• 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

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
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?

Actually, the King James Version was intended to bridge the gap between Puritans and the Calvinist Church of Scotland, who used the Geneva Bible, and the Church of England (Anglican, most closely akin to Scandinavian Lutheran), which used the Bishop’s Bible (although the Puritans were engaging in schisms because they disliked that translation immensely). The other influential Bible at the time was the Coverdale - the Anglicans still use the Coverdale Psalter in the traditional versions of the Book of Common Prayer, such as the 1662 English book, the 1962 Canadian Book, the 1928 American Book, the 1929 Scottish Book, and Rite I in the 1979 American Book, because it is easier to chant than the KJV Psalter.

Now, of the three Bibles criticized, the old NIV, from 1984, is a perfectly good translation. The new one, in its zeal for gender-neutral language, is problematic. The NASB is also a decent Bible.

The New World Translation however is a joke; it was published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a non Christian cult, and is notorious for altering the text to reflect its heretical doctrines. Compare their alleged “translation” of John 1:1 with every other translation.

But the NIV and NASB are based on the Minority Text, three older manuscripts from the fourth century, known as the Alexandrian text type, which lack certain elements common to later manuscripts in the so called Byzantine text type. However, many feel the Byzantine text type the KJV is translated from is superior, because we see it reflected in the Vulgate and Peshitta translations from the fourth century, and because of doctrinal reasons. I am of this opinion, but I find the one modern Bible to exclusively use the Byzantine text type, the NKJV, disappointing in terms of literary style compared to the 1984 NIV, which along with the 1979 BCP, has particularly elegant prose for modern language Bibles and service books.

This does not bother me too much, as I greatly prefer the traditional language Bibles, specifically the KJV, the Challoner Douai-Rheims, the Murdoch translation of the New Testament from the West Syriac version of the Peshitta, which is exceptionally beautiful and elegant, and the Revised Standard Version, and last, but not least, the Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament from 200 BC used exclusively by the Church from the late first century until the fourth century, when St. Jerome translated the Old Testament in the Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew and Aramaic tests.

Other good modern Bibles are the NRSV, the ESV, and the NET Bible.

However, I am deeply frustrated that most King James Versions are incomplete - all KJV Bibles, or “the Authorized Version” as it was then called, before the turn of the 19th century featured the Deuterocanonical Books, also called the Apocrypha, because the Bible was intended for both of the churches in lands ruled by King James, who was King of Scotland, King of England and King of Ireland (this was a personal union however; Scotland and Ireland were not yet united with England), and while the Church of Scotland had no use for the Apocrypha, they could just not read them; the largest population ruled by King James was that of England, and the Church of England does use the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical Books, like the Lutherans, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. To me, selling a KJV without a notice on it stating it is abridged, because it lacks the Apocrypha included in the original, is false advertising. I happen to believe the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament are Divinely Inspired, and challenge anyone who doubts this to read Chapter 2 of Wisdom, which is as clear a prophecy of the Passion of our Lord as you will find. Indeed, read all of them. You might disagree with some, but every Christian should prefer the longer version of Esther, because Martin Luther was quite right to argue the shorter version was pointless; the longer version has a deep theological element as it contains prayers to our God, which are absent from the version in the New Testament.

I am also amazed that some hardcore KJV-only adherents demand the KJV with the original antiquated, non-standard spelling and the original punctuation, but object to the inclusion of the Apocrypha, which were in all the original editions.

*The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a non-Christian cult that exploits the poorest people in America (a survey of the different religions showed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had the least wealth or income of any religious group, per Capita; another cult, the Unitarian Universalists, had the most, per capital but that was unsurprising as the Unitarian Universalists are dominated by wealthy “Old Money” Yankee families from Boston and other places in New England, whose roots in this country go back to the 1600s, and elsewhere in the US appeal primarily to very wealthy elites), and then the Jehovahs Witness force these impoverished people - their members are not only dirt poor but below the poverty line, to give massive amounts of money to the cult. Their cult has also caused many deaths with their horrible eisegesis of Acts 15, believing it prohibits blood transfusions. In this respect, the only cult that is deadlier is Christian Science, which demands members refrain from medical care and instead use the services of “Christian Science Practitioners” who you have to pay to pray for you, which is blasphemous, but so are all of the doctrines of Mary Baker Eddy. Her status as a great fraud was documented by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) around 1900, and the real tragedy is it took this long for the cult to finally begin to fail. Only now, 120 years later, are the Christian Science Reading Rooms closing, the Christian Science Monitor failing, and more and more Christian Science parishes close every year, and many become authentic Christian churches. I am looking forward to when they have to sell their Mother Church in Boston, which is a beautiful building in a Neo Byzantine style; with repainting, would make a splendid Orthodox or Anglican church, as @GreekOrthodox and @Athanasius377 might agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

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
Actually, the King James Version was intended to bridge the gap between Puritans and the Calvinist Church of Scotland, who used the Geneva Bible, and the Church of England (Anglican, most closely akin to Scandinavian Lutheran), which used the Bishop’s Bible (although the Puritans were engaging in schisms because they disliked that translation immensely). The other influential Bible at the time was the Coverdale - the Anglicans still use the Coverdale Psalter in the traditional versions of the Book of Common Prayer, such as the 1662 English book, the 1962 Canadian Book, the 1928 American Book, the 1929 Scottish Book, and Rite I in the 1979 American Book, because it is easier to chant than the KJV Psalter.

Now, of the three Bibles criticized, the old NIV, from 1984, is a perfectly good translation. The new one, in its zeal for gender-neutral language, is problematic. The NASB is also a decent Bible.

The New World Translation however is a joke; it was published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a non Christian cult, and is notorious for altering the text to reflect its heretical doctrines. Compare their alleged “translation” of John 1:1 with every other translation.

But the NIV and NASB are based on the Minority Text, three older manuscripts from the fourth century, known as the Alexandrian text type, which lack certain elements common to later manuscripts in the so called Byzantine text type. However, many feel the Byzantine text type the KJV is translated from is superior, because we see it reflected in the Vulgate and Peshitta translations from the fourth century, and because of doctrinal reasons. I am of this opinion, but I find the one modern Bible to exclusively use the Byzantine text type, the NKJV, disappointing in terms of literary style compared to the 1984 NIV, which along with the 1979 BCP, has particularly elegant prose for modern language Bibles and service books.

This does not bother me too much, as I greatly prefer the traditional language Bibles, specifically the KJV, the Challoner Douai-Rheims, the Murdoch translation of the New Testament from the West Syriac version of the Peshitta, which is exceptionally beautiful and elegant, and the Revised Standard Version, and last, but not least, the Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament from 200 BC used exclusively by the Church from the late first century until the fourth century, when St. Jerome translated the Old Testament in the Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew and Aramaic tests.

Other good modern Bibles are the NRSV, the ESV, and the NET Bible.

However, I am deeply frustrated that most King James Versions are incomplete - all KJV Bibles, or “the Authorized Version” as it was then called, before the turn of the 19th century featured the Deuterocanonical Books, also called the Apocrypha, because the Bible was intended for both of the churches in lands ruled by King James, who was King of Scotland, King of England and King of Ireland (this was a personal union however; Scotland and Ireland were not yet united with England), and while the Church of Scotland had no use for the Apocrypha, they could just not read them; the largest population ruled by King James was that of England, and the Church of England does use the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical Books, like the Lutherans, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. To me, selling a KJV without a notice on it stating it is abridged, because it lacks the Apocrypha included in the original, is false advertising. I happen to believe the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament are Divinely Inspired, and challenge anyone who doubts this to read Chapter 2 of Wisdom, which is as clear a prophecy of the Passion of our Lord as you will find. Indeed, read all of them. You might disagree with some, but every Christian should prefer the longer version of Esther, because Martin Luther was quite right to argue the shorter version was pointless; the longer version has a deep theological element as it contains prayers to our God, which are absent from the version in the New Testament.

I am also amazed that some hardcore KJV-only adherents demand the KJV with the original antiquated, non-standard spelling and the original punctuation, but object to the inclusion of the Apocrypha, which were in all the original editions.

*The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a non-Christian cult that exploits the poorest people in America (a survey of the different religions showed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had the least wealth or income of any religious group, per Capita; another cult, the Unitarian Universalists, had the most, per capital but that was unsurprising as the Unitarian Universalists are dominated by wealthy “Old Money” Yankee families from Boston and other places in New England, whose roots in this country go back to the 1600s, and elsewhere in the US appeal primarily to very wealthy elites), and then the Jehovahs Witness force these impoverished people - their members are not only dirt poor but below the poverty line, to give massive amounts of money to the cult. Their cult has also caused many deaths with their horrible eisegesis of Acts 15, believing it prohibits blood transfusions. In this respect, the only cult that is deadlier is Christian Science, which demands members refrain from medical care and instead use the services of “Christian Science Practitioners” who you have to pay to pray for you, which is blasphemous, but so are all of the doctrines of Mary Baker Eddy. Her status as a great fraud was documented by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) around 1900, and the real tragedy is it took this long for the cult to finally begin to fail. Only now, 120 years later, are the Christian Science Reading Rooms closing, the Christian Science Monitor failing, and more and more Christian Science parishes close every year, and many become authentic Christian churches. I am looking forward to when they have to sell their Mother Church in Boston, which is a beautiful building in a Neo Byzantine style; with repainting, would make a splendid Orthodox or Anglican church, as @GreekOrthodox and @Athanasius377 might agree.

Thanks very much for this informative post! It's not very often that we get to read something this informative and knowledgeable on Christian Forums!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,818
29,489
Pacific Northwest
✟826,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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

What do I think? I think it's a false question.

The KJV isn't the standard against which we measure any translation.

We could just as easily ask why the KJV changes the word of God by comparing it to the translations made by Wycliffe, Tyndale, or Coverdale. And it would be equally as silly.

The measurement with which we judge a translation's value is how accurately it conveys the source texts we use; and that also gets us into bigger issue of critical analysis of biblical manuscripts.

KJV-onlyism is a philosophy about the Bible that requires a great deal of ignorance about the Bible, ignorance of history of the Bible, and ignorance of translation itself in order to sustain. It is impossible to both be well-informed, biblically literate, and also to subscribe to KJV-onlyism. KJV-onlyism is to the Bible what flat-earthism is to the earth: utterly worthless tosh. And I believe I am being charitable with this categorization.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,818
29,489
Pacific Northwest
✟826,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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 book of Enoch is apocryphal, but it is not part of the books usually described as (capital-'A') Apocrypha. That term, "The Apocrypha" is a particularly Protestant term used to describe the Deuterocanonical books. The term "Deuterocanonical books" refers to those books found in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that Christians in the early centuries, including the New Testament writers themselves, relied on), but which were not found in later, post-Christian rabbinical Jewish collections of Scripture, what we call the Tanakh or Jewish Bible.

Both the 1611 KJV, as well as the various revisions and updates made to it in the years after its initial publication, contained the Deuterocanonical books. Because the Church of England, while not accepting them as Canonical Scripture still retained a respect for these books, the same as Martin Luther and the early Reformers did.

The Deuterocanonical books could be found in American printed KJV Bibles as late as the last quarter of the 1800's, around which time American Bible publishers decided to cut publishing costs by printing the KJV without the Deuterocanonicals (and also, a growing sentiment among many Protestants in America that these books were "Catholic" and didn't want them in their Bibles at all. Official publication of the KJV in Britain, where the British Crown still owns the Copyright of, still often prints copies of the KJV with Deuterocanonicals.

The debate over the Deuterocanonical books is complicated. In the early Church there was no unanimous agreement over which books belonged in the Bible and which books did not. There was a general consensus on many books, but not all. This is true of both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

As such the books we call Deuterocanonical were sometimes among those books of the Old Testament which were disputed.

By the time of the Protestant Reformation there was what we might call an unofficial acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals, after all they were included in the Vulgata, the Latin translation of the Bible originally made by St. Jerome (though Jerome himself was dubious of their inclusion, though nevertheless did include them).

However, there had been no formal closing of the Canon; and so when Martin Luther set out to make his German translation of the Bible, he expressed his doubts and misgivings about some books. Not just the Deuterocanonicals, but also certain New Testament books (specifically the books called Antilegomena in antiquity, the "Disputed Books") which included Jude, James, Hebrews, and the Revelation of St. John. This is why Dr. Luther, though including them in his translation officially, places them all last in. This isn't strange for Jude and Revelation, which were already generally placed last in the Canon; but notably Luther moved Hebrews away from its usual place at the end of Paul's letters (as Luther, departing from the standard view of his day that it was written by Paul, but in agreement with the early Christian fathers that it was probably not Pauline--Luther's own theory was that it was written by one of Paul's contemporaries, such as the Apostle Apollos).

In the case of the Deuterocanonical books, Luther was of the opinion that the Deuterocanonical books, while very good and should be continued to be read in the Church and by Christians for their own edification, were not to be regarded as having the same level of authority as the rest of the Bible. As such Luther moved the Deuterocanonical books into their own appendix between the Old and New Testaments, and called this appendix "The Apocrypha"--a term that other Protestants adopted from Luther to describe the Deuterocanonical books.

It should be said here that while Luther himself opined that these books are not Canonical Scripture, and while other Protestant groups--chiefly Reformed Protestants--adopted Luther's opinion on these books as binding (in their various confessional texts), Lutherans themselves have never had a dogmatic position on the matter. Our confessional texts are silent on the subject. As such there is no "official" Lutheran position on whether the Deuterocanonical books are Canonical or non-Canonical--it remains, at least technically, an open question in Lutheranism.

Which means that the very first "Sola Scriptura" Christians, we Lutherans, are also one of the only kinds of Protestants who do not have a dogmatic position about the Canon. Which is why we generally place more emphasis on the Homolegomena than the Antilegomena as far as the New Testament is concerned (the Antilegomena is Scripture, we say, but it is better that these books be used to support what is written in the Homolegemna, rather than use the Antilegomena on their own to argue points of doctrine); and likewise, we do not take much issue with the Deuterocanonicals when they are used in support of what the rest of the Old Testament (the Protocanonical books).

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
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 KJV has always been available with the Apocrypha and always included it until around 1800, when it was omitted as a cost-saving measure because of the growing number of English speaking Christians who were not Anglicans or Lutherans and therefore did not read the Deuterocanonical Books.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The book of Enoch is apocryphal, but it is not part of the books usually described as (capital-'A') Apocrypha. That term, "The Apocrypha" is a particularly Protestant term used to describe the Deuterocanonical books. The term "Deuterocanonical books" refers to those books found in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that Christians in the early centuries, including the New Testament writers themselves, relied on), but which were not found in later, post-Christian rabbinical Jewish collections of Scripture, what we call the Tanakh or Jewish Bible.

Both the 1611 KJV, as well as the various revisions and updates made to it in the years after its initial publication, contained the Deuterocanonical books. Because the Church of England, while not accepting them as Canonical Scripture still retained a respect for these books, the same as Martin Luther and the early Reformers did.

The Deuterocanonical books could be found in American printed KJV Bibles as late as the last quarter of the 1800's, around which time American Bible publishers decided to cut publishing costs by printing the KJV without the Deuterocanonicals (and also, a growing sentiment among many Protestants in America that these books were "Catholic" and didn't want them in their Bibles at all. Official publication of the KJV in Britain, where the British Crown still owns the Copyright of, still often prints copies of the KJV with Deuterocanonicals.

The debate over the Deuterocanonical books is complicated. In the early Church there was no unanimous agreement over which books belonged in the Bible and which books did not. There was a general consensus on many books, but not all. This is true of both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

As such the books we call Deuterocanonical were sometimes among those books of the Old Testament which were disputed.

By the time of the Protestant Reformation there was what we might call an unofficial acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals, after all they were included in the Vulgata, the Latin translation of the Bible originally made by St. Jerome (though Jerome himself was dubious of their inclusion, though nevertheless did include them).

However, there had been no formal closing of the Canon; and so when Martin Luther set out to make his German translation of the Bible, he expressed his doubts and misgivings about some books. Not just the Deuterocanonicals, but also certain New Testament books (specifically the books called Antilegomena in antiquity, the "Disputed Books") which included Jude, James, Hebrews, and the Revelation of St. John. This is why Dr. Luther, though including them in his translation officially, places them all last in. This isn't strange for Jude and Revelation, which were already generally placed last in the Canon; but notably Luther moved Hebrews away from its usual place at the end of Paul's letters (as Luther, departing from the standard view of his day that it was written by Paul, but in agreement with the early Christian fathers that it was probably not Pauline--Luther's own theory was that it was written by one of Paul's contemporaries, such as the Apostle Apollos).

In the case of the Deuterocanonical books, Luther was of the opinion that the Deuterocanonical books, while very good and should be continued to be read in the Church and by Christians for their own edification, were not to be regarded as having the same level of authority as the rest of the Bible. As such Luther moved the Deuterocanonical books into their own appendix between the Old and New Testaments, and called this appendix "The Apocrypha"--a term that other Protestants adopted from Luther to describe the Deuterocanonical books.

It should be said here that while Luther himself opined that these books are not Canonical Scripture, and while other Protestant groups--chiefly Reformed Protestants--adopted Luther's opinion on these books as binding (in their various confessional texts), Lutherans themselves have never had a dogmatic position on the matter. Our confessional texts are silent on the subject. As such there is no "official" Lutheran position on whether the Deuterocanonical books are Canonical or non-Canonical--it remains, at least technically, an open question in Lutheranism.

Which means that the very first "Sola Scriptura" Christians, we Lutherans, are also one of the only kinds of Protestants who do not have a dogmatic position about the Canon. Which is why we generally place more emphasis on the Homolegomena than the Antilegomena as far as the New Testament is concerned (the Antilegomena is Scripture, we say, but it is better that these books be used to support what is written in the Homolegemna, rather than use the Antilegomena on their own to argue points of doctrine); and likewise, we do not take much issue with the Deuterocanonicals when they are used in support of what the rest of the Old Testament (the Protocanonical books).

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. 1 Enoch however is protocanonical in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, in that it exists in both their Narrow Canon and their Broad Canon, which one might call a Protocanon and a Deuterocanon. I regard it as “Tritocanonical” because, while not in the usual Deuterocanon, it still should be regarded as canonical, because the Epistle of St. Jude quotes it. And furthermore, I accept the entire Ethiopian Broad Canon has having value. Its not like we’re talking about Gnostic absurdities such as “THUNDER: The Perfect Mind” or the impressively pompous Valentian work, the Tripartite Tractate.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
13,997
5,628
USA
✟733,290.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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.
Try the New King James Version. It’s pretty much the same but much easier to read than the KJV.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

alertandawake

Active Member
Aug 20, 2017
287
131
Sydney
✟72,298.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There was a time I thought the KJV was the one to go by, but as time went by, and doing more research, I found myself questioning the KJV, and many other translations.

Thing is when doing research concerning the bible, especially the KJV and other versions, if something is missing from other translations after the KJV, then it is most likely because earlier manuscripts were used (compared to the manuscripts used for the KJV), so the question is, if later manuscripts had writings that were not present in earlier manuscripts, where did the extra writings come from?

But over the years I found myself asking more questions concerning the bible and the many translations. I have come across some verses when comparing the KJV, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and I have come across instances where each translation says something totally different.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,448
7,492
70
Midwest
✟380,825.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There was a time I thought the KJV was the one to go by, but as time went by, and doing more research, I found myself questioning the KJV, and many other translations.

Thing is when doing research concerning the bible, especially the KJV and other versions, if something is missing from other translations after the KJV, then it is most likely because earlier manuscripts were used (compared to the manuscripts used for the KJV), so the question is, if later manuscripts had writings that were not present in earlier manuscripts, where did the extra writings come from?

But over the years I found myself asking more questions concerning the bible and the many translations. I have come across some verses when comparing the KJV, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and I have come across instances where each translation says something totally different.

Here is a good read.
The Text of New Testament 4th Edit : Bruce M. Metzger, Bart Ehrman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
Upvote 0

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
There was a time I thought the KJV was the one to go by, but as time went by, and doing more research, I found myself questioning the KJV, and many other translations.

Thing is when doing research concerning the bible, especially the KJV and other versions, if something is missing from other translations after the KJV, then it is most likely because earlier manuscripts were used (compared to the manuscripts used for the KJV), so the question is, if later manuscripts had writings that were not present in earlier manuscripts, where did the extra writings come from?

But over the years I found myself asking more questions concerning the bible and the many translations. I have come across some verses when comparing the KJV, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and I have come across instances where each translation says something totally different.

That is why they're called translations. It is impossible to translate verbatim from the source documents, some of which are fragmentary and/or very, very old, written in cultures that no longer exist, into the language that we use to think, read and write thousands of years later.
 
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'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.
The KJV was released in 1611. King James was not around at that time, ie 2000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
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
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.
The apocrypha add nothing to God's word. They were written in the "silent years" between The book of Malachi and John the Baptist' ministry. They may be of historical interest but nothing else.

You may find this helpful:Why We Reject the Apocrypha - Faith Baptist Bible College
 
Upvote 0

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
The KJV was released in 1611. King James was not around at that time, ie 2000 years ago.

This makes no sense. James VI and I (James Charles Stuart; 19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625.

He was not only "around", he was alive and well when the Authorized Version translation was completed in 1611.

Of course he wasn't alive when the original Bible "books" were written; nobody is claiming that he was.
 
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
The apocrypha add nothing to God's word. They were written in the "silent years" between The book of Malachi and John the Baptist' ministry. They may be of historical interest but nothing else.

You may find this helpful:Why We Reject the Apocrypha - Faith Baptist Bible College
I get the sense having them in the canon gives a better picture of what scripture is for.

The removal was to support a radical thesis, just like when the Jehovah Witnesses introduced their translation to further their on agenda during the same era.

The point is, during the 1800s a lot of scripture oriented offenses occurred and the protestants did the same thing as their heretics. It's a spiritual issue that many remain blind to.
 
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
This makes no sense. James VI and I (James Charles Stuart; 19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625.

He was not only "around", he was alive and well when the Authorized Version translation was completed in 1611.

Of course he wasn't alive when the original Bible "books" were written; nobody is claiming that he was.
You are the one who stated that the KJV was 2000 years old.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The apocrypha add nothing to God's word. They were written in the "silent years" between The book of Malachi and John the Baptist' ministry. They may be of historical interest but nothing else.

You may find this helpful:Why We Reject the Apocrypha - Faith Baptist Bible College

That article is just nonsense. Most people who reject the deuterocanonical books have never read them. Wisdom 2 is the most moving prophecy of the humiliation of Christ prior to His crucifixion in the Old Testament. Tobit is basically a typological prototype of the four Gospels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shane R
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
That article is just nonsense. Most people who reject the deuterocanonical books have never read them. Wisdom 2 is the most moving prophecy of the humiliation of Christ prior to His crucifixion in the Old Testament. Tobit is basically a typological prototype of the four Gospels.
OK. I have enough on my plate to study the Protestant canon. I've done a lot of reading. I've not found an author who thought the apocrypha worth a mention. But I read protestant writers, not anglican/catholic/orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
OK. I have enough on my plate to study the Protestant canon. I've done a lot of reading. I've not found an author who thought the apocrypha worth a mention. But I read protestant writers, not anglican/catholic/orthodox.

Lutherans accept the deuterocanon, as @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm. Indeed, they have an open canon. And you can’t get any more Protestant than Lutheran.
 
Upvote 0