Question concerning the Bible

That is a debatable issue, and belongs in the Workshop or Roundtable forum rather than in this one which is more for Forum Questions rather than issues like this. Do a search on this site - you will see that this topic has been discussed here multiple times.

In a word, NO!

I can't give a straight answer for this one. Personally I'm a KJV-only person. I do that because of several reasons, the most important being I find many of the modern translation missing some verses that I find either to be important, or that do make a deeper impression of God's message.

Secondly, Christians all over the world differs their opinion on bible interpretations. I find that modern translations tend to write the verses in such a way that there is often only 1 way to interpret the bible. (What if this 1 interpretation is flawed?) The KJV is written in a way that allows the Christian to use his own understanding (with God's guidance, of course) to learn God's word.

While I do believe that Christians can still be saved from using other translations, personally I feel that the KJV allows for a more open interpretation of the bible. Where a verse could be interpreted in more than 1 way, I would pray for guidance. This I was unable to do with the modern translations, which mostly leaves room for only 1 interpretation.

I owned an NIV, NASB and NKJV for about 8 years before getting my KJV early last year. The KJV has been my favourite so far.

Hope this helps.

One thing we need to be sure of. The Bible is the way for us to understand the Lord and His great plan for us. Far be it from His justice to allow His Word to be misrepresented to such a degree as to not to be trusted. To whatever degree unscrupulous the translation, yet we can benefit from the essence of the teachings that benefit us.

I find that modern translations tend to write the verses in such a way that there is often only 1 way to interpret the bible. (What if this 1 interpretation is flawed?) The KJV is written in a way that allows the Christian to use his own understanding (with God's guidance, of course) to learn God's word.

... personally I feel that the KJV allows for a more open interpretation of the bible. Where a verse could be interpreted in more than 1 way, I would pray for guidance. This I was unable to do with the modern translations, which mostly leaves room for only 1 interpretation.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can give some examples?

The real issue though is whether the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek texts "allow" such freedom of interpretation. In other words, maybe the ambiguity of the KJV has been added to the sense of the text rather than reflecting the original sense of the text.

Again, list a couple of examples and we can examine the Hebrew/Greek to determine if that is the case.

Okay, at this point I'll be hard pressed to search through the bible and find u multiple examples, but here's one for starters, starting with the favourite John 3:16. The KJV has it as:

KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Most people now understand "only begotten" as "only Unique", as in while God has more than one "son", Christ is the only special one, above all others.

Some popular modern translation:

NIV: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

NLT: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

WEB: For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Besides these there are also the BBE, CEV, GNB, GW, which also only gave the impression that Jesus is the only son God has. The phrase "sons of God" had been used to describe angels and his people for ages.


And then we have the VERY "simplified" ones:

WE: God loved the world so very, very much that he gave his only Son. Because he did that, everyone who believes in him will not lose his life, but will live for ever.

This kind of gives the impression that we will not die, but will live forever. Most Christian understand "everlasting/eternal life" as not dying the second death. But to the new and uninitiated Christian, "will live forever" tends to give the meaning of not even dying the physical death. Possibly largely due to the phrase's misuse on television and movies.

YLT: for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Okay, the Young's Literal Translation is even harder to read...

Another fact is, the common reaction to people picking up a simplified text is that they accept it at face-value. They no longer brood over and really think about each verse and what it could really mean. Think about why Jesus often taught in parables, why didn't he just "simplify" his gospel? Because the mysteries of God's plan is only to be revealed by the Spirit. Let each man be responsible for his own salvation and understanding.

Oh, and the common reason given that the KJV is too hard to read? It's not that true. I'm a Singaporean, and it's common knowledge that while we're a multicultural country, we mostly excel in none of the languages spoken. most Singapore teens nowadays are atrocious in their English. But that never stopped me from understanding the KJV. In fact, I used to be more confused when I used an NASB. The Holy Spirit opens our understanding to different parts of the scripture when the time is right. Making the entire text "easier" to read isn't always the best thing.

Okay, let's look at John 3;16. There are several issues involved in this text, one of which deals with the Greek word MONOGENHS. The word can carry different meanings. For instance, MONOGENHS is used of Isaac, Abraham's son in Josephus, Antiquities, 1:222) and is used in the sense of "only." For two examples of MONOGENHS referring to an "only son" consider Luke 7:12 and 9:38. So also the use of MONOGENHS as the "only" daughter of Jairius (Luke 8:42).

In John's use of the word, MONOGENHS seems to carry the sense of "Only One" or as some prefer "only-begotten," who emphasize the GENNHSQAI "begotten of God" in John 1:13. This would be similar to Paul's use of PRWTOTOKOS "first-born" of Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15). But even the root of the word MONOGENHS is debated. In John's writings, MONOGENHS is only used in reference to Jesus, so even in John's context, the sense of "unique" is a given.

So, which is correct? Well, they both are. In a sense, this is a case in which the KJV ("only begotten") could seem to be narrower (more restrictive) than some other translations.
----

But that never stopped me from understanding the KJV. In fact, I used to be more confused when I used an NASB.

Click to expand...

Again, I would be interested in those passages that you claim are more confusing in the NAS.

Actually the reading level for both NAS and KJV are about the same. So, confusion with one most likely means confusion with the other. Or it seems that you just have a preference for the KJV - which is fine, as long as someone doesn't take this to mean that the KJV is the better, or the only reliable translation.

You mentioned, MONOGENHS could mean "Only One"/"only-begotten" and if I didn't get your meaning wrong, to you they are "the same"?

The truth is, from my reading of the KJV, after checking the Strong's dictionary, the word "only begotten" can be used. "Only begotten" can mean "unique", or it can mean "only born". Now, the latter meaning can get you into some trouble with trinitarians, for most of them would say the Son was *begotten*, not made, not created, not formed, not borned. And if we wish to talk about created sons of God, there are many.

They are both correct translations of the word, true. But as you have stated, the meaning of a word hangs on the context it is used. And the context in many modern translation happens to be inaccurate.

---

As for why the NAS could be more confusing that the KJV, my advice is don't simply look for verses and compare them. The full understaning of the bible takes the reading of the entire text. Confusion for me tends to occur not with single verses or chapters, but when one verse does not seem to fit in with another. Take the verse above as example.

If one reads John 3:16 as "one and only son", and he turns back to Genesis 6:2 and reads "sons of God", chances are he'll become puzzled. As a matter of fact, these "contradictions" (which aren't real contradiction, just misinterpretation on a person's part) are often used by atheists as an attack on the validity of the bible.

I trust the interpretation of the Spirit. I'm simply uncomfortable leaving interpretation of Scriptures to some scholars, especially if they incorporate modern values into their versions. Times have changed, so have lives, but the word of God shall not change.

As for why the NAS could be more confusing that the KJV, my advice is don't simply look for verses and compare them. The full understaning of the bible takes the reading of the entire text. Confusion for me tends to occur not with single verses or chapters, but when one verse does not seem to fit in with another.

Click to expand...

But that is not a problem with a specific translation. That is an issue with every translation, and it is a problem with the underlying Hebrew and Greek. In fact, any kind of interpretation faces the same problem.

I'm simply uncomfortable leaving interpretation of Scriptures to some scholars, especially if they incorporate modern values into their versions.

Click to expand...

So, scholars of the 17th century who had access to only three Greek manuscripts, and very few resources (aside from the RCC approved Vulgate) are more trustworthy than scholars who have access to 5,500+ Greek manuscripts and first century documents that help understand the culture and scene of the New Testament era?

The danger of "adding something into the translation" cuts both ways. There are some passages in the KJV that support a very strong Calvinist interpretation, which do not necessarily reflect the Greek text. So, once again, the KJV is not the standard by which we judge something as a correct interpretation, nor a foundation for doctrine. Always, the basis is the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek.

That's the whole point -- a translation is possibly never *AS* good as the originals, but at things age we'd just have to make do.

And while they each have their own strong and weak points, IMHO the KJV's the best one out there, compared to the rest (that I've read).

I do not contend whether other bibles can get one "saved". I'm sure they have truths in them too, superior or inferior, it can't be completely wrong. (If they are, I wouldn't even touch them, let alone use them as cross-reference.)

Like you said, in the end it's all about what we judge as correct interpretation. However, the difference between that MAY just constitute an understanding of doctrine.

As for the Calvinist interpretation, hey, the Calvinist movement started because of their *interpretation* of doctrines too, so it's back to the issue of interpretation again.

Correct interpretation of each doctrine is important to me. I don't encourage the referential use of modern translation, but neither do I condemn them. I'm sure God has His reasons for allowing different translations to exist.

Heheh... I'm sure it means nothing, but it was funny to note nevertheless:

If you click on the "search" button, you'd see a list of the recent searches forum members have made. At the time of writing, the phrase "bible study" was used, with a result of "1611", which incidentally is the year the KJV was published... heheh... just a funny coincidence, of course!

LOL - good thing it wasn't 666!

Oh, that would have been terrible! *chuckles* You know how people tend to believe in such coincidences when the connotations are bad instead of good... I've seen people believing in Bill Gates or Barney being the anti-christ because of some reason... hehehe...