For some Christians, King James is the only Bible

I love the KJV! It is one of the longest lasting translations of the Bible and has stood the test of time. Though I wouldn't go as far as Chris Huff, a standard Bible helps formulate doctrine and aids memorization.

The 1560 Geneva Bible is more accurate than the KJV. Consider this. In 1611 when the KJV was written and published, Catholic persecution of what they called Heretics was in full force. Take a look at Mark 10 Verse 19. The KJV says - Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
The word defraud meansG650 ἀποστερέω apostereō
ap-os-ter-eh'-o
From G575 and στερέω stereō (to deprive); to despoil: - defraud, destitute, kept back by fraud.
The same passage in the Geneva Bible says this - Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the comandements, Thou shalt not commit adulterie. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steale. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse. Thou shalt hurt no man. Honour thy father and mother.
The word hurt has a much broader meaning - Hurt
HURT, v.t. pret. and pp. hurt.

1. To bruise; to give pain by a contusion, pressure, or any violence to the body. We hurt the body by a severe blow, or by tight clothes, and the feet by fetters. Psa 105.

2. To wound; to injure or impair the sound state of the body,as by incision or fracture.

3. To harm; to damage; to injure by occasioning loss. We hurt a man by destroying his property.

4. To injure by diminution; to impair.

5. To injure by reducing in quality; to impair the strength,purity or beauty of.

6. To harm; to injure; to damage, in general.

7. To wound; to injure; to give pain to; as, to hurt the feelings.

HURT, n. A wound; a bruise; any thing that gives pain to the body.

1. Harm; mischief; injury.

2. Injury; loss.
Why would the KJV change that?
Romans 13:13 KJV says Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
Geneva says Rom 13:13 So that wee walke honestly, as in the day: not in gluttonie, and drunkennesse, neither in chambering and wantonnes, nor in strife and enuying.
What is the difference between Gultony and Rioting, something you might want to look up. They carry different meanings. History records that King James was a glutton. In many instances where glutony was spoken of in the Geneva bible, the KJV changed the word to rioting. Romans 9:5, the KJV says this - Pay close attention to the punctuation in this verse.Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Now the Geneva Version - Rom 9:5 Of whome are the fathers, and of whome concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God ouer all, blessed for euer, Amen. This minor change in punctuation has stripped the diety of Christ. Some have estimated that as much as 18% of the KJV suffers from this kind of change. Also consider this, no one died for the King James Bible, but many thousands were persecuted unto death for the 1560 Geneva Reformers bible. History records that many of the fires that burned the martyrs were fuled with reformers bibles. Don't believe me look it up for yourself. I refer to Acts 17:11. It is difficult to get your hands on a Geneva Bible. Amazon sells them for about $50.00 in Hardcopy. They are much more difficult to read but worth the effort. There is a free program called E-Sword that has an electronic version of the Geneva Bible and many other bible translations and resources that I highly recommend that every believer use. It is a very valuable tool in Bible study.I make this post in an effort to point believers to the truth, not simply to trash a version of the Bible. God Bless

Tyndale wrote the Tyndale bible which preceeded even the geneva bible. He absolutely did not die for the KJV, you facts are incorrect. Read the Difference between Romans 9:5 in the Geneva vs. KJV. Doctrinal? Is Jesus God? Is that trivial. Look, I;m just pointing out that we have to search all that is available to us to find the truth. God Bless

"Is it still possible to get a copy of the origianl Geneva Bible?"

You can download a program called E-Sword for your computer and one of the bible versions you can download is the Geneva bible, I am not sure how true that version is to an original Geneva but its a free program though the founder and creator appreciates donation, money is definitely not his push or focus.

Yot36, have you forgotten that the original Greek had no puncutation?

CyAn wrote:
BTW, William Tyndale died for this Bible, this manuscript...

The King James only people want to tie him to the KJV of the Bible to give them more validity, but we cannot say someone died for a version 75 years after the fact, just because the KJ scholars might have used his transcripts. That is too take away from his martyr’s death, in my humble opinion.

------------------------------------

He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted. Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." This prayer was answered three years later, in the publication of King Henry VIII’s 1539 English “Great Bible”.

The place where he translated the New Testament, is thought to have been Wittenberg, under the aid of Martin Luther.

Tyndale was a theologian and scholar who translated the Bible into an early form of Modern English. He was the first person to take advantage of Gutenberg’s movable-type press for the purpose of printing the scriptures in the English language. Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England which was established by Henry VIII. His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

God bless you,
Lisa

SermonIndex,

I would like to ask you what your purpose is for opening up this thread. Are you wanting to encourage discussion on the King James Bible?

Do you have disdain for those that think the KJV is the only Bible that they want to read or are you for that? I can't figure out where you stand.

If you are opening up this thread for discussion on the KJV, I hope you are ready for some things that you may not like (if you are not a KJV'er) and then I hope you will not lock down the thread if the discussion does not go your way?

I just want to know your agenda and what I might be getting into before I post.

Would you please make your full intentions known to us as to why you opened this thread?

I found a website that gives links to where you can access various old versions of the Bible such as Tyndale, Geneva, Douay-Rheims, etc. You may want to favorite/bookmark this valuable resource:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html

I like and have use the New American Standard for a long time, it's just easier for me "personally" to understand. Would it be better for me to use a version I don't understand a lot of the words? or better if I used a version I understand, that speaks to me on "my level"? We must remember that the Bible is a spiritual book and is understandable to those who are led by God's Spirit, It is not possible for the natural man to understand it "1 Corinthians 2:14". I don't think it will be held against me at the judgment seat.

Ok, I'll take the bait and see what happens.

A Comparison of the New American Standard Version (NASV)

with the Authorised King James Bible (KJB)

You will notice that archaic words are not the issue in this comparison, but rather gross omissions and changes (perversions) of the Word. The "Archaic" argument is a "Red Herring". Keep reading and you will be astonished at the omissions and changes.

The whole issue of this confusion engendered by such a multiplicity of versions is narrowed down to the following: If the reader believes the Bible to be the verbally, plenary, inspired Word of God in the original manuscripts, then of necessity he must believe that God has providentially preserved it through the ages down to the present hour. For the Holy Spirit has recorded in Psalm 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

The Psalmist tells us (12:6): "The words of the Lord are pure words:

as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." And again in Psalm 119:140: "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." If we believe God has, in His great and sovereign Providence, preserved His Book intact through the ages, then there’s but one question left: "Which version is nearest to the original manuscripts?" We maintain with solid substantial proof that the KING JAMES VERSION is that version.

The following analysis of the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (NASV) compared with the KING JAMES VERSION (KJV) is enlightening, to say the least! And, also, disheartening! We have noted that some very fine evangelicals (a number of whom we know personally) have highly and heartily endorsed the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (NASV). We just cannot understand it, and we feel sure you will agree after reading this pamphlet. The facts are here. They cannot be denied. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that these fine evangelicals read the NASV through completely.

The reader will note in the following examples that doubt is cast again and again upon the infallibility of God’s Holy Word when verse after verse is radically changed or omitted - often times without any explanation.

Leviticus 6:21 NASV: "... as a soothing aroma to the Lord." KJV: "for a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Whoever heard of soothing a sovereign God!) The same is found in Leviticus 8:28, 17:6, and 23:18.

1 Kings 19:12 NASV: "... a sound of a gentle blowing." KJV: "... a still small voice." (In the English language, there’s a vast difference between "a gentle blowing" and "a still small voice!" I’m sure the reader will agree.)

I Kings 20:38 NASV: "... with a bandage over his eyes." KJV: "... with ashes upon his face." (In English, "ashes" and "bandage" are two different words entirely.)

Isaiah 53:10 NASV: "... If He would render Himself as a guilt offering." KJV: "... When thou Shalt make his soul an offering for sin..." (This, in our humble opinion, is a very serious perversion.)

Hosea 11:12 NASV: "... Judah is also unruly against God, Even against the Holy one who is faithful." KJV: "... but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.’ (What is this but perversion!)

Matthew 12:6 NASV: "... that something greater than the temple is here." KJV: "... That in this place is one greater than the temple."

Matthew 12:42 NASV: "... behold, something greater than Solomon is here." KJV: "... behold, a greater than Solomon is here."

Matthew 19:17 NASV: "... ‘Why are you asking Me about what is good?’"

KJV: "... Why callest thou me good?"

Mark 3:5 NASV: "... and his hand was restored." KJV: "his hand was restored whole as the other. "

Mark 6:51b NASV: "... and they were greatly astonished." KJV: "... and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered."

Mark 7:16 NASV: The verse is eliminated here and is placed in the margin in very small italicised type. KJV: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." (This would cause the reader to doubt the accuracy or authenticity of this verse.)

Mark 9:24 NASV: "... ‘I do believe; help me in my unbelief’" KJV: "...

Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

Mark 9:46 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note referring to verse 43 which says, "Verses 44 and 46, which are identical with verse 48, are omitted by the best ancient manuscripts." (The "best ancient manuscripts" are Codex B and Codex Aleph, both of which are the worst of manuscripts with the most errors and have proved to be the most unreliable.) KJV: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 10:24 NASV: "... ‘Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!’" KJV: "... Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"

Mark 11:10 NASV: "... ‘Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David’" KJV: "Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

Mark 11:26 NASV: Omitted entirely but placed in the margin in italics explaining that "later manuscripts add verse 26." (The later manuscripts in many cases are better by far than the earlier ones.) KJV: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 16:9-20 NASV: Gives the footnote, "Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20." (In John Burgon’s book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, he has written over 400 pages proving conclusively that this section was in the original manuscripts. Burgon’s book remains unanswered and is unanswerable.)

Luke 2:33 NASV: "And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him." KJV: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things that were spoken of him." (God was the father of our Lord Jesus Christ - not Joseph!)

Luke 4:8 NASV: Omits entirely, "Get thee behind me, Satan."

Luke 4:18 NASV: Omits entirely, "he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted." (There’s no explanation whatever.)

Luke 9:55, 56 NASV: "But He turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village." In the margin they say "Later manuscripts add, `and said, You do not know what kind of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’" (Again, this casts doubt on the veracity, the authenticity of this passage.)

Luke 11:2 NASV: :And He said to them, ‘When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come." KJV: "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth."

Luke 11:29b NASV: "... but the sign of Jonah." KJV: "... but the sign of Jonas the prophet."

Luke 23:17 NASV: Omitted, but has a marginal note stating: "Some manuscripts insert verse 17, `Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.’" KJV: "(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)" (Again, this casts doubt on a passage in God’s Word.)

Luke 23:23b NASV: "... And their voices began to prevail," KJV: "And

the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed"

Luke 23:42 NASV: "And he was saying, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!’" There is no explanation for leaving out "Lord, remember me" KJV: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

Luke 24:40 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note, reading, "Some manuscripts add verse 40, ‘And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.’" (This again casts doubt on such a wonderful verse.)

John 3:13b NASV: "... even the Son of Man." KJV: "... even the Son of man which is in heaven."

John 5:4 NASV: Omitted, but refers to a marginal note which says, "Many authorities insert [verse 4] wholly or in part." (This injects another doubt as to the authority and accuracy of God’s Word.)

John 5:16 NASV: "And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath." KJV: "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day." (There is no reason given for omitting this phrase.)

John 6:33 NASV: "`For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.’" KJV: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven and giveth Life unto the world."

John 6:69 "`And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.’" KJV: "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

John 7:53 NASV: "And everyone went to his home". There is a marginal note here stating that "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most of the old manuscripts." (This is not true. The British Museum has 73 manuscripts and 61 have this passage. Doubtless Aleph and B are referred to as "old manuscripts" and they are two of the worst as we have noted before.)

John 8:9 NASV: "And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one..." KJV: "And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one..." (No reason is given for omitting this phrase.)

John 8:59 NASV: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." KJV: "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" (Quite a different thought.)

John 9:4 NASV: "’We must work the works of Him who sent Me...’" KJV:

"I must work the works of him that sent me..."

John 9:35b NASV: "’Do you believe in the Son of Man?’" KJV: "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

John 10:30 NASV: "’I and the Father are one.’" KJV: "I and my Father are one."

John 17:5 NASV: "...’glorify Thou Me together with Thyself...’" KJV:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Acts 8:37 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note stating, "Late manuscripts insert verse 37, ‘And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’" (Both Codex Aleph and B leave this verse out and they are two of the worst manuscripts: again this casts doubt upon another section of God’s Word.) KJV: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 9:5, 6 NASV: "And he said, ‘Who art Thou, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must must do.’" KJV: "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." (Truly the translators have emasculated these two verses and give no reason at all for their omission. Again they would inject a doubt into the mind of the one who believes the Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God.)

Acts 9:20 NASV: "and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus...." KJV:

"And straightway he preached Christ..."

Acts 10:37 NASV: "you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed." KJV: "That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached."

Acts 15:11 NASV: "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they also are." KJV: "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."

Acts 15:34 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note "Some manuscripts add verse 34, ‘But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.’" KJV:

"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still." (Another doubt cast on God’s Word.)

Acts 16:31 NASV: "And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household’" KJV: "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Again they omit the name "Christ.")

Acts 20:24 NASV: The following is omitted, "But none of these things move me," and no reason is given for the omission. KJV: "But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy..."

Acts 24:6, 7 NASV: Most of this has been omitted and only a weak explanation is given in the margin.

Acts 28:29 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note saying, "Some manuscripts add verse 29..." (The vast majority "add" this verse. This is still another doubt cast upon the Word of God.)

Romans 1:16 NASV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God..." KJV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:" (The translators seem to dislike the word "Christ" very much!)

Romans 15:19 NASV: "in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit so that from Jerusalem and round about..." KJV: "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God..."

Romans 16:24 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note stating, "Some ancient manuscripts add verse 24, ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.’" (The vast majority add this verse, not just "some".)

1 Corinthians 5:4 NASV: "In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus." (In both cases the name "Christ" is omitted with no reason given. Why do the translators of the NASV dislike the name "Christ" so much?)

1 Corinthians 5:7b NASV: "... For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." KJV: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." (If Christ is not sacrificed FOR US we cannot be saved!)

1 Corinthians 6:20 NASV: "For you have been bought with a price:

therefore glorify God in your body." KJV: "For ye are brought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." (Reasons for omitting this are inadequate.)

1 Corinthians 9:1b NASV: "... Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" KJV:

"... Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (There is no reason given for omitting the name "Christ," and again they show their dislike for the name "Christ.")

1 Corinthians 11:11b NASV: "... nor is man independent of woman." KJV:

"... neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

1 Corinthians 11:24 NASV: "and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’" KJV: "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘Take eat: this is my body, which is broken for you...’"

1 Corinthians 16:23 NASV: "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you." KJV: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." (Why do they keep insisting on eliminating the name "Christ?")

2 Corinthians 5:17b NASV: "... behold, new things have come." KJV:

"... behold, all things are become new."

2 Corinthians 10:4 NASV: "for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses." KJV: "(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.)"

2 Corinthians 11:31 NASV: "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus..." KJV: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (We ask in all sincerity, "Are the translators anxious to get rid of the name `Christ’ altogether?")

Galatians 2:20 NASV: "’I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.’" KJV: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."

Galatians 6:17b NASV: "... for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus." KJV: "... for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." (It seems as if they don’t like the name "Lord" either.)

Ephesians 3:14 NASV: "For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father." KJV: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. " (We ask in all sincerity, "Would the translators wish to get rid of the name entirely?")

Ephesians 5:9 NASV: "(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth)." KJV: "(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth.)"

Colossians 1:14 NASV: "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." KJV: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Why omit the blood?)

Colossians 2:2b NASV: "... resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself." KJV: "... to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ."

Colossians 2:11b NASV: "... in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." KJV: "... in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."

1 Thessalonians 2:19b NASV: "... in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?" KJV: "... in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?"

1 Thessalonians 3:11 NASV: "Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you." KJV: "Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you."

1 Timothy 1:1 NASV: "... and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope." KJV:

"... and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope."

1 Timothy 1:17 NASV: "... the only God, be honour and glory..." KJV:

"... the only wise God, be honour..."

1 Timothy 3:16 NASV: "... He who was revealed in the flesh." KJV: "...

God was manifest in the flesh."

1 Timothy 5:21 NASV: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus..." KJV: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Timothy 6:1b "... that the name of God and our doctrine may not be spoken against." KJV: "... that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."

2 Timothy 3:3b NASV: "... haters of good." KJV: "... despisers of those that are good." (Quite a difference in the meaning of the two phrases.)

2 Timothy 4:1 NASV: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus." KJV: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ..."

Titus 1:4b NASV "... from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour."

KJV: "... from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."

Philemon 6b NASV: "... which is in you for Christ’s sake." KJV: "... which is in you in Christ Jesus."

Hebrews 1:3b NASV: "... when He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." KJV: "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Jesus Christ did it ALONE and FOR US!)

Hebrews 3:1 NASV: "Therefore, holy brethren; partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." KJV: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Christ Jesus."

Hebrews 7:21b "Thou art a priest forever." KJV: "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (There is no explanation for the omission.)

Hebrews 10:30 NASV: "For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’" KJV: "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord."

Hebrews 11:6b NASV: "... He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." KJV:

"he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

1 Peter 3:15 NASV: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts..." KJV: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts." (Is this another attempt to do away with the Deity of our Lord as in 1 Timothy 3:16?)

1 John 1:7b NASV: "... and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." KJV: "... and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (Let’s not stop the translators of getting rid of the name "Christ," they’re on a roll!)

1 John 2:20 NASV: "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know." KJV: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."

1 John 3:16 NASV: "We know love by this..." KJV: "Hereby perceive we the love of God."

1 John 4:19 NASV: "We love because He first loved us." KJV: "We love him because he first loved us."

1 John 5:6, 7 NASV: The majority of both of these verses is omitted and there is no mention in the margin as to why there is an omission.

1 John 5:13b NASV: "... in order that you may know that you have eternal life." KJV: "... that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the Name of the Son of God." (No reason is given for this phrase being omitted.)

2 John 3 NASV: "Grace mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love." KJV: "Grace be with you, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love."

Jude 25 NASV: "to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord..." KJV: "To the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Another attempt to remove the Deity of our Lord?)

Revelation 1:9b NASV: "... and the testimony of Jesus." KJV: "...and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Revelation 6:17 NASV: "for the great day of their wrath has come; and who is able to stand?" KJV: "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (There is quite a difference between THEIR wrath and HIS wrath!)

Revelation 8:13 NASV: "... and I heard an eagle flying..." KJV: "... and I heard an angel flying..."

Revelation 15:3b NASV: "... Thou King of the nations." KJV: "... thou King of saints."

Revelation 16:7 NASV: "And I heard the altar saying..." KJV: "And I heard Another out of the Altar say..."

In this analysis we have sought to be factual and fair. The reader may have noted, or you can go over it again and check for yourself, the following: Sixteen times the Name "Christ" as applied to our Lord and Saviour is omitted with no reason given; twelve times the Name "Lord" is omitted in connection with our Saviour and also with no reason given.

If all of these deletions of Names properly ascribed to Jesus Christ and verses or long passages, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 to 8:1-11, are to be removed from God’s Holy Word, we ask, "WHERE is the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration gone?" ALL we have left is a fallible Book, filled with errors and names and verses that should not be there. If this is the case then we are indeed "of all men most miserable."

When it comes to this blessed Word of God, and we are forced to follow the findings of the so-called critical scholars, we feel like Mary of old as she stands weeping before the sepulchre and the angels say unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" She saith unto them, "Because they have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid Him."

But thanks be to God this is NOT the case! We have an infallible, inerrant, verbally inspired Book to fall back upon in which we rest our weary souls for Time and Eternity. At the beginning of the Christian Era, the Holy Spirit personally superintended the collation of the twenty-seven books which comprise our New Testament and also in the arrangement of them in the Sacred Canon.

Just so, we are as firmly convinced that the same Blessed Holy Spirit was personally involved in the choosing of the men who comprised the committee of translators of the KING JAMES VERSION. They were giants in the realm of scholarship. All one needs do is to read the roster and a thumbnail sketch of each of their achievements (see Which Bible, page 13, "The Learned Men" by Rev. Terence Brown, Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of Great Britain).

There have been many versions of the Holy Scriptures since the KING JAMES VERSION was published but not one committee of these versions has suffered for their faith except the committee of the KING JAMES VERSION. Some were imprisoned or threatened with imprisonment. Many if not all had loved ones or friends who had gone to the stake or endured banishment or prison terms. Why? Because they believed the Bible to be the Very Word of the Living God and "loved not their lives unto the death." This fact speaks volumes, Such men had convictions and held the Bible in reverence and awe and thus handled it and translated it with the greatest care and precision, knowing they must give an account before the Judgement Seat of Christ some day.

You see, God knew what He was doing - as He always does - in the timing of the production of this greatest masterpiece in all English literature. It was brought into being before mankind was cursed with telephones, radios or televisions. They had time to think and meditate and spend Year after year (as one did) in the Cambridge Library from 4 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock in the evening studying the Greek language. Lancelot Andrewes, the chairman of the overall committee, was fluent in twenty different languages, the greatest linguist of his day, and spent five hours a day in prayer.

The Holy Spirit also had His hand on William Tyndale, choosing him for his remarkable ability as a linguist. His native tongue was English but he was perfectly at home in eight different languages, according to the record. He studied under Erasmus, the greatest scholar of that age or any age. The genius of Rotterdam was courted by kings was offered the cardinal’s hat by the pope, which he refused, and was used of God to bring into being the Textus Receptus in which the KING JAMES VERSION is founded. Tyndale’s English was so perfect in his Translation that the committee chosen by King James used well over sixty percent of it with little or no change in the wording. Had they used their own style, it is said, it would never have endured for three centuries.

We do not say the King James Version is infallible. There are changes that could be and should be profitably made, but we do say and with emphasis, there are no errors found therein. The four or five thousand extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, agree in ninety to ninety-five percent of their contents with the text of Erasmus, while the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, founded as it was on two of the worst manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, is filled with errors and contradictions as of necessity it must have been with such a shaky, unstable, inaccurate foundation.

No age in the history of the Christian church, until ours, has witnessed such a sustained, Satanic assault on God’s Holy Word. The versions, perversions, and paraphrases of the Scriptures increase constantly. Some of these are worthwhile and profitable; others are deliberate attacks upon God’s Holy Word. One does not need to understand Greek or Hebrew to learn which is the pure Word of God. Use the KING JAMES VERSION as the criterion and test any questionable passage in any other version by the KING JAMES VERSION. If it doesn’t pass the test and agree with it, then discard the questionable passage and keep to the Authorised Version.

There comes to mind the poem which so perfectly describes the picture of this battle fought over the centuries.

Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith’s door, And heard the anvil ring, the vesper chime.

And looking in I saw upon the floor, Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had?" said I, "To wear and batter out those hammers so?"

"Just one," said he, and then with twinkling eye,

"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

And so I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word,

For ages sceptics blows have beat upon.

But tho the sound of falling blows is heard, The Anvil still remains - the hammer’s gone!

HAMMER AWAY, YE REBEL BANDS!

YOUR HAMMERS BREAK - GOD’S ANVIL STANDS!

Edited by David Otis Fuller

Maybe we should use the original Hebrew version Moses wrote, I wonder how much wording changed from the original Hebrew version Moses wrote, until the King James. Maybe we could all say "God speaks my language, too!" My guess is if God has something "Spiritually" to say to us, he could say it while reading the Readers Digest, if the only way he is going to speak to us is through the KJV a lot of us are in a heap of trouble.

"Jesus said it is the "Spirit of truth" that teaches us all things."

That's interesting reasoning, Bill.

I am always amazed at how "thinking" Christians believe that Satan counterfeits every genuine thing from God, but he would never counterfeit God's Word. Oh no, he would never do that.

Hath God said?

I guess I will read the Readers Digest.

My guess is if God has something "Spiritually" to say to us, he could say it while reading the Readers Digest, if the only way he is going to speak to us is through the KJV a lot of us are in a heap of trouble. "Jesus said it is the "Spirit of truth" that teaches us all things."

Amen Bro. Bill. Let's be careful to not put God in a box nor put others in it either. God is so big and it is by His Spirit we are taught, convicted, encouraged. We are so blessed to have His Word with so many around the world with maybe just a page of any translation.

God used a donkey with Paul and so many other ways to speak to people. I once was watching "Anne Of Green Gables" and the woman told the young girl, "being in despair was a slap in the face to God." The Holy Spirit brings that up to me if I ever begin to have a pity party. Glory and thanks to God.

Before I was born again, a JH opened the bible to me, most likely theirs, and I began to read. The Holy Spirit began to speak to me through that book and shut out her words as I read. I had been asking God which one was God's true religion. And 6 months later I was in a home Bible study, KJV, and the Holy Spirit convicted me strongly of sin and I repented and was born again. I then bought a huge children's bible and read it from cover to cover as the Holy Spirit spoke. I then came across the NIV. I was taught by the Spirit. And now I enjoy the NKJ and my Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible NAS.

PS. I asked God which was the true religion, He took me to no denomination - He took me straight to His Son Jesus. Ask and you shall receive. All praise and thanks to God.

Most of important of all things the Lord says is to have love in our hearts. We can use any Bible, think it's the only one, and it might be for that person and that's ok too, but without love ......

Most important thing for us Christians in this world is to seek the Lord while He may be found. Get to know Him intimately as we will fall in love with Him more and more. And the more we fall in love with Him the more the desires of this world will fall away. Amen and glory to God.

As for Greg, SermonIndex, he gives us information all the time and it is up to us what we do with it. We can comment or read and leave it or pray. But he keeps us informed and we appreciate him and SI so very much. Most of us who are open to being changed into His likeness have grown so much by the sermons here and I for one am so deeply appreciative for SI.

For by grace you (we) have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, (ourselves) it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

As for the KJV being the "the true version" I dont know and really don't care. To me it is the Holy Spirit that is important. I wasn't left in the children's Bible but used it for a season. We have to trust the Holy Spirit to guide us as we seek God in Jesus Name. Amen and Amen

No one is saying that the Holy Spirit is not important and as always, the content of the discussion is being changed because no one wants to face up to the gross perversions of modern bibles.

So, I guess, just like Greg, I have also given you information in the form of verse comparisons. Verse comparisons are much better than Ad Hominems. It is up to you do with it as you please.

I have no battle to win, except with my flesh, the world and the enemy.

But it still always amazes me how people dance around this subject. All these silly anectodal stories come out about Reader's Digest, Anne of Green Gables, etc, because you don't want to address the hard facts of verse comparisons. You only make yourself look silly. Of course God can speak to us through many types of media, but let me bring you back to what we are talking about. GODS'S Word. Thank you.

Oh one more thing. Answer this question as honest as you can.

Do you think that Satan, God's enemy (and yours) would try to create false religions and different ways to God?

That's an easy one, right?

How about this?

Do you think that Satan, would try to pervert God's written Word to us today thereby deceiving us as to what God clearly said and meant? Do you think that He would want to change God's Word to minimize the Blood, Christ's Sonship, the Power of the Cross, Christ as God in the flesh? Would you consider these changes, serious?

If your answer is yes, can you please give me some examples of how Satan has perverted God's written Word?

And finally, can we just dispense with God's Word and listen to the Spirit?

PassinThru, if what your saying is true, and we have watered down the Word over the years with many different versions, including the KJV, should we not all be reading and studying the original Hebrew version Moses wrote? Please give me a reason, I should not be reading and studying the original Hebrew version Moses wrote? and if you say I should be, well you would be agreeing that even the KJV is watered down. I am listening!

PassinThru...So, I guess, just like Greg, I have also given you information in the form of verse comparisons. Verse comparisons are much better than Ad Hominems. It is up to you do with it as you please.

So if I were a Hebrew scholar, I could do the same from the original Hebrew to the KJV, right? And I could come here and start a new thread called "For some Christians, the original Hebrew is the only Bible" just a thought. I have no dog in the fight either, but we just cannot stop at the KJV, and say all other versions are as you said are "perverted" if one is converted from the original, would it not be "perverted" also?

Compare the verses Bill. Don't answer my questions with questions.

I have all the respect in the world for folks that enjoy the KJV, but how on earth can one that cannot understand most of it's words enjoy or learn anything from the book? Has anyone ever tried to read a contract written by a good lawyer? I have, and I have to take it to my Lawyer to interrupt it for me. What we all should keep in our thoughts, is we all have different levels of IQ, I am not the brightest bulb in the house when it comes to tests or book stuff, but I can fix your Air Conditioner or repair you car for you, because these were my gifts from God. I get the most out of something I understand, I understand the NASV the best, at least I am reading my Bible, when I just use to look at the pictures in the KJV because that's was all I could understand in that version.

PassinThru..Compare the verses Bill. Don't answer my questions with questions.

Why would you ask me to do something I can't do? can you compare the verses of the original Hebrew to the KJV? if so please show us a few comparisons.

You are not serious about addressing the content of the new versions. My kids read the KJV and do fine. They know how to use a dictionary.

Would you like me to post another comparison and show you that words in the newer versions are actually more difficult?

I thought not.

I'm not posting anymore in this thread because you continue to avoid the real matter and that is what the verses say in the new (per)Versions compared to the KJV.

No one ever wants to deal with that.

PassinThru.. You are not serious about addressing the content of the new versions.

Well, You are not serious about addressing the content of the original Hebrew to anything later than it. So it looks like we both reading the wrong versions.

Edit:
And you continue to avoid the real matter and that is what the verses say in the new Versions/KJV compared to the Original Hebrew.

PassinThru... My kids read the KJV and do fine. They know how to use a dictionary.

My kids can work on a 50 ton chiller a/c system they have read the books, can yours? If not I have the books we can send them out on a job tomorrow. Look I personally think it's terrible that some can call the versions "perverted" after the KJV version, but cannot call the KJV "perverted" after the Original Hebrew, this is a double standard.

Now I am being judged on the version of the Bible I read, I sure will be glad when the real Judgment day comes, so I can be judged by my maker, I will accept his Judgment, because he was Perfect!

MrBill,

Would you be willing to start with 1 or 2 passages at a time?

I usually don't get into these discussions but my heart is for the lost and new Christians.

If someone believes the KJV version is the closest to the true translation it is okay. But if that person has a religious spirit and says it is the only one that should be read and condemns those who read another translation - that can be very hurtful and even damaging.

I heard, even yesterday, people saying that they cant understand the KJV and dont read it as they have tried. If a person is not being able to understand or being taught by it they should go to one that they are being fed by.

Unfortunately so many who believe only the KJV should be read turn many away from reading the Bible.

My whole point is is that we dont put God in a box nor others due to our personal thoughts. But let God be God in each persons lives. He is so faithful as we seek Him.

The most important thing is that people are being convicted of sin, turning their lives over to Jesus and to a personal relationship with Him and being transformed into His likeness. And how God does this is personal for each one of His.

Yes, I know I look foolish. The Lord uses the foolish to confound the wise sometimes and I will be a fool for Christ any day. I also know I am among the least of these here in most areas. But I do love my Lord, have a heart for the lost and new Christians because He gave it to me.

And I say to all. If you are being taught, your spirit being fed. Please continue. You can go to Bluebible.com, listen to sermons here on SI. At Bluebible.com there are translations to compare. There is a section on cults as well to make sure the Bible you are reading is not among them.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone. It is not my intention at all.

Be lifted up O' God among the peoples in Your Son, Jesus Christ's Name.

****UPDATED****

I don't hear anyone in this discussion saying KJV only.

Still just trying to compare verses.

You don't have to prove you are spiritual and love the lost just because you don't read the KJV. I am not questioning anyone's spirituality. I keep trying to bring everyone back to scripture comparison of translations, but it seems no one wants to do this. I am not saying anyone has a religious spirit and I hope you are not saying that, too.

You can be concerned with the continued changes of God's Word and still be concerned about the lost and new Christians. It does not have to be an either/or.

Does anyone at all think that Satan conspires to water down and destroy the Bible? No one seems to want to answer this question.

If you want to show someone (lost or new Christian) that God "heals the brokenhearted", don't use a "modern" version, because you won't find it.

ok, more comparisons, if it at all interests you.

KJV vs NKJV
NKJV teaches Works Salvation

NKJV Matt. 7:14 difficult is the way
KJV narrow is the way

NKJV Gal. 5:22 faithfulness
KJV faith

NKJV 1 John 5:13 may continue to believe
KJV may believe

NKJV Eccl. 5:20 God keeps him busy
KJV God answereth him

and more...
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/Tracts/NKJV_tract.pdf

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

MrBillPro, recommended it in this thread. :-)

I'm a lover of the KJV and believe it to be the best translation. For English I hold it to be the standard. I don't trust many of the modern versions because they change many meanings of verses. Satan trys to confuse many people by getting them to doubt God's Word by getting them to find one that agrees with their thoughts. Many of the modern versions use flawed texts. I remember when the NIV first came out, it left whole passages out and had footnotes that cast doubts on God's Word. The KJV has stood the test of time.

However,should we not compare the translations to the original rather that to each other?

MrBillPro....Maybe we should use the original Hebrew version Moses wrote, I wonder how much wording changed from the original Hebrew version Moses wrote,

For those who missed the first part of the Movie, I ask him to compare the original Hebrew version Moses wrote, to the KJV, so for he has avoided the task by being stuck on comparing the NASB to the KJV.

Yes, if you can compare to the original, please do.

Otherwise, like you said, the KJV is the standard.

JB1968 I don't trust many of the modern versions because they change many meanings of verses.

JB, in my opinion anything later than the original Hebrew Version is considered new/modern version, or are we going to debate the word modern now?

PassinThru...Yes, if you can compare to the original, please do. Otherwise, like you said, the KJV is the standard.

I never said the KJV was the standard, were you talking to me? please show me were I said that, and I may have and just don't remember. Comparing the Hebrew version to the KJV is no different than comparing the NASB to the KJV, well in my world.

Sorry about the Readers Digest thing, I was only using that as an example how God could use it to speak to us Spiritually if he wanted, like he used a donkey in the Bible, hope this clears that up. I am not comparing the RD to the Word of God.

Here are some Hebrew comparisons, Bill.

The NIV, NASB, ESV reject the Hebrew Texts
Part One - Genesis through Psalms
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm

The NIV, NASB, ESV reject the Hebrew Texts
Proverbs through Malachi
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm

Lucifer or Morning Star
http://brandplucked.webs.com/luciferormorningstar.htm

Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Syriac or Greek? - The NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV all depart from the Hebrew texts.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze297hebgrsyiac.htm

If you don't believe we have an Enemy, look at this.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

ok, that will keep you busy for awhile.

No biggie on the Readers Digest thing. God has spoken to me through the secular world many times and I never thought you were equating the Word of God with the Digest. A little levity is good in this disussion. We all have golden calves and need to let God melt them.

This link is amazing!!! Please seriously consider what these new modern day Scribes are doing to the Word of God.

Part I
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
PartII
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker2.html

After reading this, it makes me sick to even think about reading a "modern" version. I'll take the archaic words, maybe it will edumacate me a little more if I look them up.

I will just agree to disagree, your missing my point completely. I am not saying the KJV is not the closest to the original Hebrew, I was saying that it was also "a little" different than the original Hebrew version, as well as the NASB and all others. The KJV, however, "is not" the preserved word of God. God said he would preserve his word. He did not say that he would preserve it in all languages. Because the KJV has errors in it, we know that it is not the preserved word. It is very close. Most people in their lifetime will never study it enough to know the difference, but it still has errors. Thanks for the debate, and I understand your passion for the KJV, but most new converts, would not even make it to the KJV, if it were not for more modern versions to get them started.

Derek Prince learned Greek from age 11 and studied it clear through Eton (as well as Latin - he was tri-lingual). Because he did not have an agenda to learn Greek, I trust his opinion on the original language; and he didn’t get saved until he was serving in the British Army. He believed that the NASB, rough language and all, was the closest to the original Greek.

Just so you know I'm not starting an argument with anyone!!! I do, in fact, read the KJV but just because I read it doesn’t mean I will adamantly make others adhere to it. Think about this.... Throughout time, God led by His Spirit (and still does) and not by the King James Bible – KJV only came into play 600 years ago. And look what a mess the church is in!

I truly believe that if they took away every one of our Bibles today, those who know His voice would not miss a beat in following Christ but the arguers would STILL be arguing over the versions even though they didn’t have any to argue over!! Something to think about.

God help us to get our priorities straight!!
God bless,
Lisa

martyr..A friendly question. With so many persecuted pleading for Bibles are translation debates wise.

I would say that any translation debate later than the original Hebrew version that God gave Moses, is just a translation debate, and proves nothing but one is later/closer to the original Hebrew version than another. To answer your question, I say no it's not wise, Bible version debates always bring out the extremest, but there all extreme from the original, so if all error, whats the point? Is there little lies and big lies? or is a lie a lie?

Lysa ... I truly believe that if they took away every one of our Bibles today, those who know His voice would not miss a beat in following Christ but the arguers would STILL be arguing over the versions even though they didn’t have any to argue over!! Something to think about.

Ouch! as bad as I would like to disagree with you, I can't.

Billpro,
Sorry for your attitude. I was expressing my opinion. I guess I'm done conversing with you. Have a nice day.

It should be noted that the texts the KJV scholars used to make their translation from has since been lost to time. Attempts have been made to reconstruct the reconstructed texts that they used. (it should be noted, they didn't have one single text they translated from, rather, they had multiple fragmented texts that were incomplete) But those differ with one another too. Which would mean, using the argument of those who take a TR/KJV only stance, God's word has forever been lost in its original languages. Which is very thing TR/KJV only advocates argue against.

Sigh.

KJV-only is simply a dogma. It's not based on Scripture, scholarship, or reason. Thus, arguments against the position will always fail, because those who hold to such a position aren't basing their argument on Scripture, scholarship, or reason. It's simply a statement of faith. Nothing more, and nothing less.

*edited*

I guess I will add my two cents to this discussion if I may.

It seems unreasonable to compare English translations of the Bible, because the original texts were not written in English but in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Unless you know all those languages very well and can give convincing evidence that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts you approve of have more weight than the others, you are being unreasonable in arguing for any particular version.

For example, you can find ommissions in the KJV as well as the NASB if you compare the two. The bottom line will come to which Hebrew and and Greek manuscripts have more weight because they use different ones. In order to reasonably assess that comparison you should know the languages and know the history of what texts are used and why.

Joyful Heart, amen to your post if you read this! God bless you.

Oracio..It seems unreasonable to compare English translations of the Bible, because the original texts were not written in English but in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

What seems unreasonable is us comparing Gods preserved word to the KJV. God is God, if he would have wanted his preserved word to be in the KJV he very easily could have. If we both have identical cars, and we remove a lug nut from one of them, they are now different. Here we are arguing over God's word, that most of us don't understand any version well enough to argue anyway, and that is in all versions of the Bible, none know it well enough. Jesus said it is the Spirit of truth that teaches us all things,truth is the Word of God, it does not say the "Truth of the Spirit".

I really do not like debates and actually think they accomplish very little.

I educated myself on the Bible version controversy because young Christians ask me about Bible versions.

It is absolutely true that Satan has conspired to use men to create false religions. You would all agree. You would also agree that Satan counterfeits the Holy Spirit, signs and wonders and the gift of tongues. He counterfeits the voice of God, and dreams and visions. He counterfeits the leading of the Spirit and many other things, but very few today want to admit that he counterfeits the Word of God.

For instance, today's TNIV is extremely similar to the Jehovah Witness bible. Would you like proof? Just google it. There is plenty of hard, factual comparative research.

It is a joy to show people who are openminded the beauty and accuracy of the KJV. Also, many foreign versions come from the KJV.

For a long time there was a Spanish version that was not very good. The Reina-Valera had many, many problems but today, thanks to the work of Humberto Gomez, it is a true Textus Receptus bible. It is called the Reina-Valera Gomez 2010 (RVG).

Dr. Rex Cobb, of Baptist Bible Translators Institute, compared the RVG with other common Spanish Bibles to see how many times they departed from the traditional text (the TR). Here are the results:

*The 1569 departed from the TR 75 times
*The 1602 departed from the TR 57 times.
*The 1862 departed from the TR 118 times.
*The 1865 departed from the TR 28 times.
*The 1909 departed from the TR 122 times.
*The 1960 departed from the TR 191 times.
*The 2001 departed from the TR 69 times.

*The RVG departed from the TR ZERO times.
Here are more comparisons.
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/comparisonchart.pdf

I believe God’s perfect words are preserved in any language wherever a few points are fulfilled:

The complete text
1. Accurate translations of the words in the target language
2. Formal equivalence as the translation strategy
3. There may be a point where one chooses to use this vs. that word, but both mean the same thing.

The key was just stated: they both mean the same thing!

But what we have today is not formal equivalence. We have wholesale, unadulterated adding to and subtracting from God's Word.

Ok, you guys are old crusty Christians and don't care about this. But, that does not change the fact that some serious destruction is being done today by our "enlightened scholars".

The persecuted church deserves the best translation we can give them. If we want the best, why would we not give them the best?

Every society deserves the Word of God from the best and most predominant manuscripts which is the Textus Receptus.

It is condescending and glib to just say, "The persecuted church is happy just to get a piece of any Bible they can get". That is a sickening statement and reveals a lot about what we think of God's Word and our persecuted brethren. We have been so dumbed down by our modern scholars that we will even read the Jehovah Witness bible which comes against the divinity of Christ and think nothing of it.

Is this what you desire for your kids, your grand-kids, the persecuted brethren, new christians?

I know some KJV only people are very caustic and I do not agree with their attitude. It is either their way or the highway and likewise it is the same with non-KJVers. What I try to communicate is the slippery slope modern textual criticism and translation (if you can call it that) is taking us. The Word of God belongs to the Church not to a committee.

One thing I like about the KJV committee is that they did not do their work in secret. They sent copies out weekly to the area churches to review. Unlike, Westcott and Hort who did their "masterful" work in secret for 10 years (1881).

So, just realize, that I am looking at the big picture and where the written Word of God may be in 2 or 3 more decades. There is a concerted effort to malign God's Word and get rid of the KJV.

Some things I miss:
People in a small gathering singing God's Word because they all have different versions and very few know the Bible songs anymore.

Hearing people recite God's Word, because no one can memorize the new versions (the verses are longer, more wordy).

We have surely lowered the standard today.

Many Christians attempt to evade the issue of whether or not there really is a perfect Bible (as they are told from the pulpit) by piously hiding behind the statement, "I don't make an issue of Bible translations."

It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you are consistent in your stand... or lack of it.

In other words, if the issue of a perfect Bible is a "non-issue" with you, then to be consistent, neither should be ANY of the following:

1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Isa 7:14

2. The deity of Jesus Christ. I John 5:5

3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ. Romans 5:8

4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I Cor 15:4

5. Salvation by grace alone without works. Eph 2:8, 9

6. The Pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I Thess 4

7. The existence of a literal Heaven. John 3:13

8. The existence of a literal Hell. Mark 9:42-44

9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:7

These things have been taken out of some modern versions.

How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the Bible, but see "no issue" concerning the perfection of the Book on which they base their every issue? IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?

\\Some may say, "I accept the Bible where it is accurately translated." Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in the world! WHO is to judge just where the Bible is "accurately translated?"

No, it is impossible to make "any issue" over even one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an "issue" over the Bible itself.

Why then do people make such a statement? Basically, it is out of fear of the consequences of such a stand. They are afraid of the rejection of their friends, family, and fellow-workers.

How bold for the truth are you?

Quote by Samuel Gipp.

KingJimmy,

"KJV-only is simply a dogma. It's not based on Scripture, scholarship, or reason. Thus, arguments against the position will always fail, because those who hold to such a position aren't basing their argument on Scripture, scholarship, or reason. It's simply a statement of faith. Nothing more, and nothing less."

This sounds good, but it is absolutely not true.

Arguing the Word edifies nothing period. Why can't folks just be happy with the fact that many different versions have brought in many lost sheep period. .

ok guys, I really must bow out of this.

Just a lot of irrational statements and cute anectodal stories being made now.

You are absolutely right Bill, let's stop.

When you first post on a thread, you don't know how it is going to go. You don't know that there may be a lot of resistance. No thread starts out as an argument, right?

So, let's all stop now. There does not seem to be anybody on this thread who is genuinely interested in knowing why the KJV is the most accurate translation. For that matter, there does not seem to be anyone who would like to know why there are different translations.

So, we just have the wrong audience here and trying to explain to people that do not want explanation is vain at best and foolish at the least.

Bless you all in Christ Jesus, richly.

This sounds good, but it is absolutely not true.

>>It's not based on Scripture...

You can't defend the KJV-only position using sola scriptura.

scholarship

>>scholarship...

If you prefer the Majority Text family, that is fine. There are decent arguments for this. But, the KJV-only crowd can't point to a single document and say "this is the only one." Indeed, no such document exists. There is not one singular text underlying the KJV translation. It was produced from a family of texts, using an eclectic method to determine which of the variants that exists within that family were best.

>>reason

KJV-only reason is entirely circular. Such, is simply not reasonable. Additionally, it forbids men to use the very same method (the eclectic method) in modern times that was used by the older scribes to produce the KJV. Any new textual discoveries are ignored. Erasmus and others, however, would've made use of these texts in the drafting of their Greek & Hebrew manuscripts. The older scribes made use of the best manuscripts they believed they had at the time. Modern scribes do the same thing.

I never said I was KJV-ONLY and you are deflecting the conversation, again.

Why don't you read from the beginning? New people come in and think they understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about KJV-onlyism.

Let's just move on.

Everyone should understand where their Bible came from and you should have 100% faith and trust in God's Word. That is what you teach new converts, right? You do teach them that they can depend upon God's Word implicitly, right? I sure hope so. His Word is good. It is tried and proven. I don't live by rules, I walk by the Spirit.

I never said I was KJV-ONLY

I never said you were.

I still would like to know the purpose of why SI (aka Greg) posted this and never showed up again? The first sentence is nice. Then it progressively becomes sarcastic. I guess, I better wise up quick if I am going to survive in this forum. It is really a shame how those that love the KJV are marginalized by sarcasm, ad hominems and condescension. I don't make fun of the KJV Only people or the people that like other translations.

Anyway, here again, is what Greg posted. For what purpose, we will never know unless he shows back up. Surely, he knew what he was doing. Seems it was a backhanded way to show disdain for KJVers. Then all his friends jump on me. Not totally unexpected, I might add.

"On its 400th anniversary, the King James version of the Bible is universally recognized as a literary masterpiece that profoundly shaped both modern Christianity and the English language.

At the Bible Baptist Church in Mount Prospect, Ill., however, it's accorded a much higher level of reverence.

"Using anything but the King James version is like shaving with a banana," said Chris Huff, the church's pastor.

The suburban Chicago church belongs to a loosely defined denomination known as the "King James Only" movement. Members believe that the King James version is not just another translation, but the indispensable underpinning of a Christian's faith. ..."

read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/faith/ci_17627215?nclick_check=1

What does it really matter the reason why Greg might have posted the thread? It is his site after all. Might he post a piece that generates discussion should he so choose?

From what I have read(not too much), the Textus Receptus is based on many manuscripts that seem to be very unreliable to many Greek scholars because the earliest existing ones date to a much later time than the original autographs. For example, the manuscript used for the reading of 1John 5:7 in the KJV(where the Trinity is clearly mentioned) dates to around 1200 AD. That's why even many pastors and scholars who love the KJV admit that that is most likely a spurious verse and should not have been included. And the same principle applies to many other verses that were not included in the newer versions.

Many Bible scholars say that some of the newer versions such as the NASB NIV and ESV are more reliable because they are based on more older and widely-spread existing manuscripts.

And so the debate goes on...

sigh

Wellll, I have not yet read any verse that says "Whosoever shall prefer the KJV over any other translation shall enter the kingdom of heaven."

Passin Thru,

Have you seen this? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can. By: Gregory Koukl

I have laid back and not posted here. I should have not left you to be the one voice of reason. Of course the evil one has his hand in the writing of the newer versions of the Bible. Without a doubt. When you see God not being referred to as Father for fear of offending the National Organization of Women, where do you think that comes from?

Lord willing some of the posters here will feel compelled to follow the link I posted and learn why the KJV is trustworthy. How could we trust our souls to it's teachings otherwise?

I read the Revised KJV, the KJV and the Amplified Bible and Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. If I used a translation different from KJV my Matthew Henry Commentary would be incompatible.

If I do not understand a passage I believe God can open my understanding. Or, like the in Acts chapter 8, men of God will be provided.

behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, . . . . read Esaias the prophet. 29: Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31: And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?

I have compared enough of the passages that Passin Thru provided to know I do not want to risk my very soul on any other translation. I know in this life I will not have the opportunity to learn Greek - in the next life, I will get the Word from His mouth. How sweet that will be.

I, too, found it odd to have a moderator start the thread and then drop out. Perhaps, something has come up in his life that is preventing him from joining the thread. It is better to think that way, don't you think?

white stone

Wellll, I have not yet read any verse that says "Whosoever shall prefer the KJV over any other translation shall enter the kingdom of heaven."

Very good point, Sister Ginnyrose.

Of course, I haven't seen a verse that says that anyone is condemned to Hell for reading (or even preferring) the NIV either.

Then again, some people literally believe that the KJV is THE only version of the Word of God that is "holy." I've been warned by some well-meaning people (including a few here at SermonIndex) that they "worried for my soul" because I prefer both the KJV -and- the NIV -and- the NASB.

Personally, I think that the NIV (1978, 1984) is the best academic version taken from its source texts and the NASB/KJV are the best versions taken from their set of source texts. This is my conclusion after quite a bit of research -- including having contacted scholars, experts and translators.

I often suggest to anyone who embraces a KJV-only mentality to read the translators' preface to the original 1611 edition (remember, our "current" KJV is typically either the 1769 edition or the 1850 edition). After all, the translators were very clear that their version was NOT perfect.

In addition, I suggest that such individuals read the writings of the original translators. Some of those translators believed some wacky, unbiblical doctrines. Moreover, there were things that those translators were instructed to do (and not to do) during the translation process (such as to exclude any "notes," "footnotes" or possible alternative renderings).

Currently, I read the KJV, NIV and NASB...alongside several other versions (like a Spanish translation that predates the KJV). As Greg has said, such versions can be helpful in our attempts to gather a different perspective or rendering regarding a particular verse or passage.

And, just as a note regarding something someone said earlier: The NIV did not "leave out" words or passages. Those things were just not found in the source texts that the translators of the NIV believed to be the most reliable. Some of those texts were older than those used for the Textus Receptus (which was completed entirely by one man -- a Dutch Catholic humanist).

I agree with what others have echoed: It is important to read the "Word of God" in the Spirit and not just read the paper version of it. Without the Spirit, the Bible (regardless of version) is just a thick book filled with paper and ink. A mere Bible can be destroyed by fire, flood, or even deterioration through age. However, the infallible Word of God is Eternal -- having created "all things" (John 1:1-5) and will soon arrive once again upon the Earth (Revelation 19:13).

We can easily ask God to guide us as we study the KJV...the NASB...the NIV...or other credible academic translations. After all, it is the Spirit that gives life (John 6:63).

What an absolutly boring arguement. I am eating a Ribeye steak right now. With salt and A1.

Please, someone tell me to only eat New York Strips...

"Please, someone tell me to only eat New York Strips..."

Brother it would be only proper if I may point out your obvious error, Everyone knows one who is of the Christian persuation should only eat New York Strips. It is more godly and more accurate to the flavor of steak. ;)

:-)

This made me chuckle aloud!

by Joyful_Heart
Unfortunately so many who believe only the KJV should be read turn many away from reading the Bible.

The quote is truth. God bless you, Joyful!
Lisa

PassinThru wrote:
You don't have to prove you are spiritual and love the lost just because you don't read the KJV. I am not questioning anyone's spirituality. I keep trying to bring everyone back to scripture comparison of translations, but it seems no one wants to do this. I am not saying anyone has a religious spirit and I hope you are not saying that, too.

I don't know if you've seen it but Greg has a 'News and Current Events' section here on sermonindex and he posted an article about the 400th anniversary of the KJV. He did not post it to compare translations; I don't know him personally but I'm thinking he might have posted under 'Scriptures and Doctrine' if he had an agenda.

Submitted in love, brother.
God bless you, PT
Lisa

edited and added this comment about 1 and a half hours later:

PassinThru wrote:
Anyway, here again, is what Greg posted. For what purpose, we will never know unless he shows back up. Surely, he knew what he was doing. Seems it was a backhanded way to show disdain for KJVers. Then all his friends jump on me. Not totally unexpected, I might add.

And brother, no one jumped on “you,” this has been a most pleasant discussion than the ones in the past. Search the previous threads on this topic and you will see that you are not a martyr in this discussion!!

God bless you, brother! No one hates the KJV.
Lisa

Oracio,

From my understanding and what I have been taught is the KJV is from a much larger family of texts that are consistent in content, whereas many of the modern texts used may be older, but less consistent in content or with more fragments missing. The family of texts for the KJV have thousands of manuscripts that are consistent, in contrast to what may be a few that are older that are inconsistent. Just because a text is older does not always imply accuracy. It is possible that some of them were faulty versions of the Gnostics or Romans.

Chris,
Quote,
"And, just as a note regarding something someone said earlier: The NIV did not "leave out" words or passages. Those things were just not found in the source texts that the translators of the NIV believed to be the most reliable."

I remember giving my Dad a NIV in the late 80's trying to witness to him since he said he had a hard time understanding the KJV. When we got to certain passages (John and I don't remember where else), it left them out entirely with a foot note saying they were not in the older and more reliable manuscripts. What a way to cast doubt upon a non-Christian. That was a stumbling block. How do you harmonize that with verses that speak of adding to and taking away from the Word of God? Needless to say, that left a bad taste for the NIV. Now there is another NIV that changes even more.

My personal opinion is we do not need another translation of the Bible. We just need to obey the one we have.

Hi JB1968...

I remember giving my Dad a NIV in the late 80's trying to witness to him since he said he had a hard time understanding the KJV. When we got to certain passages (John and I don't remember where else), it left them out entirely with a foot note saying they were not in the older and more reliable manuscripts. What a way to cast doubt upon a non-Christian. That was a stumbling block. How do you harmonize that with verses that speak of adding to and taking away from the Word of God?

A common fallacy is that the translators of the NIV "left out" things. This is incorrect. The translators didn't include those passages because they weren't in the manuscripts by which most experts believe to be the oldest and most reliable. In other words, they translated the manuscripts that they deemed to be best...and those particular passages weren't contained therein.

Thus, there was no "taking away" of the Word of God anymore than the translators would have been "adding to" the Word of God by their inclusion in the finished work. After all, these translators attempted to complete an honest and accurate translation from what they deemed to be the best sources. Those passages just weren't there.

In my research, I was able to contact some of the original translators of the NIV. There are several reasons that those translators (and most modern manuscript experts) believed that those texts are more reliable. It wasn't merely the fact that the texts were older. There were certain signs that the later texts that were used to create the Textus Receptus (by a single Dutch Catholic humanist, no less) were derived from some of the texts by which the translators deemed to be older.

I urge individuals who are curious about Bible translations to avoid websites and secondhand "proclamation" sources that are often filled with more insinuations and accusations than research. Instead, we should consult sources. If someone wants to know why the translators of the NIV made decisions, they should contact the organization and those translators themselves. Even if we are to still disagree with them, it would at least give them the opportunity to answer some of the common accusations.

My personal opinion is we do not need another translation of the Bible. We just need to obey the one we have.

I agree. However, I do not have just "one" version or translation. I use the KJV, NIV and NASB (along with several other editions -- including a Spanish version that predates the KJV). I prefer the language of the NIV (1978, 1984) because it fulfills the notion (shared by the translators of the KJV) of a "vulgar" ("common") language translation.

But I certainly agree that we need to obey what we receive from the Lord -- regardless which translation we use.

God spoke through a donkey to wake Balaam up to the knowledge of God, and here were are arguing over Bible translations.

MrBillPro.

Sometimes donkeys make more sense.

Miccah...Sometimes donkeys make more sense.

Amen! Amen! and Amen! can I get another Amen!

I enjoyed your insights Chris. Have you had Hebrew or NT Greek?
I understand your point on why the translators did not include certain verses etc. in the NIV. Basing their translation on the minority texts which includes a small portion of all manuscripts. Even the Codex Vaticanus could be conceived as a Catholic manuscript since it was found and housed in the Vatican library, which is a minority text. Erasmas may of been Catholic, but the majority texts are based upon most of the copied texts which hold to a consistency of agreement. Unfortunately, none of the original manuscripts are availible for viewing. However, since many of the modern version have used the minority texts, it has caused some speculation and doubt concerning the infallability, inerrancy, and inspiration of all the Bible.

I stay out of politics for the most part. Blessings!

Hi JB1968,

Unfortunately, I didn't major in Biblical linguistics while in college. However, I was blessed with the opportunity to take some Bible and ancient language classes while attending college and grad school. Still, I don't pretend to be an expert in those fields.

However, I do know the importance of going to sources whenever possible -- including consulting those who are/were involved in the translation process of the versions in question. There are quite a few rumors and allegations about the NIV that have proven to be false. Yet the are still repeated on websites and books (and even "Gospel" tracts).

I wouldn't try to tell anyone just WHAT to believe. I would simply would recommend that believers study the matter intently and with a prayerful and honest heart about such things (making sure to "test everything" that is presented to us).

In regard to the "Majority" and "Minority" text types, I would be the first to admit that I haven't arrived to a final conclusion on the matter -- about a supremacy of EITHER source material. I just haven't seen anything that would make me reject the Alexandrian text type or consider it in any way "inferior" or "inaccurate" compared with the other source texts. Moreover, I have seen quite a few people who have loudly spoken about such things that just seemed to echo the hearsay (devoid of fact) that is repeated in NIV "conspiracy theory" articles.

Of course, I am not saying that about anyone in this thread. In fact, I didn't read most of the posts in this particular thread. However, ever-so-often, people join this website with an agenda to proclaim what they think to be true about such things. Such threads end up as back-and-forths in which the strongly opinionated will make strongly worded proclamations about translations like the NIV -- to the point where some have labeled it as "diabolic."

I think that this is a danger -- given that it is a faithful translation of a particular set of ancient manuscripts of the Word of God. It would be horrible to think that such believers were guilty of bearing false witness against the Word of God itself.

I will say that I have prayerfully studied this matter and feel the liberty to study the NIV alongside other versions (like the KJV and NASB). Not only do I believe that the NIV is the best academic translation of the set of sources it used, but I prefer the common language of the translation. Yes, there is something poetic about the language of the KJV. However, that is a period language now.

My wife, who was born in Mexico (but holds degrees from American universities and taught at the college level), doesn't understand the language of the KJV very well. She is forced to consult extra-biblical resources just to understand the King James version of the Word of God -- something that God (and even the translators of the KJV) never intended. However, she does read the NIV (in English and Spanish) and a version of Bible in Spanish that predates the KJV.

I suggest that believers simply study this matter...and avoid relying on the research (or supposed "research") of others when it comes to something that they feel to be so important.

I hope that I made my intentions a little more clear. I do not want to appear divisive about it at all.

God bless you, brother!

I've enjoyed the discussion with you as well and I understand your input. NT Greek is a wonderful language. Even though I studied it in Bible College, I am far from an expert in it. It is easy to listen to all kinds of voices and then miss the message of the Bible itself. May God give us insight to walk in the light of His Word.

It is easy to listen to all kinds of voices and then miss the message of the Bible itself. May God give us insight to walk in the light of His Word.

Amen!

It is easy to listen to all kinds of voices and then miss the message of the Bible itself. May God give us insight to walk in the light of His Word.

Very true...and Amen.

I think that this is the gist of it all. Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot clearly understand the early 17th Century language of the KJV or any of the languages from which it was translated. That is why it is so important that a Bible is printed in the "common" (or "vulgar" as the writers of the KJV called it) language -- that is understood by anyone willing to "listen."

Thankfully, God is found by those who seek Him with all of their hearts (Jeremiah 29:13). I just don't think that He was talking about a need of ancient languages, dictionaries or study guides. While those things are great, they are largely a modern tool that was unavailable for over a millennium -- and are STILL unavailable to most people in the world.

Again, I have no problem with those who prefer the KJV. I prefer it (alongside the NIV and NASB) over other versions. This is certainly not due to any belief in some inherent superiority of the version itself. I believe that the Word of God is Eternal and infallible -- but also that the Word of God is not limited or confined to the efforts of a handful of Church of England men from 400 years ago.

I also appreciate your thoughts and input. Too often, these sort of discussions turn into needless debate that serves to distract from what is really important -- knowing our Lord and introducing Him to a lost and dying world...and a Church to whom He is a celebrity stranger.

That's the case as far as I understand. Many of the KJVer's are concerned with the original texts that many of the newer translations are based upon. Fewer texts that differ more with the majority texts.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068
Is the New Testament Text Reliable?
----------------------------------------------

http://www.fillthevoid.org/Versions/Differences-1.html
Satan's attacks are so subtle:
The first attack on God's word happened around six thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden. The serpent deceived Eve by first casting doubt on God's word, "Yea, hath God said" (Genesis 3:1). Then by denying it, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Compare this to what God said; "thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17). By adding the word "not", the serpent deceived Eve, which led to the fall of the human race!

Also in Genesis 3:1 the serpent subtly takes the word "LORD" away from the word "God". The scriptures in Gen. 2:4 through 3:24 refer to "God" as the "LORD God" every time except when the serpent is deceptively speaking with Eve. This way he subtlety takes authority and holiness away from God's name.

----------------------------------------------

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/preeminence.html
Bible Versions and the Preeminence of Christ

This table compares various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. The term "OMITTED" is used when either the phrase or word in question is omitted. This is just a small sample of over 200 verses.

martyr,

Did you read 'any' of the material at the links I posted? Did you even read 'what' I posted?

Your posts are very short but filled with misspelled words as to be practically unintelligible (not easily understood). Actually, I am beginning to suspect you are purposefully trying to draw eyes away from the truth.

It could be you are simply trying too hard to join in with the SermonIndex group, if so, step back and rethink your approach. Instead of responding to the posts you are posting your own opinions and ignoring the opinions of those posts you do not acknowledge.

I am NOT forcing KJV only but I do want people to realize they can not make their own rules. God wants to be worshiped in the way he says. We can not say that he will speak to us from whatever translation we read. He will speak to us through His Word, not the world's word. If a Bible is simple to read I am reminded that 'straight is the way and narrow is the path.' I do not expect to get to Heaven on the wide, easy path. The evil one is very cleaver, on my own I know I would not stand a chance of withstanding him. Thank God, through His mercy, I have the Holy Spirit within me and the wonderful Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God to shepherd me.

Go back to the post I made just before your last one and put in the time to read. You just may learn something. Then come back and post and be sure to use Firefox or Google Chrome for a browser, they have built in Spell Checkers. It is practically foolproof. :)

white stone

Hi White_Stone...

I am NOT forcing KJV only but I do want people to realize they can not make their own rules. God wants to be worshiped in the way he says. We can not say that he will speak to us from whatever translation we read. He will speak to us through His Word, not the world's word. If a Bible is simple to read I am reminded that 'straight is the way and narrow is the path.' I do not expect to get to Heaven on the wide, easy path.

I think that the problem with your statement is that it is built upon a notion that the KJV is inerrant. It isn't. After all, the KJV has been revised numerous times over 160 years -- and the one that you probably use is NOT a copy of the original 1611 edition. In addition, there are certain flaws in the text that cannot be easily dismissed. Nor do I buy into the premise that the KJV is somehow "superior" to EVERY other version available.

I do believe that the translators of the KJV (even those with some weird doctrinal views) attempted to create a faithful translation of the texts that were available to them at the time. Yet they were the first to admit that it was a flawed attempt made by fallible men.

The Word of God can be understood when it is presented in, well, plain English. After all, Jesus was often followed by little children. They hung around to the point where the apostles wanted to turn them away. There was no need to understand archaic words and phrases...a special "Bible" dictionary...or even a regular dictionary. Jesus spoke to the educated and uneducated alike.

Ironically, it was those who were supposedly "educated" in the Word of God -- the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes (and later "priests") -- who attempted to dictate what everyone else should believe. Thus, there is a need for individuals to read and understand the Word of God in the common language for themselves without relying on the interpretations of other men.

In 1611, the King James version of the Scriptures was simply a version that was translated to the modern tongue of the day. There are many translations before it and after it and in other languages that have attempted to do the same.

By the way, I don't think that you should accuse martyr of producing posts that are "unintelligible."

Your posts are very short but filled with misspelled words as to be practically unintelligible (not easily understood). Actually, I am beginning to suspect you are purposefully trying to draw eyes away from the truth.
....
Go back to the post I made just before your last one and put in the time to read. You just may learn something. Then come back and post and be sure to use Firefox or Google Chrome for a browser, they have built in Spell Checkers. It is practically foolproof. :)

...and then...

The evil one is very cleaver...

Sometimes, even "spell checkers" miss words like "cleaver."

I think that we should avoid meandering into a critique of one another's typing skills when discussing such things. After all, as our brother noted, some have a legitimate excuse for our less-than-perfect usage.

White_Stone...I am NOT forcing KJV only but I do want people to realize they can not make their own rules. God wants to be worshiped in the way he says. We can not say that he will speak to us from whatever translation we read. He will speak to us through His Word, not the world's word.

All translations later that the original Hebrew one Moses wrote, in my opinion is the worlds word, and it does not matter if you don't read Hebrew, it was the original. White_Stone God spoke through a Donkey, what would limit him from speaking to us from any version he want to? The God I know. has no limits, nor does his idea's or thoughts come even close to what we might think. Time to let God out of the box.

Hi anonymous777,

I think that you misunderstand: Many of us do NOT see "contradictions between Jesus Christ and His Word" even though we read and study with certain versions and translations other than the KJV.

Some of us have prayerfully studied this topic with strong academic scrutiny and purity of motivation (and without any preconceived bias). Thus, I feel no need to challenge any of your statements. However, I would urge anyone who tries to impart something into the discussion to make completely certain that their assertions are factual, correct and devoid of bias or any preconceived conclusions.

In past discussions, individuals have sometimes introduced things into these sort of discussions that they merely obtained from other websites, periodicals or other forms of secondhand source material. Some of the individuals who presented accusations about the NIV admitted that they had never attempted to contact the organization or scholars who participated in the process.

In addition, Some strong KJV-only advocates admitted to having never researched the process by which the translators undertook their endeavor...or the beliefs of the translators on the committee...or which versions by which the KJV translators borrowed phrases, words and usage...or even the history of the source material from which the KJV was partially translated.

That is quite a bit of academic neglect -- and a lot of faith in the supposed "research" of others.

I often suggest to individuals to perform as much research as possible BEFORE arriving to a conclusion or accepting the verdicts of others. Believers can contact Bible scholars, language and manuscript experts, and even Bible translation societies. Believers can research the various manuscripts and text types that were used as source material -- and what the various thoughts are regarding them (and why). Believers can study the lives of Erasmus, Wescott, Hort and others who translated texts. Individuals can even research the lives and beliefs of the translators -- including contacting the modern translators (when considering accusations about what they did or did not believe).

Anyway, there are many things that should be done BEFORE "taking a stand" on the issue of version supremacy. We just can't rely on the words, "research" and thoughts of others UNLESS we are willing to thoroughly "test" those things.

Hi anonymous777...

This is precisely my point. It is difficult to compare versions of the Bible that are taken from a completely different set of sources. That is why it is erroneous to claim that the NIV "deleted" something or that the KJV "added" something. Most likely, the SOURCES simply did not have those particular words.

As for your statements about the newer versions "losing the meaning of major doctrines:" This statement is fallacious if directed at strong academically accurate translations like the NIV or NASB. I can take my NIV and "prove" to you all of those sound things that you mentioned. To claim otherwise is either due to ignorance of what is contained in the version itself...or somewhat disingenuous due to preconceived notions that haven't been properly tested.

And, yes, I do have a "Holy Bible." In fact, I have a handful of them -- including versions and translations like the NIV, NASB, KJV and several editions from other languages. Those words that you mentioned -- they are all there.

Again, it does no good to compare particular verses if those verses are taken from different sets of sources. Still, one could take your argument, turn it around, and wonder whether or not the KJV (or its sources) actually "added" words -- especially since some of the sources that were used for translation were more modern than some of those used for the NIV. Of course, I wouldn't do that -- because it is not an accurate statement if used in either assertion.

So, the "explanation" that you desire will likely be found by the understanding that there were different SOURCES used for the various translations. However, I would urge you to conduct your own research and to expand that research outside of secondhand "research" attained from findings of others in books, literature, websites or hearsay. I urge you to look into this topic more studiously by going to firsthand resources whenever possible. If you have questions about the NIV or its sources, then contact the International Bible Society or the translators themselves.

Until then, it would be useful to stay away from rhetoric that pronounces final judgment upon the versions themselves or ties those versions to "emerging" philosophies of man. It would be a dreadful thing to find that our zeal led us to bear false witness upon a version of the Word of God.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." - I Thessalonians 5:21

Triple 7,
You concluded with some good thoughts. There does seem to be a watering down of doctrine with some of the new translations.
andie72 mentioned about older texts being found. These are the minority texts that differ somewhat with the majority texts which the KJV was translated from. Just because a couple of texts may be older and have differences in them, do not necessarily mean they are more accurate than the about 80% of all texts which are the majority texts.

Hi JB...

Just because a couple of texts may be older and have differences in them, do not necessarily mean they are more accurate than the about 80% of all texts which are the majority texts.

True. However, the reverse can be said as well. Just because the source text types are newer and were more rapidly dispersed throughout the "Holy Roman Empire" doesn't necessarily mean that they were more accurate either.

Of course, questions about the supremacy of one source text type over others is just one part of the matter. There are many other factors to consider when formulating such specific determinations and in regard to this matter as a whole.

This is where the need for the individual to really research the matter as thoroughly as possible comes in. And, in research, it is important to avoid biased material, secondhand sources and make the effort to seek out firsthand sources whenever possible. Hopefully, we are sincere enough in our desire to research and ascertain the truth of the matter that we would avoid seeking "facts" that would simply reinforce what we already believe or were taught.

This is ESPECIALLY true when an individual feels the need to loudly proclaim their own findings or declare with a degree of certainty the "supremacy" of one version (or source) over the other -- or, in some minds, that one version is "holy" and the others are not. If we are going to make such a far-reaching proclamation, we really need to get it right.

May the Lord keep each of us as we endeavor to find the truth in this matter.

Hi anonymous777...

Chris says he can turn the argument around, but in actuality, he cannot.

No, I didn't say that I could turn THIS ENTIRE argument around. Rather, I could turn the question about the "just because it is older" statement about the minority text around and say something very similar about the source text types used for the KJV (i.e. "just because they are newer and were more dispersed throughout the Holy Roman Empire").

Making the statements that he makes (rhetoric) sounds really good to those that have not studied this, but he does not present anything concrete, while I do.

Excuse me: But I do not seek to "sound really good" to anyone in this regard. I think that we should all strive to get to a point where we don't care about that sort of thing. Rather, if men are going to proclaim something as TRUTH regarding this matter -- then they had better be ready to present more than just a few verse-by-verse comparisons that they picked up from some books, websites or KJV-only teachings.

After all, a verse-by-verse comparison doesn't prove the superiority of ANY particular translation. It just highlights that the translations were taken from different sets of source manuscripts and the consensus by which the translators decided upon a set of words. Yes, each translation -- including the KJV -- was reached by consensus. That consensus is a good thing, since it helps prevent the particular views of one man from making its way into the translated text.

The only "translation" that I know of that was translated by one man was the Textus Receptus -- translated by Erasmus (a Dutch Catholic Humanist) -- upon which much of the New Testament of the KJV was based. I am not trying to imply that this was a bad thing, but it is certainly within the same vein of discussion as Wescott and Hort.

In fact, it is with his rhetoric, that he flippantly brushes what I present aside as if it never existed. Like someone using their backhand to clear everything off their table.

Brother, what have I "flippantly brushed" aside? What have you "presented?" I've read your words in this thread since I entered the discussion. I certainly don't feel the need to visit more KJV-only websites (as I have already visited and read through plenty of them). I have already pointed out that the verse-by-verse comparison is unfruitful because it mainly points out the differences in source material. I also hope that you realize that all of those vital doctrines of the faith are easily recognizable in the NIV and NASB -- and to say otherwise is simply untrue.

No matter what we present, Chris will not look into it, and also, make sure with his statements that no one else looks into these things, either.

This seems to be a trend found in previous discussions here at SermonIndex where some believers strongly emphasize the KJV (some to the point of believing that it is the ONLY "Holy Bible"). They question the motives or rationale of those who disagree with them. They question the extent of research by which those who have already researched this matter extensively and feel the liberty to read versions like the NIV and NASB.

Brother, if you want to use the KJV as your primary (or only) choice of Scripture, then, by all means, do so! However, I would simply caution you when you want to proclaim your specific views about the KJV and pretty much all other translations. You just can't proclaim the superiority of the KJV or that all other translations are abominations if your words are merely lifted from the teachings of others on this matter or if the research that you present is confined to pointing out differences in verses.

Believe me: I would be the first to disregard versions like the NIV or the NASB if I found anything that prompted me to do so. At this point -- and after much prayerful research (e.g. reading firsthand sources, contacting translators, contacting language experts, etc...) -- I just can't follow your advice with a clear conscience.

Again, there is nothing wrong with esteeming the KJV as your primary choice. However, there are definite questions about someone coming into a public forum like this and proclaiming damnation on all other versions, publicly questioning the motives of the translators (or those who read those translations) or attributing all other translations to some devilish conspiracy. Yes, there is a devilish conspiracy that has been at work throughout the ages. However, I think that one of the main tactics is to distract believers from what is truly important.

May our focus be upon intimately knowing the Lord and introducing Him to billions of others who have never heard of Him.

Hi Alive-to-God,

To Chris,

Briefly could you state what 'the Holy Roman Empire' has to do with the KJV?

In other words, it is possible that the great money spent by Emperor Constantine in producing and distributing these manuscripts throughout the Roman world led to them being later derived as the "Majority Text" ("Byzantine text-type"). After all, these texts differed from the older text-types that were found in the Alexandrian text-type source manuscripts. There are a number of scholars who believe that the Majority Text manuscripts were actually derived from the source text of the Alexandrian text-types (given the different peculiar variances found in the Byzantine text-types).

This reminds me of the comparison of various versions of Leonardo Da Vinci's THE LAST SUPPER painting. Most likenesses of this artwork are quite different from the original. However, this is because they were derived from later copies. As such, they represent the "majority" of copies -- as they were printed and reproduced later and were mostly derived from later versions and copies of the work. The original painting was different. Thus, it would be incorrect to assert that the versions that represent the majority of images were more "accurate" to the likeness just because they are found in the majority of reproductions. The most accurate likenesses are often found in the much older versions of the painting.

An interesting read about Constantine's immense funding for the publication and distribution of Scripture can be found in Gregory Armstrong's "Church and State Relations: The Changes Wrought by Constantine" from the Journal of Bible and Religion.

I hope that this clarifies what I was trying to say.

The Lord bless you.

Hi anonymous777...

Your response is full of assumptions regarding what I am saying. You are adding to and taking away from my words.

Are you the only one allowed to get things from websites? Why do you limit where we can get anything from? How can you virtually "shutdown" a conversation regarding where we get our material from?

I didn't say that you can't "get things from websites." I said that we shouldn't consider information that we obtained from prejudicial websites as the extent of our "research." That is NOT the type of "research" that should merit us to make ultimate proclamations about something as important as this subject.

Where did you get this?

"The only "translation" that I know of that was translated by one man was the Textus Receptus -- translated by Erasmus (a Dutch Catholic Humanist) -- upon which much of the New Testament of the KJV was based. I am not trying to imply that this was a bad thing, but it is certainly within the same vein of discussion as Wescott and Hort."

I got that from me. :-) It wasn't copied or taken from a website. It was my opinion that came AFTER much prayerful research (that was NOT confined to KJV-only websites or books). Let me be clear: I am NOT against the KJV. It is one of my versions of choice. I simply do not buy into the argument that it is infallible, superior to all other versions or the ONLY version that is acceptable to God.

By the way, your knowledge of the where the majority text came from is gross error and the overwhelming facts do not support that. But since I am not allowed to give you any references you will have to take my word for it, just like you want everyone to take your word for everything you say. So, there you have it. We have an impasse. I am not allowed to provide references and you won't provide any. Or if I do provide references, you denigrate them.

You are not the right person to have this conversation with. There is no reasoning possible with you.

Brother, you need to drop the agenda AND the mean-spirited and vicious nature of your responses. It does not help your cause to attack me for simply questioning some of the premises that you have introduced regarding the supremacy of one particular version (KJV) or sources over all others.

I would certainly welcome any sources that aren't just taken from some KJV-only website. Moreover, I just haven't seen you present a single evidence that consisted of "fact" that would support such a premise. Feel free to provide references. However, I would just urge you to realize that reading websites and relying on someone else's research is not the same as the type of research that I described previously.

Again, you misunderstood me. I have not "declared" any final position on this matter. I am just introducing some points that seem to be lost in this discussion. There is no "impasse" and I am more than willing to review any credible "evidence" that you have found (specifically outside of some prejudicial KJV-only website or "conspiracy theory" book regarding versions of the Bible).

These are serious allegations. If someone is going to proclaim something so far-reaching, then they should at least allow for (and even welcome) scrutiny of their assertions.

anonomous777 wrote

Making the statements that he makes (rhetoric) sounds really good to those that have not studied this, but he does not present anything concrete, while I do.

IMO Chris has presented a much more informed and unbiased opinion on this subject while others seem clearly biased and uninformed regarding the SOURCE texts being mentioned.

Many KJV proponents can only, and often do, resort to comparing the different translations themselves without going back to the source of the issue. It is a "surface" type of reasoning.

Please compare. 2 Pet 1:21, Matt 25:31, I Thess 5:27, Rev. 22:6, Rev 18:20, John 7:39, 1 Cor 2:13, Matt 12:31, Acts 6:3, Acts 8:18.

And you point out many more, which you say teach a works based salvation.

I am guessing that Chris has not answered for all those verses because it is a tedious task. I don't think you would want to type out each of those verses in the above quote and the others you pointed out, in each translation side by side, and after each one explain why you feel it is ommitting or adding anything.

I looked at a few and I can tell you right now that there is no difference that takes away or adds anything in any essential Christian doctrine.

For example, I will compare two of the verses you pointed out to show what I mean:

2 Pet 1:21 (KJV)For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Pet.1:21 (NIV copyright 2011)For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What is the difference of concern there?

You pointed out Mark 10:24 as teaching works based salvation.

Mark 10:24 (KJV) And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:24 (NIV 2011) The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Regarding Mark 10:24 the immediate context in the NIV clearly shows Christ has trusting in riches in mind.

verse 23 says, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

Again, what is the significant difference?

It is that kind of comparison that seems to show a clear and unreasonable bias.

removed

Hi Neil,

Chris, you mentioned Constantine putting a lot of money and effort into canon, are there any Copies/Manuscripts of the New Testament that predate 315 AD?

Yes, certain portions of the Minority Text (Alexandrian text-type) predate the 315 AD date. They include the "Papyrus 46" manuscripts of the Epistles of Paul (and Hebrews) that are dated between 175-250 AD. In addition, the "Papyrus 66" manuscripts of the Gospel of John is dated somewhere around 200 AD -- which is about 100 years following the death of John.

In fact, there are quite a few other New Testament papyri that predates Constantine and the Roman Church. Nearly half of the manuscripts on the "papyri" list predate the 4th Century.

It is interesting that you bring up the Canon too. The "Canon" of New Testament scriptures traces its initial process back to the 4th Century AD...but wasn't widely completed until the 16th Century.

I hope this helps.

While I would agree that some translations should definitely be rejected(New World, and the Message for example), dividing over the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and others is something I am convinced grieves the Holy Spirit. It causes non-believers to stumble seeing some true believers divide over such an issue. It causes a casting of doubt on the Word of God. It also causes new believers to be unnecessarily confused. Instead we should try to explain to them how God has indeed preserved His Word despite the minor variations in some words or points.

Hi anonymous777,

That is not correct what Chris is saying about the RCC giving us our canon and KJV Bible.

I simply stated that some historians have raised the possibility to explain just why the Byzantine text type may have become widespread -- even though the manuscripts used were dated between 250-950 years later (compared with the Alexandrian text types.

I didn't imply that I necessarily believe that the widespread availability of the Byzantine text type during that period by which Erasmus singlehandedly created the Textus Receptus (in 1516) was due to the funding of Constantine to produce it. Rather, I simply pointed out that there are some scholars who believe this and that they base their view upon certain historic affirmations.

By the way, I think that it is important to avoid trying to read between the lines or guessing the motives of the individuals that you disagree with. It is not helpful to the discussion.

anonymous777 wrote

With all due respect to you, too. The variations are major not minor. I would be happy to post major variations for you if you would like.

Before I accept that offer and we move on from my last points, could you please post a response regarding the two verses I pointed out in my last reply? Could you please say why you believe the differences there are of such significance that you would pronounce the NIV as a work of satan?

On another note, many KJV only proponents are very legalistic and cultish when it comes to this issue of division over translations.

To me it seems like boarder-line, if not idolatry to hold to a belief in any kind of divine inspiration of any particular English translation of the Bible, whether KJV or other.

When we speak of the infallibility and innerrancy of Scripture it is in reference to the original writings of the prophets and apostles, not those who later gathered the copies of the originals and/or translated those copies.

To believe that any one particular scholar/translator or set of translators were more divinely inspired than the others is placing too much confidence in men.

I can understand standing for and defending essential Christian doctrine because it is clearly revealed in all the manuscripts from what I can see in the various translations being mentioned here. All of them clearly teach the the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the atonement, the new birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc. They all agree on those essentials.

Natan4Jesus...that just tears me up, ya'll can argue KJV this and that all you want, something much more Important is at stake.

I agree Brother, will the bleeding ever stop?

Hi Alive-to-God,

hanks for your reply.

I think it's a stretch to attribute to Constantine, a head of state, changes to scripture in association with the addition of the word 'Holy', to 'Roman Empire'.

In addition, I used the term "Holy Roman Empire" via the common historic connotation of the term. I certainly don't think that the Roman Empire (or its church) was "holy" by any stretch of imagination.

Regarding the Alexandrian texts, are you saying that the form in which they appear now, is MORE reliable on the basis of their AGE? How do you KNOW those copies are not altered from the original?

Please let me be clear: I have not arrived to a final conclusion EITHER WAY in regard to the supremacy of one text type over the other. I am simply pointing out the view of the majority of experts who tend to embrace the Alexandrian (Minority) text type. There are several reasons for this -- including the more mature age of the Alexandrian manuscripts (and the fact that they agree with one another in cross examination) -- even though they were found in diverse locations.

There are other reasons why most scholars embrace the Alexandrian text type as more reliable. This is why I suggested previously than individuals contact them (including the translators of the NIV) during their research.

But, again, I no more "know" that these copies of manuscripts were unaltered than I "know" that the manuscripts that constitute the Byzantine text type were unaltered. I simply understand the arguments on both sides on the discussion.

Chris, no doubt God speaks to you through the NIV and the other versions you use sporadically, but how do you know you are not missing something, by not reading the KJV until you know it as well as you know the NIV, and can properly compare them?

I will go further: I don't think that there are really that many differences between the underlying principles in the text of the KJV and NASB or NIV. Sure, the language is as different as a conversation in 1611 would be different from a conversation in 2011. Yes, there are some changes in usage that are natural because they changed over time (just like the language of 1611 differed from the language of 1211). And, yes, there are differences that are directly attributed to the sources used for translation.

However, I completely reject the notion by some that versions like the NIV or NASB "leave out" the meaning of the text or the vital doctrines of the Church.

Moreover, I think that it is akin to "straining a gnat and swallowing a camel" to think pick and choose a few verses that differ when the entirety of each work more or less testify to the validity of one another and the original, infallible Source. It is my belief that the ONLY source by which we can honestly proclaim as being completely and utterly infallible is the Word of God that was present at the creation of this world (John 1:1-5). This "version" of the Word of God is the substance, the real thing, whereas the versions of mortal men are but "shadows" handed down and translated on paper.

You don't seem to understand that many KJV readers do not reject the minority text translations because we don't like the spoken language of today in which they are written, but because the Holy Spirit is revolted by the way the choice of modern language alters what God is saying. Of course you, as an academic, put great store by what you read, but the Holy Spirit puts great store by what God has said, and upon what God is trying to speak about HIMSELF through His word.

Somewhere earlier in the thread you said something (which I can't find again,) which seemed to mean that you, personally, do not object to another believer's personal choice of Bible version to read most. (If you can find your quote, that would be helpful.)

Again, I think that you misunderstand my position. I don't prefer either text over the other. However, I do prefer the Word of God in the modern tongue -- because it is more readily understood by men. After all, the KJV was translated into the "modern tongue" of 1611. The NIV was translated into the "modern tongue" of 1978. But I agree with the notion -- and have said as much -- about the need of the Spirit in the prayerful study of God's Word (no matter the version) by believers.

Personally, I do not "bear witness" with the idea that the Spirit of God is "revolted" by "modern" translations of Scripture. After all, there are "new" translations of the Scriptures into languages that NEVER had a version of the Word of God. I traveled to the Tarahumara tribes of Mexico and we presented them with Bibles that were translated into their languages recently. It was a difficult endeavor for language experts to complete a version of the Word of God in a seemingly primitive language like central Tarahumara -- but it was a task worth completing. After all, there was no version of the Word of God in that language just a few decades ago. Now, the estimated 80,000 to 200,000 indigenous Tarahumara people now have at least one version of God's Word that they can understand.

Once more: I don't care which version that a person might prefer. However, I am concerned when one person (or more) feels so adequately convinced in his (or their) research that they can pronounce judgment upon a version of the Word of God. Some KJV-only folks have even called versions like the NIV "damnable" or "unholy." That is quite an accusation to make! Oddly enough, I know people who strongly prefer versions that use the Alexandrian text-type sources, but they don't resort to such tactics in regard to versions like the NIV. Rather, they see it for what it is: An academic translation of God's Word from a different set of sources and translation methods performed in a different era.

We will know you have genuinely laid down you anti-KJV agenda, when you stop entering threads about the KJV, insisting that we all do lengthy personal research into textual origins. This may be a necessity for those whom GOD charges with that task, but at what point does a man of God become trustworthy to you? Do you trust him because it's clear He hears from God, and God speaks to you through him? Or do you lay God's word to you aside, until you've found out if the speaker has measured up to the standards of academic excellence which you espouse?

Secondly, I think that anyone who feels the liberty to pronounce an ultimate verdict on this matter must do so only after having extensively researched the matter. More times than not, those who are the most vocal with this have eventually admitted that they never took the time to consult with translators...or linguistic experts...or firsthand sources of ancient translators...or in the writings of Erasmus (or Wescott and Hort)...etc... Rather, they often restricted their "research" to certain books and websites that they hoped had done all of the research for them.

If someone feels the liberty to proclaim judgment on the NIV, they had better know for a fact that what they are saying is 100% true -- or they need to season their words with the salt of human and cognitive fallibility. Otherwise, they are treading on "thin ice" between "truth" and "lie." It would be a dreadful thing to be guilty of bearing false witness against ANY faithful translation of the Word of God -- whether KJV, NIV, NASB or other.

As for "academic excellence" and "trustworthiness" of man: I view men as, well, men. Every man if fallible. Every man is limited by this side of the veil looking toward Eternity. The translators of the KJV were quick to admit as much. Oddly enough, modern advocates who are zealous of the KJV (and the KJV only) often forget the words themselves of the very translators of that version.

There have even been individuals who have loudly proclaimed that the KJV was the ONLY "perfect and preserved" version of God's Word! Even after you prove to them that the KJV that we all have was revised several times over 150+ years, and point out apparent errors that are still contained within the pages -- you will still encounter individuals who propagate an "infallible KJV" argument.

All that I am saying is that individuals who feel the need to make such loud proclamations about such things should also season their words with the truth regarding the extent of their own research (or limits thereof). In addition, it is always important to convey the understanding that we could be incorrect in our thesis. I don't believe that there is ANYONE here who can say with absolute certainty that one version (or set of sources) is ABSOLUTELY superior to others (or, of course, entirely perfect).

Chris, the only difference between your preconceptions and mine, or a777's, or Oracio's, or JiG's, are that yours are yours, and ours are ours. The only way any of us become free of preconceptions, is by the renewing of our minds through the Holy Spirit. And He's not done yet.

Yes, we must rely upon the renewing of our minds daily by the Holy Spirit. However, we must be quick to realize that any "notion" that we receive about something is just that -- a notion. I have even known would-be "prophets" who uttered words that later proved to be false, but who weren't willing to admit that they had made those false prophecies in the first place. We must be careful about claiming that we know the truth about a historical event (such as the translation of Scripture) simply because of a notion that we may or may not attribute to the Holy Spirit.

To be practical: We may never know on this side of Eternity just which version of the Bible (or which set of source texts) are inherently superior. As such, we must place our faith, hope and trust in the Lord. After all, tangible copies of the Word of God were in short supply for many centuries -- but people could still find and know the Lord.

Alive-to-God, thank you for the respectful reply. I do want to respond with some detail but right now I do not have the time unfortunately.

But just briefly I will mention that I believe your reasoning and arguments against that NIV verse can be contested reasonably with a few points of consideration.

I think it is likely that many who are following this thread will agree that condemning that and the other verse over those minor differences in words is unreasonable to say the least.

Chris,
Quote,
"The only "translation" that I know of that was translated by one man was the Textus Receptus -- translated by Erasmus (a Dutch Catholic Humanist) -- upon which much of the New Testament of the KJV was based. I am not trying to imply that this was a bad thing, but it is certainly within the same vein of discussion as Wescott and Hort."

I wonder if Erasmus was not so much translating the Greek texts, as he was compiling them since there were so many incomplete texts. Also, Eramus was more of a reformer who believed in many of the reformation doctrines and decided to try to reform the church from within. Though he seems to have given in to compromise with the church so as not to cause more problems for himself.

Concerning the minority texts. Don't forget the Codex Vaticanus which was found in the Vatican library (If we are worried about Catholic influence).

a777, thank you for your reply. I must say you pointed out a powerful argument against the NASB. I found it strange that they did not translate the Greek word "porneia" to "sexual immorality" like the other newer translations, but only to "immorality". However, I did notice that "porneia" is translated "fornication" in the NASB in other places.

As far as translating it to "sexual immorality" I can understand the possible reasoning behind it. It could be that the translators felt "fornication" would narrow or limit the meaning "porneia" too much, since it has a broader meaning than just pre-marital sex between two unmarried heterosexual persons.

I might try to contact the Lockman Foundation to ask them why they translated that word as such.

Chris, any thoughts?

Alive-to-God, you wrote

If you are a reader of the version with leaves out 'holy', then they are missing a deep and serious effect of God's call on a person's life - in this case, an OT prophet.

With all due respect, I do not see that as a convincing argument against the newer versions. The newer versions do not include that word because it is not in the source text being used or consulted. However, the term "holy prophets" is used in numerous passages in the newer versions.

Regarding the words "carried along by", I do not see much of a difference from "moved by". If you look it up in the Greek it can be translated either way.

Hi Oracio...

I might try to contact the Lockman Foundation to ask them why they translated that word as such.

Chris, any thoughts?

I haven't contacted the Lockman Foundation about this particular verse(s). I did contact them previously in regard to some other things, but not about this word in particular. I would suggest that someone contact them about it.

It could be as you suggested -- that the translators simply felt that this particular word was best translated with a more encompassing scope. After all, "fornication" would definitely fall under the umbrella of "wickedness." I did notice that the translators of the Reina-Valera version (published before the KJV) in Spanish includes a footnote that the word "fornicación" doesn't appear in that form in other manuscripts.

I do know that there was an update for the NASB in 1995 in which "recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament has been reviewed, and some passages have been updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts." This could be result of such a revision, as other translations render the word as "depravity."

On the other hand, it could be nothing more than a poor or hasty literal translation of the word (akin to the word "pascha" being translated as "Easter" in the KJV's rendering of Acts 12:4).

Still, this would be merely speculation on my part. I agree that the best starting point would be to contact the Lockman Foundation and the translators who were involved in the rendering of that particular passage(s).

I haven't read many of the previous posts. But I will say this, when I first got saved I attended a pentecostal church that believed kjv was the only translation you should read, I had a new century version (ncv) that I, as a new christian, could actually make some sense of, but when I heard I was only supposed to use the kjv that's what I did. It is a good translation and I grew in my walk with the Lord, but when I left and went to an A/G church, they gave me an NIV bible. As I read and studied, I found myself learning so much more and growing in obedience to the Lord! I could actually understand so much better what I was reading. Now I feel the same way when I teach or preach, when I use the kjv, people tend to lose focus and miss what the scripture is saying, but when I use a more modern translation they are more alert and attentive because they comprehend so much better!

With that said I think anyone who only uses kjv is greatly hindering their own walk with the Lord and others, simply because no one talks like that any more. But I do love the KJV!

TimmyJoe...I think anyone who only uses kjv is greatly hindering their own walk with the Lord and others, simply because no one talks like that any more. But I do love the KJV!

Great post Timmy, I wonder what folks would be saying about the KJV if the NIV was come before it? My guess is they would be saying, who on earth wrote this, I can't hardly understand it. Then they would be fighting over the KJV, not being the best version, and that everyone should be reading the NIV. Is the disagreement about first versions? or the most understandable versions? If it's about first versions, well Moses might have a different opinion about the KJV than most Pro KJV folks here. Bottom line, there is no winner in these kind of disagreements/debates, my guess is no one participating or reading this debate will ever change their version of the Word they read. We should use our lives to change people through Christ, not what Bible version they read.

okay, so I sent an email to the Lockman Foundation asking them why they translated the Greek word "porneia" to simply "immorality" in some passages.

After some further research and consideration I came to a few conclusions.

The Greek word porneia can be applied to illicit sexual conduct of any sort. The English word fornication means Illicit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person, so it is more limiting in meaning.

Could it be that the NASB translators did not want to narrow the meaning too much in some passages, while considering the context in their decision to use "fornication" in others?

As to why they did not use the term "sexual immorality", it is possible that they wanted to keep the translation in a "word for word" format without adding any words. So "immorality" may have been chosen for both of those reasons. From what I have heard the NASB is the most literal word for word translation of the NU text.

I do still think they should have at least used "sexual immorality" or something to that effect which specifies more. The fact that they did not specify enough does concern me a bit and will probably cause me to stay away from using it much.

So right now the bottom line for me is this: While the NASB does not use "fornication" or "fornicator" in some passages it does use it in others, which shows that there was no hidden agenda against that word.

As to why the ESV translators did not use "fornication" at all but instead used "sexual immorality", it could be a matter of choosing the best term that would be faithful to the original Greek word "porneia". In some passages "fornication" may not be the best transaltion because of its limitation in meaning.

I won't rehash any of the original language discussions as they have been fairly well covered. However, here is a different perspective that may not have been considered.

I originally cut my teeth on the KJV, as did many others. I memorized massive quantities of scripture from the KJV in that time. I also know Biblical languages so I was comfortable with them.

HOWEVER, when preaching or teaching I kept noticing something very concerning to me. When quoting a passage I would often have to stop and explain what the English word used in the passage meant. Not explaining the meaning of the Greek...but actually defining the ENGLISH as the word was not one in common use any longer. What would make the situation even worse was when the English language had changed so much since the writing of the KJV that the words now meant EXACT OPPOSITS.

Classic example is in 2 Thess 2:7 which states in the KJV

7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Well that was fine several hundred years ago when the understanding of the word "Let" was , "To stop, hinder, keep from coming to pass". However, TODAY it means , "To allow, or permit". The original Biblical language had not changed...but our English language has been changing so rapidly that the words translated by the KJV translators no longer meant the same thing. In effect by using the KJV you could get 100% wrong information unless you did good word studies. Well...folks shouldn't have to worry that the Bible they are reading is misleading them simply becuase of an English language change over some 100's of years.

I cringed every time I had to explain that the word in a particular instance did not mean what they understood it to mean. It was in effect telling people that their Bible was wrong. I felt that could do nothing but destroy peoples faith so I switched to a more modern translation. One I was comfortable with the accuracy of and that the English words used meant what the original writer of scripture intended for us to understand by them.

I love the KJV. Cut my teeth on it. However, I found it a flawed tool for ministry today for one simple reason. The archaic words often do not convey accurately the message intended because our English language has changed so much since the KJV was translated.

Blessings!

Thank you Solomon101 for your post. Very good point.

This same argument goes back to what greek texts are being used. I checked with the Textus Receptus for some of the verses listed and it agrees with the KJV. Most modern translations use Westcott Hort which are the minority texts and they are different. Why are key doctrines different with WH text? Why are words and verses left out or changed? My son and I had this same discussion tonight with Phil. 4:13. Christ is omitted in WH, but not in Textus Receptus. Interesting. Makes you wonder why.

E-Sword is a free download that has all these translations and text. A great resource.

a777, have you considered the context of Mark 10:24 in the modern versions? It would seem as if not since you have not mentioned anything about that. The immediate context clearly shows Christ referring to the rich and clearly states that it is "impossible" for them to enter except by the grace of God. There is no works based salvation being taught there brother.

Here is how the NIV reads, and the NASB, ESV, NLT and others are similar:

"Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

Just be careful not fall into a legalistic trap brother. God bless.

Hi JB1968...

Most modern translations use Westcott Hort which are the minority texts and they are different. Why are key doctrines different with WH text? Why are words and verses left out or changed?

I think that you may be misunderstanding just what the "Westcott and Hort" entails. They were simply textual critics and translation experts. Their "New Testament in the Original Greek" was simply a translation that took more than 28 years to complete and came from most of the Greek manuscripts that they had available at the time and was completed in 1881. Contrary to rumor, Westcott and Hort did consult texts other than the Alexandrian text-type. They identified and consulted four separate text-types -- the Byzantine text-type ("Majority text" via the Erasmus's Textus Receptus). However, they favored the Alexandrian text-type (as do most scholars and experts).

Although their translation methods were novel at the time (and a lightning rod for criticism), they are standard techniques for translation of both modern and ancient text today. There aren't any contemporary versions of the Bible that are complete or literal translations of Westcott and Hort's work. There were, however, subsequent critical texts produced AFTER Westcott and Hort -- using the same sources -- and nearly every one of them was very close to the Westcott and Hort product.

I also think that it is important to make it clear that most modern translations are NOT reproductions of Westcott and Hort or entirely based upon their texts.

There is a difference between Westcott and Hort's "New Testament in the Original Greek" and the "Minority Text." Westcott and Hort's work was merely a critical text translation completed in 1881. The Minority Text is actually the "Alexandrian text-type." It is the name of a set of the earliest texts and manuscripts. No one really calls it "minority text" except to distinguish it from the Byzantine text-type that was often referred to later as the "majority text."

The Alexandrian text-type is a set of manuscripts that comprise the majority of the earliest known manuscripts. They date from as early as 200 AD -- which was about 100 years after the death of John the apostle. Most of those early manuscripts that are considered a part of the "Alexandrian text-type" (even though many of them were not found in Alexandria) and are from the same passage tend to agree with one another in what was written.

The language of many of the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts is known as "Koine Greek" (or "Biblical Greek"). It is the type of Greek that was spoken between ~350 B.C. through ~350 A.D -- a period of about 700 years. For an idea of what this means, Jesus and the apostles were born somewhere in the middle of this period. This language differs somewhat from the later "Medieval Greek" (or "Byzantine Greek") which was spoken after ~325 A.D. and upon which all of the texts of the Byzantine text-type were based.

As for the differences of the Westcott and Hort, you can probably look at the work yourself at your local library (or university library). In addition, you can look at the actual work itself online by clicking on the following link:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00westrich#page/n523/mode/2up

I would be very clear that Westcott and Hort (or academic versions like the NIV) did not "omit" words -- because the translators simply did not find those words in the manuscripts that they deemed to be the most reliable. Again, I think that it is a stretch to say that "key doctrines" are changed by some of the differences between the source manuscripts and subsequent descendant translations. Some "conspiracy" theorists often accuse versions like the NIV of changing vital doctrines of the Church -- but those doctrines are obviously found throughout the Word of God (often in the very passages that differ slightly).

As someone else pointed out, the text-types actually AGREE on the vast majority of things. I truly believe that the eternal essence of the Word of God is preserved regardless of whether a word appears or not within the context of a particular passage. While we can easily "strain a gnat and swallow a camel" over a difference in words (because of the sources used), we know that the concepts and promises of God remain intact.

I agree with what others have said. We need the Lord to guide us as we study His Word. Otherwise, we would receive no more truth from it than the Mormons -- who rely on the KJV in addition to their additional phony "scriptures."

Christ is omitted in WH, but not in Textus Receptus. Interesting. Makes you wonder why.

Do you have any proof that Westcott and Hort "omitted" this particular word? Have you read this in their "New Testament in the Original Greek?" Is it possible that the source manuscripts from which they gathered their work may have used a different way of translating this verse? Moreover, does the use of the word "Christ" or the pronoun "Him" (which obviously refers to Christ) change the dynamic of the essence of what this verse means?

Just something to think about.

Brother anonymous777....

So many other things that you say are so patently incorrect. I don't know where to begin. You continue to use rhetoric without any sources of proof for what you are saying and just like the modern scribes and textual criticists, you are expecting people to just accept everything you say.

I won't and don't.

If Westcott and Hort used the Textus Receptus and Byzantine Texts why did they leave out YET in John 7:8 which makes Jesus out to be a liar. I just posted something on this. Check it out. I will have a lot more to say about Westcott and Hort.

First of all, it is difficult to accept your premise that they would "leave out" anything. That is quite an accusation that you cannot possibly verify or state with any degree of CERTAINTY. You need to be VERY CAREFUL because the finality by which you are making such judgments is apparently limited by your personal "research." According to their own testimony, they simply translated as best as they could from the ancient manuscripts available to them at the time.

Secondly, you are blaming Westcott and Hort for something that just isn't found in many of the earliest manuscripts that are often deemed most reliable.

Moreover, those "modern" versions that you refer to so negatively didn't just translate Westcott and Hort's work. In this instance (John 7:8), the translators of the NIV include the word "yet" -- but footnote it with honesty to indicate the fact that some early manuscripts do not have the word.

It almost seems like you think that Westcott and Hort were part of some diabolic conspiracy when they translated the Word from the manuscripts that they deemed best at that time. Sadly, there are actually people who are given to these sort of conspiracy theories -- and with so little "evidence" upon which their entire premise is based!

Gotta love this quote from you:

"However, they favored the Alexandrian text-type (as do most scholars and experts)".

That is true, they favored the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Scholars and Experts!! Don't know about that. They have proven to be expert at changing God's Word, though.

Again, I suggest that individuals who really want to study this topic in an unbiased search for truth should go to credible, firsthand sources whenever possible. You can easily contact the various Bible societies, translation experts, and language scholars. I am NOT saying that you have to believe them (far from it, actually), but it is important to know what they actually believe...why they believe it...BEFORE we go about dismissing their views or attributing them to some Satanic conspiracy.

By the way:

Have you ever posted on this website under an alias? This isn't an allegation. It just seems like there are several strongly opinionated KJV-only folks who have attempted to use this website as a means by which they can proclaim their views.

I have to say that the attitude and hostility that you have conveyed in your posts (especially directed at those who either do not accept your claims or who present something that differs from your own opinions) is remarkably similar to some of the other KJV-only guys who frequented (and departed) SermonIndex in the past.

I would urge anyone to NOT believe the things that I write -- or that ANYONE ELSE writes for that matter -- in regard to translation/version supremacy. I simply would urge believers who are interested in this to conduct their own research...and avoid (whenever possible) the biased secondhand sources that are often the catalyst for much of the rumors and calumny regarding this subject. Whenever possible, go to the sources and VERIFY what you read or hear.

Here is the Introduction of the New Testament in Original Greek from 1881. It is a very interesting read. It explains many of the details behind Westcott and Hort's attempt...and how is mirrored somewhat the previous attempt by Erasmus.

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00westrich#page/n9/mode/2up

You're welcome, but I included links and references previously. I also encouraged individuals to go to LIBRARIES to look up the information for themselves -- as much of it isn't found online.

In addition, I am always hesitant to read biased, secondhand sources like the website for the link you provided.

In just a few minutes on that website, I have already had to sift through rhetoric and theories that reek of KJV-only propaganda (such as making unsubstantiated allegations about Westcott and Hort on their HOME PAGE). For example: "He [Burgon] believed, unlike Westcott and Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather than the sand of theory."

However, I will read through the page that you provided, although I won't buy any of the things sold on that website (for a "gift).

*EDIT - By the way, could you let me know if you have ever visited this website under a different alias (as I asked earlier). Again, I am not accusing you of this. I am just interested in how your words strongly resemble those of other KJV-only advocates who frequented SermonIndex in the past with similarly written posts.

Hi anonymous777...

biased, judgemental, discretionary, discerning are not bad words.

God Himself is biased. You're biased, we are all biased based on what we believe to be true. We are all partial to what we think is the truth.

There is a difference between the Eternal, undeniable truth of God...and the opinions of individuals regarding the supposed supremacy of one version, translation or set of sources over others.

There is also questions about whether some biased sources have preconceived conclusions. In other words, instead of looking for unbiased truth in the matter, some could be simply searching for any words that would somehow validate their pre-conceived opinions.

Burgon says many good things just like you believe Westcott and Hort, do. Have you ever entertained anything negative about Westcott and Hort?

I think that you misjudged me (again). I did NOT say that I "believe" Westcott and Hort. In fact, I simply see them as flawed individuals -- just like you, me, Erasmus, Burgon and the translators of the NIV and KJV. They simply appear to have translated a version of the New Testament from ancient manuscripts (like Erasmus).

Since we don't have all of the documents that Erasmus used, it is difficult to apply the same type of scrutiny to his Textus Receptus. However, many other people have done EXACTLY what Westcott and Hort did for years after they completed their work -- and the agreement between their efforts seems to have validated one another's work.

I would like to mention (again) that many of those contemporary translations of Scripture consulted Wescott and Hort's text AS WELL AS other manuscripts, texts, text-types and original source material.

I have several friends that frequent SI and I have never posted KJV articles. Many Pro KJVers post the same arguments just like many non-KJVers do.

I really would like to post about other things to tell you the truth.

Again, this wasn't an accusation at all. My question about this wasn't due simply to the things that you post from similar websites. Rather, it was the methodical approach by which you posted it and the hostility that you seem to express toward those who either question your information or basis for research...or who simply have an opinion or conclusion that differs from you own.

I have no problem with you sharing or your ability to share. I just hope that we can mingle our words with the salt of realization that we are on still residing on this side of the "glass darkly" (I Corinthians 13). None of us are "all knowing" in regard to the supremacy of one translation or source texts over others. However, there is quite a bit of rhetoric that tries to convey an ultimate verdict in the matter. I would quickly question any such verdict if the person (or persons) responsible for it have limited their research to secondhand sources in nearly every situation.

Hi anonymous777...

You are the only one that has called me hostile. I just don't think you like the message.

I didn't call you a "hostile." I simply said that you react with hostility toward me and others who disagree with your KJV-only views. I can actually go back and reference those from the thread...but it is just as easy for you to go back and read your own posts and how you respond to those of us who disagree with you.

As for "the message:" I simply disagree with your views.

I show comparisons of scriptures but you discount that.

I don't "discount" this -- but I have simply explained that you are comparing "apples" and "oranges" and fail to explain that the vast majority of those "differences" is due to the differences is SOURCES used for each translation. However, you seem to imply that any such difference is somehow "incorrect" or an "omission" from the KJV -- even though those things are simply and typically not found in the sources used for the KJV.

I show where Christ, Lord, Hell are removed and additions or subtractions are made to cause the Bible to fall in line with Romish doctrine.

"Subtracted" is the WRONG word, brother. How are these words "subtracted" if they weren't found in the original sources used for translation of such verses in the first place? Do you see the fallacy of such an allegation?

Moreover, your rhetoric sounds like the contemporary translations were created via some conspiracy to "cause the Bible to fall in line with Romish doctrine" -- when, ironically, the text that you prefer was largely based upon a single translation of one Catholic man! Besides, I find it ridiculous to say that any difference in source text equates versions like the NIV or NASB as an attempt to align them with the harlot Roman church. I really think that you are connecting dots incorrectly here.

I am a common man. Not a "Scholar". I will continue to show what a common man would show. What is missing in the Bible. You want to tell me that what is missing is OK and that it is GOOD according to the "scholars and experts".

It doesn't matter whether you are a "common" man or a "common" man with multiple degrees. Rather, the issue is more about the weight of evidence that we place in our sources.

Also, again, you are placing words in my mouth and attributing ideas to me that I did not say. I did not tell you that "what is missing is OK." Rather, I am saying that most of those things that you are pointing out are not in some versions and translations BECAUSE they weren't found in the sources used by those translators.

Those Alexandrian text-type manuscripts used are much, much older than what is found in the Byzantine text-type. MOST scholars and experts feel that they are not only older, but more reliable (for several reasons). I would urge you to contact those experts (at Bible societies, colleges, universities, etc...) in order to find out the reasons WHY they feel as they do.

I do think that this is much more reliable than simply consulting books and articles written by an interior decorator (Gail Riplinger) -- who, ironically, also relies on scholars and experts...but only a handful that she chooses to be more reliable. Of course, you haven't told me just what you are basing all of your research upon. Are there ANY scholars, experts or original writings upon which you are basing your opinions? I mentioned Gail Riplinger previously because you cited her. Her work, ironically, relies upon citations of others -- and even much of that comes from biased (right or wrong) KJV-only sources.

Since you are making this about me, I think it best if I just present my data and you present your data. Let's not converse with each other, because you have labeled me hostile towards you.

I totally support your right to believe as you wish -- particularly after you have researched the matter. I do question the extent and type of research that you have performed (because you haven't stated it explicitly). However, I am not trying to make you my "disciple" or trying to force my opinion about this matter upon you.

Like I have said, I do not have a final opinion about this subject. I do not know with absolute certainty just WHICH versions, translations or sources are ultimately superior than the others. I was simply showing you what others feel about the matter...and why I understand their views. As a result, I regularly use the KJV, NASB and NIV.

By the way, I do feel that you have reacted with hostility toward me. You have put words in my mouth and implied what I believe and what I am trying to do -- which happened to be incorrect. You called me out by name. I don't mind you pointing out something that I have said or written. However, I think that you may go to far when you read between the lines and assume that I believe or said something that I did not say at all.

I am not KJV-only. I prefer the KJV -- alongside the NASB and NIV. I do understand many of the views on each side of this topic. I just happen to lean toward a more scholarly approach that I feel that most text experts, translators and scholars hold. They do make some valid points. However, if we refuse to hear those points in their entirety, we can't really weigh all of the evidence, can we?

Hi anonmyous777...

In reference to your update:

I wouldn't say you are hostile (that is a really strong word), but as far as the written word goes, you seem to talk down to me.

I apologize if it came across that way. I don't mean to even appear to talk down to you at all. I just have to question the final verdict type of argument that you are presenting. You simply are not leaving ANY room for being incorrect in any of your proclamations.

I hope that I am not coming across that way. As I have said several times before, I do NOT know with any certainty whether one version is somehow superior to all others. I do NOT know with any certainty whether one set of sources is somehow superior to all others.

However, I do tend to question those who make such proclamations that come across as "absolute certainty." I don't believe that you know with absolute certainty that the KJV is superior to all other versions of the Bible. I don't believe that you know with absolute certainty that the source texts in the lineage of the KJV is superior to all other sources. So, in a sense, I believe that we are all in the same boat.

WE should seasons our words with this salted admission that we just aren't absolutely certain -- especially if we are aware of the limited extent of our own research. We just can't rely solely on the research of others if we haven't "tested" it and "verified" whether it "holds water" of truth or not. Again, I am not saying that you (or I) have done this either. I will say that I have read through many KJV-only books that just wouldn't hold up to normal, peer-reviewed scholarly scrutiny in much of their claims, verdicts and even "research."

May the Lord lead us to Him.

So many other things that you say are so patently incorrect. I don't know where to begin. You continue to use rhetoric without any sources of proof for what you are saying and just like the modern scribes and textual criticists, you are expecting people to just accept everything you say.

Everything Chris has said is something every first year seminary student will learn, be it in a conservative or liberal school. It's easily verifiable. All you need to do is read.

If Westcott and Hort used the Textus Receptus and Byzantine Texts why did they leave out YET in John 7:8 which makes Jesus out to be a liar. I just posted something on this. Check it out. I will have a lot more to say about Westcott and Hort.

Do you really want to know why? Or are you just asking for rhetorical purposes?

That is true, they favored the Alexandrian manuscripts, but they also favored the Codex Vaticanus, kept under lock and key by Rome and responsible for over 36,000 changes in modern bibles. We only get to see a few pages here and there. Why does Rome keep it under lock and key? And for that matter, why do we accept our modern bibles being based on Rome's corrupt Codex Vaticanus?

Just because Westcott, Hort, and others "favor" a certain text, doesn't mean they use it exclusively. There are over 5,000 manuscripts that compose the Greek New Testament. None is complete, none is without error, and there are no two that completely agree. Not even the multiple texts that formed the KJV translation.

Scholars, ancient and modern, have devised various methods at trying to deduce from the 5,000 manuscripts laid before them, which parts are the best and most like the originals. There are entire verses out there with literally a dozen or more variants.

In textual criticism, words or verses are "left out" or "added" depending on what the Scribe think the best composition of a verse is, based off his examination of the 5,000+ texts available to him. Such has never been as easy as saying Majority Text, Minority Text, or "Western" Text. Even within those three major families, there are great deviations from one another.

Scholars and Experts!! Don't know about that. They have proven to be expert at changing God's Word, though.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the KJV authors perhaps added some verses? I mean, the original 1611 KJV Bible did include the Apocrypha. A whopping 6 additional books of the Bible.

Maybe the textual critics of today aren't taking away words and verses, as you charge, but perhaps they are actually just properly compiling the Greek manuscript to more accruately reflect the original autographs? Autographs which have been lost to time. And in the process, they decided to drop the apocrypha from their translations.

So, exactly who is adding and who is taking away here? Hmmmm....

Additionally, critical Greek texts of the New Testament today, namely UBS4 and NA27, decisions as to which variants are to be favored are decided by a committee of scholars. And these committee's have published brief comments on most of the major variants, and why they decided what they decided. They note even their disagreements with eachother. They then report how many people voted one way or the other, and "grade" the likelihood that a variant reflects the original. There are no conspiracies here. It is a very transparent and open process.

And the awesome thing about all of this, is that even after all this has been done, the individual scholar, student, and layman can freely agree or disagree with the decisions made. Indeed, when I studied in school, there were times I disagreed with the choices the scholars made as to the final composition of the text.

Such is a pretty awesome thing to participate in. I would highly encourage you to learn enough Greek to look at these things with your own eyes. It's not an easy thing to learn, but with a few months of intense study, it can be done.

You have bundled competing facts and information together to create some new "fact" that is not true. In essence, you are co-opting a genuine fact of the KJV and attributing it to new versions. That's not nice.

Brother, I have read these Greek manuscripts with my own eyes in Greek. I have studied many variants... variants both in all of the families, including disagreements amongst the text that made up the KJV.

The 5,000 Greek manuscripts you refer to support the KJV.

You can say this if you want. But it is not factual. These 5,000 manuscripts disagree at times with the text that underlies the KJV. Not always. There is a lot more agreement among the texts than disagreements. But there are literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of variants amongst all of these text. Some are simple misspellings and such.

The four centuries since the KJV was translated have provided no "deluge" of new material

Actually, many manuscripts have since been found. And because of technological advances, scholars are always a click away from being able to examine at once all the variants for themselves. The KJV scholars did not have this advantage. They were limited to the texts immediately within their possession. That's not to say they were greatly handicapped by any stretch of the imagination. But they definitely were working with less.

Here is some modern reasoning.

(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).

That is not how it works brother. I fear you don't understand the actual process of these things. But more than that, I fear you really don't care about how the actual process works.

Modern versions are based on the Vaticanus and look what is omitted.

No modern version is "based" on the Vaticanus or any other particular text. They simply consider the Vaticanus as one amongst many other texts available for consideration. Favor may be given to certain text types when weighing these things. But I promise you this is not how it works.

When I was in seminary, I was given a verse. For one verse, I had multiple pages of charts weighing the pro's and the con's of each variant. I would literally consult dozens of texts, across 1600 years of Greek texts. Sometimes I agreed with older minority texts. Sometimes I agreed with the "majority" texts.

The "eclectic" process of textual criticism keeps you from doing what you are inaccurately depicting as happening.

Chris,

Do you have any proof that Westcott and Hort "omitted" this particular word? Have you read this in their "New Testament in the Original Greek?" Is it possible that the source manuscripts from which they gathered their work may have used a different way of translating this verse? Moreover, does the use of the word "Christ" or the pronoun "Him" (which obviously refers to Christ) change the dynamic of the essence of what this verse means?

Yes, here is some proof:

Here is the TR with "Christo" as the last word: (GNT-TR) παντα ισχυω εν τω ενδυναμουντι με χριστω

Here is WH with the the last word Christo missing: (GNT-WH+) παντα ισχυω εν τω ενδυναμουντι με

Obviously the texts differ. I am no NT Greek scholar, but I have had Koine Greek in Bible College. This is just the example of Phil. 4:13. As to changing the meaning of the verse? No, I do not think so. If the text says Christo, it should be Christo, not Him. But, to tamper with Scripture, one has to be very careful. This has happened over and over by textual critics. Does that mean there should be no textual criticism? I am not saying that, but one needs to be careful.

Hi anonymous777...

Here is some modern reasoning.

(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).

You keep saying that this is "modern reasoning" -- but I have never met or communicated with a single textual critic or scholar who implied this.

The reason that most scholars favor the Alexandrian text-type isn't limited to the fact that most of those texts are much OLDER. There is a belief that the manuscripts that make up the Byzantine text-type were actually derived from manuscripts that resembled the Alexandrian text-types.

Of course, if you haven't made an effort to contact modern scholars, textual critics or language experts, then HOW can you know just WHAT they believe and WHY they believe it?

And, yes, there is some weight given to the age of the earliest known manuscripts. First of all, the various manuscripts are obtained from diverse locations and the text largely agrees with one another. There are some Alexandrian manuscripts of Paul's epistles and the Gospels that are dated at ~200 A.D. -- approximately 100 years from the time that the authors were actually alive. That is akin to the time difference of a copy of a manuscript that was written in around 1911.

The King James Committee submitted their work to the area churches weekly for review. They believed the Word of God belongs to the people.

Which is fantastic. But they didn't ask the Puritans now, did they? The Church of England didn't like those guys you know. Indeed, they even killed some of them.

And the decisions they made, and why they made them, have been forever lost to time. Where are their notes? Heck... forget the notes... where is their Greek manuscript?

Westcott and Hort, kept their work secret for the first 10 years. (Well documented and not biased).

Again, the UBS4 and NA27 scholars have published commentaries that explain almost every decision they made. And they did so in a book. We can read their Greek text, and we can read the commentary they left us to explain the decisions they made. The KJV scholars left us no such work. Indeed, the Greek manuscript they compiled for the purpose of their translation has since been lost to time... which is why scholars in later years have attempted to reconstruct that text.

So... who is open? The people who actually published all of their work, to be continually studied, examined, and debated, and when necessary, revising?

Triple 7,

Interesting quote,

"Gotta love this quote from you:

"However, they favored the Alexandrian text-type (as do most scholars and experts)".

That is true, they favored the Alexandrian manuscripts, but they also favored the Codex Vaticanus, kept under lock and key by Rome and responsible for over 36,000 changes in modern bibles. We only get to see a few pages here and there. Why does Rome keep it under lock and key? And for that matter, why do we accept our modern bibles being based on Rome's corrupt Codex Vaticanus?

Because many average day people don't know about it.

Scholars and Experts!! Don't know about that. They have proven to be expert at changing God's Word, though."

Good point. Most people don't realize this.

By the way, if you wanted to study why the scholars made the decisions they made, you can simply read: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Society, to compliment the 4th edition of their critical Greek text.

http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-Testament-Ancient/dp/1598561642/ref=pd_sim_b_9

It's rather dull reading. Have a cup of coffee on hand.

King Jimmy,

"Have you ever stopped to consider that the KJV authors perhaps added some verses? I mean, the original 1611 KJV Bible did include the Apocrypha. A whopping 6 additional books of the Bible.

Maybe the textual critics of today aren't taking away words and verses, as you charge, but perhaps they are actually just properly compiling the Greek manuscript to more accruately reflect the original autographs? Autographs which have been lost to time. And in the process, they decided to drop the apocrypha from their translations.

So, exactly who is adding and who is taking away here? Hmmmm...."

My understanding of the apocraypha being added was that it was not considered inspired writings by the translators, but helpful reading to understand some Jewish history etc.

My understanding of the apocraypha being added was that it was not considered inspired writings by the translators, but helpful reading to understand some Jewish history etc.

Whatever the case, it was published as a part of the original 1611 KJV of the Bible. That's enough to destroy any notion of the KJV being perfect and without error.

Hi JB1968...

Yes, here is some proof:

Here is the TR with "Christo" as the last word: (GNT-TR) παντα ισχυω εν τω ενδυναμουντι με χριστω

Here is WH with the the last word Christo missing: (GNT-WH+) παντα ισχυω εν τω ενδυναμουντι με

Okay...but, as I said, this doesn't prove that Westcott and Hort OMITTED the word. It could simply mean that the ancient sources that they used...that they honestly deemed to be the most reliable...simply did not have the word in the first place.

In other words, they weren't reproducing the Textus Receptus and omitting words that they didn't believe should be there. Rather, they were doing the SAME THING that Erasmus did when he created his work -- and producing an entirely new version from the sources that they deemed to be the most reliable.

Obviously the texts differ. I am no NT Greek scholar, but I have had Koine Greek in Bible College.

This is just the example of Phil. 4:13. As to changing the meaning of the verse? No, I do not think so. If the text says Christo, it should be Christo, not Him. But, to tamper with Scripture, one has to be very careful.

Every translator must "tamper" (so to speak) with language. The translators of the KJV were just as required to "tamper" with language as the translators of the NIV. In fact, the translators of the KJV wrote that they had certain language requirements that they had to adhere to.

However, I think that the fallacy in all of this is the allegation that certain contemporary translators "tampered" (as in some sort of effort to impart their own views [or worse]) with their translations by "omitting" words or verses.

This is the caution that I am trying to suggest. WE shouldn't be given over to allegations that just don't have any evidence to substantiate them. If someone is using honest academic and scholarship to faithfully translate a version of the New Testament from ancient manuscripts that differ somewhat from the Textus Receptus and Byzantine text-type, we should expect that there are some differences. This is not because of a conspiracy -- but because the text sources differ.

Brother,

What do you mean by "tamper"?

The selective "tamper" word was not my choice...but JB's. However, the process of TRANSLATING a word from one language to another requires for individuals to CHOOSE which word best fits -- even if they claim to believe solely in "formal equivalence."

Of course, the "formal equivalence" argument is moot -- because the text itself must be rearranged so that it can be understood by the reader in the language era for which it is being translated.

My wife obtained a graduate level degree in a language and worked as a professor. However, she has often been asked to translate many documents (including Gospel tracts). Often, she would translate one document alongside another person. If dynamic equivalence was so "cut-and-dry," there would NEVER be any variance. However, this just isn't the case. My wife would often translate a document word-for-word from a source...and a colleague would do the same. However, they would often have translated documents that just weren't entirely the same.

Even the translators of the KJV recognized alternative possible translations for words and phrases. However, they weren't permitted to include those in the margins of their work like other translations have done.

By the way, I think that you misunderstand "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence." Most translators use a combination of both -- even if they rely on one form more readily.

Still, I am interested in just WHERE you are getting your information about Wescott and Hort's methods. Did you find this out from reading Wescott and Hort's own words about their techniques -- or did you obtain this elsewhere? This is what I mean about the importance of going to the sources.

Moreover, most modern versions (like I said) use a balance between the two forms of approach to translation. And, again, contemporary translations like the NIV were not a reproduction of Westcott and Hort's work anyway.

At least tell people or give a link to explain the difference in translation techniques that were used. We don't have anything to hide, do we?

What are you trying to insinuate? Do you see what I mean about the "hostility" by which you approach those who don't agree with your "absolute" nature of your conclusions/proclamations in this subject? By the way, I tend to stay away from Jack Chick's website. While I do like some of his tracts, and I used to read quite a bit of his material as a teenager, I realize the flaws in much of the "absolutes" that he proclaims. Ever read "HE CAME TO SET THE CAPTIVES FREE" by Dr. Rebecca Brown? Wow.

It is a well known, unbiased fact that the 5300 plus manuscripts for the Textus Receptus agree with each other 99% of the time and the Vaticanus (from Rome) and the Sinaiticus (from the trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery) disagree over 3000 times in the Gospels alone.

Brother, based off my reading of the Greek text and examination of the variant manuscripts, with my own eyes, this is not true.

Jimmy, have you ever really looked into what is missing in the modern bibles?

I've read the Greek manuscripts with my own eyes. Have you?

Whatever the case, it was published as a part of the original 1611 KJV of the Bible. That's enough to destroy any notion of the KJV being perfect and without error.

I disagree King Jimmy. We have many Study Bibles that have more helps than is contained in the Apocrapha. But that is not inspired, only the Bible is. God will preserve His Word.

On a side note, we were at Walmart today and they are selling a 400th anniversary edition of the 1611 KJV minus the Apoc. It has the origianal study helps in it etc. It is a facsimile of the original 1611. Even the f's for the s's.
All for $4.95.

Chris,
I was taught koine Greek, which is the common language of the NT world.

Jimmy, you read all 5487 greek manuscripts from all over the world with your very own eyes? And cross-checked and compared them? My apologies. I am impressed!

No. But the texts of NA27 and UBS4 have all the major variants documented in the Greek text. IF you ever look at a "critical" Greek New Testament, the amount of variants listed on each page often consume more page than the actual text under consideration. These things are very well documented. It will tell you the variants, and list in what manuscripts these variants exist. And having spent quite a bit of time in both the NA27 and UBS4 Greek texts, while far from being a PhD in my knowledge of these things, I know enough to spot something that's simply not true.

Hi JB1968...

Chris,
I was taught koine Greek, which is the common language of the NT world.

Yes, that is what I meant in my previous comment about it. I was just pointing out that many of the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts are written in Koine "Biblical" Greek, but none of the Byzantine text-type "Majority text" manuscripts were written in that variant of the language. Instead, the manuscripts contained within Byzantine text-type were written in Medieval Greek.

In other words, I was merely pointing out that many of the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts were of the same language era as Koine "Biblical" Greek...and the Byzantine text-type manuscripts were written in a later variant of the language.

I apologize for any confusion.

The common, everyday Christian is usually not interested in most everything we are talking about regarding manuscripts

This is no excuse to be a bad student, or to make comments about things you don't understand. In my opinion, if you have never read Greek, you really have no place whatsoever at the table discussing textual criticism. It's like arguing with a nuclear scientist on how to make a better bomb without ever having taken a physics class.

You might find that offensive... but common... honestly, how can you talk about what translations are better translations if you don't even know the Greek alphabet, and some basic parts of Greek grammar? Let alone if you've not examined an ancient Greek manuscript... in Greek.

Nice charts triple 7.

I remember hearing in Bible College the liberal beliefs of W and H. Makes you wonder.

Two Lines of Bible Manuscripts.

There are actually three "lines" of manuscripts, by the way.

http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/2texts-2.html

The problem with this chart is that it doesn't take into account the "cross-pollination" of text families. Texts are grouped into three major families, the majority, alexandrian, and western texts. In the hundreds and thousands of texts that make up each individual family, there are unique qualities that make them generally distinct from one another.

However, with that said, there is also a great deal of overlap. It's like if you drew three circles on a piece of paper, that overlap one another some. There are some features of the majority texts that come up in the alexandrian, and western, but likewise, some of the western that make their way into the alexandrian and majority... and everything in between. There are lots of idiosyncrasies in these manuscripts. A clear distinction between families isn't always clear... especially when you just have some documents that are but fragments of the original.

For fun, do a little experiment. Take a few paragraphs of anything, and give it to friends and family. Tell them to make a hand written copy of the document. Then if you can, have them repeat the process with another group of people. Then, if you can, gather together all the copies everybody made, and compare them side by side to the original.

What will happen is that you will find that errors are introduced into the copies. People will leave out words, misspell things, or get word orders wrong. Repeat this process over and over again for 1600 years, across various geographies... and see what you come out with...

I remember hearing in Bible College the liberal beliefs of W and H. Makes you wonder.

I just have to ask: Did you actually "hear" this from a secondhand source, or did you read this from Westcott and Hort's own writings?

It would be quite awful if a professor "taught" something that was either hearsay or based solely upon something that was handed down to him from someone else.

In many KJV-only websites and books that I have read, there have been some nasty things written that amounted to nothing more than libelous rumors...typically taken from quotes that are taken from books that in turn take things from quotes that are supposedly taken from books. In two instances, one website actually quoted another website...and vice versa.

It makes you wonder just how easily persuaded some believers might be. After all, the Word of God reminds us, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15). Yes, this is speaking of the Word. However, in everyday things, we shouldn't be quite so selectively limited when we approach any matter.

If we are going to entertain slanderous allegations and accusations about people (or even the translation efforts of individuals), we either need to be ENTIRELY certain that such things are true...or be VERY CAREFUL before we go about repeating those things or presenting them as absolute certainties.

Three lines? Could you post the 3rd line, please. At least you don't deny the two lines.

The third line, as I have noted, is called "The Western Text." The so-called "Western Text" is about 10% longer than any of the Alexandrian/Majority texts. To put that in perspective, the extra verbiage in the Greek western texts would be like having 2.8 more chapters in the book of Acts.

There is a lot of info, I know.

Don't you think it would be more profitable, perhaps, to actually study Greek and read the manuscripts for yourself, than spending time pouring over silly conspiracy theory websites? You know, actually study and show yourself approved?

Chris wanted me to research their own words. Here you go.

http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP47.htm

The Hidden Motives of Westcott and Hort, in their own words.
http://preservingthebible.org/hidden_motives_of_westcott.htm

WestCott and Hort: Translator's Belief's with references.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-heretics.htm

More quotes from Fenton John Anthony Hort (the most outspoken of the two). http://www.elijahproject.org/hort.html

Hmmm...I really, really hope that you don't think that this is "researching their own words."

Rather, this is merely reading "selections" (if that) from websites that are biased on the matter. In fact, it is merely the REPEATING of hearsay IF you haven't really tested and verified the allegations for yourself.

When you find out what is going on you begin to realize that it is no wonder that people have sprung up all over the place to defend the King James Bible.

All of those rumors, insinuations, and statements that attack other versions and translators just really isn't a proper "defense" for some strange premise that the KJV is the best version (or the only "perfect" version) of God's Word.

The Hidden Motives of Westcott and Hort, in their own words.

I hate to burst your bubble, but as impactful as Westcott and Hort were in the field of textual criticism, today's Greek manuscripts and modern translations are not based off their work. Their work may have influenced the field, in conservative and liberal schools, but, there have been many revisions to what they first published many years ago.

And by the way, when I was actually being a good Greek student and actively doing textual criticism in seminary, Westcott and Hort were not really ever in my mind. Indeed, I can't think of a thing I ever did that was based directly off anything they said. I simply looked over the Greek manuscripts myself, and "established the text" as I saw fit, independently of them. Which is why the NA27 and UBS4 are so awesome. I don't have to rely on what other men have said. I can determine things in the privacy of my own study by myself. I can agree and disagree with them all day long, and submit my findings to be reviewed by my peers.

To put this in perspective... relying on Westcott and Hort would be like me relying on the maps Christopher Columbus drew when he discovered America. Not a bad start... and I am thankful for the contribution. But lately, I use Google Maps on my Droid to get around town. What Colubmus discovered, while influential, is well... a bit dated. Kinda like Westcott and Hort. We've moved on.

I think, I will stick with these two lines.

Unfortunately, you cannot do that. It is a part of the manuscript evidence, and every line must be considered on its own merits. There are sometimes when it appears, based off my examination, that the Western text is actually to be favored. Such is rare. But not entirely. It has its place though.

They may be great grand fathers of modern textual criticism, but with that said, we are all free to agree or disagree with their conclusions, as scholarship has been doing since they first published their works. That is the beauty of textual criticism, and reading Greek for yourself.

I hate to burst your bubble, but as impactful as Westcott and Hort were in the field of textual criticism, today's Greek manuscripts and modern translations are not based off their work. Their work may have influenced the field, in conservative and liberal schools, but, there have been many revisions to what they first published many years ago.

Exactly.

And those who are so quick to repeat the words that they hear about Westcott and Hort are usually the same ones who fail to apply the same level of criticism to Desiderius Erasmus (the Dutch Catholic humanist who singlehandedly created the Textus Receptus) up or any of the translators of the KJV.

Some of those translators of the KJV had some pretty interesting beliefs (including some who, from their own writings, admitted to holding certain anglo-catholic "High Church" traditions -- including a belief in the adoration of saints).

Erasmus was also quite a character when you read his own writings and contemporary biographies of his life. While some would like to argue that he was a "reformer," it is quite shocking to read Erasmus's own words about a belief in "sacred tradition" as a source just as valuable as the revelation of Scripture. He accused those who opposed the worship of Mary to be "blasphemers."

This could be alarming, given the fact that he was singlehandedly responsible for the Textus Receptus -- the work that the New Testament in the KJV is largely based upon.

Still, I am NOT saying that any of Erasmus's views (or the views of other translators of the KJV) made its way into their works. Similarly, I wouldn't say that Westcott and Hort's views (whatever they may have been) ever made it into their works either.

I just find it interesting that some people will "strain a gnat" in regard to versions that are NOT the KJV...but refuse to admit to "swallowing a camel" in regard to the same level of scrutiny of the KJV or its set of sources.

in regard to the same level of scrutiny of the KJV or its set of sources.

What many fail to note is that Erasmus was simply doing the same thing modern scholars do today. He had a body of manuscripts before him, and realizing they were all different, he engaged in textual criticism. And as is the nature of textual criticism, you must engage in some form of eclecticism in order to produce a text which you wish to serve as the basis of your translation.

The first rule of translation is: establish a text. And Erasmsus did exactly that. You could be intellectually lazy and just translate one manuscript. But, when you start noticing differences between manuscripts, you are forced to make hard, thoughtful, prayerful decisions.

And now my disclaimer for Chris' benefit.

"I do not know Jack Chick, I am not related to Jack Chick, I have not read everything that Jack Chick has published and therefore I cannot say that I agree or disagree with his material that I have not read, but I do agree with the material that I have read".

Are such attempts at wit really all that necessary? I never accused you of any of these things.

In fact, as I said, I like some of Chick's materials (including some of his tracts). However, I couldn't care less if you were Jack Chick, related to Jack Chick or read everything that Jack Chick has ever published.

More importantly, I would simply urge you to NOT limit your "research" to things found in books by Jack Chick's publishing company...or Gail Riplinger...or the Google search for 5 minutes in order to "research" the Western Text type at KJV-only websites and then copy and paste it here.

Do you not understand what it means to really study and research this issue?

It isn't just finding information that agrees with your own views. It is testing everything that you hear...have been taught...or have read...and verifying whether or not it is true. If you haven't read Westcott and Hort's own words, then you haven't verified whether they really said anything that your "sources" accuse them of.

You might find that offensive... but common... honestly, how can you talk about what translations are better translations if you don't even know the Greek alphabet, and some basic parts of Greek grammar? Let alone if you've not examined an ancient Greek manuscript... in Greek.

When I red the above I just had to post a quick comment of agreement. That is why I stated that it is unreasonable for someone who does not know the original languages to completely approve of or condemn the English translations being discussed. If you don't know any of those languages all you can do is prayerfully consider second hand information, which is what Chris has been reasonably pointing out. That's why I do not want to get into this debate that much. I would be dishonest and unreasonably biased to completely approve of or condemn any of these translations because I don't know any of the original languages and cannot read the manuscripts or texts for myself to do an honest evaluation of the matter(phewww, that was a mouthfull)

KingJimmy, finally someone who actually knows some NT Greek has shown up. Where have you been?:). JK.

If you really want to understand textual criticism, read the works of F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger. If you've never read their writings for yourself (from cover to cover), you've never really studied the issues at hand with textual criticism. Metzger is probably the most important person you could read for modern NT scholarship.

KingJimmy, finally someone who actually knows some NT Greek has shown up. Where have you been?:). JK.

LOL. There are a few others on here. But my Greek is a bit dated. It's been about 4 or 5 years since I've even touched a grammar or my flash cards. At the end of my limited days, I've always been pretty happy with the NASB. When I would translate something, I often found my translations were very close in agreement with the NASB. So, unless I'm doing a serious in depth word study, I seldom crack into my Greek anymore. I would like to get back into it just to flex my brain a bit. But working 55 hours a week makes it hard to do :-)

Westcott and Hort relied on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus only because they were said to be older. I have no idea why Protestants boast in these Romish manuscripts. I think they have been sold a bill of intellectualism. The RCC is very good at that. And the modern bibles bear the bad fruit of it.

...and you know this because, uh?

Have you EVER read any writings of Westcott and Hort...or do you really have such faith in the words that others tell you about them?

Do you see the weird form of logic that you are extrapolating? You take what you perceive to be a "fact" (that Westcott and Hort used certain manuscripts) and somehow "conclude" (via an announcement of "absolute certainty") that Westcott and Hort relied on those manuscripts simply "because they were said to be older." Yet, you haven't even said just WHAT evidence that you are basing your opinion upon.

Moreover, you are accusing some manuscripts that PREDATE the Roman Catholic "church" as being "Romish" -- but you don't convey the same level of scrutiny toward Erasmus -- who WAS undoubtedly a Catholic AND a humanist! Why do you not offer the same scrutiny to Desiderius Erasmus...or even Lancelot Andrewes.

By the way, I think that it would be best if we all could include evidence of our research (whether from websites or books) that are NOT "KJV-only" in their agenda. In fact, if you decide to avoid quoting solely from KJV-only websites, I will do my best not to quote any NIV-only websites.

They tended to put more emphasis on the Latin copies and the famous Latin Vulgate comes from these texts. They were used a lot in Roman world.

Apparently you are not aware that Erasmus used the Vulgate to complete some of the TR(see wikipedia entry on the TR).

Brethren,

Here are my thoughts on this long thread.

I appreciate the people on here who sincerely fear and love God and his everlasting unaltered Word. I must say that I have not done any real research concerning how all the different versions came about. The only thing I do know is that most of the modern versions use (what they say are) the 2 oldest manuscripts which have recently been discovered within the past 120 years.

I thank God for all the people who have read any version of the bible and were saved by the marvelous grace of God. There is enough of the gospel in most any version of the bible to save and bless people who read it. I can read most any version along with the KJV and be blessed and also not be so blessed. The reason I said and also not be blessed is where words are left out and in some places whole verses are even left out and even in some places the meaning has changed. Now in my love for God and His pure Word, I have to make a decision concerning what version I am going to rely on as the most accurate to what God has inspired to be written down. Brethren I must say that God has given me real peace about this and I do not even have to argue with others who see it differently, for we will all have to give our own account on that day of all God has said to us. The decision for me was easy when I considered the greatness of our God and the fact that he said He is the Lord and changes not and that His Word endures forever.

In the book of revelations he says that we are not to add to the word or take away from the word or there would be serious consequences. It came to me one day that the KJV came about because of a real need to get the word of God to the English speaking people and what a blessing it would be if some how it could be updated without changing the meaning or leaving out any verses. The NKJV is the only modern version that follows close to the KJV. The sad reason that we don’t have major publishers to update the KJV is because of the 2 recent manuscripts that they have found to be older than the majority. Also and I could be wrong but money is probably another reason. It is serious consequences to add to or take away from the true Word of God.

This is how I have come to have peace in relying on the KJV where there is a real change in meaning or something is completely left out. The first main reason is that for almost 300 years there was no doubt concerning the accuracy of the bible among most of Christendom because there were no 2 oldest manuscripts to question the accuracy of the bible. Also if you will notice that the very words and verses that are left out of the many modern versions are pure and powerful words that don’t need to be left out. They are sacred words that have powerful meaning. They are words like Christ, Holy, repentance, and blood just to name a few. Now if one was to add to the word or take away from the word wouldn’t it be the meaning of what God was saying to us and we all know that God is holy and to be revered above everything else. Why would God almost 300 years later and many saints gone to glory try to get these new versions out to let us know that for several 100 years the word of God had been added to and now we need to take out words and verses that don’t need to be in there? If you memorized Colossians 1:14 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: and you loved to quote and meditate on that scripture and then you picked up a more modern version because it was easy to read but you came across words and verses left out and you found that ‘through His blood’ was left out of col 1:14 you wouldn’t think that God would want that part of the verse left out because of the precious blood of Christ. I would immediately think that if I’m going to err with a version of the bible then it will have to be the one with the precious blood of Christ. Some will say I believe that the KJV has been added to and we don’t need all those words and verses but I would say have you read all those words and verses and if you have which ones do you think needs to be left out. I had rather stand before God on that Day believing that He was able to get the correct manuscripts to the people who wrote the bible in English to the common people for around 300 years than to believe that for 300 years they had the wrong manuscripts.

The word of God is clear about ‘professing themselves to be wise they became fools’ and God also said not many wise or noble men are called. God never said that we need to be well educated to know what is of God and what is not of God but we are to be filled with the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit of truth would lead us in to all truth.

Brethren I got to quit for now but praise God I love the Lord because he first loved me.

Blessings to all!

@ anonymous777...

Yes, Westcott and Hort consulted the Codex Vaticanus during their work. However, it seems that you are under some mistaken idea that Westcott and Hort LIMITED their research to a couple of texts like that. They didn't.

They consulted MANY texts in addition to the Codex Vaticanus -- which, by the way, is dated to roughly the same time as the advent of the heretical Roman Catholic Church (throwing doubt into the notion that there was any "Catholic" influence in the text).

And, as Jimmy pointed out, Westcott and Hort's work only played a minor role in an early translation of the Greek. Others came along who did the same. It is misleading to claim that versions like the NIV relied largely on the work of Westcott and Hort -- when they used an entirely eclectic set of sources for their translation of the New Testament.

Still, are you also willing to apply the same level of scrutiny that you direct at Westcott and Hort to Erasmus...or Lancelot Andrewes...or other translators of the KJV?

As for Westcott and Hort (or the translators of other versions): I really feel that you need to RESEARCH THEIR WORK instead of formulating your conclusions largely from the research and opinions of others.

I think the debate surrounding the King James is foolishness. The divisions that emerge, for it or against it are a sign of carnality in the Church. Christ came that He might set us free from our sin and that we should bear good fruit by the Holy Spirit. Christ is the end of our faith, unseen and eternal, the Word of God the Father, the only begotten Child and Son. He is spirit and from His mouth comes a sharp double edged sword that divides soul and spirit, not only now but for eternity. If we do not die with Him now, we will perish because of the testimony He has given. The Father has given us the Law that we might be brought to death through repentance and baptism and to life through faith in Jesus Christ the Messiah who has sent the Holy Spirit who will teach us all things. Our end is God Almighty to be united with Him and taught by Him and to walk as He walks in righteousness and holiness. Only then will He be to us The Prince of Peace and LORD.

By the way, Jimmy, you don't have to know Greek to unde plenty of information on this as you well know. And you al understanding it. Good night, now.

Without sounding like an intellectual snob, but just being truthful, unless you have a basic ability to read some ithoyGreek, you cannot even begin to understand this subject eiith any level of understanding. And this comes from somebody who is your fellow little person. Humbly let me say if you've not cracked open a UBS4 or NA27, you absolutely have next to no understanding either.

The reason why your arguments don't move me in the. slightest is because I realize you are simply don't understand this subject at all. I say this as your brother who spent over a year of my life in intense masters level studies, wrestling with original manuscripts in Greek. And by intense, I mean: almost every wakig moment apart from a part time job... into the weeee hours of the morning. I've read thousands of pages of in depth scholarly works on the subject. And from my position, as a lay student, I must say you don't have even a basic understanding.

Don't use your ignorance as an excuse to still be ignorant brother.

Lord willing, because I do love you, later I will attempt to show you these books mentioned earlier in the flesh via Photoshop.

Duplicate post removed

Triple 7,
I have enjoyed your insights you have brought up concering the modern translations based on certain manuscripts. And no, I do not believe you have to know the original languages to understand the issue at hand. That would be arrogance. However, it is helpful to have an understanding of NT Greek. It is a wonderful language and I understand why God must of chosen it for the NT.

King Jimmy, it has been over 20 years since I have had it. I delve into it in Bible study and sermon preparation, but it would be good to have a refresher course. Needless to say, I believe God has preserved His Word because He said He would in the Bible. If the Bible is full of mistakes, it is like no other book.

Chris and others have also brought up some good insights which give stimulative thoughts.

Someone mentioned earlier about translating word for word and by thoughts. I think these go hand in hand because of the differences in languages. It must be done to a certain extent to make it understandable. Anyone else have a thought?

Good post rbanks.

Good insight triple 7 on the thee's and thou's. What precious truth on how God cares for His people. I learned this distinction when taking NT Greek.
One of the problems with excessive textual criticism is the explaining away of what God says.

It is not arrogant to say a knowledge of Greek is required to have an opinion on textual criticism. What is arrogant is to think one can have a have an opinion of any value without being able to read Greek, and without being able to examine original documents. That would be like a cop handing you a speeding ticket without having used a radar detector, but simply saying, "It looks like you were 20 mph over the limit to me." Without a radar detector, he has no tool to prove his claim. Likewise, without reading the original manuscripts on Greek, you have no tool by which to make a claim.

Hi anonymous777...

If everyone, just "rolled over" and accepted everything "scholars and experts" gave us, we would be in a real mess.

Then I have to ask: WHAT are you basing all of your information upon?

If "scholars are experts" are so wrong -- then why are you using limited "research" from books and websites that also cite their own particular set of "scholars and experts" who happen to agree with their views?

Sometimes, I fear that some people gather around them "sources" that will tell them exactly what they want to hear.

We should not be so easily persuaded by the teachings of man. But this is how it appears. Instead of actually researching the works of Westcott and Hort, some rely upon what others have said about them (through biased secondhand books and websites). Instead of researching the actual source text-types, some are relying upon what others have told them about such things. Instead of applying scrutiny to translations methods, some rely upon what others have told them. Instead of contacting Bible societies, translators and language or manuscript experts, some prefer to rely upon what other KJV-only folks have told them about such things.

Why is it so difficult to go to the sources (when possible) in order to test the certainty of what we read or hear?

As I have said before: I don't have any problem with individuals who have studied this issue and prefer the King James Version of the Word of God.

However, I am concerned with individuals who have such incredibly limited "research" yet still feel the need to loudly proclaim such things WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

I am amazed by those who ridicule the notion of researching through manuscripts, documents, original writings, or consulting with individuals who are actually trained in matters of ancient languages, manuscripts and translation methods. I am perplexed when someone finds all the time in the world to extensively consult some biased KJV-only websites -- but refuse to test or verify the things found via credible research. I am disturbed by individuals who will entertain all sort of gossip about certain translators -- and then REPEAT IT -- without feeling a need to research whether such things are even true.

I once met a person who believed in a "conspiracy theory" about doctors. This person preferred "holistic alternative medicine." When asked why, this person would state a belief that "medical research" is an industry that is motivated by money. They refused medicine as "placing too much faith in experts." So, that same person based all of the evidence upon a few holistic websites that, ironically, sell alternative forms of medicine and treatment. Those websites, ironically, relied heavily upon "research" (not peer-reviewed, of course) as a means to appear credible to patrons.

Now, I do believe that research proves that there are some viable forms of alternative medicine. However, it was just perplexing that someone would be so moved into "conspiracy theories" about medicine, doctors and medical research to the point of relying entirely upon the words of individuals who peddle alternative forms of the same thing based upon, well, non-peer reviewed and unverified "research."

Once again, I would simply urge the brethren to TEST EVERYTHING that they read or hear.

If someone makes an allegation about something -- test it! However, don't limit your research to the "research" that others claim to have performed. We shouldn't be so easily persuaded. Instead, study the matter for yourself. Go to a library. Contact Bible societies. Contact language experts. Contact manuscript scholars, archivists and historians. If you want, take some courses in Biblical Greek. If someone wants to attack a translation, source text or translator, question why they don't provide equal scrutiny to the translation, source text or translator involved in the version that they prefer.

Nearly every time that I have spoken to a congregation, Bible study or Sunday school class, I have stated that it would be an HONOR if those who were listening just didn't believe me. Instead, I urged them to test and question everything that I say and prayerfully study in order to determine whether what I said was true. After all, this is a noble Berean characteristic (Acts 17:11).

Here's a question. Does it bother anyone (besides the KJV only people) of the differences between the TR and other texts. esp. concerning omissions about the blood of Christ etc.? If not, why?

Is there an agreement that an over amount of textual criticism casts doubt upon the Word of God?

Does someone have to know the original languages to understand, interpret, apply and live the Bible? No, of course not. "walk in the light" the Bible says. Also, Pro. 3:5-6

Amen Chris,

Nearly every time that I have spoken to a congregation, Bible study or Sunday school class, I have stated that it would be an HONOR if those who were listening just didn't believe me. Instead, I urged them to test and question everything that I say and prayerfully study in order to determine whether what I said was true. After all, this is a noble Berean characteristic (Acts 17:11).

Hi anonmyous777...

Chris,

You are very interesting.

Thank you. I suppose that I am "peculiar" (I Peter 2:9). :-)

I have a question for you. Why do you discount those "experts" that have gone to the sources for Westcott and Hort and others?

I am not "discounting" those "experts." I am questioning why YOU are so quick to believe what those "experts" say yet refuse to test and verify those things. I am questioning why YOU are willing to read secondhand sources from people who supposedly researched the matter...but you won't test and verify whether their research is accurate. I am questioning why YOU are willing to accept "experts" who agree and proclaim your opinion on the matter...but refuse to contact or research elsewhere.

Besides, this is far beyond a discussion about Westcott and Hort. After all, most Bible translations consider their work as one of MANY texts to be scrutinized and compared.

Rather, it is why you feel so comfortable by the mere "research" of others that you would proclaim such things publicly as an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

What do you say to those people who are knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew who have gone to those sources and published them in books and on the web for our benefit?

I would say, "Thank you. Now, let me go and verify the things that you claim." I certainly wouldn't embrace their views as "truth" just because they claim it to be true.

No, you discount everything anybody has to say, if they themselves, do not know Greek.

Brother, I never said this. I don't discount "everything" that "anybody" has to say if they don't know Greek. However, I would question what they say if they haven't consulted those who actually DO know Greek. I would question what someone says if they are willing to make claims about Westcott and Hort, the translators of scholarly translations, and others IF they haven't read the works, personal writings or contacted those individuals. If I simply repeat something that I read from a book or website about someone, then I am guilty of GOSSIP or HEARSAY (even if it is "in the name of Jesus").

Do you regard experts existing only on the Westcott/Hort side of things? Surely, with all your learned, academic research that you have implied, you have looked at their claims. From all your words, you have obviously discounted them ALL.

I don't understand what you are asking. As I have said before, I have looked into Westcott and Hort's own works. I have read plenty of allegations about them and their work (often from the same websites that cite one another [often the ones that you have already quoted]) and I have found that much of what is alleged is false. Still, again, Westcott and Hort really aren't even that important in this discussion since no work being discussed is based solely upon their work. I have explained to you what they did...which was simply compiling a New Testament in Original Greek (which was the same thing that Erasmus did).

I find it odd that you and other KJV-only folks are willing to scrutinize those two men...but refuse to apply the same level of scrutiny at Erasmus (who provided plenty of things for scrutiny).

I have not heard one iota of information from you where you expose something that Westcott and Hort did (and there is plenty) or are in agreement with any material that we have supplied from experts on the KJV side. You either discount them as experts or bring it back to me, not knowing Greek.

I am not asking you to learn Koine Greek. I just question why you are willing to trust others who may or may not know it either. You are placing your trust in the "research" of men, websites and books that are decidedly KJV-only -- and yet much of that information can be tested and verified WITHOUT a working knowledge of Greek. You could easily contact individuals that DO speak Greek. You could email the allegations that you read to some of the Bible societies, translators and language/manuscript experts and just find out what their response might be.

After all, this is a very loud "absolute" proclamation that you are making here. All that I am asking is that you take the time to verify those things that you read and hear BEFORE you loudly and publicly proclaim them as "truth."

You betray your protestations about your supposed affinity for the KJV. At least that is what I am seeing in your text that you type. I could be wrong.

Betrayal? I do not have to believe in the absolute perfection or superiority of the KJV to embrace it for what it is -- merely a translation from a committee of scholars of the Church of England who endeavored to create a faithful translation in the common, modern language of 1611. Their own words (found in the preface of the KJV) repudiate the claims of most KJV-is-perfect websites and books. It is just amazing that some people are so willing to dismiss their own explanation in an attempt to make the translation into something that it is not.

AMEN and AMEN, Anonymous777! Your research and work on this matter is very helpful to me.

It is as the Lord said, "Set up a standard!" You can't just say one version is "better" or "most reliable." How long halt ye between two opinions? Do you believe God's word is still holy? Anything less than perfect is not holy.

God's word is the foundation of everything. "If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Again, "my word shall not pass away..."

I'm quick to extol the integrity of God in this matter, as well as any other matter. It is against His justice to give the patriarchs and the apostles perfect standards and then leave us with "damaged leftovers."

This is a good discussion. It's very important to know the truth about God's word. Of course, it is also important to research the research of others, and so forth.

I like the insight one person gave of Deuteronomy 30.11-14:

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, [who knows where the originals are?] neither is it far off [you'd have to take a trip across the ocean to look for them or any other manuscripts].

"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

"Neither is it beyond the sea [somewhere in the Vatican], that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

"But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth [is the Greek in your mouth?], and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

The Greek is obviously not in the mouth of most people.

Just some food for thought.

Anonymous777,

You are the one who said that you don't feel a need to research this with any look at what experts or scholars feel in regard to this topic. You have admitted that you haven't contacted translators, Bible societies...or read the works of Erasmus, Westcott and Hort, or the views of scholars and translators.

Yet you have consulted (and copy/pasted) plenty of information from KJV-only websites. You appear to give more weight to the words of KJV-only advocates than any "expert" in Greek...the firsthand writings of men that you repeat allegations about...or even the testimony of men who actually translate Scripture.

Why don't you stop talking and show us some things? Why don't you prove the things that I have shown are wrong? We are waiting.

The fallacy in this is that the burden of proof does not rest with me. YOU are the one who is making allegations. You are making allegations FOR the supremacy of the KJV and its sources...and AGAINST any other version, sources or translators.

The burden to "prove" your statements in a public forum lay entirely with you. I have already pointed out the more obvious errors with your statements -- especially the limits of your "research" -- but you still feel the need to proclaim your KJV-only position with absolute certainty.

It would be a terrible thing to be guilty of uttering things that are either partially or fully untrue.

Hi anonymous777,

I am not trying to "shut" you down. I am merely cautioning you about proclaiming things with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY when you have said that you don't feel a need to extend your research to firsthand sources.

Now, again, you are attempting to turn your KJV-only and ("anti-other versions") argument around by insinuating that I am trying to "shut" you down or prevent the truth from coming forth.

I don't know how to make you understand that you are relying largely upon the apparent "research" of others in order to so cement your positions (and accusations) enough to loudly and publicly proclaim these things.

By the way, there really aren't any ulterior motives to "see through." However, I welcome -- and encourage -- all individuals to test the things that I have said and verify whether or not they are true. But let me make it clear: It is NOT ENOUGH to simply gather your "research" from opinionated and biased websites that agree with what you already have concluded.

Test. Prove. Verify.

Simply go to the sources whenever possible. If you are going to make allegations about Westcott and Hort -- good or bad -- then you need to have at least studied their writings FIRSTHAND. If you are going to make statements about Erasmus -- good or bad -- then you need to have studied his life, writings, beliefs and methods.

If you are going to insinuate things about the various source texts and manuscripts, then you need to have studied those things in depth BEFORE you go about making absolute proclamations about the supremacy of one or alleging inferiority of others.

You should bring some statements or research from your experts to refute what I am presenting. Of course it's kind of hard to, since what I am showing is right out of all the corrupt modern versions. You really can't so you keep attacking the messenger, very imperfect, though I am.

First of all, the burden of proof lay with YOU since you are the one making the accusations against the translations, the translators, the source texts and pretty much anything and everything else associated with versions that are NOT the KJV.

Secondly, you haven't presented any research. You are presenting what appears to be the writings and insinuations of a few others who you agree with.

Next, I have already explained that verse-by-verse comparisons are NOT resultant of "omitting" words or phrases -- but of the lack of those words and phrases in the SOURCE manuscripts and texts that the translators considered the most reliable.

Finally, I have asked you several times to stop attacking me. You placed words in my mouth over-and-over again in this thread. I asked you to stop. Now, you are accusing me of attacking you. I have not "attacked" you. Since when is asking you to test and verify your own sources considered an "attack?"

Brother, you are making VERY SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS in your "defense" of the KJV (even though no one is attacking it) and your "attacks" on other versions, sources and translators. Given the very public nature of your "absolute" accusations, don't you understand the importance of getting it right? This is why I have asked you to look into it a little more intently and away from those same KJV-only websites and books.

777,

I appreciate your zeal for the true Word of God and all the diligent research you have discovered and made available for us. I am one of those who believe their must be a standard and that God’s word is the final authority empowered by the Holy Spirit.

So far in this long thread your seriousness along with a few others has been an encouragement.

The difference is obvious; we have a few who believe that there must be a standard that we can rely upon when it comes to the Word of God. There are others who believe and seem to be satisfied with believing ‘we just can’t know for sure’ and ‘I mean we really don’t know’ or ‘God doesn’t want us to make a decision’ when it comes to which bible to rely upon or it doesn’t matter.

So the argument goes on, and because these modern versions are easier to read many will be happy because they can actually understand it, not really caring that there is another version (because it is outdated to them) that has words and verses in them that the modern versions don’t have in them. Oh, we have learned better they say because the experts have discovered the real manuscripts and they didn’t have all those extra words in there.

Then there are others who say well the modern versions are so much easier to read and I’m not sure anybody can really know which versions are correct so I’m sure God doesn’t really mind which version we read as long as we understand what we are reading. So everybody gets to decide for themselves and we don’t have to read that outdated version if we don’t want to because the experts have told us it’s not the most reliable anymore.

So now we have a larger number who are calling the people who believe there is a standard such things as ‘KJV only and mean-spirited’ because they have made a decision when it comes to what bible they mainly rely on. Brethren if we don’t take a stand then we can fall for anything. ( I realize there are mean-spirited people on both sides)

I have a question why don’t some major publisher out there take the Authorized Version (kjv) and update it without changing the meaning or leaving out words and verses so that they can make it more understandable to today’s language. Don’t tell me this is what they did in making the NKJV because it is not an updated Authorized Version (kjv). I am thinking that the last update to the KJV was in the 1800’s.

Blessings to all!

I have a question why don’t some major publisher out there take the Authorized Version (kjv) and update it without changing the meaning or leaving out words and verses so that they can make it more understandable to today’s language. Don’t tell me this is what they did in making the NKJV because it is not an updated Authorized Version (kjv). I am thinking that the last update to the KJV was in the 1800’s.

Rbanks, just what is it that needs to be updated in the KJV? It has been evaluated at a 6th grade readability level. I actually started reading it when I was seven years old and by the time I was twelve and even younger, I had no difficulty with the words because I either looked up the meaning or asked my parents. The "thee's" and "thou's" are not difficult like the "experts" say. If they are hard for some individuals, then they can learn. Just because the culture and therefore the language degrades does not mean God's word has to follow suit. God does not need to change His word so we are more comfortable with it; we need to be changed ourselves until we accept His standard.

Have you ever considered that divine language would not be the same as the world's language?

Hi anonymous777...

I am only going by what you have said. You have NOT read Wescott and Hort's works and writings -- but you spread quite a few accusations that you gathered from websites that share your view of them. It makes me wonder how you came to a conclusion about them in the first place.

So, now I will ask you (*since you say that I don't know).

- Have you read any of Wescott and Hort's own works (rather than clips found at other websites)?

- Have you contacted the translators of the versions that you speak badly of?

- Have you compared texts in order to ascertain which texts are better?

- Have you contacted textual experts in order to determine what they feel about text sources?

- Have you contacted the Bible societies and translators of the NIV and NASB that you claimed are "corrupt?"

- Have you read the firsthand writings of Erasmus, Lancelot Andrewes, and other translators of the KJV line?

- Have you visited libraries and archives to see manuscripts?

- Have you compared the revisions of the various editions of the KJV text itself (revised several times between 1611 and 1769)?

- Have you consulted language, text and manuscript scholars in order to determine WHAT they actually believe and WHY?

You see, research isn't really "research" when you limit it to a select group of books that have reached (often predetermined) conclusions.

Maybe I have misunderstand the things that you have said. I thought that you asserted that you did not do any of these things. The accusations that you include and the "evidence" that you have used to validate it has simply been cut and pasted from KJV-only websites. But, with all of your claim that "experts," "scholars" and "textual critics" aren't needed -- you have relied on the works of others who claim to have relied on their own select group of "experts" and "scholars."

Chris, you are being dramatic, in your rhetoric.

You recently signed up on this website...and -- PRESTO -- declare the KJV as the only acceptable translation in English and that other versions are CORRUPT. You made allegations and insinuations about Westcott, Hort, and the translators of other versions (*not to mention those of us who disagree with your conclusions). You implied that some of those non-KJV texts are Satanic. You even accused me of engaging in an "attack" on the KJV (even though it is one of my versions of choice).

That isn't being "dramatic?"

Brother, I am simply cautioning you about proclaiming as "absolutes" these things that are merely your conclusions from the things that you said that you researched. Are you that TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that you are 100% correct in your assertions, allegations, accusations and claims?

Chris, you are making this about me and my lack of "scholarship or research". Why don't you educate me and everyone else? You say the burden of proof is on me, but that is just an easy way out.

No, no I am not. I am not insinuating that you lack "scholarship or research." I have simply asked you about it because of your very loud and absolute claims.

Yes, the burden of proof falls on you because you are the one making the claims to begin with. I simply questioned the validity of those claims. That is not an "attack" or even insinuating a lack of scholarship or research.

You have stated your research...and even that you don't need to contact the very Bible societies and translators that you speak against. You have said that you don't need to read or understand Greek...even though you trust a few views about "corrupt" versions of Greek. You made claims about Westcott and Hort that you acknowledged to have not seen the firsthand sources for those things. You don't seem to understand (or acknowledge) that variance in SOURCE is the main reason why some words appear differently between the various translations (like the KJV and NIV).

All that I am saying is that you are making very serious, public allegations.

If you feel the need to make such broad, sweeping accusations at translations, translators, source texts and methods -- then I highly suggest that your research is not limited. You should be VERY DETAILED with your accusations if you want the rest of us to test and verify their validity. It is not enough to simply copy and paste material from a few websites...especially if those accusations on those websites from which you have gathered aren't tested, verified or properly cited either.

May the Lord bless you and your family abundantly above all you could ask or think.

Thank you. May the Lord do the same for you.

Hi rbanks...

So now we have a larger number who are calling the people who believe there is a standard such things as ‘KJV only and mean-spirited’ because they have made a decision when it comes to what bible they mainly rely on.

This is not what any of us are saying.

Rather, in fact, I actually ENCOURAGE individuals to not believe anything that they read or hear about the matter. Instead, we should go to the sources...and really research this matter.

I have no problem with a person embracing the KJV as their version of choice. It is one of my favorite versions.

However, I do have a problem with someone who comes to this website and pronounces a series of accusations and allegations about other versions, translators and source texts...and then grows frustrated when we try to test and verify the things that they claimed.

Is this what God has called us to do?

We gather a few very serious allegations, accusations and insinuations and publish them as ABSOLUTE TRUTH about other versions, translations, translators and sources?

I actually don't have a problem with someone doing this...if they include the evidence for which they base their views. However, it isn't really "evidence" if a person is proclaiming something as "truth" and can only "validate" those slanderous and libelous accusations by copying and pasting a few things from a few KJV-only websites (that happen to make many wild conspiracy-type claims about other versions and translators).

Why would someone be upset if we gave pause and questioned those type of allegations, accusations and absolutes that are being loudly proclaimed on this website? We should never be afraid or offended when someone wants to "test" what we claim.

I hope this makes sense...and clarifies our participation in this matter.

Chris,

Most folks don't have the time to do such extensive research following your nine points, would you not agree? But it's apparent that God has raised up various brothers and sisters for this very cause. One author spent six years, six hours a day doing almost everything you have suggested and then wrote the book New Age Bible Versions. If you have not read this book, I would encourage you to do so. It is not mere speculations; on the contrary, it is resplendent with footnotes, citing just about every claim made. This book has been bashed by many, but I haven't found any critic's notes on a follow-up analysis.

We should never be afraid or offended when someone wants to "test" what we claim.

Right on, Chris. I say respectfully, that the article that was posted is up for testing for anyone who wishes to look into it themselves. On my part, I've seen many scholars who aren't KJV-only acknowledge most of those claims; only, they come to a different conclusion.

Anonymous777,

How will answering any of those questions, discredit these websites and their research that I show everyone.

I didn't say that it would. I didn't imply that it would. I don't even understand why you even ask.

You said that we don't know the extent of your research (even though you mentioned it within the body of some of your other posts). I just was wondering if your research did extend past those few KJV-only websites and books.

I am saying, however, that you can't just rely on the research of others. You can't rely on my research. You can't rely on the research of KJV-only folks. If you are going to entertain (and repeat) the serious allegations and accusations that you have done, I would urge you to look all of this up for yourself.

If you hear an accusation about Westcott and Hort: Don't just read a few quotes and then believe it. Go to the library, check out the books and see if they are true. IT would be nice if we could just take everyone's word for truth. However, too many people disagree with one another on the same matters. And, unfortunately, there have been some fallacious statements made by zealous Christians in order to validate their arguments.

If you hear accusations about translators of the NIV or NASB -- then contact them. I did. You would be surprised just how many of them will actually contact you in an honest effort to "set the record straight." Does it mean that I accepted or agreed with everything that they said? Of course not. It just means that I took the time to verify the accusations that were written or were told to me.

In your eyes it may discredit me, (big deal, I have no reputation to protect), but you cannot discredit anything I have presented. Sorry, you took so much time to type all that.

That is a silly thing to insinuate! No one is trying to "discredit" you. I am just questioning the proclamations that you are making.

Your reasoning is strange. It's like I can't quote what my professor in college said, because I didn't gather the material myself.

First of all, you shouldn't quote a professor if his area of expertise is not in the subject. For instance, Gail Riplinger is often quoted by KJV-only advocates. She is not a textual critic. She is not a translator. She is not an expert in Greek. She holds degrees in Art, Home Economics and Interior Decorating. Yet individuals quote her and her books (even you did earlier) as if she were an "expert."

Secondly, you shouldn't quote a professor if he only has "hearsay" to interject. If a professor is going to be quoted about Westcott and Hort, then you should look at the evidence and source that HE based his opinion upon and review it.

Finally, as someone who has taught at the university level: A "source" for a dissertation, thesis or journal article has to be able to withstand the scrutiny of "peer review." While writing my own thesis and dissertations, I was sometimes asked to remove sources because they couldn't withstand such academic scrutiny. I didn't get upset about it...or feel that I was being unfairly attacked. I simply realized that my source had to be firm enough as to not impart doubt into what I was writing.

Again...

All that I am saying is that you need to provide undeniable proof if you are going to make such serious absolute accusations about these matters. After all, we will all be judged by God and be required to give an account of everything we say. We should make every effort to get it right.

Why don't you just celebrate the 400th year of the God's Word in English with the rest of us?

Ahh...I do rejoice and celebrate 400 years of the King James Version of God's Word. I also rejoice for 40 years of the New American Standard Bible version of God's Word. I also rejoice for 33 years of the New International Version of God's Word.

:-)

BTW, in all seriousness, I do love you brother. I do not want to come across as "attacking" you or thinking and wanting anything but the best for you (and others). I also feel the need to participate only given the seriousness of the allegations and accusations too. I think that we can all welcome a desire for the truth to be uncovered.

As I said earlier...

Nearly every time that I have spoken to a congregation, Bible study or Sunday school class, I have stated that it would be an HONOR if those who were listening just didn't believe me. Instead, I urged them to test and question everything that I say and prayerfully study in order to determine whether what I said was true. After all, this is a noble Berean characteristic (Acts 17:11).

May the Lord guide each of us.

1) Plato wrote his famous "Republic" in a highly polished classical Greek.

2) I can't read classical Greek.

3) There are variants in the copies of Plato's "Republic."

4) I don't have access to Plato's "Republic" in Greek, let alone the variant manuscripts.

5) Therefore, not reading classical Greek, nor having read Plato's "Republic," I am able to decide which variants in the various manuscripts are best.

And if I actually believed this, such would be absurd.

My point: If you can't read the primary sources, you have no right or authority to think you can discern which primary sources are best.

*edited*

**UPDATE**

Hey Everyone,

Don't let Chris intimidate you. If these websites are being libelous and slanderous, they would be sued and off the internet. Why aren't they being sued? What I am presenting is not confined to a handful of websites or books. Yes, even in books and these authors are not being sued. This is general knowledge all over the internet and in many, many books (by experts).

These are still just tactics by Chris, in my opinion to shutdown the common man talking about this issue.

Whoa brother. You are going to far here. I am not trying to "intimidate" anyone. I am just urging those who are willing to make such bold, absolute accusations about such matters to get it right.

You should welcome any "test" of what you proclaim.

Hi 777!

Yes, praise God she has fulfilled God's calling on her life-it has helped me so much!

I have In Awe of Thy Word, but haven't yet read it cover to cover; what I have read was, yes, absolutely amazing!

For me, it's precious to have something, especially in this day and age, to hold onto, come what may!

Hi rusaved1,

Most folks don't have the time to do such extensive research following your nine points, would you not agree?

You could be right. But those who don't have time to do this should not be the ones shouting such things from the rooftops.

We can't just trust in the research of others so much that we decide against testing what they proclaim/teach...or enough to proclaim such things as "absolutes" when we state such allegations, accusations and insinuations from a public forum like this.

Chris, I have a question about this quote:

Next, I have already explained that verse-by-verse comparisons are NOT resultant of "omitting" words or phrases -- but of the lack of those words and phrases in the SOURCE manuscripts and texts that the translators considered the most reliable.

Why do these texts omit words? Why are they considered most reliable? This is an honest question, asked in sincerity.

Thanks,
JB

Again, anonymous, I don't know how to make you understand that the burden of proof is in YOUR hands. You are the one making the accusations.

You can't just allege vile things about translators, translations, source texts and manuscripts and translation methods as "absolutes" and then only cite a few KJV-only websites or claim that such things are in the "public domain" and "proven by experts" when you admit to having neglected to consult.

If you haven't researched this for yourself, you shouldn't proclaim it.

Now, that doesn't mean that you can't share it. However, your words should be salted with the admission regarding the limits of your own research.

Why do these texts omit words?

It could be equally as asked, why do the majority and western texts "add" words? Why is it assumed that the minority texts are omitting words, when words could be just as easily added by ancient scribes.

And we have evidence to suggest they did both... across all the text families.

777,

I wonder how much of our lack of revival and taking a stand for anything has to do with the new Bibles.

Good point. We NEED a standard or

confusion abounds

You are what you eat and "as a man thinketh, so is he"

Wow, let's "choose the things that are excellent" (400 years is a good testing period, is it not?!).

Hi JB1968,

Why do these texts omit words? Why are they considered most reliable? This is an honest question, asked in sincerity.

I mentioned this several times previously in this thread, as did KingJimmy and someone else.

First of all, it is unreasonable to assume that they "omitted" anything. The source texts and manuscripts that the translators used and considered to be most reliable typically did not have those words or phrases to begin with. So, they weren't "omitting" something if it wasn't there in the text to begin with. Remember: The translators of the NIV didn't consult the text of the KJV. So, there was no cross comparison for reasons of authenticity.

In addition, I think that you should contact the translators and text experts themselves for that answer (which is what I have been urging all along). You can easily contact the organizations that translated the NIV or NASB. You can contact textual critics and experts in ancient languages and manuscripts to ascertain their views on which manuscripts and text-types are most (or more) reliable. I can tell you what I have learned...but I should be no more trusted than any other "hearsay" source.

I will say this: The translators, text critics and language/manuscript experts that I spoke with each seemed to echo one another with a view that the manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type are much older than those in the Byzantine text-type. They are written in different period languages -- with the many of the manuscripts and texts of the Alexandrian text-type being written in Koine Greek (which is the "Biblical Greek" of the time of Christ and the apostles). Moreover, many of them explained a belief (for several reasons) that the text of the Byzantine text-type was descended from the text of the Alexandrian text-type. I don't have any specific anecdotes for this view that were provided to me on this particular computer, but I can provide them to you at a later time.

Very importantly, I have tried to make it clear that I do NOT accept the premise that the Alexandrian text-types are superior to the Byzantine text-types (or other...or vice versa). I simply understand the views and perspectives of the majority of text critics, scholars and language/manuscript experts who happen to hold to this particular view. Many of their points do make a lot of sense.

I have no problem saying that I do not embrace one text source as irrefutably superior to the other. In fact, I realize that Erasmus had to sort through texts to come up with his own wording. I suspect that others have always had to do the same. After all, we do not have the actual articles written by the apostles in front of us. They have been translated many times over about two thousand years.

This is why I have no problem with embracing the KJV as a good, reliable translation from its set of sources. I embrace the NASB as a good, reliable translation from its set of sources. I embrace the NIV as a good, reliable translation from its set of sources. I also use a few others, including one in Spanish that predates the KJV.

When I study God's Word, I often read the KJV or NIV. If I feel the need, I will consult other versions. In fact, I have discovered that I do this quite a bit on my Nook (eReader) and via www.biblegateway.com. It just offers a unique perspective from various translators as they translated from their sources.

I hope this helps. I do urge you to contact those translators and scholars if you have the opportunity. They may tell you what they have explained to me. They may tell you something else that you could share here too.

May the Lord bless you.

Brother, please read this all the way through, if you guys want to believe the King James is unadulterated word of God, that is ok but tell me, please, how we got from Adam and Eve to 1611 without the King James Bible? That’s right, the Holy Spirit, He led then and He leads now with or without a Bible.

Do you not realize that no one can come to knowledge of God but first God opens their eyes? Do you truly believe His sovereignty stops after drawing us to Him if we don’t’ read the KJV?? Really? That His truth can only come from ONE VERSION?????

I say this with all love brothers, “It’s a narrow way, not a narrow-minded way.” Because I’ve known quite a few Christians who were adamantly KJ and they beat their wives, they would have slept with me (them married and me not) "if" I had said yes, and they do drugs recreationally.

So the truth my friend is clearly not in the KJV.

God bless,
Lisa

Hey Jimmy, you probably just got off work, but if you get a chance you may want to read this, which was posted earlier.

http://www.baptisttranslators.com/content/view/51/50/

Thanks for passing along the link. I read it and found it rather disappointing. And you should too.

The author argues the KJV is the best because the TR is the best. And the TR is the best because the majority texts all agree with eachother.

But the fact of the matter is, the majority texts don't perfectly agree with eachother 100% of the time, or even close to it. Which is in part why the TR was compiled by Erasmus to begin with. Because Erasmus, like Biblical scholars today, had Greek manuscripts he used that differed with one another. Therefore, he created the TR, which at the time, would've been a modern critical Greek text. And of course, because he lacked the last few verses of Revelation in his copies of the Greek, he had to invent the Greek for that by reverse translation.

In a nutshell, the author of this article makes inaccurate claims, and leaves out a great deal of simple historical truths. All in the name of exalting a particular translation.

By the way, later this evening it is my hope to show you, so you can see with your own eyes, a photoshoped version of a critical Greek reader, to show you places I shall choose at random where the majority texts disagree with one another.

Lysa,

Do you truly believe His sovereignty stops after drawing us to Him if we don’t’ read the KJV?? Really? That His truth can only come from ONE VERSION?????

No, I don't, and I doubt most of us KJV'rs do. Other versions are still Bibles, but they can't be counted "holy" because they're not without fault (Read New Age Bible Versions, please).

Your comments about the character of those who upheld the KJV have nothing to do with the nature of its purity itself. You can dig up any thing you want about people, but you have to look at the facts and at how they stand.

Those folks weren't right, grant it. But don't base your conclusion on that (single) radical example. Satan will try to poison every well.

Jimmy, we have already presented material that the Majority texts (5210 of them), disagree with each other in 1-5% of places (so experts say).

Oh ok. Fair enough. But I think it would be helpful for you to see it with your own eyes.

So, how do you decide which versions of the majority text are the best?

Hi rusaved1...

o, I don't, and I doubt most of us KJV'rs do. Other versions are still Bibles, but they can't be counted "holy" because they're not without fault (Read New Age Bible Versions, please).

Are you saying that you believe that the KJV is "without fault?"

You are aware that the manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type that comprised the Textus Receptus differed in up to 5% of text? 5% is not something that you can ignore.

Moreover, are you saying that there are no mistakes within the text of the KJV? The translators of that version themselves refute that in the preface to the KJV itself.

BTW, I don't know Gail Riplinger or if all of those allegations about her are true (that I read, oddly enough, at KJV-only websites). I have read through her book previously, but I did not find much evidence in it -- especially enough to withstand peer review or solidify her argument. It just looks like a lot of the same rhetoric that is found in KJV-only websites.

Because I only have a moment, consider reading this very brief essay I wrote in seminary that has about a page or two of textual criticism, and my own translation work. The essay altogether is only 6 pages.

http://www.iamadisciple.com/articles/papers/ProclamationOfReformation.pdf

Nothing earth shattering here. I just want to show you what real textual criticism looks like. Granted, this is very elementary, and I apologize for not having the attached ammendments in this essay. Those were on hand drawn charts that I drew, and did not have the chance to scan.

Blessings brother.

Hi Chris,

The variations among the Majority text are minor, "like the varieties of doves," though I don't ignore them. From what I know, the translators would use whatever portion had the most manuscripts for it. Don't you agree with this?

Furthermore, I believe God can work through the imperfect translators to produce a perfect result. It would be high-minded of the translators if they had declared it perfect before it had been proved. Again, 400 years is ample proving time.

Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that God's pure and holy word is in the KJV, with no mistakes.

Is your point that God has NOT left us with a Holy Bible? Paul said that Timothy knew the HOLY SCRIPTURES from a child. Whatever Timothy had was surely copies, right?

Great thoughts, 777.

Hi rusaved1...

Those variations may be "minor" (in most cases) -- but even "minor" differences do not equate to "perfection."

Still, are you saying that you believe the KJV to be perfect? There are obvious mistakes found in it. Although many of them are minor, their very existence make it so that the KJV is just what the translators said it is -- NOT perfect.

Is your point that God has NOT left us with a Holy Bible? Paul said that Timothy knew the HOLY SCRIPTURES from a child. Whatever Timothy had was surely copies, right?

First, if you think that the KJV is the only perfect version of God's Word -- where was that "preserved perfection" in the ~1600 years before it was completed? After all, the sources from which it comes did not agree with one another 5% of the time.

Secondly, I have no doubt about the existence of the "Holy Bible." However, I do not believe that it is confined to the King James Version. God is Spirit -- and those who worship Him must do so in Spirit and Truth.

To be clear: I personally find the entire premise of the KJV as the only perfect and preserved version of God's Word to be illogical.

Once a person understands the process of translation and textual criticism, the different text sources from which the KJV was obtained, the constraints and requirements placed upon the translators (from their own admission), the fact that the translators sometimes disagreed with one another in the translation process (but were forbidden from including those tings in footnotes or margin notes), the differences in the text sources from which it was translated, the obvious mistakes that are still contained within its text and the various revisions that were completed from its initial publication in 1611 to the one that most of us now have -- it is difficult to embrace a "perfect and preserved" argument of absolute perfection in every single "dot and tittle."

So, I see the KJV for what it is: A faithful translation of Scripture by a group of translators that was taken from its own particular set of sources. I cherish it as a version of the Holy Bible -- but only a VERSION of it. I do the same with the NASB and NIV for the aforementioned reasons.

From what I know, the translators would use whatever portion had the most manuscripts for it. Don't you agree with this?

While this is "a" factor in translation, it is not the only factor. After all, just because a there a thousand copies of a mistake doesn't make the mistake correct. One has to consider things like the immediate grammatical context (as in the essay I wrote, when deciding which variant was best). Is something better grammatically, i.e. tense, gender, plurality? Could the eye of the scribe slipped as he was copying, resulting in him copying a neighboring word twice? In theologically loaded passages, or passages that quote other verses of the Bible, does the variant seem to make something "more acceptable" and "softer?" Should a longer reading be preferred over a shorter reading?

All of these things, and many more variables, are questions every scribe who comes across a variant-- no matter the text family-- has to consider when attempting to "establish a text." And only once a text has been established does the scribe translate his work.

Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that God's pure and holy word is in the KJV, with no mistakes

Which KJV? There have been several revisions. With the majority in circulation today not being the original 1611.

Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that God's pure and holy word is in the KJV, with no mistakes.

And if I might ask, what is the basis of this belief?

No revisions, just editions (editing to fix some spelling and grammar mistakes). It has a clean bill of health, but never any revising of it

Those revisions are revisions just the same. Again... which KJV is the pefect one? Will the real KJV please stand up?

Hi Alive-to-God,

Yes, I have heard this message before. In fact, I am listening to it again right now.

I am not sure why you bring it up here except for, perhaps, the mention of his points about "truth" and "absolutes." Still, in this sense, I do agree with what Brother Paul is saying here.

I do hope that someone doesn't try to incorrectly read between the lines when I mention my concern for those who declare certain things to be "absolutes."

To be clear: I have no problem with declarations of ABSOLUTE TRUTH -- if they are indeed absolute truths. There are undeniable truths found in God's Word. These can be proclaimed boldly, without apology and with the realization that they are absolutely certain.

But this isn't what is going on here.

We are talking about whether or not someone has the right to enter a public forum and proclaim "absolutes" in regard to things that are OUTSIDE those absolute truths from God's Word. After all, there is a difference between "allegations" and "absolute truths."

In this thread, there have been some ALLEGATIONS presented as ABSOLUTES. For example:

- One version (and only one), the KJV, is being proclaimed as superior to all other versions of God's Word -- and even irrefutably "perfect" to the last jot and tittle.
- Translators (like Westcott, Hort and the translators of versions like the NIV and NASB) are alleged to have tampered with Scripture or had some ulterior motives for their choice of words.
- Some of those translators are alleged to have been less-than-godly men and rumors are repeated about what they believed or wanted to accomplish by their work.
- Entire text-types -- containing many copies of God's Word -- are being proclaimed as "fraudulent" and even "unholy."
- The motives of entire Bible societies are called into question as having possible "liberal" agendas.
- The methods by which texts are translated are condemned as inaccurate or, even, having devilish motives.

This list could go on (or be corrected, depending on the views of each person).

Do you see the difference between the absolutes of God's Word -- that are undeniable and PROVEN by the Word of God itself -- and how this differs from someone coming into this forum and loudly proclaiming AS AN ABSOLUTE a particular set of controversial doctrinal views, accusations, allegations, insinuations or even unsubstantiated claims?

In this thread, I am simply attempting to caution those who feel the impudence to proclaim things that just aren't verified by Scripture itself. In fact, I am also cautioning against proclaiming such things as "absolutes" that aren't even properly researched to begin with. In this case, we have some who are relying upon the research of others in order to repeat insinuations about translators, translation methods and textual accuracies and proclaim all other versions of the Bible to be "unholy."

Now, I have made it clear that I do not disagree with the right of someone to share a view in any matter.

But there is a difference between someone sharing their views on speaking in tongues -- and someone who comes in and proclaims their view of the subject as "absolute truth." The same can be said about every controversial subject that has even been argued here in this forum. Believers can share our views on such matters -- even controversial matters. But, our words should be seasoned with the knowledge of our own errancy and fallibility when it isn't completely proven by Scripture. After all, we are all currently confined to this side of Eternity...this side of the "glass darkly" where we still only know "in part" regarding some matters.

I have heard men stand up and proclaim as "undeniable" that the mark of the beast was some numeric code for the name "George Walker Bush." One of them sat in my living room and told me that the Scriptures revealed that we were in the middle of the great tribulation and that the physical return of Christ was to happen by the end of 2009. He explained that he is often rejected by "false believers" and "false churches" because they don't want to "hear the truth." So, he went about preaching this to anyone who would listen.

No matter how "certain" that he may have felt -- they should NOT have made such a proclamation. I am not saying that this brother didn't have a right to discuss it with others. Rather, he proclaimed a lie...and he did so thinking that it was a truth.

I later saw the brother who said Jesus was returning by the end of 2009. He never admitted that he was wrong. He just looked embarrassed and stated that his "calculations were slightly off." He is now trying to recalculate the return.

In this matter, I certainly do not embrace a proclamation that the KJV is the only "perfect and preserved" version of the Word of God. More importantly, I don't embrace the manner in which it is proclaimed. It is NOT absolutely true. It is highly interpretive (at best). Yet it is packaged and presented as an absolute truth...even with an admission that it hasn't been fully researched, tested or verified.

Do you see how a proclamation about the absolute supremacy of the KJV of the Bible over all other versions (including the Greek from which it was partially translated)...is quite different from proclaiming a Biblical absolute (e.g. that homosexuality is a sin, Jesus rose from the dead, water baptism is subsequent to salvation, Hell exists, etc...)?

These extra-biblical notions are the "absolutes" that I caution about. They just aren't the absolutely true. They aren't even embraced by many believers. Yet they are presented as if there is no reason to even discuss the matter -- because they truly feel that they are right and any discussion would thus be wrong.

There are undeniable and inarguable truths that should be proclaimed boldly, tirelessly and as often as possible. However, some sectarian notions that the KJV of the Scriptures is the ONLY holy version of the Word of God...or that the translators had ulterior motives...or rumors that some translators and textual critics were fraudulent believers...are NOT any of them.

I hope that you understand what I am trying to say.

By the way, I appreciate the message that you recommended. I have heard it before...and it is a very timely and much need word.

Ok, here is something I just put together really quick. If you go to: http://www.iamadisciple.com/articles/papers/Bible-Variants.jpg you will see what a critical edition of the Greek New Testament looks like. If you've never seen this before, let me explain to you what is going on (as it is a little overwhelming at first). I've tried to color code things to help.

In the top part of the graphic, you have the Greek text that the United Bible Society has come to consensus on. In the bottom part, you have the foot notes indicating the variants of reading. In footnote 3, you see one of the variants for one phrase under dispute. I've highlighted this in yellow.

Reading the Variants:
---------------------

Variant 1 -

The {B} symbol you see at first is the "grade" the scholars have given the variant, and the level of disagreement that exists between them. An "A" rating would indicate almost complete consensus, with "B" being strong support, and "C" being sharp disagreement.

Following this, you have one of the alternative Greek variants for verse 11. Immediately after that, you will see a Hebrew Symbol, Greek Letters, and a series of numbers. These represents the various manuscripts that have this particular variant in them. Generally speaking, letters represents the older texts, usually of the Alexandrian texts. I have drawn a black line on top of these Alexandrian texts. Numbers represent the individual manuscripts coming from the Majority texts that support this variant. I have drawn a black line underneath these Majority texts.

In the first variant in yellow, you will notice that this particular reading is supported by a variety of Alexandrian and Majority texts. It is also supported in other fragmented works.

Variant 2 - Highlighted in blue is another reading of the debated Greek phrase. Again, this alternative reading has support in some Alexandrian texts, but it also has support in the Majority texts. And this variant, supported by both text families, but agreeing with one another, disagree with the reading of Variant 1. Each text family has considerable agreement and disagreement with each other in these first two variants.

Variant 3 - Highlighted in green is another less attested reading of the debated Greek phrase, within the Alexandrian family. And within the Alexandrian family, there is at least one document where this third rendering actually is missing an entire word.

Which one is best? Well, because of tools like this, the scholars have empowered you to sort through the manuscripts and decide for yourself. In other words, you don't have to take the words of the "experts" and "scholars" for yourself. They are letting you make your own decision as to which rendering is best, and from there, you can establish your own translation. You can agree or disagree with them.

So, for those of you have never seen this sort of thing before with your own eyes, it is my hope that by exposing you to the actual Greek texts, that you can once and for all do away with silly arguments that amount to conspiracy theories. Because in the privacy of your own study, without even reading a word of Westcott and Hort, and knowing nothing of Erasmus, you can decide for yourself what is the best variant to use on any given verse, and translate the New Testament entirely for yourself, without consulting anybody else whatsoever.

Hey I'm back now.

KingJimmy,

While this is "a" factor in translation, it is not the only factor. After all, just because a there a thousand copies of a mistake doesn't make the mistake correct. One has to consider things like the immediate grammatical context (as in the essay I wrote, when deciding which variant was best). Is something better grammatically, i.e. tense, gender, plurality? Could the eye of the scribe slipped as he was copying, resulting in him copying a neighboring word twice? In theologically loaded passages, or passages that quote other verses of the Bible, does the variant seem to make something "more acceptable" and "softer?" Should a longer reading be preferred over a shorter reading?

Yes, as a matter of fact, some of these were my presuppositions that I didn't really elaborate on.

Quote: Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that God's pure and holy word is in the KJV, with no mistakes. And if I might ask, what is the basis of this belief?

The basis of this belief is in the Scriptures. Ask yourself this question: did the apostles struggle with a belief that there were errors in the Bible they carried in their hands as they preached the gospel with the Lord Jesus Christ? God has clearly expounded in his Word time and again that "heaven and earth shall pass away but my WORDS shall not pass away." If his words (not message or ideas or meaning, but WORDS) have not passed away, and if you believe God meant what he said, where are his words today? Has God preserved his words in totality, without error (ie. perfection) today or not? If not, how do you back that up with Scripture? I am more than happy to show you the numerous references throughout the Scriptures that support my position, but I find none to support yours. Step back from the entire "textual criticism" aspect of things and ask yourself, do you believe God and his promise? If so, where is that perfect copy today? And if you do not believe him, why do you not? Why do you not believe that God can or would preserve His word in perfection for us all today? Why is that such an impossibility? Abraham asked the Lord thousands of years ago, Is anything too hard for the Lord? Do you believe this is something that is too hard for God to do? Especially when he promised he WOULD do such? I encourage you to meditate on this.....

777,
Great post! Thanks so much for the effort you put into it. It is quite a blessing, indeed. Very God-glorifying!

Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions, and the more recent Hazardous Materials is not a Hebrew or Greek scholar. She can't even read Greek or Hebrew. Her degrees, her teaching, and her writing, are all in one area: interior design. Mrs. Riplinger did indeed teach at Kent State, but she did so in the Home Economics department, teaching classes in interior design. Here is what Wikipedia says about her:
In 1993, Riplinger wrote a comparison of modern Bible translations to the King James Version. She also wrote "The Language of the King James Bible", "Which Bible is God's Word" and "Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers".

Within her books, Riplinger has misquoted many different men in order to support her assertions, often using ellipses to hide the words that expose her misrepresentation.[2] S. E. Schnaiter reviewed her book, New Age Bible Versions, in a published journal article. He stated, "Riplinger appears to be another of those who rush to [the KJV's] defense, alarmed by the proliferation of its modern rivals, armed with nothing more than the blunderbuss of ad hominem apologetic, when what is needed is the keenness of incisive evaluation." [3] He later stated, "For whatever rationale on Riplinger’s part, she has produced not an exposé but rather a diatribe, often quite vitriolic, based on dogmatic, predispositional, and, more often than not, blatantly fallacious propaganda techniques rather than real evidence, carefully weighed and judiciously presented."[4] She repeatedly misquotes, misrepresents, and inaccurately cites many people, including, Arthur Westcott, Brook Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, Kenneth Taylor, Wilbur Pickering, Norman Geisler, and many others.[5][6]

James White has done a thorough critique of her and her work on his website:
http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

The basis of this belief is in the Scriptures. Ask yourself this question: did the apostles struggle with a belief that there were errors in the Bible they carried in their hands as they preached the gospel with the Lord Jesus Christ? God has clearly expounded in his Word time and again that "heaven and earth shall pass away but my WORDS shall not pass away." If his words (not message or ideas or meaning, but WORDS) have not passed away, and if you believe God meant what he said, where are his words today? Has God preserved his words in totality, without error (ie. perfection) today or not? If not, how do you back that up with Scripture? I am more than happy to show you the numerous references throughout the Scriptures that support my position, but I find none to support yours. Step back from the entire "textual criticism" aspect of things and ask yourself, do you believe God and his promise? If so, where is that perfect copy today? And if you do not believe him, why do you not? Why do you not believe that God can or would preserve His word in perfection for us all today? Why is that such an impossibility? Abraham asked the Lord thousands of years ago, Is anything too hard for the Lord? Do you believe this is something that is too hard for God to do? Especially when he promised he WOULD do such? I encourage you to meditate on this.....

Praise God brother!

This is the very reason I can not and will not accept the modern versions over the KJV because no human being on earth being an expert or a novice can ever convince me that God almighty would allow us to have an incorrect bible for almost 300 years before He could find someone smart enough to get us the right one's.

Blessings to you brother and the diligence of 777.

Hi rbanks...

This is the very reason I can not and will not accept the modern versions over the KJV because no human being on earth being an expert or a novice can ever convince me that God almighty would allow us to have an incorrect bible for almost 300 years before He could find someone smart enough to get us the right one's.

What about the ~1600 years from the time of Christ until the King James Version? If you don't think that God would allow 300 years go by without a "perfect" translation, then what about all of those years when the sources that the King James Version relied upon weren't unified (or in total agreement)?

I am just amazed that many people will embrace the work of the translators of the KJV (well, minus the Apocrypha that it originally contained and after all of the revisions between 1611 and 1769)...but will not believe what the translators themselves wrote in their preface. They stated that, although an honest attempt, it wasn't a "perfect" work.

Hi TrueWitness,

I don't know whether all of the allegations written about Gail Riplinger are true. Oddly enough, I first read them in King James-only websites.

But, like the allegations raised by Gail Riplinger herself regarding Westcott, Hort and the translators of the NASB and NIV, I think that it is best to contact her and ask if anyone feels the need.

Now, she may not respond to questions about those allegations. She did write a response to some allegations posed by another KJV-only website. Her response, however, didn't include any answer to the specific allegations.

However, I still think that it is best to not believe any of those things until AFTER she has an opportunity to answer them anyway...or (in regard to the nature of her work) until we have actually read her own firsthand works and the validity of those things for ourselves.

Hi Chris,

It is not the perfection of a translation that concerns me but the leaving out of words and entire verses.

Lets just take phil 4.13 for an example. Let say you wanted to just meditate on this scripture in your mind or even say it out loud. Now let's be honest, which had you rather hear or meditate on "Christ who gives me strength" or "him who gives me strength". What about col. 1.14 where it mentions "redemption through His blood" or just "redemption" and why would God not want us to think on Christ giving us strength or redemption through His blood.

I know you will be honest because I believe you to be that type of person.

Blessings to you!

by ccchhhrrriiisss... What about the ~1600 years from the time of Christ until the King James Version? If you don't think that God would allow 300 years go by without a "perfect" translation, then what about all of those years when the sources that the King James Version relied upon weren't unified (or in total agreement)?

I agree! It's like some folks just choose to skip over the 1600 years, or they don't want to consider anything previous to the KJV. This is interesting, The KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!
Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.
These advocates reject all others Bible's that post-date the KJV.
They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also in the translation process.
This claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible translation.
Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.
The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In the matter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were used in the translation of subsequent versions.

Hi rbanks...

Thank you for your kind words. Sometimes, I really do feel misunderstood in what I am trying to say. I am not saying these things to be contemptuous. And, I don't mind it if someone still chooses to prefer the KJV as a more accurate or scholarly translation.

I am more concerned about the reasoning that is sometimes used when declaring it to be the only "perfect" version...or the conclusive statements made where there may not have been enough research to make such definitive final verdicts on the matter.

Sometimes, I think that refraining from a final decision on a matter is much better than making a hasty (or incorrect) decision.

By the way, I certainly understand your point and concerns. However, the fact remains that the translators/translation could not have "left out" words or phrases that just weren't found in the ancient source texts and manuscripts that they felt are most reliable.

As Jimmy pointed out, we can no more say that the translators of the NIV "left out" words than we can claim that the translators of the KJV "added" them to their translation.

Yes, I understand that the word "Christ" in Philippians 4:13 is stronger sounding -- because it includes a title of our Lord. Yet, I know who the "Him" is in the NIV and NASB (and other) versions is referring to. It is "Him" -- Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior - the King of Kings and Lord of Lords -- that this pronoun refers to.

Again, it is difficult to assume that this word was "left out" if the word itself just wasn't in the ancient texts used by the translators (or those that may have been deemed as most reliable). But more importantly: How many of those who are very concerned about the difference in this particular passage have actually contacted the translators or Bible societies and asked just why it doesn't appear?

The Lord bless you too, rbanks.

Hi anonymous777...

Yes, that is true, Chris. Very fair minded of you about Gail. I have read her whole book and she has a bibliography and accounts for sourcing of each statment that makes Wikipedia look like child's play.

She does not need anyone to defend her, that's for sure. She does quite well herself, but also does not think that she has to defend herself on every little thing that is being said about her. She defends her work, and is not really worried about defending herself.

James White said many things and I won't characterize them, but Mrs. Riplinger wrote a very good rebuttal that I don't believe has been answered.

However, I also think that it would be good if Gail Riplinger urged and displayed the same caution about accusatory rhetoric toward certain textual critics and translators as she and her defenders would have everyone else show toward her.

This thread moves quick, so I thought I'd preposterous a post from earlier. I would really encorouage you to check out the link containing a copy of the critical Greek text I put together. It will explain once and for all why different versions of the Bible have some disagreements with each other.

----------

Ok, here is something I just put together really quick. If you go to: http://www.iamadisciple.com/articles/papers/Bible-Variants.jpg you will see what a critical edition of the Greek New Testament looks like. If you've never seen this before, let me explain to you what is going on (as it is a little overwhelming at first). I've tried to color code things to help.

In the top part of the graphic, you have the Greek text that the United Bible Society has come to consensus on. In the bottom part, you have the foot notes indicating the variants of reading. In footnote 3, you see one of the variants for one phrase under dispute. I've highlighted this in yellow.

Reading the Variants:
---------------------

Variant 1 -

The {B} symbol you see at first is the "grade" the scholars have given the variant, and the level of disagreement that exists between them. An "A" rating would indicate almost complete consensus, with "B" being strong support, and "C" being sharp disagreement.

Following this, you have one of the alternative Greek variants for verse 11. Immediately after that, you will see a Hebrew Symbol, Greek Letters, and a series of numbers. These represents the various manuscripts that have this particular variant in them. Generally speaking, letters represents the older texts, usually of the Alexandrian texts. I have drawn a black line on top of these Alexandrian texts. Numbers represent the individual manuscripts coming from the Majority texts that support this variant. I have drawn a black line underneath these Majority texts.

In the first variant in yellow, you will notice that this particular reading is supported by a variety of Alexandrian and Majority texts. It is also supported in other fragmented works.

Variant 2 - Highlighted in blue is another reading of the debated Greek phrase. Again, this alternative reading has support in some Alexandrian texts, but it also has support in the Majority texts. And this variant, supported by both text families, but agreeing with one another, disagree with the reading of Variant 1. Each text family has considerable agreement and disagreement with each other in these first two variants.

Variant 3 - Highlighted in green is another less attested reading of the debated Greek phrase, within the Alexandrian family. And within the Alexandrian family, there is at least one document where this third rendering actually is missing an entire word.

Which one is best? Well, because of tools like this, the scholars have empowered you to sort through the manuscripts and decide for yourself. In other words, you don't have to take the words of the "experts" and "scholars" for yourself. They are letting you make your own decision as to which rendering is best, and from there, you can establish your own translation. You can agree or disagree with them.

So, for those of you have never seen this sort of thing before with your own eyes, it is my hope that by exposing you to the actual Greek texts, that you can once and for all do away with silly arguments that amount to conspiracy theories. Because in the privacy of your own study, without even reading a word of Westcott and Hort, and knowing nothing of Erasmus, you can decide for yourself what is the best variant to use on any given verse, and translate the New Testament entirely for yourself, without consulting anybody else whatsoever.

Chris

Maybe my last post or so, was not clear. Why do you think the non TR family of texts are more reliable? You have said that the translators have deemed them most reliable. What do you think?

JB

Textual criticism can go on and on and on...but it's necessary to get down to the bottom line. This post got pushed down, but I would like to hear an answer. KingJimmy and/or Chris and anybody else, what do you say?

Quote: Quote: Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that God's pure and holy word is in the KJV, with no mistakes. And if I might ask, what is the basis of this belief?

The basis of this belief is in the Scriptures. Ask yourself this question: did the apostles struggle with a belief that there were errors in the Bible they carried in their hands as they preached the gospel with the Lord Jesus Christ? God has clearly expounded in his Word time and again that "heaven and earth shall pass away but my WORDS shall not pass away." If his words (not message or ideas or meaning, but WORDS) have not passed away, and if you believe God meant what he said, where are his words today? Has God preserved his words in totality, without error (ie. perfection) today or not? If not, how do you back that up with Scripture? I am more than happy to show you the numerous references throughout the Scriptures that support my position, but I find none to support yours. Step back from the entire "textual criticism" aspect of things and ask yourself, do you believe God and his promise? If so, where is that perfect copy today? And if you do not believe him, why do you not? Why do you not believe that God can or would preserve His word in perfection for us all today? Why is that such an impossibility? Abraham asked the Lord thousands of years ago, Is anything too hard for the Lord? Do you believe this is something that is too hard for God to do? Especially when he promised he WOULD do such? I encourage you to meditate on this...

KingJimmy,

While your post is very interesting and scholarly, it doesn't seem very scriptural. Take your quote:

Which one is best? Well, because of tools like this, the scholars have empowered you to sort through the manuscripts and decide for yourself. In other words, you don't have to take the words of the "experts" and "scholars" for yourself. They are letting you make your own decision as to which rendering is best, and from there, you can establish your own translation. You can agree or disagree with them.

This is nothing else than "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." It comes back to the fact that we need a STANDARD. Without a standard, confusion abounds. Otherwise, every man's interpretation would be good enough for him, but WHAT DOES GOD SAY??

Hi JB1968...

Chris

Maybe my last post or so, was not clear. Why do you think the non TR family of texts are more reliable? You have said that the translators have deemed them most reliable. What do you think?

I thought that I made it exceedingly clear enough for you in my response to your previous question:

I mentioned this several times previously in this thread, as did KingJimmy and someone else.

First of all, it is unreasonable to assume that they "omitted" anything. The source texts and manuscripts that the translators used and considered to be most reliable typically did not have those words or phrases to begin with. So, they weren't "omitting" something if it wasn't there in the text to begin with. Remember: The translators of the NIV didn't consult the text of the KJV. So, there was no cross comparison for reasons of authenticity.

In addition, I think that you should contact the translators and text experts themselves for that answer (which is what I have been urging all along). You can easily contact the organizations that translated the NIV or NASB. You can contact textual critics and experts in ancient languages and manuscripts to ascertain their views on which manuscripts and text-types are most (or more) reliable. I can tell you what I have learned...but I should be no more trusted than any other "hearsay" source.

I will say this: The translators, text critics and language/manuscript experts that I spoke with each seemed to echo one another with a view that the manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type are much older than those in the Byzantine text-type. They are written in different period languages -- with the many of the manuscripts and texts of the Alexandrian text-type being written in Koine Greek (which is the "Biblical Greek" of the time of Christ and the apostles). Moreover, many of them explained a belief (for several reasons) that the text of the Byzantine text-type was descended from the text of the Alexandrian text-type. I don't have any specific anecdotes for this view that were provided to me on this particular computer, but I can provide them to you at a later time.

Very importantly, I have tried to make it clear that I do NOT accept the premise that the Alexandrian text-types are superior to the Byzantine text-types (or other...or vice versa). I simply understand the views and perspectives of the majority of text critics, scholars and language/manuscript experts who happen to hold to this particular view. Many of their points do make a lot of sense.

I have no problem saying that I do not embrace one text source as irrefutably superior to the other. In fact, I realize that Erasmus had to sort through texts to come up with his own wording. I suspect that others have always had to do the same. After all, we do not have the actual articles written by the apostles in front of us. They have been translated many times over about two thousand years.

This is why I have no problem with embracing the KJV as a good, reliable translation from its set of sources. I embrace the NASB as a good, reliable translation from its set of sources. I embrace the NIV as a good, reliable translation from its set of sources. I also use a few others, including one in Spanish that predates the KJV.

When I study God's Word, I often read the KJV or NIV. If I feel the need, I will consult other versions. In fact, I have discovered that I do this quite a bit on my Nook (eReader) and via www.biblegateway.com. It just offers a unique perspective from various translators as they translated from their sources.

I hope this helps. I do urge you to contact those translators and scholars if you have the opportunity. They may tell you what they have explained to me. They may tell you something else that you could share here too.

May the Lord bless you.

First, I never said that I personally think that the non-TR family of ancient manuscripts are necessarily more reliable. I simply said that I understand the view of the vast majority of translators, textual critics and language/manuscript experts who consider the manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type to be more reliable.

I explained (in a nut shell) why this was so several times in several posts within this thread. They view those manuscripts to be more reliable than Erasmus's TR (or the Byzantine text-type manuscripts from which it was largely gathered). Most of the manuscripts are much older. Many are written in Biblical Koine Greek (opposed to the Medieval Greek of Byzantine text type). Early leaders of the various churches appear to have quoted directly from them. Moreover and most importantly, most text experts believe that later texts and manuscripts were derived from the manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type.

As I have said, I think that the BEST thing for you -- in order to verify what I am saying -- is to contact those sources themselves. You can contact the translators, language/manuscript experts and Bible societies. You can even read the writings of dead text critics and language experts (like Westcott and Hort) to find out what they really believed.

And, importantly, you can read the writings of Erasmus and the translators of the King James Version. I believe that those translators would have consulted those other texts if they had been readily available to them. Even in their preface, the translators of the KJV stated their directive: "Out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue." In other words, they consulted and compared multiple texts and already existent versions during the completion of their work.

In fact, the translators -- even in their preface -- admitted to having to use personal judgment and consensus to translate ideas because they couldn't just translate it word for word...and when the sources that were consulted often differed. They said, "Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty."

JB1968, I hope that you understand that I am not proclaiming one set of sources as necessarily superior to others. I am just saying that most text experts, manuscript experts, scholars, language experts and translators feel a certain way...and they give ample reasons for it. I do suggest that you contact them and allow them to tell you what they feel and why they feel that way. This would be much better than me trying to convey what they have written or what they have told me in our correspondence.

I hope that this is a little more clear.

Hi anonymous777...

Yes, I have read through her books...but it has been a while. I know that I disagree with what she says. I am thinking about contacting her. I don't really feel a need to ask her about all of the allegations that have been spoken about her or questions about her credibility. I know that even some other KJV-only have "broken ties" with her because of those things (and some even provide scanned and photocopied "evidence" in an effort to validate their claims). However, I am not really interested in those things.

Rather, I would prefer to ask her about questions regarding her claims about her educational background, claims of being an "expert" and the extent of her research into many of these matters. I would also like to read her books again. Unfortunately, they aren't found at any of the Stanford University libraries or in any of our local libraries. I don't think that I feel comfortable enough to actually purchase those things either. I may try to find a copy online or for my eReader. I would like to just look at her "extensive" bibliography and see just what she bases her opinions upon.

Like I said, I don't feel a need to delve too deeply into all of those specific allegations about her. Although some of those things are very serious, I would certainly withhold any consideration about the validity of those things or repeating them in public until after I have taken the time to contact her about them if I ever felt the need.

But, again, I think that it would be good if Gail Riplinger displayed the same caution about accusatory rhetoric toward certain textual critics and translators as she would have everyone else show toward her in light to the allegations that are repeated even amongst KJV-only organizations, advocates and websites.

Guys! Guys! Guys! Brothers some sanity please. You have been at this for weeks. Why not agree to disagree and get about the business of winning the lost. Besides what does this have to do with revival? Why not focus on and encouraging and edifying one another. Are we not to draw the sword to figjht the devil not one another? I implore ypu please put this controversy to rest.

martyr,

This is important, really. It has been said that the battleground for truth is the bloodiest battle ever fought and has lasted the longest of every other battle-it's still going on today! It started with the serpent in Gen 3 with "Yea hath God said...?" It is Satan who tries to take away the word (Mark 4), so I'm very concerned about anyone trying to take it from me or anyone else for that matter.

We're not fighting one another; we're fighting for the truth.

If you want to settle for an average Christian life, then choose an average Bible. But if you're talking about revival, if you're talking about God coming down, if you're talking about a pure church, if you're talking about a holy bride, if you're looking for God to do something great in your life, then why would you settle for anything less than God's best and perfect (holy) word??

As 777 said, you are what you eat.

Taking a stand for righteousness (what is right) is not popular today, but it's desperately needed. Don't expect revival to come unless God's people want to do right IN EVERY MATTER.

Thanks Chris,
Alot to weed through. Have been busy, but I was wanting to know your opinion, rather than the experts. You seem to think that both are good reliable texts, and one is not necessarily superior to the other. Is this right?
Thanks,
JB

Does anyone think we possess the inerrant Word of God to us, today? Chris, biilpro, martyr??

Yes, but the inerrant Word of God is NOT confined to the KJV of the Scriptures. Even the translators of the KJV emphatically stated as much.

BTW, I do understand martyr's concern.

Such discussions have a tendency to turn into a never-ending "back and forth" that can serve as a distraction to not only young believers -- but those who participate in the discussion.

However, I feel prompted to respond to those claims from those who feel a need to publicly declare their view as "absolutes." This is especially true when any attempt to test or question such "absolute" public claims -- including the research, logic or evidence that is called into question -- are met with very adamant disdain.

I just do not think that it is wise for people to make absolute claims about this matter.

King Jimmy,
There seems to be little differnce in the variance. Right? Refresh my Greek. What is the reference.
Thanks,
JB

Hi JB1968...

Alot to weed through. Have been busy, but I was wanting to know your opinion, rather than the experts. You seem to think that both are good reliable texts, and one is not necessarily superior to the other. Is this right?

My opinion is first and foremost that most people who are heavily engaged in this topic just don't know what the experts think about this...but only the innuendos that many KJV-only books and websites have made about what those experts think.

Instead of relying on what others SAY that those sources think of the matter, we should go to them and ask (whenever possible) or read their own works firsthand.

As for my opinions:

I think that the source texts are simply what they are -- source texts. Erasmus had a limited selection of later Byzantine Greek texts that came from what is now described as the Byzantine text-type. He didn't even have an entire version of the New Testament. He did the best that he could with the texts that were available to him.

About a hundred years later, the translators of the KJV relied heavily -- but NOT exclusively -- upon Erasmus's translation of those many Byzantine text-type manuscripts. However, they consulted other versions and translations too (including some in other languages). They also consulted other texts as well. Sometimes, the translators had a tough job when deciding upon certain phrases and words. Those translators did not always agree, but reached a consensus according to their responsibility within the text. I feel that those KJV translators did the best that they could with the texts that were available to them == and they explained what their conclusions in the preface to the original 1611 editions.

Most scholars today have even older manuscripts available - many of which were written in the actual New Testament language of Koine Greek. The vast majority of scholars and translators prefer many of those manuscripts over the later Byzantine text-type manuscripts for diverse reasons (that I mentioned previously...especially a belief that the later Byzantine texts were actually derived from the older Alexandrian texts) -- but they consulted those Byzantine texts nonetheless.

So, my ultimate conclusion in the matter is that I simply understand the various views on the matter. There is no "war" between the translators of the KJV and others. There is no war between Byzantine text-type versus Alexandrian text-type. There was no conspiracy by translators of the NIV or NASB to "change" or "omit" words from the KJV. Those translators simply wanted to create a modern translation in today's English from the best sources available today. Nothing more. Nothing less. The only "war" that seems to exist appears to be the one that is loudly proclaimed by the more adamant KJV-only advocates.

My conclusion, so to speak, is quite simple.

I cannot claim with absolute authority the supremacy of one version, translation, set of texts or set of manuscripts as inarguably superior to all others.

I also feel a need to question the rationale, logic, "evidence" and "research" of those who feel the need to wage their very public war on other translations that are not the KJV. I have no problem with those who feel the KJV is superior, better or even those who would believe it to be the only "perfect" edition of God's Word. However, I do have a problem when they feel that they must loudly proclaim -- without any doubt in their words -- that all other views are "unholy," "devilish," or part of some Satanic conspiracy.

Why even discuss this?

In the past nearly eight years that I have been a part of SermonIndex, we have occasionally had brethren who felt so strongly opinionated about a particular subject that they would announce it to be the only acceptable or Biblical opinion.

Like I said before, there is a need for the preaching of Biblical truth. However, I think that our understanding of "truth" is sometimes skewed. This leads to disputes when individuals proclaim certain sectarian views as the only ones worth considering. Sometimes, any questioning of the presented opinion is met with hostility -- even if the "testing" of those teachings are done in honesty and humility. People argue over music, calvinism (or its alternatives), the extent of the gifts of the Spirit, eschatology, Bible prophecy, particular measures of modesty, politics and, of course, the most correct Bible version(s).

I think that all of these things are perfectly acceptable things that can and, if necessary, should be discussed. However, I think that we need to be very careful about making loud proclamations of one particular view as "truth." I mean, we aren't talking about undeniable doctrines of the faith. We are talking about sectarian views that are chronically discussed...and argued...and discussed...and argued over and over again.

In this case, I do not believe that a person should enter a public forum like this and proclaim the KJV to be the ONLY acceptable version of the Bible. They may believe it. They may base their belief on whatever research that they base the belief upon. However, it just isn't necessary to proclaim it in a manner as if it were beyond dispute. Moreover, no one should become upset if their claims, evidence and research are tested and scrutinized. In fact, we should WELCOME it when anyone wants to test the evidence upon which we personally arrived to our opinions. After all, others may be equipped to help us in our never-ending search for the truth in such matters.

Anyway, I digress (and apologize). I didn't mean to write another long post. I just hope that you understand where I am coming from. Thank you for your prayers.

Chris, are you a Bible Agnostic?

That is uncalled for.

Please refrain from such incendiary language. And, please refrain from repeatedly putting words in my mouth.

I do believe that God has eternally preserved His Word -- but it isn't called the King James Version. It existed for the approximate 1600 years before the KJV was completed. In fact, God's Word is eternal.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men." John 1:1-4

Chris,
I understand how you came to your conclusions. I just wanted to know your own view, rather than the experts. Discussions like these can be good if every one can think sensibly, and if need be "agree to disagree".
Thanks,
JB

It is uncalled for.

That is uncalled for.

Please refrain from such incendiary language. And, please refrain from repeatedly putting words in my mouth.

I do believe that God has eternally preserved His Word -- but it isn't called the King James Version. It existed for the approximate 1600 years before the KJV was completed. In fact, God's Word is eternal.

In this case Chris is right. God's Word is eternal. It was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. English, Spanish, Swazi, and what have you are all translations. But God preserves His Word in each language. That is the mystery of it all. The Bible IS the written Word of God, not just containing the Word of God.