I've started to become attached to the KJV, is there any proof though that its the..

[OzSpen]

The KJV did not add these words, even the NWT has these words:

6 The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings,+
As silver refined in a smelting furnace* of earth, clarified seven times.
7 You yourself, O Jehovah, will guard them;+
You will preserve each one from this generation to time indefinite.(NWT)

6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[a] refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,(NIV)

It beats me that you would be using the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses to compare with any committee translation of the Bible. Are you a supporter of the JWs?

These are some different renditions of Psalm 12:6-7. Why are the KJV and NKJV correct and the others wrong?
Psalm 12:6-7


King James Version (KJV)

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

+++++++++++
Psalm 12:6-7

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O Lord,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.


+++++++++++
Psalm 12:6-7

New International Version (NIV)

6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[a] refined seven times.

7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,

Footnotes:

1. Psalm 12:6 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text; Masoretic Text earth

++++++++++++++
Psalm 12:6-7

English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;
you will guard us[a] from this generation for ever.

Footnotes:

1. Psalm 12:7 Or guard him

+++++++++++++++
Psalm 12:6-7

New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)

6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure,
silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.

7 You, O Lord, will protect us;
you will guard us from this generation for ever.


+++++++++++++++++

Evangelical commentator on the book of Psalms, H C Leupold, in Exposition of Psalms (London: Evangelical Press 1959 - reprinted by Baker Book House in 1969) wrote of Psalm 12:6-7,

6. David reassures himself that this will take place by recalling the general nature of God's words as he and all of God's saints know them: they are "pure words," which expression removes the alloy of undependability. Many may often intend to do well and may promise help but may fall short of keeping his promise because of human frailty. Not so God. Therefore His promises may be likened to "silver defined in a smelter in the ground, purified seven times," the very purest of the precious metal.
7. Since God may rightly be described in reference to His words as just indicated, the psalmist draws proper conclusions with regard to the situation in which he and other godly men like him find themselves. Addressing God in prayer, he expresses the confidence that God will keep His watchful eye on those that have suffered oppression ("Thou wilt regard") and will go farther in that He will keep His protecting hand over them. The psalm here takes on a note of the more personal feelings in that the writer includes himself ("Thou wilt guard us"). This protection is offered in the face of this wicked class of oppressors above described (in this sense the word "generation" is here used), and this protection of God will be exercised for all times to come (Leupold 1959:132-133, emphasis in original).

Here we have Leupold writing his commentary in 1959, long before the translations of the NIV, ESV and NRSV, but his understanding of the Hebrew text is the same as from these translations and not the same as the KJV and NKJV.

Interesting!

In Christ, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Sure the language is antiquated, sure its out of date, sure it uses words like "ye" and "thy" but is that so hard to understand that it needs serious updating?

Do you mean to say that you know the KJV meaning of 'superfluity of naughtiness' (James 1:21) without consulting a commentary or another translation?

I wonder what people would say if William Shakespere's works were updated into todays English?

From Romeo and Juliet:

"O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"

Shakesphere, Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2

Would be changed to:

"Romeo, Yo! Where you be!"

That's using a straw man logical fallacy as we are talking about a translation (the KJV) and not the original languages (Hebrew & Greek).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You are not considering the differences in the texts used in the translations or any of that. You are just jumping to a conclusion from an emotional standpoint. Before you denounce the NIV ESV NASB HCSB NLT or any others as being evil you might want to learn about those "missing" passages... Also learn about the passages the KJV adds just to be fair.

Well said.

Oz

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I hope you are not serious about your last comment."

Serious as a heart attack, y'all. It's as easy to find the Word of God in the JW Bible, as it is in the KJV. And of course JWs have to cope with the lousy theology of their denomination.

 

[OzSpen]

"I hope you are not serious about your last comment."

Serious as a heart attack, y'all. It's as easy to find the Word of God in the JW Bible, as it is in the KJV. And of course JWs have to cope with the lousy theology of their denomination.

It is also possible to find heresy in the NWT of the JWs.

Oz

 

[miamited]

I just looked at all the missing verses in the NIV bible!I am shocked, they even removed part of Psalms 12:6-7 where God said he would preserve his word!

I think I'll stick with the KJV and NKJV now!

Hi,

Listen, I need you to think this through very carefully. This is very important to your ability to discern truth.

Before you can make a claim that either translation is wrong you must, let me repeat and read over 'must', know the Hebrew language, or have someone that you trust to translate it for you. You must find the most reliable copy of psalm 12 that you believe to exist and translate it into english. Then you will be able to say which one is correct.

Just for your information, and I do encourage you to go even deeper in your study of this issue, the major source document of the KJ was what had recently been authored (just 100 or so years before the KJ) called the Textus Receptus. There have been allegations made that there are actually places within the TR where the writer did fill in some blank and undecipherable places of the Scripture manuscripts that he had to work with. Now, let me ask you: If you were to find that the TR had errors, or at the very least places that came from the mind of its writer rather than any previous manuscript source, and the KJ came from the TR, would it not logically follow that some of those passages were transferred into the KJ as the translators did their work following the TR?

So, before you jump up and down pointing fingers based solely on your belief that just because the KJ is older it must be more accurate I would sincerely encourage you to write down each one of the differences you find and then go find the oldest reliable source document and see what you find when you translate those source documents on your own.

I think you may be surprised at some of the things you come to know and you will have truly used godly discernment in studying the word of your God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm just curious, but do you have any evidence that the KJV was the only translation carried by everyone that had a copy of the Scriptures on the Mayflower?

I apologize, as I am wrong. The Pilgrams used the Geneva Bible. I was incorrect.

Lets see here, what were the only versions of the Bible available at that time?

Of course you had the Geneva Bible.

The Wycliff Bible.

The Latin Vulgate.

Jerome's Bible.

Am I missing any?

Why would the Pilgrams, which were basically Anabaptists, use a Catholic bible? That rules out the Latin Vulgate and Jerome's.

So what are we left with?

Friend that is the same purpose and goal of the those who have worked to deliver to us many of the more modern translations. It's all good, brother. God will prevail and His word shall not depart from us so long as this realm exists.

You say potatoe, I say potato.

I say the NIV is not a good bible, you it is.

BTW 400 years in the realm of God's revelation is merely a drop in the modern bucket of time. 400 years from now people may well be writing that very same sentence in reference to the NIV. So, if that proves that a translation is reliable, then we have only to wait another 375 years. Praise God!

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

Here again, I have already in another thread sghown where the NIV leaves a lot to be desired.

But since I am so wrong here, I'll bow out gracefully.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

 

[miamited]

Hi DD,

Don't take my comments personally. When I read things, especially about the Scriptures, creation, the operation of the church, and what people have believed, my mind is constantly asking, "Is that true? Is the claim being made a true statement based on supportable evidence? Often times I find, and believe me I've been just as guilty at times, the claim isn't really based on verifiable facts, but rather what someone was taught or heard or read.

The reasons I have learned to do this are two fold. First, I appreciate the encouragement found in the Scriptures to the Bereans. Here was Paul, a man that we surely believe today, was the Lord's appointed to the Gentiles and also to the Jew. A man that we know knew the real truth of God and about God and yet God's word tells us that when they heard Paul speak they took in what he said to them and then immediately went and checked it out against what the Scriptures say. The picture I get is that they, too, seemed to always listen with their ears, but their minds constantly asking, "Is what I'm hearing true?" And Paul commends them for this!

Secondly, in my years of studying the Scriptures, especially the old covenant, I find that much grave error came from just such an attitude that often seems prevelant today, especially among the orthodox and catholic organizations: We believe something about God, or the Scriptures, is true because those who hold the position of authority in the fellowships say so. This, I believe, was one of Jesus' complaints against those in the similar positions of authority in the Jewish faith. They believed much of the untruths about what it meant to honor the Sabbath and to honor God and to find righteousness because that's what they were told. We even have Jesus' own words of condemnation where he rebukes the scribes and pharisees and teachers of the law that not only were they putting themselves under condemnation, but that they would go to the ends of the earth to proselytize someone and then turn them into a dog of hell just as they were. (Ted's paraphrase)

So yes, here you are on a public forum working to garner support for your belief that the KJ is the best translation of the Scriptures and supporting that claim with a couple of 'facts', and my mind immediately asks, "are those facts true?" Is the foundation that supports this person's understanding and belief really based on supportable facts?

I am encouraged, and commend you also, that when asked to support your facts, you did apparently do the research and came to understand that maybe you'd better find some other facts to support your belief and understanding. Of course, there is always the possibility that the basic understanding may not really be true. It is possible that God is as much honored in the KJV as He is in the NIV or the ESV, or any of the other well researched and faithfully translated work of His Scriptures. It is possible that God really is glad to see that we keep updating His Scriptures, just as was the purpose of the very first translation of His Scriptures, so that as we move through the generations more people can come to know and understand His love for them. That may well be exactly what Jesus intended us to understand when he said that God's word would never pass away. After all, the original manuscripts are all gone and so if we consider this carefully, and believe it to be true, then Jesus must have been intending us to understand that it would be through newer translations and copies that it would never pass away. Think on that for just a bit.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

I apologize, as I am wrong. The Pilgrams used the Geneva Bible. I was incorrect.

Lets see here, what were the only versions of the Bible available at that time?

Of course you had the Geneva Bible.

The Wycliff Bible.

The Latin Vulgate.

Jerome's Bible.

Am I missing any?

Why would the Pilgrams, which were basically Anabaptists, use a Catholic bible? That rules out the Latin Vulgate and Jerome's.

So what are we left with?


Hey, and see, even I missed one simple fact that destroys your claim. The KJ hadn't even been translated yet when the Mayflower crossed the Atlantic. If we are to believe our history books, the Mayflower voyage was in 1492. If we believe the flyleaf of the KJ it was first printed in 1611. Seems that it might have been rather difficult for the pilgrim's to have a copy wouldn't it?


See, we're all prone to error, it's just the human condition. As has been pointed out by standingtall, my dating of the Mayflower voyage is wrong. I confused the Mayflower with Columbus' journey. The Mayflower journey was in 1620 and they could have had some KJ translations among the passengers. My apologies to those who may have read my claim and accepted it as 'truth'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[standingtall]

...

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

I just looked at all the missing verses in the NIV bible!I am shocked, they even removed part of Psalms 12:6-7 where God said he would preserve his word!

I think I'll stick with the KJV and NKJV now!

Before you stick with KJV and NKJV, you should spend some time on this web site:

Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

Nothing wrong with KJV and NKJV (I use NKJV) you just need more education on the subject that the KJV only web sites won't give you.

 

[miamited]

To all who are reading this thread,

I am not at all against the KJ translation of the Scriptures. It is a fairly accurate translation and absolutely valuable in bringing men to the truth of God's salvation. My point is merely that it is a translation, just like many, many other translations. It was written to a people and culture that lived in the the 1600's and in its day was a very good translation and was invaluable in that it was the most widely used and accepted translation of God's holy word and thus opened the eyes of many in that day to the way of God's salvation.

However, today we have fairly good translations that speak to the people and culture of today using a more modern vernacular, but the purpose of the Scriptures; the ultimate goal of God's delivering to men His holy words through His Spirit and the prophets and writers of the original manuscripts is sufficiently provided in many, many different translations. The KJ being only one of those many. The Geneva bible that DD referenced will also suffice to do the work of God. Jesus said that God's word would never pass away until heaven and earth pass away and I firmly and steadfastly believe and support that he meant that to be understood by us as being accomplished through many translations. As I pointed out, all of the originals are gone and most likely will never be found, certianly in any complete form and so Jesus would not have told us the truth if he meant for us to understand that the very words penned by the original writers in their exact original form would remain with us forever.

The bottom line truth is that if anyone really desires to know whether or not they are reading the words originally written by the hands of the men God chose to write His Scriptures, we are sadly surely lost. For today it is only by faith and knowing Jesus' promise to be true that we can trust that any translation we read is accurate to the nth degree in being the exact words written by the original writers.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"It is also possible to find heresy in the NWT of the JWs."

However the SAFETY in that is that the Holy Spirit WILL NOT energise/anoint - what He didn't say. Denominations have all sorts of "Doctrines", but the Word of God - wherever it's found is still strong in its ability to convict.

I Know a fellow that got saved reading the Book of Mormon in the basement of BYU by the scripture in Mosiah 14 (Isaiah 53).

 

[DeaconDean]

I apologize, as I am wrong. The Pilgrams used the Geneva Bible. I was incorrect. (Highlighted for emphasis)

Lets see here, what were the only versions of the Bible available at that time?

Of course you had the Geneva Bible.

The Wycliff Bible.

The Latin Vulgate.

Jerome's Bible.

Am I missing any?

Why would the Pilgrams, which were basically Anabaptists, use a Catholic bible? That rules out the Latin Vulgate and Jerome's.

So what are we left with?

Hey, and see, even I missed one simple fact that destroys your claim. The KJ hadn't even been translated yet when the Mayflower crossed the Atlantic. If we are to believe our history books, the Mayflower voyage was in 1492. If we believe the flyleaf of the KJ it was first printed in 1611. Seems that it might have been rather difficult for the pilgrim's to have a copy wouldn't it?


See, we're all prone to error, it's just the human condition. As has been pointed out by standingtall, my dating of the Mayflower voyage is wrong. I confused the Mayflower with Columbus' journey. The Mayflower journey was in 1620 and they could have had some KJ translations among the passengers. My apologies to those who may have read my claim and accepted it as 'truth'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You quote me, and in that quote I apologized as I was incorrect and yet you still single me out.

Open wound, pour in salt.

Thank you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

To all who are interested, here is a thread on the topic of the NIV from 2011.

Please give it a read as it points out problems with the NIV.

SBC votes to boycott the 2011 NIV

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[standingtall]

To all who are interested, here is a thread on the topic of the NIV from 2011.

Please give it a read as it points out problems with the NIV.

SBC votes to boycott the 2011 NIV

Old news, already beaten to death in the thread you posted. Should we break out the clubs and beat that dead horse some more?

 

[yogosans14]

Whats the difference between the 2011 NIV and the others?

Also why would someone add 1 John 5:7 to support the Trinity?theres already tons of scriptures to support it.

 

[now faith]

Hi DD,

You posted:

What Bible did the Pilgrams bring over on the Mayflower?

What Bible has historically been used by Baptists since before America was a country?

The KJV has proven itself reliable for over 400 years.

I'm just curious, but do you have any evidence that the KJV was the only translation carried by everyone that had a copy of the Scriptures on the Mayflower?

However, whether that proves true or not, it must be considered that that was the most widely available translation in its day and should, therefore, have been found in the possession of many people. Just as today the NIV has become a widely used translation and is now found in the possession of many of God's people.

The job of godly men who took on the work of translating the Scriptures has always been, from even long before the KJ translation, to provide a readable and understandable and trustworthy translation of the holy words of our Creator that He delilvered to us by His Spirit. A translation that is understandable to the general people of the culture for which it was produced. That was the purpose of the KJ translators in their day. They pored over the Latin and Greek manuscripts that were available and knowing that most people couldn't understand a single sentence of those languages, they took it upon themselves to work to translate those other language documents into the language of the culture for which it was produced.

Friend that is the same purpose and goal of the those who have worked to deliver to us many of the more modern translations. It's all good, brother. God will prevail and His word shall not depart from us so long as this realm exists.

BTW 400 years in the realm of God's revelation is merely a drop in the modern bucket of time. 400 years from now people may well be writing that very same sentence in reference to the NIV. So, if that proves that a translation is reliable, then we have only to wait another 375 years. Praise God!

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

Actually it was the Geneva bible that was used more by the Pilgrims,it took the K.JV.a while to catch on.

It was adopted the official bible for America by our founding fathers.

It is actually easier to read than newer translation, for me it is my bible.

It to me is easier to memorize,and I do not have a problem with English.

Grammar is another story

 

[now faith]

Sorry guys I did not read the reply from Dean before I posted.

 

[Keachian]

Whats the difference between the 2011 NIV and the others?

Also why would someone add 1 John 5:7 to support the Trinity?theres already tons of scriptures to support it.

I believe that it was a gloss, or piece of commentary that was then incorporated as if it were a correction.