• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Changes to the Word of God seen in other Bible Versions

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,780
✟498,964.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, I see your point because some people say the Shakespearean language can be difficult, and if it is distracting, then I guess the best thing to do is find a bible that is very close to its translation. However, for me, the language does not cause a problem, and because there have been changes in words and even omissions in some of the newer versions, I stay away from them.

The changes in words and even omissions in some of the newer versions that you mention are a result of better scholarship, both in translating the early texts and rendering them into English accurately. Staying away from newer, better translations means that you are closing your mind to translation scholarship.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The original KJV was written in 1611. However, when you open up the cover and look at the copyright date, it's usually in the 1750s. That's clue one.

Also, the original version had the apocryphya.

I see some people are not opposed to the apocryphya however, I don't know the reason it was not considered in the KJV, as the book of Enoch was not considered. I don't know how important it is for me to start looking into those books. And there might be a good reason why the translators back then chose not to include it. I don't know, and I'm afraid to start delving into those other books. I even see on the biblegateway site that they have a reference section to the apocryphya.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,489
8,655
Canada
✟915,452.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I see some people are not opposed to the apocryphya however, I don't know the reason it was not considered in the KJV, as the book of Enoch was not considered. I don't know how important it is for me to start looking into those books. And there might be a good reason why the translators back then chose not to include it. I don't know, and I'm afraid to start delving into those other books. I even see on the biblegateway site that they have a reference section to the apocryphya.
The thing is, it wasn't removed until the 1828. The original translators would have been dead at this point. In terms of authority to determine, "it is okay to tear these books out of the bible" would relate to your original question.

Who did they think they were ripping pages out of the bible based on their opinions?

Yet they did, and this translation that's been mangled and changed a bunch, and somehow became the object of an onlyism movement. It's absurd.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Isilwen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
3,741
2,788
Florida
✟161,599.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
I see some people are not opposed to the apocryphya however, I don't know the reason it was not considered in the KJV, as the book of Enoch was not considered. I don't know how important it is for me to start looking into those books. And there might be a good reason why the translators back then chose not to include it. I don't know, and I'm afraid to start delving into those other books. I even see on the biblegateway site that they have a reference section to the apocryphya.

Like the post you are replying to says, the original had the Apocrypha. Just pointing it out if you didn;t see it.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,082
8,298
Frankston
Visit site
✟773,725.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

The chart on the website below shows how some of those changes have been made. I personally stay away from these versions and only read the King James Bible.

What do you think?

I could not post the charts from the site, but I have provided the links:

Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations
I think this whole debate is as pointless as the debates about baptism, the sabbath, the place of the law and other useless and divisive arguments. The only version I don't read is the King James.I didn't like Shakespeare all that much either.

I rarely read paraphrases or versions such as the Message bible. Read and study something. God blesses us with the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation if we will ask. It's of far more value than concordances, commentaries, lexicons and systematic theology treatises. I know, because I used to study with all of those. Funny how God caused the church to flourish without the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,082
8,298
Frankston
Visit site
✟773,725.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I don't understand your comment since the King James version was the first translation taken from Tyndale's original work and the Geneva Bible, among other versions combined that made it possible for the work done to produce the King James Bible in the 1600s.

If other translations should not be compared to the King James version, then where are these other translations coming from?
The original Greek manuscripts. Do a bit of research, it's very interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,082
8,298
Frankston
Visit site
✟773,725.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I don't agree - I trust the King James Bible. I don't speak Hebrew and Greek, I was not raised Hebrew and Greek, and they are not languages I understand, as I speak, write, and understand English. The work of the King James Bible's translation was a painstaking ordeal to get it right way back in the 1600s, and I believe God inspired. I have no right to so call inspect or judge the KJV based on the original Greek and Hebrew when the work has been completed.
The KJV is based on a version of English common over 400 years ago. English is constantly evolving, unfortunately. So what you read in the KJV may mean something different now. So you'll have to learn two languages if you want to use the KJV. From what I read on the forum, quite a few people struggle with modern English.

Do you imagine that modern translators do not respect the original manuscripts as the word of God? They do. I don't always agree. For example, the NIV uses the word "desert" when other translations say "wilderness". It's a subtle distinction. I prefer "wilderness". It may be that "desert" is technically correct. I have not bothered to find out which is right. it's not that important. I compare many versions because I use Bible Hub. Most of the time there is little difference in the various versions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like the post you are replying to says, the original had the Apocrypha. Just pointing it out if you didn;t see it.

I'm not sure of your point, but if I think I understand you are pointing to the changes that were, which contradicts my concern. If that's your point, I have to consider that the KJV was done over 2000 years ago [CORRECTION over 400 years ago - 1611]. I definitely was not born then, and I was not in those discussions when King James made the decision to put a committee together. I also believe the word was God inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, who am I, who was born 2000 years after such an important work was accomplished, to question it? I don't know why the apocrypha was not included, and I don't think I have the right to question it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Isilwen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
3,741
2,788
Florida
✟161,599.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not sure of your point, but if I think I understand you are pointing to the changes that were, which contradicts my concern.

I was replying to the below from your reply. It was included in the original KJV, but was later removed in a later rendition of the KJV.

I don't know the reason it was not considered in the KJV

And there might be a good reason why the translators back then chose not to include it.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,120
4,198
Yorktown VA
✟191,432.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't agree - I trust the King James Bible. I don't speak Hebrew and Greek, I was not raised Hebrew and Greek, and they are not languages I understand, as I speak, write, and understand English. The work of the King James Bible's translation was a painstaking ordeal to get it right way back in the 1600s, and I believe God inspired. I have no right to so call inspect or judge the KJV based on the original Greek and Hebrew when the work has been completed.

I do work with Greek on a regular basis. The KJV is a reliable translation for someone who spoke 17th century English. It's not the greatest when you have to update it for 21st century English. NO translation is inspired.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,489
8,655
Canada
✟915,452.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I don't know why the apocrypha was not included, and I don't think I have the right to question it.
It was included, then removed later on by a group separate from the translators.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,665
15,709
✟1,232,499.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bible versions and the preeminence of Christ
Have you looked at several of the verses that are listed here as being incorrect when compared to the KJV?
I looked up several not one changed any meaning or demeaned the divinity of Jesus in any way.

Here is one that is just bizarre...
This link that you posted says that ...
Lk 7:31 the Lord said OMITTED OMITTED OMITTED
This does not look like an omission to me.
KJV
31And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
NIV
31Jesus went on to say, "To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?

It's very easy to check these scriptures using BibleHub
Luke 7 NIV KJV Parallel
Matthew 13:51 Interlinear: Jesus saith to them, 'Did ye understand all these?' They say to him, 'Yes, sir.'

If you find one that actually changes the meaning of the verse then that could be a problem.
By the way, I use the KJV and always have even though I have the old 1978 version of the NIV New Testament.

God Bless you and yours.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,120
4,198
Yorktown VA
✟191,432.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure of your point, but if I think I understand you are pointing to the changes that were, which contradicts my concern. If that's your point, I have to consider that the KJV was done over 2000 years ago. I definitely was not born then, and I was not in those discussions when King James made the decision to put a committee together. I also believe the word was God inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, who am I, who was born 2000 years after such an important work was accomplished, to question it? I don't know why the apocrypha was not included, and I don't think I have the right to question it.

Uh, Jesus spoke 17th century English????
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,065
✟582,890.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
What do you think?
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14 KJV

We have multitude of manuscript evidence that provides more safety in determining what the original authors wrote.

Besides every English translation has its' problems, some worse than others. Nowadays it shouldn't be a problem if someone has a favorite Bible version they have a hard copy of, given that at the same time there are dozens of other versions online to compare on the same page.

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance, a nation falls, but with many counselors comes deliverance. NIV

Bible reading is NOT Bible studying, I would say don't be afraid to compare them all and find the consensus and frame it in your own thoughts and words.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,489
8,655
Canada
✟915,452.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I have the old 1978 version of the NIV New Testament.
Can't even get the 1985 one on Biblegateway anymore, might want to hold onto that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,489
8,655
Canada
✟915,452.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
It is understandable why people would like to use an archaic english version though.

If tough questions come along, just blame it on their inability to understand 17th century english.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Isilwen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
3,741
2,788
Florida
✟161,599.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
Can't even get the 1985 one on Biblegateway anymore, might want to hold onto that.

I thankfully have the 1984 version. It was my first ever Bible given to me by my ex-wife. It is a Men's Devotional version.
 
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is understandable why people would like to use an archaic english version though.

If tough questions come along, just blame it on their inability to understand 17th century english.

That's not true. You are being facetious.
 
Upvote 0