically the 1611 (or whatever year) version of the KJV is infallibly perfect even though it was translated by man? Were the original autographs infallibly perfect even though they were written by man?


Somehow Im just not buying that..... Okay...Do you have an infallibly perfect Holy Bible that you can point me to so that I don't mess around with an imperfect Bible?


I will ask the KJV Only people the SAME exact question I have always asked:

If God is the author of the Bible and it is HIS Word why whould he allow/ordain people such as Eugene Peterson to write different translations? Why does God allow people to murder, rape, plunder etc. Every man has free will to do as he sees fit. He can serve God or serve himself. I can go write a book and put Bible on the outside of it. This doesn't mean I was ordained by God to do so and it doesn't mean the book I wrote was the word of God.


Wouldnt it be fair to say that God in His awesome glory has the foresight and understanding of His fallen children to allow (give) us different translations as each of us are different? It would be fair to say that God in His awesome glory has the foresight and understanding to give His fallen children His word in their language without the confusion of many translations.


Its much like how He used different people in different situations all through out the Bible. He doesnt always stick to the same plan. The different people in different situations are for different lessons. Different books saying different things is not an equivalent to what you describe.


He created us and knows that I can not truly understand His Word reading it in the KJV hence the reason He allowed / ordained others to write translations such as the NIV or The Message. He knows that you can truly understand His word in the KJV. However, it takes your freewill to want it, your freewill to have the faith to believe you can, your freewill to study to show yourself approved and the power of the Holy Ghost to help you through it all.


Just my 2 cents though.....

Pilgrimtozion
Nov 14th 2008, 05:07 PM
Okay, I'm going to lay it all out here.

I belong to a KJV-only church. I absolutely love my church, but this is the one issue I have struggled with.

When I was saved, the only Bible translation I read was NKJV. I had no issues with it, and for the years before I went to this church, I happily read my NKJV Bible, and The Holy Spirit was faithful in guiding me and teaching me from this NKJV.

Then I started attending the church I go to now, and quickly realized my NKJV was not welcome there. So I went out and bought a KJV, which I faithfully take with me whenever I go to church.

However, I have tried and tried and tried to read the KJV, but to be quite honest, nothing clicks with me when I read it. I have tried and tried and tried to use it when I read the Bible to my kids, but each and every time I give up in frustration and go back to my NKJV.

When I read the NKJV, it is rich and fresh and very enjoyable for me. When I read the KJV, I don't experience much of anything but frustration.

So I guess my question is....if KJV is the only acceptable version of the Bible, WHY am I having such a difficult time with it? And WHY can I struggle so much with the KJV and then pick up my NKJV and read the same passage and have the Lord use it to minister to me and nourish me and teach me?
BUMP

I hear you, WG. I enjoy other versions of the Bible much more than the KJV and do not get anywhere with this translation that is - as far as I am concerned - outdated. Only two options logically remain: either you are deceived in what you experience to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit (very unlikely as far as I can tell) or the KJV is not the only translation and God uses different imperfect translations to speak to different people.

JesusPhreak27
Nov 14th 2008, 07:15 PM
Were the original autographs infallibly perfect even though they were written by man?

Are you talking about the original manuscripts? If so then we will never know considering for centuries the stories were spread by only word of mouth.



Okay...Do you have an infallibly perfect Holy Bible that you can point me to so that I don't mess around with an imperfect Bible?


I believe the Bibles I own and use (NIV, The Message) to be infalliable and the TRUE and unaltered Word of God. But then again I also believe the KJV to be a TRUE and unaltered Word of God.



Why does God allow people to murder, rape, plunder etc. Every man has free will to do as he sees fit. He can serve God or serve himself. I can go write a book and put Bible on the outside of it. This doesn't mean I was ordained by God to do so and it doesn't mean the book I wrote was the word of God.


So people like Eugene Peterson and the group that wrote the NIV Life Application Bible, they were not led or ordained to write the Bible in a different way so that many who may not be able to understand the "king's english" -- an old archaeic and clumsy (by today's standards) languag-- and be able to better apply God's Words and callings to their lives?

We will never know the motives these people had for writing these different translations. Those reasons are between the individual writers and God Himself.

Do you know, for a fact, the reason why the writers of the KJV wrote that translation?



It would be fair to say that God in His awesome glory has the foresight and understanding to give His fallen children His word in their language without the confusion of many translations.


But would you not agree that a NASB translation would touch a person more deeply or be more understandable then say the NIV or KJV?



The different people in different situations are for different lessons. Different books saying different things is not an equivalent to what you describe.


Is the message put forth in the NIV the same as in the KJV? Does the NIV still state that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God's covenant with His people and that Jesus Christ died on the cross on calvary and three days later He rose again defeating death for good? Im pretty sure both translations state that. Now are the wordings different? Absolutely! Does it truly matter? IMO no.


He knows that you can truly understand His word in the KJV. However, it takes your freewill to want it, your freewill to have the faith to believe you can, your freewill to study to show yourself approved and the power of the Holy Ghost to help you through it all.

See what terrifies me about people that deal with absolutes (with the exception that the ONLY way to Heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ) is that they tend to be just like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. "If you dont believe my way you are wrong."

God is an awesome God and He knows that each of His children are different and that each of us learn, read and move differently. If He wanted us to be all exactly the same then He would have made us that way. but He lets us all be individuals and have different interests, comprehension levels and reading levels for example.

Why does He do this? To show the world his power. The same way He allows us to have different translations. He does that to show us that we are allowed to be different and still be His children and still serve, worship and learn from Him.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 15th 2008, 04:03 AM
Were the original autographs infallibly perfect even though they were written by man?Yes.
Okay...Do you have an infallibly perfect Holy Bible that you can point me to so that I don't mess around with an imperfect Bible?No such thing today, sorry.
Why does God allow people to murder, rape, plunder etc. Every man has free will to do as he sees fit. He can serve God or serve himself. I can go write a book and put Bible on the outside of it. This doesn't mean I was ordained by God to do so and it doesn't mean the book I wrote was the word of God.I have to agree with you here - we have to be careful which translation we get.
It would be fair to say that God in His awesome glory has the foresight and understanding to give His fallen children His word in their language without the confusion of many translations.What about non-English speakers?
The different people in different situations are for different lessons. Different books saying different things is not an equivalent to what you describe.That is precisely why we should reject such heresies as the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon, because they are different books.
He knows that you can truly understand His word in the KJV. However, it takes your freewill to want it, your freewill to have the faith to believe you can, your freewill to study to show yourself approved and the power of the Holy Ghost to help you through it all.Or just using a TNIV Bible that gets the job done even better.

Thermodynamics
Nov 16th 2008, 08:26 PM
I think the fact that so many people are not literate enough to read the English of the KJV (or Shakespeare or Bunyan et cetera) is a very sad commentary on the state of education in our era.

No, the KJV is not perfect, no translation is perfect, but some will of course be better than others. What matters in translation is the choice of original manuscripts on which the translation is based and the policy of the person(s) doing the translating.

I believe God promised to preserve His word. If the world lacked an accurate manuscript until the mid 1800s, did all of the people who lived until then not have access to the preserved Word of God?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 02:10 AM
Are you talking about the original manuscripts? If so then we will never know considering for centuries the stories were spread by only word of mouth.


I believe the Bibles I own and use (NIV, The Message) to be infalliable and the TRUE and unaltered Word of God. But then again I also believe the KJV to be a TRUE and unaltered Word of God. This is a highly nonsensical position for books that say different things can not be the true and unaltered word of God. The following verses can not all be the true, infallible Word of God. One or more of them is wrong.

"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." - 2 Samuel 21:19

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." - 2 Samuel 21:19

"At yet another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaar, the weaver of Bethlehem, killed Goliath the Gittite whose spear was as big as a flagpole." - 2 Samuel 21:19


So people like Eugene Peterson and the group that wrote the NIV Life Application Bible, they were not led or ordained to write the Bible in a different way so that many who may not be able to understand the "king's english" -- an old archaeic and clumsy (by today's standards) languag-- and be able to better apply God's Words and callings to their lives? No. He was led and ordained by someone else to keep folks asking the age old question of "hath God said?"


We will never know the motives these people had for writing these different translations. Those reasons are between the individual writers and God Himself.

Do you know, for a fact, the reason why the writers of the KJV wrote that translation? I can know no man's motivations for a fact. I can take them at their word though.


But would you not agree that a NASB translation would touch a person more deeply or be more understandable then say the NIV or KJV? I have no doubt that people have emotional reactions to the modern versions. However, being led by emotions is not a good thing.



Is the message put forth in the NIV the same as in the KJV? No.


Does the NIV still state that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God's covenant with His people and that Jesus Christ died on the cross on calvary and three days later He rose again defeating death for good? Im pretty sure both translations state that. Now are the wordings different? Absolutely! Does it truly matter? IMO no. The NIV does contain a salvation message. However, the Holy Bible is primarily written to the saved, not the lost. There's a lot more to the Bible than just getting saved.


See what terrifies me about people that deal with absolutes (with the exception that the ONLY way to Heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ) is that they tend to be just like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. "If you dont believe my way you are wrong." Truth is absolute.


...

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 02:16 AM
...No such thing today, sorry... I appreciate this answer. I believe that a perfect God, inspired His perfect word and preserved His perfect word. It is refreshing to hear an MVer admit that they do not believe there to be a perfect Bible today. While I wholly disagree with the position, it is a lot more respectable than the folks that say God did preserve His word perfectly but it's just all over the place and can't be held in your hands.


What about non-English speakers? What about them exactly?


...

Thermodynamics
Nov 17th 2008, 03:49 AM
So people like Eugene Peterson and the group that wrote the NIV Life Application Bible, they were not led or ordained to write the Bible in a different way so that many who may not be able to understand the "king's english" -- an old archaeic and clumsy (by today's standards) languag-- and be able to better apply God's Words and callings to their lives?


I am sorry, I do not want to start a conflict here (or another one as the case may be). However I just couldn't let this pass without comment.

To call the English of the early Stuart era (the early 1600s for those who shun learning) "archaeic and clumsy" is a travesty. The English of that period was more advanced than the English of our time in all regards with the exception of uniformity in spelling. For example, in the King James they use "thee" "thou" and "thine" for singular and "you" "ye" and "yours" for the plural. Today we use "you" for both singular and plural, so clearly the English of that period was more precise. That precision can be important in a careful Bible study.

The translators of the King James also acheived a musical quality that is lacking in all of the modern translations I have seen. So while it is quite precise in wording, the King James is also a thing of literary beauty.

Any question of the elegant beauty of 17th century English with regard to the works of Shakespeare or the King James Bible has long since been settled. These two mark the very pinnacle of English and the language has been in decline since. So to call these works "archaic and clumsy" is a reflection on the one making the statement and not on the works themselves.

Vhayes
Nov 17th 2008, 03:58 AM
So allow it to be a reflection on me that I dreaded reading Shakespeare, almost didn't make it through Chaucer and if left with only the King James version would seldom, if ever, read my bible.

Some of us who delight in the English language really don't like the "poetic" flow of that era.

Does that make me apostate? Uneducated? Left brained? It doesn't matter in any case because I have God's love letters written in other versions that I CAN comprehend.

Thank God!
V

Thermodynamics
Nov 17th 2008, 04:01 AM
What about non-English speakers?


The primary issue is the manuscripts used, not the specific translation in question. Until 1900 EVERY Bible EVER printed in EVERY language was based on the Majority Text. Majority Text manuscripts are superior to the Minority Text.

There are thousnads of Majority Text manuscripts, almost all of the quotes of the New Testament by early church writers adhear to the Majority Text. In fact you could reconstruct all but about 25 verses of the NT just from the quotes of the Church Fathers.

On the other hand, the Minority Text, which is the basis of most modern translations, exists in only four manuscripts (one of which was discovered in a trash can). These all date to the 3rd - 4th century AD and all appear to have originated in Alexandria, Egypt. That is important because 3rd -4th Century Egypt is where and when the Gnostic heresy was at it's height.

How is it that verses quoted by Church Fathers in the 2nd Century do not appear in Minority Text manuscripts from the 4th Century yet these manuscripts are considered superior to the Majority Text?

Thermodynamics
Nov 17th 2008, 04:12 AM
So allow it to be a reflection on me that I dreaded reading Shakespeare, almost didn't make it through Chaucer and if left with only the King James version would seldom, if ever, read my bible.

Some of us who delight in the English language really don't like the "poetic" flow of that era.

Does that make me apostate? Uneducated? Left brained? It doesn't matter in any case because I have God's love letters written in other versions that I CAN comprehend.

Thank God!
V

As I said, I am not wanting to start a dispute with other Christians. Some people do prefer an inferior product to a superior one. There are those who would rather have a McDonalds burger over a well made steak or those who like paintings of Elvis or dogs playing poker better than the Mona Lisa. It is not wrong to prefer a burger to a steak and I don't think it is wrong to prefer an NIV to a KJV. What I take exception to is claiming that an inferior product is better than a superior one because it is what one prefers. You have not done this, the person who called the KJV "archaic and clumsy" has.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 17th 2008, 04:20 AM
What about them exactly?You assert that the KJV is the perfect Word of God and not the original manuscripts, which means that anybody who doesn't read English is automatically cut off from the most reliable version of the Word of God. Seems kind of inconsistent on God's part that He would supposedly favor us English-speakers with a "divinely ordained" translation and tell the other people they're just outta luck.

Vhayes
Nov 17th 2008, 04:23 AM
As I said, I am not wanting to start a dispute with other Christians. Some people do prefer an inferior product to a superior one. There are those who would rather have a McDonalds burger over a well made steak or those who like paintings of Elvis or dogs playing poker better than the Mona Lisa. It is not wrong to prefer a burger to a steak and I don't think it is wrong to prefer an NIV to a KJV. What I take exception to is claiming that an inferior product is better than a superior one because it is what one prefers. You have not done this, the person who called the KJV "archaic and clumsy" has.
Wow - my NASB is dogs playing poker but the KJV is the Mona Lisa?

No haughty spirit here....

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 04:25 AM
You assert that the KJV is the perfect Word of God and not the original manuscripts, which means that anybody who doesn't read English is automatically cut off from the most reliable version of the Word of God. Seems kind of inconsistent on God's part that He would supposedly favor us English-speakers with a "divinely ordained" translation and tell the other people they're just outta luck. The Authorized Version is the perfect word of God in the English language. There are other languages that are battling the same battle that we are fighting in English. For instance, I suspect Luther's German translation to be the word of God in German, yet there are other German translations that are likely corrupt. Regardles, I'm not going to play as though I am educated in all of the nuances of foreign translations. However, for me as one who is fluent in English only (unlike all of the folks on this board that are apparently fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek), I believe the pure, preserved, perfect word of God is found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

Thermodynamics
Nov 17th 2008, 04:32 AM
Wow - my NASB is dogs playing poker but the KJV is the Mona Lisa?

No haughty spirit here....

By your post I assume that you agree the dogs playing poker is inferior to the Mona Lisa, am I correct?

Thermodynamics
Nov 17th 2008, 04:43 AM
Look, I am not saying that the KJV is perfect. It is a translation and no translation is able to perfectly convey the original. I am also not saying that other translations are useless, you can use a NASB or an ESV and lead a person to Christ with it. You can study it and grow as a Christian.

What I am saying is that the Minority Text manuscripts were corrupted by Gnostic ideas and some words, verses and whole sections were removed. Any translation based on those manuscripts is going to be inferior to any translation based on the Majority Text.

Vhayes
Nov 17th 2008, 04:57 AM
By your post I assume that you agree the dogs playing poker is inferior to the Mona Lisa, am I correct?
I personally think the Mona Lisa is over-rated. ;) and I'm serious about that - just not my cup of tea.

However I do think the NASB is somewhat more accurate/tasteful/authoritative than dogs playing poker or Elvis.

Thermodynamics
Nov 17th 2008, 05:01 AM
I personally think the Mona Lisa is over-rated. ;) and I'm serious about that - just not my cup of tea.

However I do think the NASB is somewhat more accurate/tasteful/authoritative than dogs playing poker or Elvis.


I personally like the dogs playing poker, makes me grin every time I see one.:)

However, I do understand that the Mona Lisa is a superior work of art. That is not being haughty, just being objective.

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 08:31 PM
As I said, I am not wanting to start a dispute with other Christians. Some people do prefer an inferior product to a superior one. There are those who would rather have a McDonalds burger over a well made steak or those who like paintings of Elvis or dogs playing poker better than the Mona Lisa. It is not wrong to prefer a burger to a steak and I don't think it is wrong to prefer an NIV to a KJV. What I take exception to is claiming that an inferior product is better than a superior one because it is what one prefers.

See the issue is..... superior or inferior to who? Who is the one deciding that the NIV is inferior to the KJV? Has there been a council formed that decided this? Did God Himself come down and say that the KJV is the "superior" translation?

Or is it "superior" in YOUR opinion? Like you said..... everyone is allowed to determine which translation is the best for them.

What gives you the right to say that one is better than the other? If I am able to better comprehend and understand God's Word to me in The Message then to me it is the superior translation. If you "get" more of God's Word using the KJV then awesome! But dont tell others that they are wrong because they do not feel the same as you do. Thats not our job.

YWHW has allowed us to have many different translations because He knows that as His children we all comprehend in different ways.

If He wanted us all to have one translation that is all He would allow us to have.


You have not done this, the person who called the KJV "archaic and clumsy" has.

To some it is.

So what?

Thats the great thing about serving the God that we serve He allows us to read different translations and choose the one(s) that work best for us.

We are ALL different.

To you the NIV or any other "modern" translation are wrong, to others (myself included) the KJV is "archaic and clumsy"

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 08:35 PM
The Authorized Version is the perfect word of God in the English language. There are other languages that are battling the same battle that we are fighting in English. For instance, I suspect Luther's German translation to be the word of God in German, yet there are other German translations that are likely corrupt. Regardles, I'm not going to play as though I am educated in all of the nuances of foreign translations. However, for me as one who is fluent in English only (unlike all of the folks on this board that are apparently fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek), I believe the pure, preserved, perfect word of God is found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.


So you know 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that NOT ONE of the people that translated that translation back in the 1600's didnt make one single mistake?

If so awesome man! Im happy that you found a translation that God speaks to you in.....

But how do you know that God does not speak to me the same when I read my The Message, NIV or GNT (Good News Translation)?

Because I know there have been times I hve read a verse in one translation and got nothing out of it but then read it in another (KJV included) and it just jumped off the pages at me.

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 08:38 PM
You assert that the KJV is the perfect Word of God and not the original manuscripts, which means that anybody who doesn't read English is automatically cut off from the most reliable version of the Word of God. Seems kind of inconsistent on God's part that He would supposedly favor us English-speakers with a "divinely ordained" translation and tell the other people they're just outta luck.


They will probably come back and say that it is the perfect ENGLISH Word of God.......

Im on board with you brother..... up until Paul's time (I think?) most of the stories of the OT were passed on by word of mouth...... how do we know that they were right?

Oh....thats right....that thing called faith.....

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 08:43 PM
I personally think the Mona Lisa is over-rated. ;) and I'm serious about that - just not my cup of tea.

However I do think the NASB is somewhat more accurate/tasteful/authoritative than dogs playing poker or Elvis.

Sis how fast we forget that in the world of Christians there are still MANY Pharisees in our ranks....

If we dont think EXACTLY like them then we are wrong....

Tell you what... wanna get some dog mona lisa paintings? LOL

We need to teach people to investigate (like Paul urged the Bereans) to research and make sure that what they are reading is true..... If not then change to a translation that is true.

We shouldnt be telling others that they are wrong or that their translations are "inferior" though....

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 08:48 PM
I personally like the dogs playing poker, makes me grin every time I see one.:)

However, I do understand that the Mona Lisa is a superior work of art. That is not being haughty, just being objective.

To YOU it may be....to others the dogs are superior..... in art just as in Bible translations it all comes down to personal preference.

For example my wife and I went Christmas decoration shopping this weekend. Her preference is more contemporary styled decorations, I on the other hand prefer a more traditional style.

Is her preference superior to her? Of course....but to me it is inferior and vice versa.....

The same goes for worship services, I prefer the contemporary service where you may prefer the traditional one..... my preference is superior to me and yours is inferior

Thermodynamics
Nov 18th 2008, 12:29 AM
See the issue is..... superior or inferior to who? Who is the one deciding that the NIV is inferior to the KJV? Has there been a council formed that decided this? Did God Himself come down and say that the KJV is the "superior" translation?

Or is it "superior" in YOUR opinion? Like you said..... everyone is allowed to determine which translation is the best for them.

What gives you the right to say that one is better than the other? If I am able to better comprehend and understand God's Word to me in The Message then to me it is the superior translation. If you "get" more of God's Word using the KJV then awesome! But dont tell others that they are wrong because they do not feel the same as you do. Thats not our job.

JesusPhreak, Let me first thank you for your response to my posts. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to them and I do value your opinion on this topic (although I do not agree with it).

My statements about translations being superior or inferior are not opinions, they are based on objective data that is avaliable to all of us if we will seek it out, analyze it with an open mind and form a reasonable conclusion based on that data.

First a little background on me, so you know where I am coming from and why I say what I do. I have been a Christian for about 32 years, during that time I have primarly used the KJV, but I have also used other translations. For much of those 32 years I believed, as you do, that it didn't really matter which translation I used because they were all translations of the same thing.

However, several years ago I began to study the history of the manuscripts used in the various translations. I learned that there were two basic families of manuscripts. Family A is called the "Majority Text" (also known as the "Received Text," "Byzantine Text" or "Antioch Text"). That family of manuscripts was the one that all of the translations of the Bible done before about 1900 were based on. Then there was another family of manuscripts, we'll call it Family B. The Family B manuscripts are known as the "Minority Text" (also called the "Critical Text"). This is the family of manuscripts that almost all of the modern versions are based on.

I also learned a little about these two families of manuscripts. For example, the "Minority Text" manuscripts are the oldest complete manuscripts that we have, they date to the 3rd - 4th Century AD. The reason the "Minority Text" is so popular today is that it is supported by older complete manuscripts and assuming that older must mean better (more accurate) seems logical enough on the face of it. However, when we learn a little more about these manuscripts we learn that there are some problems with them. Large chunks of Scripture are left out, many verses, words and sections are ommitted and they contain a vast number of copyist errors. There are also words that have been changed. In fact there is a science that studies word changes on ancient manuscripts and these people say that some single words have been written, erased and then over-written dozens of times. Also these manuscripts do not appear to have been used very much in ancient times and one of them was actually found in a trash can in the mid 1800s. The "Minority Text" was simply not the text that was used by the early Christians.

The "Majority Text" is a different matter. Almost all of the quotes of Scripture by early Christian writers are quotes from the "Majority Text." All of the fragments of manuscripts that we have today are from the "Majority Text." The oldest is a fragment of John's Gospel that dates to about AD 95-125. It may have actually been copied while John was still alive and it is Majority Text!

There are a total of 4 "Minority Text" manuscripts. However, there are over 4,000 "Majority Text" manuscripts. So if you are using an ESV, NASB or NIV you are using a Bible based on less than .001% of the total manuscript evedince.

Based on all of that and a lot more I believe that there is objective evidence for saying that the "Majority Text" is superior to the "Minority Text." Therefore a translation based on the "Majority Text" will be superior to one based on the "Minority Text."

Put it this way: If I took your favorite Bible and cut out 20,000 words with a pin-knife would I have made it better or worse? That is what the people who copied the "Minority Text" did. We know those words were there because Christian writers quoted them before the "Minority Text" manuscripts were written.

Having said all of that I am not trying to throw stones at you if you use one of these modern versions. I believe it is better to read some Bible than it is to read no Bible at all. I applaud you for wanting to read God's Word!

However, for my part I want everything God revealed, not just most of it. I do not want to read a Bible that has 20,000 of God's revealed words cut out of it if I can get one that has them all.

I do not believe that the King James is in any way perfect. There are translation errors and there are words and phrases that, in my opinion, could have been translated better.

I also believe that it is possible that a new translation could come out that would be superior to the King James, but for that to happen it would need to be based on the Majority Text family of manuscripts.

Pilgrimtozion
Nov 18th 2008, 01:24 PM
JesusPhreak, Let me first thank you for your response to my posts. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to them and I do value your opinion on this topic (although I do not agree with it).

My statements about translations being superior or inferior are not opinions, they are based on objective data that is avaliable to all of us if we will seek it out, analyze it with an open mind and form a reasonable conclusion based on that data.

First a little background on me, so you know where I am coming from and why I say what I do. I have been a Christian for about 32 years, during that time I have primarly used the KJV, but I have also used other translations. For much of those 32 years I believed, as you do, that it didn't really matter which translation I used because they were all translations of the same thing.

However, several years ago I began to study the history of the manuscripts used in the various translations. I learned that there were two basic families of manuscripts. Family A is called the "Majority Text" (also known as the "Received Text," "Byzantine Text" or "Antioch Text"). That family of manuscripts was the one that all of the translations of the Bible done before about 1900 were based on. Then there was another family of manuscripts, we'll call it Family B. The Family B manuscripts are known as the "Minority Text" (also called the "Critical Text"). This is the family of manuscripts that almost all of the modern versions are based on.

I also learned a little about these two families of manuscripts. For example, the "Minority Text" manuscripts are the oldest complete manuscripts that we have, they date to the 3rd - 4th Century AD. The reason the "Minority Text" is so popular today is that it is supported by older complete manuscripts and assuming that older must mean better (more accurate) seems logical enough on the face of it. However, when we learn a little more about these manuscripts we learn that there are some problems with them. Large chunks of Scripture are left out, many verses, words and sections are ommitted and they contain a vast number of copyist errors. There are also words that have been changed. In fact there is a science that studies word changes on ancient manuscripts and these people say that some single words have been written, erased and then over-written dozens of times. Also these manuscripts do not appear to have been used very much in ancient times and one of them was actually found in a trash can in the mid 1800s. The "Minority Text" was simply not the text that was used by the early Christians.

The "Majority Text" is a different matter. Almost all of the quotes of Scripture by early Christian writers are quotes from the "Majority Text." All of the fragments of manuscripts that we have today are from the "Majority Text." The oldest is a fragment of John's Gospel that dates to about AD 95-125. It may have actually been copied while John was still alive and it is Majority Text!

There are a total of 4 "Minority Text" manuscripts. However, there are over 4,000 "Majority Text" manuscripts. So if you are using an ESV, NASB or NIV you are using a Bible based on less than .001% of the total manuscript evedince.

Based on all of that and a lot more I believe that there is objective evidence for saying that the "Majority Text" is superior to the "Minority Text." Therefore a translation based on the "Majority Text" will be superior to one based on the "Minority Text."

Put it this way: If I took your favorite Bible and cut out 20,000 words with a pin-knife would I have made it better or worse? That is what the people who copied the "Minority Text" did. We know those words were there because Christian writers quoted them before the "Minority Text" manuscripts were written.

Having said all of that I am not trying to throw stones at you if you use one of these modern versions. I believe it is better to read some Bible than it is to read no Bible at all. I applaud you for wanting to read God's Word!

However, for my part I want everything God revealed, not just most of it. I do not want to read a Bible that has 20,000 of God's revealed words cut out of it if I can get one that has them all.

I do not believe that the King James is in any way perfect. There are translation errors and there are words and phrases that, in my opinion, could have been translated better.

I also believe that it is possible that a new translation could come out that would be superior to the King James, but for that to happen it would need to be based on the Majority Text family of manuscripts.
I have a hard time believing either that the KJV is the best translation or that it is the only inspired version of the Word of God.

1. The arguments concerning the manuscripts are not as simple as the above writer suggests. You might check out this (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/howgetbible.htm) article by Jason Dulle that tells us how we get our Bible from a non-KJV perspective.
2. Translation per definition means a loss of meaning. Having been raised bilingually, I am very conscious of the fact that no matter how hard I try, I cannot express exactly the same thing in one language as I can in the other. This is equally true for Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. No matter how hard you try, any translation - no matter which manuscript it was written in - will ever express the ideas and thoughts of God as accurately as the original did. As such, no translation is perfect - per definition. Translation always means a loss of meaning!
3. The whole idea is extremely ethnocentric. The perfect Word of God in English? Poor French! And what to say of all those people who have yet to see a copy of the Bible in their language!
4. The New Testament was written in koine Greek - the Greek the common man spoke. If you are to truly translate the Bible into today's language, the Message would in many respects be a more 'accurate' translation that the KJV. This baffles me more than anything: nobody speaks in KJV-English anymore, barring those who use the KJV to learn English (and as soon as those people meet real native English speakers, they find out they're going to need to tweak their vocabulary a bit). How nonsensical to claim that a Bible written in language that sounds archaic to us now should be the only God-inspired translation! If that is truly so, I'd be pretty upset with God for not inspiring one in our day and age in a bit more understandable language. Mind you, I understand and can read the KJV myself; I just feel bad for all those I want to communicate the gospel with, introduce the Bible to, and lead to Christ. What a let-down to give them a Bible that takes them back 400 years in time and completely passes by the original intent with which the Bible was written: to communicate the gospel to man in a language they can understand!
5. Some claim that the Holy Spirit will give people understanding when they read the KJV if they're only open to it. Such pseudo-spiritual arguments should not even be considered valid for a moment. Of course the Holy Spirit can give understanding and revelatory insight when we're reading the Bible. But are we now so narrow-minded that we close our eyes to the natural workings of God through language? God created language to speak to us and for us to communicate with each other! Again, how nonsensical to claim that a 400-year language barrier will simply be overcome by revelation of the Holy Spirit!

I'll stick to my NASB and ESV, thank you very much. I have great respect for the KJV - but not more than that.

EDIT: I understand the author of the post to which I replied is not strict KJV-Only. I apologize for inferring in this reply that he is. My response is partly to his post and partly to other KJV-Only sentiments expressed throughout this thread.

Thermodynamics
Nov 19th 2008, 12:42 AM
Hi Pilgrim,

I appreciate your post and found it interesting. Your note at the botton seperates me somewhat from the ultra-strict KJV only camp, but not far enough I think.

I want to be very clear, I do not in any way think that the KJV is the perfect "Word of God in English." It is clear that there are translation errors and there are words that I myself believe could have been better translated. If one is going to read God's perfect Word he will need to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

I have also been clear that I would welcome a new translation in English that used the correct manuscripts and translation philosophy.

I do believe that this sort of discussion is healthy so long as Christians are not getting mad at each other over it (which sadly tends to happen). I believe we need to know where our Bible comes from and how we got it so that we are able to make educated choices when we buy a Bible and read it.

However, the issue does run deeper than just a choice between modern English and 17th Century English and I think it is important that we are all aware of those deeper issues.