Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you consider why the preference for another modern Bible, it is for the reason of being easier to read, but it is all hype covering up the problem and that is one needs to rely on Jesus as their Good Shepherd and not mankind for helping them to read the KJV Bible.
Take a step back and look at all the modern Bibles that are out there and still in the process of creating an easier to read Bible. What does that tell us? The the reason is null & void and believers should be relying on Jesus as their Good Shepherd for wisdom in understanding His words in the KJV.
And Jesus will confirm that His words are being kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV whereas modern Bibles have not, but declined from the testimonies of the Son.
Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
If you consider why the preference for another modern Bible, it is for the reason of being easier to read, but it is all hype covering up the problem and that is one needs to rely on Jesus as their Good Shepherd and not mankind for helping them to read the KJV Bible.
Take a step back and look at all the modern Bibles that are out there and still in the process of creating an easier to read Bible. What does that tell us? The the reason is null & void and believers should be relying on Jesus as their Good Shepherd for wisdom in understanding His words in the KJV.
And Jesus will confirm that His words are being kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV whereas modern Bibles have not, but declined from the testimonies of the Son.
Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
You should do a Greek word study on those verses you just quoted...
And how do you explain that the Old Testament is not exactly translated into English, as is claimed, parallel to the Hebrew Tanakh?...There exist many differences and omissions and additions in the Christian Old Testament that are and are not in the Hebrew Tanakh?...
You should do a Greek word study on those verses you just quoted...
And how do you explain that the Old Testament is not exactly translated into English, as is claimed, parallel to the Hebrew Tanakh?...There exist many differences and omissions and additions in the Christian Old Testament that are and are not in the Hebrew Tanakh?...
Like Isaiah 48:16-17?
Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
Then I would refer to these verses for discernment.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
One can do a Greek word study all they want, but only Jesus can help one discern whom is keeping His words from those that do not as signfying those that do not love Him and His words to keep them.
By trusting the Good Shepherd, an open KJV Bible can serve as a means to following Jesus & nothing else.
Hopefully you know that there are MILLIONS of people who don't read or speak English.
Proclaiming that the KJV of the Bible is the one and only version to be used seems pretty discriminatory to me. You're going to tell....... say....Lithuanians .... that they need a KJV to follow Jesus? Really?
Last edited by DewDropInn; 12-14-2014 at 12:17 PM..
All translations of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew have problems. In every case the translators brought their biases to the texts they rendered.
With the KJV, I would ask, which one of the translations in KJV do you believe?
Quote:
From the start, the King James Bible was intended to be not a literary creation but rather a political and theological compromise between the established church and the growing Puritan movement. What the king cared about was clarity, simplicity, doctrinal orthodoxy. The translators worked hard on that, going back to the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and yet they also spent a lot of time tweaking the English text in the interest of euphony and musicality. Time and again the language seems to slip almost unconsciously into iambic pentameter — this was the age of Shakespeare, commentators are always reminding us — and right from the beginning the translators embraced the principles of repetition and the dramatic pause: “In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.â€
Their have been revisions to the KJV of the Bible in 1613 (400 changes), and in 1615, 1629, 1638 there were numerous changes in typographical errors, spelling changes, and actual translation changes. These were followed by revisions in 1701, 1762, and 1769 which include changes in weights, measurements, coins, marginal notes, and modernization of spelling. After the further revisions of 1806 and 1813 the American Bible Society counted over 24,000 differences in text and translation among six earlier editions.
The still later revisions by Oxford and Cambridge Universities have resulted in what is our "modern" KJV.
(source: http://separationtruth.com/resources...acts%2Bnew.pdf)
Even with the attempt to clarify the scripture the Puritans who arrived in America rejected it outright.
Were the Puritans sincere Christians? They brought the first English Bible to American soil in 1630, but forbade distributing the recently revised KJV. Why? Because the thought it was filled with too many words from the apostate Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
The Puritans would not build churches because they believed the "church" was the body of Christ, not a building. In fact the word translated "church" in the KJV is not a translation at all. It was an old Anglicized form of the Greek word for Lord--"kurios." In England people had begun to call the physical sanctuaries "the Lord's house," or kurk. This evolved into kurch and then church. The actual Greek word ek-klesia means a called-out company of people and should rightly be translated "congregation" or "assembly." The confusion of mixing a physical building with the idea of Christ's Church has existed even unto today.
Neither would they use the KJV because of its use of the word "bishop." This is a purely ecclesiastical word that doesn't reflect the proper translation of "overseer."
Or what about the word "Easter" used in Acts 12:4. For the Puritans it was another reason to reject the KJV. Easter is the Anglicized form of the old pagan "Asteroth" goddess of fertility and sexual impulses. It came from Eastern paganism and was adopted by the Roman Catholic church into their traditions. It was a flat out blunder by the translators.
(all information in the above four paragraphs are a summary from the same source cited)
Is anyone going to claim the Puritans were unsaved people because they rejected the KJV?
Or what about other serious translation errors?
Quote:
A number of things in the KJV are actually interpolations (text that was added to the manuscripts) and some came through the Latin Vulgate translation. The theological smoking gun is the celebrated "Johnine Comma" where some Trinitarian language that appeared around 600AD in the Vulgate was forced into the Greek of the Textus Receptus and from there to the King James. The King
James says: (1 John 5:6-8 KJV)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. {7} For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
where all ancient Greek manuscripts only say1 John 5:6-8 NASB)
This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. {7} And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. {8}
For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
There is even one sentence in the KJV that exists in no Greek manuscript, whether ancient or not. That sentence is from Acts 9:6Acts 9:6 KJV)
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? ...
You can't simply add a sentence that we know the Evangelist didn't write and call it "perfected".
And finally, from Dr. Dan Wallace, a quite conservative professor of New Testament theology at Dallas Theological Seminary:
Quote:
---the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and
his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge.
Bottom line is the KJV is one of the weakest translations out there, using manuscripts that are hundreds of years later than the earliest manuscripts now available. It attempted to turn the Scripture into prosaic literature (and did a pretty good job of that!) while sacrificing some proper translation to do it.
None of this is to say that other translations are without their own problems. Perhaps they are fewer in number and different in scope from the KJV, but, nevertheless, no translation from Greek or Hebrew to the English language gives an adequate picture of what these words mean. They are all based on time and culture of the people.
In 1968, as a young marine stationed on Okinawa (later Viet Nam), I heard a Wycliffe Bible translator speak at an Overseas Christian Serviceman's Center. He had just come back from ten years serving in the Philippine Islands where he had translated an English Bible into the words of a small tribe of natives living in the mountains. They had six separate villages, none with more than about 300 people in them--and their own unique language. He told of struggling to find words to translate distance measurement because there were no words in their language to indicate how far it was to go to the next village or how high a tree is. He was having trouble translating things like "If a man forces you to go with him a mile, go with him two."
Eventually he was watching a woman boil some bananas (I never heard of boiling bananas!) and he asked her how long it took. They did have words for time, and she said about twenty to twenty-five minutes. And that's when it hit him. He translated the scripture verse above as "If a man forces you to walk with him twenty minutes, go with him forty minutes."
And that's what we should be looking for in Scripture--an accurate portrayal of the meaning without being caught up in the intricacies of particular words. The entire bible inerrancy issue which is one of the driving issues of worshipping the KJV is a relatively new phenomenon (last 125 years), and does not accurately reflect how inerrancy and infallibility were viewed in the centuries before that.
For any bible student, several translations side by side are the best hope of getting a clear view. And to get the best view, one needs to become a scholar in both Greek and Hebrew, become immersed in the culture of 2000-2800 years ago. Outside of that, the best we can do is get a glimpse of the intentions of the authors of scripture.
Hopefully you know that there are MILLIONS of people who don't read or speak English.
Proclaiming that the KJV of the Bible is the one and only version to be used seems pretty discriminatory to me. You're going to tell....... say....Lithuanians .... that they need a KJV to follow Jesus? Really?
I would say to a Lithuanian that they should get a KJV in Lithuanian rather than the NIV in Lithuanian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All translations have problems
1 John 5:6-8 NASB) 
