The King James Version or NCV, RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
Hi reddogs,
I enjoy Walter Veith and his classroom style lectures very much.
Actually that's why I made a visit to this Fourm.
Does the SDA still hold the King James as their Bible of choice?
So many today have gone on to other text ,and your intense work on the historical sources for not using the Alexandria text is rare to see.
Thank You.
I enjoy Walter Veith and his classroom style lectures very much.
Actually that's why I made a visit to this Fourm.
Does the SDA still hold the King James as their Bible of choice?
So many today have gone on to other text ,and your intense work on the historical sources for not using the Alexandria text is rare to see.
Thank You.
Upvote
0
Mainly the KJV but there are those who have taken to these new versions based on Hort and Westcotts changes, and we gently try to point out the issues with those versions, and once they see it, they have been getting back to the KJV. But the shaking is full on us as my wife went to her island, and she says half the island SDA churches are rocking away and doing their own thing, while the other half is following Godly principles. Our brand new church was taken over and I never knew their where such followers of the ideas of Willow Creek till I saw the results as they forced their ideas and everyone 'came as they are' and showed off their 'true selves' and our elders were thrown out and the 'rock and roll' brought in overnight. The shaking of the 'wheat and tares' is happening and the church is asleep....
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I started ,my life in Christ with the Baptist ,as a boy growing up in Church.
My Dad was a Pastor /Preacher.
We never considered any other version than the King James.
The translation was done by a incredible group of professors in linguistics, who shared for accuracy each other's work.
The devil always has a counterfeit of the truth in Christ, He casts doubt among believers.
Westcott and Hort were both corrupt and were funded by enemies of God's Word.
I used Wikipedia before doing a side by side comparison between the Critical text and the Textus,Receptus.
It is not simply difference in language from old English to modern English.
The Critical text deletes many verses pertaining to Christ and his devine being as God.
Still meany teachers ,and preachers refer to the other versions.
There is one very strange symbol on the New King James.
The Trinity Knot is known by many names, most famously the Celtic Knot and Eternity Knot. The Trinity Knot’s official name is the “triquetra”, meaning “triangle” in Latin. The Trinity Knot is a religious symbol with both pagan and Christians heritage. In Celtic mythology, knots symbolize the sacred geometry of the universe and the interconnectedness of all life in the universe. In Christian iconography, the Trinity Knot represents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity Knot can be seen in Ireland’s most valuable relic, the Book of Kells, now located in the suitably named Trinity College, Dublin.
Source:
Know your Claddau
Rome mixed Pagan and Christian beliefs together ,and i cannot understand why a english Bible would Have a Irish pagan symbol on the cover.
Nor can I understand why a man of God ,who is educated would have one.
It can appear on others as well and I suppose someone could do up a leather one for the King James.
Not in my house.
My Dad was a Pastor /Preacher.
We never considered any other version than the King James.
The translation was done by a incredible group of professors in linguistics, who shared for accuracy each other's work.
The devil always has a counterfeit of the truth in Christ, He casts doubt among believers.
Westcott and Hort were both corrupt and were funded by enemies of God's Word.
I used Wikipedia before doing a side by side comparison between the Critical text and the Textus,Receptus.
It is not simply difference in language from old English to modern English.
The Critical text deletes many verses pertaining to Christ and his devine being as God.
Still meany teachers ,and preachers refer to the other versions.
There is one very strange symbol on the New King James.
The Trinity Knot is known by many names, most famously the Celtic Knot and Eternity Knot. The Trinity Knot’s official name is the “triquetra”, meaning “triangle” in Latin. The Trinity Knot is a religious symbol with both pagan and Christians heritage. In Celtic mythology, knots symbolize the sacred geometry of the universe and the interconnectedness of all life in the universe. In Christian iconography, the Trinity Knot represents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity Knot can be seen in Ireland’s most valuable relic, the Book of Kells, now located in the suitably named Trinity College, Dublin.
Source:
Know your Claddau
Rome mixed Pagan and Christian beliefs together ,and i cannot understand why a english Bible would Have a Irish pagan symbol on the cover.
Nor can I understand why a man of God ,who is educated would have one.
It can appear on others as well and I suppose someone could do up a leather one for the King James.
Not in my house.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have found that most of the Alexandrian type text stream are missing certain verses especially those dealing with the divinity of Christ and a key verse they omit is Acts 8:37...
Acts 8:37 King James Version (KJV)
37 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.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2014
- 30,521
- 16,866
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So then the question becomes: Did those verses get deleted, or did they get added?
The catholic church had a bad habit of adding things from their traditions and beliefs, and writing them into scripture. The most egregious examples are references to Christ and "world without end" added to the end of several of the Psalms.
Upvote
0
Here's a link to a massive archive of info regarding the Bible versions...
The King James Bible Defended!
The King James Bible Defended!
Upvote
0
I really think the question that needs to be looked at is why the Alexandrian texts affect or take out the verses relating to the divinity of Christ. That is the telling mark of Gnosticism from Alexandrian spreading like a cancer, and we are still fighting it today....
Upvote
0
Considering Alexandrian people were involved in the murder of Steven, I do not need to trust their writing as to the divinity of Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
BibleDisciple
Active Member
- Aug 30, 2020
- 38
- 9
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!
In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of the KJV. There are a lot of scriptures that are deceptive.
Look at Rom 10:4 in KJV:
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
So there is no law now, right? Well no. The word "end" is really talking about the "aim". The NIV does much better with:
"Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
The NIV correctly translates that verse and shows that the law was supposed to point us to Christ
I find there are some "difficult scriptures" that disappear, when you leave the KJV.
In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of the KJV. There are a lot of scriptures that are deceptive.
Look at Rom 10:4 in KJV:
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
So there is no law now, right? Well no. The word "end" is really talking about the "aim". The NIV does much better with:
"Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
The NIV correctly translates that verse and shows that the law was supposed to point us to Christ
I find there are some "difficult scriptures" that disappear, when you leave the KJV.
Upvote
0
BibleDisciple
Active Member
- Aug 30, 2020
- 38
- 9
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It's not just a lack of understanding of a word of an individual, the translators share the blame.
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
What ancient text did this come from?
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
There are agendas that the KJV translators had that come out in the KJV version that you have to be careful of. I prefer a more modern translation that not only reads better, but also corrects not only the blatant errors in the KJV, and uses words with their modern connotation.
The KJV version has it's place, but few people are going to want to study a 400 year old British English Bible.
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
What ancient text did this come from?
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
There are agendas that the KJV translators had that come out in the KJV version that you have to be careful of. I prefer a more modern translation that not only reads better, but also corrects not only the blatant errors in the KJV, and uses words with their modern connotation.
The KJV version has it's place, but few people are going to want to study a 400 year old British English Bible.
Upvote
0
AdamjEdgar
Well-Known Member
I havent read all replies...however, i did not see the second of two of the earliest actual written bibles that we have...Jerome's Latin Vulgate (written in same century as Sinaiticus...probably within 40 years of it). The interesting thing about the Vulgate is that Jerome noted he used manuscripts dating back to the first Century A.D in authoring this translation (remembering Jesus and the Apostles were first century A.D). That is very clearly as close to the originals as we can get.
I also disagree with the premise in this post that the alternatives to the Textus Receptus are unreliable. That is complete nonsense and not scholarly in any way. Codex Sinaiticus and the Vulgate both clearly prove that is not the case. The inclusion of the apocrypha into the Vulgate or any translation for that matter is not evidence for the unreliability of that translation. This also is complete nonsense. The fact Jerome kept it separated in this way is evidence he made every effort to ensure transparency. He spent at least 15 years defending his use of the original Hebrew scriptures in his translation of the Vulgate believing these were the least corrupted and most reliable originals from which he could translate. "Against the traditional view at the time, he maintained that the Hebrew, not the Septuagint, was the inspired text of the Old Testament."
It has been absolutely irrefutable that the differences in the Bible over the centuries account for less than a few percent of its writings and these have absolutely no effect or even influence on its doctrines!
There is at least one authored version that is not to be trusted...the NWT. That version was translated after doctrine was already decided and with this influence. An abominable way of messing with true writings and meaning.
Having said the above, and in answer to the question directly, one should not rely an any single bible for all truth. Decent scholars and particularly church pastors who are genuine in their search for truth, always use a variety of texts.
I was a fan of KJV and believed whole heartedly the Textus Receptus was uncorrupted and therefore the only source of absolute truth in writings. However, my research during the last year of COVID has proven that premise was wrong. There are passages of scripture in the Textus Receptus that are authored/added as a result of biased influence. Whilst at least one of these 1 John 5:7 is clearly out of context and should not be where it is (This chapter is not about the trinity adding trinity doctrine here is a confusion of the context of the chapter), these passages do not in my opinion however, make any difference to underlying doctrines or Biblical themes.
I also disagree with the premise in this post that the alternatives to the Textus Receptus are unreliable. That is complete nonsense and not scholarly in any way. Codex Sinaiticus and the Vulgate both clearly prove that is not the case. The inclusion of the apocrypha into the Vulgate or any translation for that matter is not evidence for the unreliability of that translation. This also is complete nonsense. The fact Jerome kept it separated in this way is evidence he made every effort to ensure transparency. He spent at least 15 years defending his use of the original Hebrew scriptures in his translation of the Vulgate believing these were the least corrupted and most reliable originals from which he could translate. "Against the traditional view at the time, he maintained that the Hebrew, not the Septuagint, was the inspired text of the Old Testament."
It has been absolutely irrefutable that the differences in the Bible over the centuries account for less than a few percent of its writings and these have absolutely no effect or even influence on its doctrines!
There is at least one authored version that is not to be trusted...the NWT. That version was translated after doctrine was already decided and with this influence. An abominable way of messing with true writings and meaning.
Having said the above, and in answer to the question directly, one should not rely an any single bible for all truth. Decent scholars and particularly church pastors who are genuine in their search for truth, always use a variety of texts.
I was a fan of KJV and believed whole heartedly the Textus Receptus was uncorrupted and therefore the only source of absolute truth in writings. However, my research during the last year of COVID has proven that premise was wrong. There are passages of scripture in the Textus Receptus that are authored/added as a result of biased influence. Whilst at least one of these 1 John 5:7 is clearly out of context and should not be where it is (This chapter is not about the trinity adding trinity doctrine here is a confusion of the context of the chapter), these passages do not in my opinion however, make any difference to underlying doctrines or Biblical themes.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
We will just have to agree to disagree my brother, except for the part of Jerome, he was a true and faithful believer. Unfortunately, the leaders of the church in Rome hated it and finally drove him out..
However, this is not the debate/open forum, so if you could take it there.. Traditional Adventists-Discussion Zone
Upvote
0
AdamjEdgar
Well-Known Member
Which of the above do you not agree with? Many SDA church ministers share the exact same views as me (I come from an SDA family, my dad was an SDA minister for over 35 years)
Upvote
0
Enilorac
Active Member
Hi all! Haven't posted in a long minute.
Regarding bible translations, I tend to use electronic media such as e-Sword for my serious study so I can compare different translations. Yes, I do like the KJV, the language is more lyrical and I find it easy to memorize. While I was studying for my baptism, I asked my pastor to tell me what he thought were the preferred translations for study and devotional time. He recommended the ESV, NIV and NKJV. I have hard copies of these but use the ESV most of the time. I also have hard copies of the NASB, RSV and a few others. In service, my pastor tends to use the NIV most of the time, however he uses others too. I enjoy Stephen Bohr's videos as he uses many different translations in his talks.
Translations will never be "word for word" from one language to another because different languages differ in word order, multiple definitions for the same word, different words that have the same definition and the like. The only "TRUE" words would be those in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Everything else is a translation, which calls for judgement calls on words. The biggest question I have for the KJV only folks is what about bibles that are not in English? Are those then false versions?
Regarding bible translations, I tend to use electronic media such as e-Sword for my serious study so I can compare different translations. Yes, I do like the KJV, the language is more lyrical and I find it easy to memorize. While I was studying for my baptism, I asked my pastor to tell me what he thought were the preferred translations for study and devotional time. He recommended the ESV, NIV and NKJV. I have hard copies of these but use the ESV most of the time. I also have hard copies of the NASB, RSV and a few others. In service, my pastor tends to use the NIV most of the time, however he uses others too. I enjoy Stephen Bohr's videos as he uses many different translations in his talks.
Translations will never be "word for word" from one language to another because different languages differ in word order, multiple definitions for the same word, different words that have the same definition and the like. The only "TRUE" words would be those in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Everything else is a translation, which calls for judgement calls on words. The biggest question I have for the KJV only folks is what about bibles that are not in English? Are those then false versions?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The question we all must ask themselves, are these verses missing for a purpose, or is it just 'newer versions'. This is what each must answer for themselves...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
