What is your preferred translation of The Bible?

gitRluver · 09-21-2002, 10:14 PM

Woo tang

If you desire more confirmation that the KJV is not the most inspired version, look up 1 John 5:7,8 in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and any other translation. These verses are not found in any known Greek manuscript dated before 1600. So why are these supposedly non-inspired verses found in the KJV?

gitRluver

The bible in the Greek and Hebrew was not in whole form until after King James gave permission for the bible
to be translated. It then took many years to gather together all these pieces to the biblical puzzle. All copies were gather together and compared. Some of the men that copied God's word didn't do a good job of preserving God's word. Those were thrown out. Of course they had many other copies that were done very well. Those were the ones that made the final cut. God said he would preserve his word not necessarily in one book all at the same time. It is only for the last 400 year that we have had God's word in whole.

Woo Tang

Also, if God Himself authorized the KJV, why were there so many blatant errors in the early editions of the Authorized Version. For example, in a 1631 edition, the word NOT was omited, so that the 7 commandment said," Thou shalt commit adultery." Or 1 Corinthians 6:9, in the 1653 edition said," the unrighteous shall inherit the earth" instead of righteous. Or how about the 1717 edition which stated that Luke 20 contained the Parable of the Vinegar instead of the Parable of the Vineyard. One of the early editions even confused Jesus with Judas in Matthew 26:36.

gitRluver

The verses you are talking about are not found until after 1600 because of the copying process. Men carefully copied every word then the manuscript would ware out and they would copy it again. These manuscripts were compared with others and they matched up word for word. The bible was not always in whole form in all churches because of persecution. To have a small portion of the bible was a great thing. Thus you have one manuscript older than another because one was not copied as much as another was.

That was not from the King James translators that is the publishing company’s fault for not being careful with God's word. By the way all those copies were burned when they found that out about the Ten Commandments. There is only very few copies left that survived the burning.

woo tang

I could easily explain similar errors in virutally every trusted translation today. But my point is that no version can claim to be more inspired than the other. Here's the deal. God's word is still living and active and sharper than a two edged sword. Any translation that uses the early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and trys to stay faithful to those manuscripts through word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations is a reliable source for God's Word.

gitRluver

The problem I have with all other translations it that they use the manuscripts that the King James translators threw out and considered corrupt. All the footwork for the modern Whole Bible (the King James) by very knowledgeable men was not even considered by all other translators

paule · 09-22-2002, 07:08 AM

I read the NKJV. I think it's more beautiful than the NIV, and I have heard good things about it's accuracy from certain scholars. The Holy Spirit can speak through any of the mentioned versions when you have a heart eager and willing to hear. Praise God! He has made himself so accessable.

benp · 09-25-2002, 06:12 PM

I went from NIV to KJV. There are just too many things missing in NIV. Some would say, there are only few. Id say, if you want more of the word of God, why not have the closest to perfect translation. I'm not talking about adding. I know that you'd say there is no perfect translation. The question that people avoid to answer is, do we not have a perfect word of God? Look at Luke 11. In the Lord's prayer, Christ teaches us to pray to ask him to deliver us from evil. A satanist can read that passage from NIV and may use it to pray to satan. Satan will not deliver anyone from him. Also, there are titles for Satan that are now being use for Christ.

NIV will keep changing. Right now, the version is yet in its extreme left wing. The concern is the future generation.

Here is the scary part, do a research on people who are editing or edited NIV. Many are silenced.

We may debate and debate on this issue and not come into a resolution. But I do know one thing, we will all be perfected someday and will know the answers to all these questions.

LiVe41 · 09-26-2002, 04:31 PM

I LOVE the amplified version. It really gives you insight into what the scriptures are really saying. Too bad it wasn't an option...

GalatainGuy · 09-27-2002, 03:33 PM

I like the NIV most.

JustFollowing · 09-30-2002, 10:11 AM

The "original" KJV is, by most accounts, the standard by with later version are measured. If you take into account all the studying that has taken place about His teaching since our Lord was walking on the earth, and all the different ways the writers of each book saw or heard the stories, and when you consider the time we each began reading the accounts for our selves; how can any one version truly be the one and only accounting? We should study as many versions as possible to allow ourselves to grow in wisdom and understanging. Just food for thought, my fellow believers.:kroll:

romans1423 · 09-30-2002, 05:07 PM

How would studying all versions possibly help us understand the very WORDS of God when each version has different interprations? The King James Version is the only faithful translation by godly men of faith of the Textus Receptus texts. It's also the only version I know of that doesn't have internal contradictions. Sure, maybe we don't use "heareth" or "believeth" today... But should we let our intellectual laziness get in the way of studying the pure Word of God? Interestingly, 2 Timothy 3:16 says to study to show yourself approved... Look it up in any other version and you won't find a command to study... Why? If you actually study those false bibles and let the Spirit guide you, you'll be led away from them.

If there is a written "Word of God," logic would dictate that there can only be one "Word of God" in each language... Anything else would be a grievous departure from the Word!

WooTang · 09-30-2002, 07:29 PM

How would someone of the opinion that the KJV is the only true translation account for the protestant reformation, or the beliefs of Polycarp, Augustine, Wyclif, Calvin, Luther, etc. etc. etc. Since these men all lived before 1600? How do we know that these men weren't influenced by corrupted Greek and Hebrew texts? And what possible influences might these men's possibly incorrect ideas and theology have on King James' authorization of the Bible?

(gitRluver)
God said he would preserve his word not necessarily in one book all at the same time.

(Wootang)
What scripture points to this? And if this is true, what gave King James the right to decide that God wanted all His words to be in this particular version? Did he have a problem with the Geneva Bible or the Bishop Bible?

(gitRluver)
The problem I have with all other translations it that they use the manuscripts that the King James translators threw out and considered corrupt.

(Wootang)
How can this be since many of the manuscripts used for several modern translation. (e.g. NASB) use manuscripts that predate those known of by the 54 scholars and laymen that King James hired to translate the KJV?

(romans1423)
The King James Version is the only faithful translation by godly men of faith of the Textus Receptus texts.

(Wootang)
I checked with a guy I know concerning this. He uses the latest edition of the Textus Receptus and other popular Greek and Hebrew texts instead of any modern english translation. Ever heard of Queen Jezebel? The actual word in the Textus Receptus is Elizabeth. That's the exact English equivalent. However, she is obviously not refered to as Elizabeth. I wonder why? Oh yeah, it's because King James wouldn't let them! He didn't want to give the previous Queen of England, Elizabeth I, who was queen until 1603, a bad name. We wouldn't want a member of the Royal Family to be associoated with Jezebel, would we? Of course not! Now I ask, to whom were these godly men you speak of really more concerned about being faithful? The King of England, or the King of Kings? hmm......

(romans1423)
It's also the only version I know of that doesn't have internal contradictions.

(Wootang)
What are some examples of these contradictions? Perhaps you could just give examples of the NIV and NASB contradictions! I mean actual contradictions, not the stuff that gitRluver mentioned earlier. Also, please don't just give grammatical errors, because even the KJV has those. After all, the English language wasn't even around at the time the original texts were written.

(romans1423)
But should we let our intellectual laziness get in the way of studying the pure Word of God?

(Wootang)
If you really feel this way, why don't you advocate that everyone learn the original biblical languages? Also, do you know Greek and Hebrew? Maybe we should just resort to only studying the Textus Receptus
Or are you too "lazy?"

onamission · 10-02-2002, 07:12 AM

As a Bible student of some 20 years it is apparent that the King James Version is the pure word of God. If you are going to worship on the altar of the eternal than you should know in your heart of hearts that the word you have in your hand is The Pure Word of God. Without giving you volumes of information on the subject I'll say this: #1 It was translated at the height of the English language. #2 It is the only non-copywritten version of the Bible " Those others are for profit only." #3 Compare the others with the AV1611 KJV verse for verse and you will find that the diety of Christ has been taken away. In many cases the word Christ has been changed to He which opens the door to imply anyone. "Isn't the Devil tricky?" All replies may be forwarded to
"www.thebiblestudypage.com" THANK YOU!

romans1423 · 10-02-2002, 07:29 AM

Which edition of the Textus Receptus is the perfect Word of God? See here: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm (I'd post the text here, but it would violate copyright.)

The Four-Fold Superiority of the KJB (A MUST READ): http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/superiority.htm (Again, posting it here would violate copyright.)

Also, in regard to the pre-KJB Bibles, it is believed by most fundamentals that the KJB is the ultimate culmination of all Reformation period English Bibles. Of course, I can only help but wonder if the perfect English Bible would have arrived sooner than 1611 if the Roman whore (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)wasn't holding it back.

Other sites of interest on the KJB-only issue written by men of fundamental, Bible-believing faith:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm -- index of dozens of Bible articles
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BibleVersions.html -- another index of dozens of Bible articles
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleV...s/kjcbiblv.htm -- yet another index of articles

And isn't it interesting how the name "Bible believers" usually refers to a fundamental, KJB-only group? (most of the time.. there are compromising fundies out there that give us a a bad name...)

WooTang · 10-02-2002, 11:53 AM

(romans1423)
Which edition of the Textus Receptus is the perfect Word of God? See here: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm

(Wootang)
I just read that article twice. Here's an exact summmation. "How do we know the KJV is the true Word of God? Because it uses the Textus Receptus! How do we know which edition of the Textus Receptus is the perfect Word of God? It's the one used in the KJV!" For a better understanding of this concept, look in your preferred edition of Websters Dictionary under "Circular Reasoning"

I had some time to read several of the articles in the last post. That really wasn't necessary, though. I've heard most of those arguments before. Also, I don't need any more proof that the KJV-only ideology is based purely on opinion. That's really what it comes down to. We can all have opinions about how the Biblical texts have been handed down, and opinions about if and how differences in linguistic symbols can affect the outcome of theology, but it is all based on opinion. Even the proof listed for your argument are based on opinion.

romans1423 · 10-02-2002, 12:04 PM

Perfect Word of God or not, the KJB definitely seems to be the most blessed of all versions... Even the Catholics and their seemingly unending authorities (after all, the pope is "infallible".. *gag*) couldn't hold it down. The whore church has no problem with any version except for the KJV (according to the Gideons, Catholic institutions REFUSE the KJB but will accept any other version). Why? Simple, the KJV is the most powerful Bible ever translated, and it exposes Satan's greatest success... the world's largest cult.. the Roman Catholic church. Food for thought.

I don't hate Catholics... Like King David would say, I just hate their "false ways."

WooTang · 10-02-2002, 12:42 PM

Of course the KJV is anti-Catholic. King James I, formerly King James V of Scotland, was Protestant, and followed Queen Elizabeth, who was Catholic. Thus, in 1603, England changed from being Catholic to being Protestant. I doubt King James would have authorized it if it were written any other way. I hope that didn't influence how any of the 54 scholars and laymen translated the KJV.

BTW, I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church either. Martin Luther is one of my heroes!

Honestly, I don't totally disagree KJV-only people. I think the KJV is an excellent translation, yes superior some in ways. If that's the only version you want to study, that's great, go for it! But I can't stand it when people say that because their opinion of scripture is the only one that is valid, everybody else must be a heretic. (this applies to many areas of biblical study, not just inspiration)

Kori · 10-02-2002, 06:56 PM

King; And/Or New King

onamission · 10-03-2002, 12:04 PM

1Col 14:33 God is not the author of confusion. Now if I were the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe, I would have within my power the ability to preserve my word. As in Ps.12:6-7. Now either God is a liar (which he isn't), or he has preserved his word for all generations. Ps.12:6 "The words of the Lord are pure words:as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Coincidentally (not), The AV 1611 KJV is the seventh translation.
Now lets discuss the Textus Receptus. There are two versions. The classical Greek which was not spoken by many of the Greeks in that Era. Then there was the Konie Greek which was the common tongue of the day. Which by the way was the basis for the translation of the KJV.
Now lets discuss the English language. The Elizabethian form in which the KJV was translated was the heighth of the English language. And what language is everyone in the world trying to learn? ENGLISH! Example: If you are a Muslim Airline Pilot living in Iraq, and you work for an Iraqi airline and you are talking to the control tower , YOU ARE SPEAKING ENGLISH!.
Folks, Satan does not want you to have the truth in your hand!
He has muddied the water. In fact he has muddied all the waters except one.
2Tim 2:15. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, A workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Many sermons have been preached on this verse.
First of all study. Study to shew thyself approved unto God! Not man but God.
Second; Rightly dividing the word of truth. There is a division.
Question: Do you believe in your heart of hearts that the Bible you have in your hands is the pure word of God? If not then why believe any of it?
Do you think God is uncapable of preserving his Word in the English?
Stand for something or fall for everything!
Spread the Gospel of Christ and him crucified.
Spread the gospel of his ressurection.
Be thankful that you have a saviour that has the keys of Heaven and Hell.
2Tim 1:12 "For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've commited unto him against that day."
Your Brother in Christ.