Translations of the Bible

Members,

I am not looking to get a controversy going, I just wanted to make an observation.

I use an NIV translation and I am thinking about getting a KJV translation. (Krispy would be so proud, LOL).

I was reading the purpose driven thread and how Rick Warren used so many translations and paraphrases to get the quotes that fit his purposes.(Ha Ha). But it really surprised me to see how different the newer translations were in their interpretation of the scriptures.

That's all for now!

Murray

Greg,

That is so cool, right after I posted my translations of the bible statement. You posted Spurgeon's article about altering the Word of God. God is so amazing!

Murray

bro Murray
i read the good news, i also use the NIV and have been learning to use the KJV. our Lord has ministered to me through them all and i've found that although some things are lost in translation, Holy Spirit communicates exactly what the Father intends irrespective of what version i use. on s.i. i do use the KJV when i have to quote scripture since most people use that version and it has Krispy's seal of approval! :-P

Hi Murray,

I also read the NIV but found verses missing. I didn't want anything to with a "Bible" that was missing verses. So I switched to the NASB, "Not Always Scriptural Bible", Ha! And left it to. I didn't like the KJV so I went to the NKJV. After all this the Lord spoke to me and I accepted the KJV and haven't looked back. I find that I have a more sure faith in what it says. The problem... Now I have memory verses from NLT, NIV, ESV, NKJV, and KJV. I get them confused sometimes with other translations and the end result is frustrating. I stick with the KJV now.

I also had one of those guys that writes Chick tracts call me a rebel for using a modern translation. That was funny!

bro Doug

I have a book I offer for free to all who request it. It is titled 'Is the Bible you read: The True Sayings of God?' In it I show almost 500 places the bibles founded upon the alexandrian manuscripts delete or alter the Word.
If interested send your request to:
True Witness Press
P.O. Box 5519
Kalispell, MT. 59903
or e-mail paulbenson@fastmail.fm
P.S. I also have a booklet showing the error of a pre-trib rapture. Lord Bless :-)

I suggest the NASB. It correctly translates words in ways that the KJV fails. (Likewise the other way) but in my studies NASB has shown itself as a better translation than KJV. So I recommend the NASB. (New American Standard Bible)

As a student of New Testament Greek I have to also make sure that it is mentioned that the Alexandrian texts are found to be much older than the Byzantine text (Textus Receptus).

The Alexandrian text are from the 4th Century A.D. These text were the text believed to be read by the earliest church fathers. When studying these texts compared with the other found text families (Byzantine, Western, Caesarian) it can be seen how the other texts evolved from the Alexandrian.

The verses in the KJV that people say were "deleted" or "cut out" were not in the newer translations because they were not in the Alexandrian text. Nor are they found in the other text. So it is believed that these verses came from monk scholars who wrote notes next to the text. Then when the next generation was copying the text they couldn't distingush between some of the notes and the text and included these notes in the new manuscript. They were added in. However I am not denying that it couldn't have been the work of the Holy Spirit.

I just thought it would be a good idea to cover the tradition of the manuscripts. I didn't like the idea of just mentioning that "newer translations use the Alexandrian text" and "newer translations exclude some verses" without explaining why.

I personally use the NIV. NIV is used almost everywhere in America. When I am preaching and I use a verse, I want the church to be able to follow along in the pew Bibles.

Kedric

Hello...

I really appreciate the description of the [i]KJV-only[/i] ideas as mentioned by Krispy. His assessment seems to be the dividing line. Sadly, it seems that there are many more that take the first view rather than the more sensible second view.

Personally, I have not found any concrete evidence of an overall supremacy of either text sources (either the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian sources) -- even after much serious and unbiased study of this issue.

My conclusion is that I prefer to use the KJV because of the immense amount of resources available for study. Like Krispy, I consider the KJV the best translation derived from the Textus Receptus. However, I also refer to the NIV (1978). In my opinion, I consider it the best translation derived from the other sources. The argument often used against the NIV is that it deletes verses. However, it does not delete anything -- since those verses or words are not found in the sources used for translation.

When giving a Bible to new believers, I prefer to give them an NIV -- because they often tend to have difficulty understanding the archaic language of the 17th century usage found in the KJV. I also explain the differences in versions, and tell them that it is important that they eventually grow accustomed to the KJV (since it is the best translation from the Textus Receptus).

:-)

Chris, is "However, I also refer to the NIV (1978)." different from the NIV Teen Study bible?

Because I now completly dislike the NIV because of many 'missing words' and mistranslations.

I don't have 'specific' examples, but when I first starting reading the bible it was NIV for 4 months. I read that more than I ate. Studied with other believers (and thats were the curve ball comes in) When I was in a study others would quote a psalm that has the word 'blood' in it and in my NIV nothing EVEN close was in my bible. After about 5+ examples, I prayed about a different translation.

I don't mind paraphrase (even though some do, but I dont) but when a scripture isn't on the same topic, I don't care how you translated, I don't want to hear it.

(The studies that we had were diverse but the translations they used was KJV, NKJV, NASB, and AMP)

KrispK,

Great post, learned a lot from it.

fellow KJV-er

Praise Him!

Thanks for your time in replying to my post. I like a lot of from what you had to say. Yet I still don't understand why it is believed that the KJV is "The word of God" and modern translations are not. I have explained what I have learned both in school and in personal studies.

You asked if I have ever tried to witness to a JW with a NIV and I did last summer in Africa. However, they were so completely close minded they were not even willing to look at my Bible.

Being intellectually honest, as you have asked, I would have not replied with any of the replies that you believe I would have made. This brings me to the question about final authority. I would have to say scripturally as an authority would be my Greek Bible. It shows the differences between major text families in the notes. However if this was my final authority would I be forced to accept everything in it? For example, I don't believe that the earth is in the center of the universe but the Bible certainly implies in.

For my authority I turn to the Wesleyan quadrilateral. The base is scripture then the other three sources are reason, tradition, and experience. Does anybody see anything wrong with this, let me know.

Your friend Kedric

I am confident that I have a Final Authority... and it IS the Word of God. Preserved in the TR, and translated into English via the KJV, brought to us by men who gave their lives like William Tyndale.

Have you ever tried to witness to a JW using an NIV? Do you realize they have a guide in the back of the Bible they carry door to door that helps them to argue with people who try to counter their claims with a MODERN VERSION? Did you know they can eat you alive if you come at them with an NIV especially?

But they seem to run to the hills when I pull out my ol' KJV. The KJV seemingly shuts the door on their false doctrine.

brethren
i hope that whatever version one decides to use or is led to use that we consult the Final Final authority, Holy Spirit. irrespective of the text used, without Him we're not going to learn anything of any use to God anyway.

Funny thing, I saw Ron's post about Tydale so I decided to google "Tydale's translation" to do some studying on it and the FIRST hit was a copy of Tydale's translation at some Weslyan school of applied theology made available by none other than Ron. So thanks for making that available Ron.

-quote"The KJV translators consciously altered several key doctrinal points by their change of words from Tyndale's translation."

Hey Ron,I was wondering what some of the "key doctrinal points" are. If there's a good website or something with good info I'd be most apprectiative. I am also curious as to what you would consider to be the best english translation of the Bible.

Just curious,

What is the "preserved Word of God" to an Albanian believer who doesn't speak a lick of English, and who doesn't know anything save the power and purity of the Word of God from his own Albanian bible?

Would someone be so arrogant and pharisaical to tell him he needs to learn English so he can understand the KJV and get the "genuine" Word? What about the millions of Chinese and Korean believers who have great fellowship and prayer and devotion [i]without[/i] the English KJV being read and taught from their pulpits? Indeed, it's not the KJV that counts, but the manuscript from which the Word of God is translated, and the believer's faith which activates it (Hebrews 4:2) and the anointing of the Holy Spirit which illuminates it (John 14:26; I Cor. 2:14).

So, I guess the question now is: If all the Chinese and Mongolian and Punjabi and Abkhasian and Russian Bibles are translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV was, would not these Bibles be the "preserved" Word of God as well? Of course! It would be the epitome of ignorance to think otherwise.

Now, as an advanced Russian linguist and one fluent in the intricacies of the modern slang and colloquilisms of the language, I know that there are many Russian words, idioms, phrases, and grammatical concepts that would seem quite foreign and nonsensical in English if translated directly. Most Slavic and Baltic languages have a completely different way of grammatical thinking and many English words and ideas sound utterly foolish when translated verbatim. Yet all these exotic and highly complicated and incompatible-to-English languages have produced native Bibles which, in turn, have produced saved and sanctified believers with remaining fruit, and many of these believing fellowships see moves of God equal to, and if not greater than what we see here in the West with all our empty theology, translation-squabbling and KJV glorying.

Personally, I believe God is so far beyond our translation squabbles; indeed, there is a matter so much more dire at hand! The KJV doesn't need to be deliberated, defended, downsized or demagogued - rather, it needs to be obeyed and lived! The NIV, NLT, NASB and CEV all need to be lived. I believe that through any one of these translations God can bring sweeping revival, if their adherents would only humble themselves and trust and obey what they read.

Brother Paul

[i](edit. - I study, read, teach, and preach from the KJV. It is my preference for the Word of God in English. But I also read the Russian New Testament and experience the same majesty, joy and cleansing when I read the words of Jesus Christ in that language.)[/i]

I'm not particularly fond of the KJV translation of Romans 8:1

Romans 8:1 (KJV)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Almost all of the new versions translate it something like this:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

The KJV makes justification a matter of works (in this verse) and if that is what is in the Textus Receptus, I have to lean toward the Alexandrian texts.

My opinion
Feel free to disagree without being disagreeable

This issue is indeed a bit of a headache for the English-speaking Christian communities. As much as I love and embrace the KJV, I do believe that God, the Holy Spirit, can use any Bible to teach anything if HE so pleases anytime.

Whenever I fellowship with the Chinese-speaking Christians, I appreciate the simplicity of studying the Chinese Bible without hardly any debates over translation problems. Even though there will still be debates over exegesis.

God can teach us with any version, I believe, but there are times, one does have to speak out against falsity and errors, whether they be translations, interpretations, or doctrines.

bro Paul
i'm with you,at the end of the day it is not the text but the Spirit which inspired the text. the believers of old didn't have copies of the scriptures to study for themselves daily, they listened to them and Holy Spirit illuminated the scriptures for them. i use a few different versions and God ministers to me irrespectve of which text i use. i think also the testitmony of the believers who despite not having a KJV or T.R. derived version of the word on hand still do mighty things for God WITHOUT it speaks to the work of the Spirit of God in this matter. what of us who do have the T.R. derived versions, what have we to show for having the supposedly preserved word of God? isn't it amazing that we are put to shame by people who often times don't have resources like we do in as much as their labours for the kingdom of God? it seems to me we have tapped into every resource except the one which counts, Holy Spirit. it is evident that we neither have much knowledge of nor appreciation for this third member of the Godhead, if we did we'd know that it is by Him that the scriptures are illumined for us. Brethren let us repent of our prides and call out to God that He may send His Holy Spirit upon us afresh!

If nothing else let this be plain to us all, even if one has the T.R. or the very original writings themselves, without God's Holy Spirit to illumine the scriptures, it simply doesn't matter.

At no time did I ever claim the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God.

And at no time did I ever say you did. :-)

My point was that God can anoint and give life through both texts. People have been soundly saved through reading the NIV, CEV, NLT. I had my first encounter with God's Spirit while reading John chapter 10 in the TEV back in 1989. Are you prepared to sharpshoot because of the version's text? I think this is what happens when people get puffed up with knowledge, and are no longer content to rest in the simplicity of Christ and contend for their own walks. Because of the inward emptiness from leaving their first love, they have to now project their biases and become a type of 'theological watchdog' and argue over stuff as inconsequential as how much water to use in baptism and which version of the Bible holds the magic key to get them into heaven. Many of those KJV-only websites and fundamental, Bible-based discernment ministries are grievous and completely unctionless. Revolting.

I preach, teach and meditate on the KJV (there are a few translations that I disdain), but I also recognize that God uses the other translations as well (yes, even those based on the Alexandrian manuscripts) to soundly save people and feed them. But my choice is the KJV because of its poignancy, it's exhaltation of the deity of Jesus and its amazing history of God-stamped approval. William Tyndale, to me, should be heralded as the greatest Englishman EVER; Shakespeare and Newton can't hold a candle to his genius. They say he spoke eight languages with native fluidity.

Anyway, these conversations have a tendency to turn ugly real fast. The cause is not which version is God's - the real cause, rather, is pride, and a lack of submission unto the Word, regardless of which translation you subscribe to. The NIV has some very beautiful, powerful passages. I sincerely belive that one can read the NIV all their life, live holy, experience personal revival, see God move, continually abide in the Holy Spirit, have a lasting, weeping burden for souls, and be taken up to glorious heaven when they die - never having opened a page of the KJV or studied the Textus Receptus.

And God won't hold it against them.

Can you dig? 8-)

I have been wondering working on the amount of today s version and New ________ you can put in the bible.

Will they make these new bibles so unreadable I mean with the degradation of language through the influences of television and the media what is going to be the products that are sooner or later going to line are christian bookstore shelves.

The average readership of the Sun in england is for a 12 year old , how illiturate will bible readers get. Sooner or later they will combine the childrens section with the adult section of bibles because the readibilty is so much more easier I would hate to think if it got down that low.

Also when a new translation comes out when people are trying to modernize it , they do not think about the increase in sin in society which has affected the bible but that is not saying that there was sin before.
That the english language although modernized I do not disdane making the bible easier to read or translating the bible into a language so that people understand it and cultures can be changed my it.
How dumb are we going to get? I have been studying languages and have realised that languages do change but is it not better than rather dumbing down the scriptures that we educate ourselves to understand them.
Charles Spurgeon started polytechnics or was influental in learing and education. I am paraphrasing from this book

Charles Spurgeon: The Prince of Preachers (Heroes of the Faith) (Mass Market Paperback)[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Charles-Spurgeon-Prince-Preachers-Heroes/dp/1593106254]Book[/url]

Working in a christian bookshop recently it breaks my heart to see a sell on bibles and noone is buying them.

Are country desperatly needs the word of god as the church could more likely quote friends than something from the word of god(jesus)
and I want to use every waking hour to get the bible out to the masses.

Dom

I too am looking for truth. However, I am very unlikely to accept the KJV as "The only Word of God" for the reasoning give thus far. I would like to ask a couple more questions to those KJV readers.

"Since we both agree there is two different schools of text"
I am aware of 4 different families of text.

"They cant both be the preserved Word of God. It would be like taking two John Grisham books, say The Client and A Time To Kill... and saying that they are the same book. Hey, they have the same author... the story lines both take place in the South... they are the same book!"
I am sorry, but I can't agree with this at all. I have read most of the major differences between the translations. They both tell the same story. This argument doesn't make any sense to me. Please tell me why they both can't be the word of God. Also, what do you mean when you say the word of God? Please explain.

Also, back to what somebody else said earlier. It was mentioned by them that they believed that the Alexandrain texts were skewed by gnostics. However, after looking through the differences between the translations, I do not see the Alexandrian texts favoring gnostic ideology at all. Could you please explain your research in this area further?

Your friend Kedric

PaulWest, wow, I've been deeply blessed by your posts. It very much streched me spiritually.

Dom, I"m reading that book right now!! About Spuregon. Woo hoo!

Kedric, I know exactually where your coming from. I feel the same way. But when I say exactually what you said. I get the response "If you change the words, you change the meanings. Different words have different meanings and implications." And I still don't think that is a solid enough response.

For example, I telemarket. (Sigh, leaving soon though! Yea!!!) Anywho, we say. "Did you rebuttle them?" Or "Did you give them a good quality responce back?" rebuttle and responce are the same thing. Very similar and I don't see a 'major' difference to say, one word is better than the other. The point comes across and that's really all that matters (at least to me)

Krispy, "So I absolutely agree that there is truth in the NIV. But I believe it has been tampered with and corrupted." I totally agree with that!! I used the NIV and with the studies that I did, man o man, the word 'blood' was missing and many other things untop of that. I'm a NASB man!

Ha. Thanks for the blessings guys!!

Hi Krispy,.I agree with what you say about the KJV. What a masterpiece.The other versions pale in comparison to this translation. I have found the web site http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ very interesting and informative on the KJV issue.I believe one can be saved with the minimal of biblical knowledge .The bible also puts a limit on itself by stating that its purpose is .…..All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works…..
The bible also states that …So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
The points I want to make is that the version you read wont save you, and that the bible has a power of its own irrespective of the talking head quoting it.
However, the integrity of God is at stake as he has promised to preserve his word forever.If he cannot preserve his word then he is a liar and he cannot save mankind.So the question is..has he done this? I believe he has and the KJV in the English language is proof of this.
A kilogram is a kilogram,a pound a pound.We have one ruler,,the KJV bloodline.Why conquer and divide by using other rulers?For the record I do not worship the bible but the God it points me to.There is no knowledge outside the bible.
Greetings

Dear Paul,

This is so well stated it bears repeating, and so it is below. Here is another piece that is very helpful; [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=10811&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Preface to the King James Version 1611[/url]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just curious,

What is the "preserved Word of God" to an Albanian believer who doesn't speak a lick of English, and who doesn't know anything save the power and purity of the Word of God from his own Albanian bible?

Would someone be so arrogant and pharisaical to tell him he needs to learn English so he can understand the KJV and get the "genuine" Word? What about the millions of Chinese and Korean believers who have great fellowship and prayer and devotion without the English KJV being read and taught from their pulpits? Indeed, it's not the KJV that counts, but the manuscript from which the Word of God is translated, and the believer's faith which activates it (Hebrews 4:2) and the anointing of the Holy Spirit which illuminates it (John 14:26; I Cor. 2:14).

So, I guess the question now is: If all the Chinese and Mongolian and Punjabi and Abkhasian and Russian Bibles are translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV was, would not these Bibles be the "preserved" Word of God as well? Of course! It would be the epitome of ignorance to think otherwise.

Now, as an advanced Russian linguist and one fluent in the intricacies of the modern slang and colloquilisms of the language, I know that there are many Russian words, idioms, phrases, and grammatical concepts that would seem quite foreign and nonsensical in English if translated directly. Most Slavic and Baltic languages have a completely different way of grammatical thinking and many English words and ideas sound utterly foolish when translated verbatim. Yet all these exotic and highly complicated and incompatible-to-English languages have produced native Bibles which, in turn, have produced saved and sanctified believers with remaining fruit, and many of these believing fellowships see moves of God equal to, and if not greater than what we see here in the West with all our empty theology, translation-squabbling and KJV glorying.

Personally, I believe God is so far beyond our translation squabbles; indeed, there is a matter so much more dire at hand! The KJV doesn't need to be deliberated, defended, downsized or demagogued - rather, it needs to be obeyed and lived! The NIV, NLT, NASB and CEV all need to be lived. I believe that through any one of these translations God can bring sweeping revival, if their adherents would only humble themselves and trust and obey what they read.

Brother Paul

([i]edit. - I study, read, teach, and preach from the KJV. It is my preference for the Word of God in English. But I also read the Russian New Testament and experience the same majesty, joy and cleansing when I read the words of Jesus Christ in that language.[/i])

Hello. I took a look into 1 John 3:6 and thought you would like to see what I found. I found that both the alexandrian and textus receptus have exactly the same Greek. This is my work if you are interested.

1 John 3:6
πας ο εν αυτω μενων ουχ αμαρτανει πας ο αμαρτανων ουχ εωρακεν αυτον ουδε εγνωκεν αυτον

All/Everyone/whoever – the – in – (to) him – remains/abides/stands – Not – sin (present active passive) – All/Everyone/whoever – the – one who sins (present active Indicative) – not - experience/behold/perceive/see (Perfect active indicative) – Him – nor – know (Perfect active indicative) - him

My translation: Whoever remains in Him does not sin (now): The one who sins (now) has not experienced Him nor knew him.
(In the Greek there is an emphasis on the fact that they have not seen him or known him and the emphasis is showing that it is greatly affecting them now and will continue to affect them in the future.)

After looking at the translation I have found that I have no idea where the NIV gets "keeps on sinning." This is indeed a thought which the authors believed was in the Greek text. I will explain why they would add it.

There are three types of Bible translations
Literal – Word for word (Tries to match straight from the Greek)

Dynamic Equivalent – Thought for thought (Tries to match straight from original message and tries to fix an easier read)

Paraphrase – Not a translation at all (How the authors translates the thoughts and language)

The NIV translation must be a Dynamic Equivalent translation. One in which I should stop using as my primary Bible. I want to use a literal translation that is not worried about the thought of the text but translates straight words from Greek to English.

The list of literal Bible translations that I have found is a sad list of only 9 translations. Some I have never heard of. The list of the more mainstream ones include: King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New King James Version, and New American Standard Bible.

The NASB translation is the translation that most scholars and most denominations agree is the closest to the literal Greek from what I understand. It is also highly respected because of its great use of some of the oldest Greek manuscripts discovered (most discovered after KJV was published). I am not trying to bash the KJV because I agree that it is a literal translation. I also now know that despite the translation issues, there are some issues that could go deeper.

Those who search for the truth with all of their heart and soul will find it as I will soon find out the Bible translation in which God wants me to use.

I will let you know what I find.

Your friend Kedric

Kedric

All/Everyone/whoever – the – in – (to) him – remains/abides/stands – Not – sin (present active passive) –

The participle is often used to convey the sense of something which is characteristic. eg John 3:16 refers not to one who 'believed' as a crises event but one who is a 'believing one'. This is achieved in John 3:16 by the use of the definite article with the present participle of the verb. 1 John 3:6 has a combination of present indicative and present participles (and two perfects). If you drift the cursor over the Greek words in [url=http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=1John+3%3A6]1John 3:6[/url] you will see, in particular the switch from the present indicative to the present participle of the verb harmartanO - to sin. (this is a great site, btw, for folks dipping in to Greek although it does use the Nestle Alland text.)

So what is the significance of this construction? The more literal equivalence version would be something like:
[color=0000ff]'the abiding one'[/color] (participle: whose characteristic is that he 'abides') [color=0000ff]in Him, sins[/color] (indicative) [color=0000ff]not.[/color] (In other words the one who is habitually abiding in Him sins not.) [color=0000ff]'the sinning one'[/color] (present participle) [color=0000ff]has not seen him, nor known him.[/color] (seen and known are both in the Perfect tense).

The Greek Present Indicative is more akin to our present continuous tense so the NIV has tried to convey that. I have put it, above, into a simple present form.

As regards Literal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence, no translation is 'either/or' of these positions. It is just that some translations are 'more' Literal Equivalence and some are 'more' Dynamic Equivalence.

The sense of 1 John 3:6 is... someone who is habitually abiding in Christ is not going to sin, whereas someone who is habitually sinning has neither seen nor known Christ. An individual cannot be characterised by 'abiding in Him' and 'sinning' at the same time; these two habitual or characteristic conditions are mutually exclusive.

Who can understand all that academia or needs to if their heart is set on God. Is not the context of His word sufficient to explain the broad picture of His desires for union with Himself? Any sincere for Him will readily see that the word abide connotes a continual action that will bring intimacy with Him. No one need to have to jump thru the hoops of participle indictives for understanding. All of that way will produce nothing more than "Academia nuts".

ου δυναται δε οφθαλμος ειπειν τη χειρι, Χρειαν σου ουκ εχω· η παλιν η κεφαλη τοις ποσι, Χρειαν υμων ουκ εχω.

...which is a way of saying, if some godly men had not used their linguistic abilities your New Testament would still be in Greek. :-)