Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Tired of all the political strife and infighting?
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Preferred Bible that you use?
- Thread starter EricTheBaptist
- Start date
Hello Thisnumber,
First, I wouldn't say the KJV is innacurate in any way. I understand you aren't starting an arguement, neither am I. If you want to call later versions more descriptive and to the point, that's fine. If that is the case, perhaps it does take a little more work (often with a different and perhaps better reward), but that doesn't make it "inaccurate". I'll leave it at that.
I like study helps and commentaries. They will differ for each version and even with the same version but a different publisher. I have esword for my Bible software, and it comes with plenty of commentaries and helps. I use them quite often. Still, I don't pick a Bible based on what study helps or commentaries are available. We must also understand that these commentaries aren't always accurate to the scripture. When looking at the commentaries, we should do what the Bereans did and compare them to scripture to see if they are accurate. Then we should NOT do what many of the Bereans did and be swayed by the next group of preachers that come around.
So yes, I like the commentaries. But not to the point that I chose a version of the Bible to study from.
SemperFidelis07
Member
NKJV or NIV for me. I was never a fan of the original KJV with the "Shakespeare" English. The word of God should be translated/written in a way that's easy to understand. Language is something that evolves.
farouk
Member
Well, it depends. I wouldn't completely dismiss it. With familiarity, it can prove to be a very helpful version of God's Word.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Again, not starting an argument, but surely one can't ignore these:
Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:
<table border="" cellspacing="1" width="920"><tbody><tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> KJV translates...
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> Textus Receptus actually says...
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Lucifer" Is 14:12
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Easter" Acts 12:4
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "flagon" 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chron 16:3; SoS 2:5; Hosea 3:1
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Now, I understand (and had said previously) these errors do not essentially change the meaning of the text, but they indicate the translation was "sloppy" not because of bad scholarship, but because of the few manuscripts available to Erasmus, et al, and the fact that those manuscripts were not the best of the some 5,000 we now now are extant.
You have misunderstood me. If you want my position on it, then let me make it plain.
The modern translations have a lot of errors. Those errors are serious ones. They lower the divinity of Jesus, they lower the due respect for Jesus as our creator and and they damage a lot of other damages to doctrines. I believe these errors are deliberately made using the excuse of more accuracy and easier reading.
That is my position on it.
I believe that Satan's power is much more now than in Garden of Eden as we are giving him more power now that our forefathers did then.
I do not agree that the language is obsolete. The language people spoke in those days and todays language are almost the same. The KJV was written using such a language in an effort to bring out the accuracy in translation.
Christianity is an eastern religion. Greek and Hebrew were eastern languages. I am form one of the eastern countries. Eastern languages has many words that does not have equals in English. Eastern languages can express the feel of a situation. It is not easy to do that in English. It is for these reasons that the translators of KJV chose to use that kind of language for the translation.
Therefore it is false that the KJV language is obsolete.
It is really up to you. All I can tell you is that only the KJV can help you grow spiritually. If you don't want to accept the true word of God and want to stick adamantly to your belief, then so be it.
I do agree that it has minor errors. But you simply do not have better translations today because they have errors that affect the core doctrines.
farouk
Member
tohelp:
I love and use the King James.
But I would guard against making extravagant claims about a translation, however good.
seagullplayer
Member
It would take very little imagination to think in the devils playbook might be listed:
How to stir up division in the body:
1) Ask about what translation is best.
2) Ask what music is best for worship.
I stated in my previous post that I am NOT KJV only, but I see no profit in the kingdom of bad mouthing a translation that has served the Church well for nearly four centuries? How many people have come to know the Lord using it?
I think the question was what Bible you prefer to use? We should be able to say what version we use without telling everyone else their choice is wrong?
How to stir up division in the body:
1) Ask about what translation is best.
2) Ask what music is best for worship.
I stated in my previous post that I am NOT KJV only, but I see no profit in the kingdom of bad mouthing a translation that has served the Church well for nearly four centuries? How many people have come to know the Lord using it?
I think the question was what Bible you prefer to use? We should be able to say what version we use without telling everyone else their choice is wrong?
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Nope. They just have the same kind of meaningless errors. The KJV is a very good bible, so is the NASB, the ESV, the Holman, even the NIV, NLT, CEV and others. The most commonly used Bibles today, outside of the LDS' KJV and the New World Translation of the JWs, are all good tools by which to study God's word. None is truly superior to any other except for the preference of the reader.
Paul1965
Member
Thisnumberisdisconnected is right, even with slight differences, the most important thing is that people study God's word and try to live by it.
I'm sure if there is such a thing as a "wrong"translation and we've been using it, He in His wisdom and grace will not only clear things up for us when me meet Him for judgement, He will also accept that mankind,in this case the translators, were working with the best tools they had available at the time. If a translation has been deliberately distorted for the purpose or agenda of the translator, I'm sure God has already dealt with them in an appropriate way.
I'm sure if there is such a thing as a "wrong"translation and we've been using it, He in His wisdom and grace will not only clear things up for us when me meet Him for judgement, He will also accept that mankind,in this case the translators, were working with the best tools they had available at the time. If a translation has been deliberately distorted for the purpose or agenda of the translator, I'm sure God has already dealt with them in an appropriate way.
Either you have not read my previous posts, or you are just ignoring them because you don't know better.
As a Christian, our aim is to strive be like Jesus Christ. We need to grow in spirit and in holiness and become like Him, if we need to taken up in rapture when Jesus comes. Those who are taken up in the rapture have a different place in Heaven from the rest of the Christians. If we are Christians striving for perfection, then, there need certain qualities in our life, Some of the important qualities we require are: love for truth, willingness to be taught, strive to know more about the Lord, humbleness, patience, endurance, etc.
I have already posted about what is wrong with the modern translations. I have made it clear that these versions are corrupt versions in that they cause damage to come core doctrines and divinity of Christ.
If you guys think that the modern translations are okay then you are mistaken and you need to do some research on this.
farouk
Member
I doubt the claim that the modern versions have errors that change important doctrines because I just don't see how that is the case from the examples I have seen used to support that claim. From what I've seen, the basic idea is still there.
Can you give specific examples? I'm not looking to argue--I don't know the subject well enough to do so; just curious.
Can you give specific examples? I'm not looking to argue--I don't know the subject well enough to do so; just curious.
farouk
Member
questdriven:
I think what he may be referring to is that in places such as 1 Timothy 3.16, where so many of the manuscripts say 'God (THEOS) was manifest in the flesh', where in Greek the 'th' looks like an 'o', with a line through it, there was one manuscript which when someone looked centuries back seemed to have the line through it still, though faded, but in the 19th century the line had faded, so that it said 'he' or 'the one'. So there was a guy called Dr G Vance Smith, a Unitarian, (Unitarians don't believe that the Lord Jesus is God) who said to the people who produced the Revised Version (from which the American Standard Version was adapted), hey, we need to put 'he was manifest in the flesh' instead of 'God was manifest...'
This kind of thing, I think.
But anyway, the New King James has 'God was manifest', anyway.
Mike
Member
Questions here. We know scripture says faith comes by hearing the Word, but it doesn't say it comes "only" by hearing the Word. Do you believe a devoted believer committed to Christ who has never read or heard scripture quoted can be on the path to salvation?
If yes, how does it become such a crucial matter when a devoted believer uses a version like the NIV? I've been in a small men's bible study group for about 8 years, and a few of the men use the KJV. We've obviously gotten to know each other very well and had countless scripture discussions. We agree on almost everything. When we've had respectful disagreements, it has never been because of the differences in the versions. I don't believe it when I hear people say newer versions change important doctrines.
Just a note here from me (and the staff). Please be polite and respectful on both sides of the issue. Threads on KJV often get locked because they become hostile with angry words tossed around. This one has been good, but I see it starting to head in a bit of a heated direction. Let's try to keep this one going until it ends on its own accord rather than by it being locked.
Thank you, and be blessed.
If yes, how does it become such a crucial matter when a devoted believer uses a version like the NIV? I've been in a small men's bible study group for about 8 years, and a few of the men use the KJV. We've obviously gotten to know each other very well and had countless scripture discussions. We agree on almost everything. When we've had respectful disagreements, it has never been because of the differences in the versions. I don't believe it when I hear people say newer versions change important doctrines.
Just a note here from me (and the staff). Please be polite and respectful on both sides of the issue. Threads on KJV often get locked because they become hostile with angry words tossed around. This one has been good, but I see it starting to head in a bit of a heated direction. Let's try to keep this one going until it ends on its own accord rather than by it being locked.
Thank you, and be blessed.
farouk
Member
Questions here. We know scripture says faith comes by hearing the Word, but it doesn't say it comes "only" by hearing the Word. Do you believe a devoted believer committed to Christ who has never read or heard scripture quoted can be on the path to salvation?
If yes, how does it become such a crucial matter when a devoted believer uses a version like the NIV? I've been in a small men's bible study group for about 8 years, and a few of the men use the KJV. We've obviously gotten to know each other very well and had countless scripture discussions. We agree on almost everything. When we've had respectful disagreements, it has never been because of the differences in the versions. I don't believe it when I hear people say newer versions change important doctrines.
Just a note here from me (and the staff). Please be polite and respectful on both sides of the issue. Threads on KJV often get locked because they become hostile with angry words tossed around. This one has been good, but I see it starting to head in a bit of a heated direction. Let's try to keep this one going until it ends on its own accord rather than by it being locked.
Thank you, and be blessed.
M: Re. highlighted part: for example, in some parts of the world there is still illiteracy among Christians; some of their exposure to Bible truth has been indirect.
It's good for people just to stand back and apply some logic and common sense to some of the more outlandish claims made by some King James Only preachers.
(I love and use the King James, but I'm not King James Only.)
Blessings.