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.
I am of the kjv-superior position. I believe that the King James Version is superior to all other translations and that any time there is a discrepancy between versions, we ought to fall back on what it says in the kjv.
Now, I want to say that the fact that there are many translations contributes to the disunity in the body of Christ.
I will give one example of a situation where the kjv differs in doctrine from other translations.
In the kjv:
1Pe 5:10, But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
1Pe 5:11, To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
1Pe 5:12, By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
Here we find the teaching that it is the true grace of God that God is sanctifying the believer and that after the believer has suffered a while, he will be made perfect; even in this life.
Now, compare the niv.
1Pe 5:10, And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
The esv.
1Pe 5:10, And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
The nlt.
1Pe 5:10, In his kindness God called you to share in his eternal glory by means of Christ Jesus. So after you have suffered a little while, he will restore, support, and strengthen you, and he will place you on a firm foundation.
The nkjv, at least, preserves this truth:
1Pe 5:10, But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.
The doctrine of entire sanctification is lost to some translations. Even the nkjv, which gets this verse right, will get other verses wrong by translating "perfect" as "mature" or "complete".
I would say that the doctrine of entire sanctification is important and may even be essential to salvation.
Therefore, in changing the message of scripture so that the doctrine of entire sanctification is lost to the majority, who adhere to such translations as do change this message,
The translators of such versions are doing the body of Christ a great disservice and creating disunity; perhaps even causing some who believe themselves to be Christians to be found outside of the body of Christ; while the visible body, which consists of the saved and the unsaved, may argue over this doctrine and others;
Wherein the kjv has it right;
And those other translators stand as teachers that men heap to themselves to tell them what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).
Whether "perfect" is better translated "mature" or "complete" depends on the words in the original manuscript and the ways in which the English language has evolved since 1611.
For example, I think it is the book of Jude that decries "doers of that which is not convenient" but this does not mean it is a sin to be inconvenienced. "Convenient", 400 years ago, meant something more like "fitting" or "appropriate", so the verse is actually decrying people who do inappropriate things, which makes way more sense. Over the centuries, "convenient" gradually came to mean "without difficulty or effort; easy", and so if you read that verse in the KJV without understanding this, you might be confused.
There's a reason there's the aphorism that things "get lost in translation" sometimes. Much as you might want to imagine that there could be a perfect or far better translation to hang your hat on, koine Greek and English do not map 1:1 to each other. Greek has several tenses that English does not for example. Then there is the goal or objective of a particular translation: are you trying to be fairly literal, or idiomatic so that it flows and is easier for people to read in something like their own vernacular? Translations (including the KJV) have to balance these two competing concerns in some way. The Living Bible is a very loose idiomatic translation, such that when Saul calls someone "thou son of an adulterous, perverse woman" it comes out "you son of a" ... well, you know. This is idiomatically correct but not literally exact. It DOES manage to communicate the emotional content of the exclamation in a highly relatable way, however.
All this, and I haven't even addressed the gigantic cultural mismatch between the Middle East in the Bronze Age and us here in the West in the 21st century.
I see all these translations as good things if you really want to dive deep into a nuanced understanding of the text. The KJV Only mindset strikes me as an attempt to had-wave away all the challenges mentioned above and pretend that there's never any disagreement among people of good conscience about exactly what certain passages mean. If you really believe the Bible to be verbally and plenarily inspired and inerrant, I don't know why you would want to ignore the greek and the bajillions of hours of exacting endeavor to render that greek into English -- or why you would tie yourself to a version that was not translated from the very best manuscripts available to us now compared to 400 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, the KJV is a very good and venerable translation. But the notion that it is an inspired translation and has no downsides is just ... well, not true.
Whether "perfect" is better translated "mature" or "complete" depends on the words in the original manuscript and the ways in which the English language has evolved since 1611.
For example, I think it is the book of Jude that decries "doers of that which is not convenient" but this does not mean it is a sin to be inconvenienced. "Convenient", 400 years ago, meant something more like "fitting" or "appropriate", so the verse is actually decrying people who do inappropriate things, which makes way more sense. Over the centuries, "convenient" gradually came to mean "without difficulty or effort; easy", and so if you read that verse in the KJV without understanding this, you might be confused.
There's a reason there's the aphorism that things "get lost in translation" sometimes. Much as you might want to imagine that there could be a perfect or far better translation to hang your hat on, koine Greek and English do not map 1:1 to each other. Greek has several tenses that English does not for example. Then there is the goal or objective of a particular translation: are you trying to be fairly literal, or idiomatic so that it flows and is easier for people to read in something like their own vernacular? Translations (including the KJV) have to balance these two competing concerns in some way. The Living Bible is a very loose idiomatic translation, such that when Saul calls someone "thou son of an adulterous, perverse woman" it comes out "you son of a" ... well, you know. This is idiomatically correct but not literally exact. It DOES manage to communicate the emotional content of the exclamation in a highly relatable way, however.
All this, and I haven't even addressed the gigantic cultural mismatch between the Middle East in the Bronze Age and us here in the West in the 21st century.
I see all these translations as good things if you really want to dive deep into a nuanced understanding of the text. The KJV Only mindset strikes me as an attempt to had-wave away all the challenges mentioned above and pretend that there's never any disagreement among people of good conscience about exactly what certain passages mean. If you really believe the Bible to be verbally and plenarily inspired and inerrant, I don't know why you would want to ignore the greek and the bajillions of hours of exacting endeavor to render that greek into English -- or why you would tie yourself to a version that was not translated from the very best manuscripts available to us now compared to 400 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, the KJV is a very good and venerable translation. But the notion that it is an inspired translation and has no downsides is just ... well, not true.
Excellent explanation of the issues! It will fall on deaf ears I am afraid, mordant!
Whether "perfect" is better translated "mature" or "complete" depends on the words in the original manuscript and the ways in which the English language has evolved since 1611.
For example, I think it is the book of Jude that decries "doers of that which is not convenient" but this does not mean it is a sin to be inconvenienced. "Convenient", 400 years ago, meant something more like "fitting" or "appropriate", so the verse is actually decrying people who do inappropriate things, which makes way more sense. Over the centuries, "convenient" gradually came to mean "without difficulty or effort; easy", and so if you read that verse in the KJV without understanding this, you might be confused.
There's a reason there's the aphorism that things "get lost in translation" sometimes. Much as you might want to imagine that there could be a perfect or far better translation to hang your hat on, koine Greek and English do not map 1:1 to each other. Greek has several tenses that English does not for example. Then there is the goal or objective of a particular translation: are you trying to be fairly literal, or idiomatic so that it flows and is easier for people to read in something like their own vernacular? Translations (including the KJV) have to balance these two competing concerns in some way. The Living Bible is a very loose idiomatic translation, such that when Saul calls someone "thou son of an adulterous, perverse woman" it comes out "you son of a" ... well, you know. This is idiomatically correct but not literally exact. It DOES manage to communicate the emotional content of the exclamation in a highly relatable way, however.
All this, and I haven't even addressed the gigantic cultural mismatch between the Middle East in the Bronze Age and us here in the West in the 21st century.
I see all these translations as good things if you really want to dive deep into a nuanced understanding of the text. The KJV Only mindset strikes me as an attempt to had-wave away all the challenges mentioned above and pretend that there's never any disagreement among people of good conscience about exactly what certain passages mean. If you really believe the Bible to be verbally and plenarily inspired and inerrant, I don't know why you would want to ignore the greek and the bajillions of hours of exacting endeavor to render that greek into English -- or why you would tie yourself to a version that was not translated from the very best manuscripts available to us now compared to 400 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, the KJV is a very good and venerable translation. But the notion that it is an inspired translation and has no downsides is just ... well, not true.
I can probably count on one hand the words that actually have changed in their meaning so that you would get the wrong impression in reading them out of the kjv.
And I am not kjv-only but kjv-superior; and therefore I do believe that reading other translations side-by-side with your kjv can be useful. And in doing so, you will be able to easily note those words that have changed in meaning over time.
Nevertheless, I do believe that taking such words in the meaning that they might have today, unchanged, can even be profitable. In one verse, in the kjv, it says "quit you like men" which in a more modern translation says "be brave".
Nevertheless I think that it is profitable to quit like a man concerning some things and you have to take it in the kjv and apply today's meaning to it in order to do that in obedience to holy scripture.
Also, many of the modern translations are not translated from the best manuscripts...
Instead, they are translated from manuscripts that take away from the word of God.
In adhering to translations from such manuscripts, one would be guilty of a sin that has consequences; mentioned in Revelation 22:18-19.
These consequences are basically invisible until the day of judgment.
While if the translators of the kjv had added to the word, they would have had more visible consequences that would be evident immediately, according to the same passage.
Also, many of the modern translations are not translated from the best manuscripts...
Instead, they are translated from manuscripts that take away from the word of God.
In adhering to translations from such manuscripts, one would be guilty of a sin that has consequences; mentioned in Revelation 22:18-19.
These consequences are basically invisible until the day of judgment.
While if the translators of the kjv had added to the word, they would have had more visible consequences that would be evident immediately, according to the same passage.
The one division in Christendom is Universal Atonement VS Limited Atonement. It is salvation by works VS salvation by grace respectively.
I am of the kjv-superior position. I believe that the King James Version is superior to all other translations and that any time there is a discrepancy between versions, we ought to fall back on what it says in the kjv.
Now, I want to say that the fact that there are many translations contributes to the disunity in the body of Christ.
I will give one example of a situation where the kjv differs in doctrine from other translations.
In the kjv:
1Pe 5:10, But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
1Pe 5:11, To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
1Pe 5:12, By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
Here we find the teaching that it is the true grace of God that God is sanctifying the believer and that after the believer has suffered a while, he will be made perfect; even in this life.
Now, compare the niv.
1Pe 5:10, And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
The esv.
1Pe 5:10, And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
The nlt.
1Pe 5:10, In his kindness God called you to share in his eternal glory by means of Christ Jesus. So after you have suffered a little while, he will restore, support, and strengthen you, and he will place you on a firm foundation.
The nkjv, at least, preserves this truth:
1Pe 5:10, But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.
The doctrine of entire sanctification is lost to some translations. Even the nkjv, which gets this verse right, will get other verses wrong by translating "perfect" as "mature" or "complete".
I would say that the doctrine of entire sanctification is important and may even be essential to salvation.
Therefore, in changing the message of scripture so that the doctrine of entire sanctification is lost to the majority, who adhere to such translations as do change this message,
The translators of such versions are doing the body of Christ a great disservice and creating disunity; perhaps even causing some who believe themselves to be Christians to be found outside of the body of Christ; while the visible body, which consists of the saved and the unsaved, may argue over this doctrine and others;
Wherein the kjv has it right;
And those other translators stand as teachers that men heap to themselves to tell them what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).
It's pretty simple here. The KJV has it wrong. There is a reason the rest agree on it. That's what the Greek actually says. Nothing in the text suggests that we will be 100% sanctified this side of Heaven.
Nothing in the text suggests that we will be 100% sanctified this side of Heaven.
Those verses aside, what about Rev 21:27 ? "But nothing unclean will ever enter it" [heaven]
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.
Excellent explanation of the issues! It will fall on deaf ears I am afraid, mordant!
