KJV only Question

[stan1953]

Does The NIV & NKJV Have A Pro-Gay Bias?

Not at all.

 

[Alithis]

Sure legalism is demonic.

But the sword cuts both ways never in the world would I have thought to be criticised
For my bible the K.J.

Some people demand their Bible in their Churches.

The only problem I have is some Bibles are so modern I cannot recognize
The verses they reference.

The K.J.is easier for me to memorize verse,it takes fewer words in verses
And reads on a 4th grade level.
But I won't be offended if you choose another,just more informed

kjv is still my fav

but when im plodding through Numbers or Leviticus or Deuteronomy..i often reach for the new kjv or the niv ..

and i really enjoy referencing back to the KJV whenever something i'm reading in another version feels ..watery .

i feel folks who get on the KJV ONLY wagon are making an idol of "the book" and forgetting to worship the one the book is speaking of .
---------------
oh and i find it really annoying when i go to reference a word the lord gave me many many years ago .. and cant find it in the bible ..unless i go to the KJV ..some are changed so radically
-thats a bit troublesome

 

[stan1953]

i feel folks who get on the KJV ONLY wagon are making an idol of "the book" and forgetting to worship the one the book is speaking of .
---------------
oh and i find it really annoying when i go to reference a word the lord gave me many many years ago .. and cant find it in the bible ..unless i go to the KJV ..some are changed so radically
-thats a bit troublesome

Exactly what is wrong with KJVO. It is NOT the actual version.

I never have a problem finding words in ANY versions when I use Google.

 

[Alithis]

Exactly what is wrong with KJVO. It is NOT the actual version.

I never have a problem finding words in ANY versions when I use Google.

haha yes .but google is like Gps navigator .. once you start using one ..you don't memorize the map any more
and when it faults ...you find yourself lost.

interesting phenomena that

 

[stan1953]

haha yes .but google is like Gps navigator .. once you start using one ..you don't memorize the map any more
and when it faults ...you find yourself lost.
interesting phenomena that

Well I never had one, but my point was that I also have a lot of scripture in memory but have forgotten WHERE, so I use Google to find WHERE it is. It's not that I can't remember the actual verse, just it's location. Notice in the NT, many, including Jesus and Paul simply say; "It is written." Most people would know whether is was or wasn't but today we are required to quote chapter and verse as well.

 

[Alithis]

Well I never had one, but my point was that I also have a lot of scripture in memory but have forgotten WHERE, so I use Google to find WHERE it is. It's not that I can't remember the actual verse, just it's location. Notice in the NT, many, including Jesus and Paul simply say; "It is written." Most people would know whether is was or wasn't but today we are required to quote chapter and verse as well.

oh amen to that

im a big fan of knowing "it is written" but not getting too concerned with where exactly . but when it comes to reference things to share with others .. my stance somewhat hobbles me haha .

 

[1ofGodsChildren]

I think it is absurd to be KJV only. If you have done any research into how the Bible is translated you would know KJV is not the only translation that is accurate. I use different translations for different things. For deep study I use the ESV study Bible. For personal one on one reading I use the NIV. If KJV is right for you then by all means use it. But its not right for everyone many find it hard to read. The best thing is people are reading a translation they can understand because that is what is most important.

Your right I use to be kjvo until God saved me. Now I realize my error. I've read the translators to the reader in the KJV. It sounds exactly like the KJV. That was their natural English. It makes no sense to me why people don't believe God would talk to them in our English instead of 17th centery europeon language. I just know I do not care what a pharisee says to me anymore.

 

[alex2165]

I had a short discussion in another forum concerning KJB, and I found that KJB does not translated directly from the Hebrew of Greek, but it is a revision of other Bibles.

In my KSB Bible I have following text, this is only a part of a larger history:

“In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament), and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version (ASV). Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt un urgency to update it by incorporated recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the ASV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

Personally, I found KJB too difficult to read and understand, and I do not see any practical use for it, in terms as educational and as spiritual tool.

I prefer Bibles translated directly from Hebrew and Creek, with reference, comments, and footnotes.

 

[Keachian]

I prefer Bibles translated directly from Hebrew and Creek, with reference, comments, and footnotes.

Most modern "translations" are revisions, they are (if not done for gain) often done to incorporate "new" finds in manuscripts or understanding of how the manuscripts relate to each other.

 

[New Legacy]

Most modern "translations" are revisions,

How can a translation be a revision, as revisions are things like the various versions of the KJV which revise what was translated?

they are (if not done for gain) often done to incorporate "new" finds in manuscripts or understanding of how the manuscripts relate to each other.

Not sure what you mean here. Modern translations often rely upon earlier manuscripts believing them to be more authentic to the earliest writings. As far as relationships between manuscripts, I am not away of any translation that relies upon a single manuscript?

 

[New Legacy]

I prefer Bibles translated directly from Hebrew and Creek, with reference, comments, and footnotes.

What do you mean by this? I believe almost all English bibles on the market today are translated from Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Keachian]

How can a translation be a revision, as revisions are things like the various versions of the KJV which revise what was translated?

He was talking about how the KJV used the previous translations in conjunction with original languages to form a new translation and called that work revision, if this is how 'revision' is to be defined then most modern translations are 'revisions'

Not sure what you mean here. Modern translations often rely upon earlier manuscripts believing them to be more authentic to the earliest writings. As far as relationships between manuscripts, I am not away of any translation that relies upon a single manuscript?

Textual criticism is a little more complicated than just early=better and that's what I was trying to encapsulate.

 

[now faith]

Most modern "translations" are revisions, they are (if not done for gain) often done to incorporate "new" finds in manuscripts or understanding of how the manuscripts relate to each other.

Do you think possibly that a translation can be convoluted, by a hidden agenda?

That is what the debate boils down to.

We are all on the same path in seeking absolute truth,but opinion differs accordingly
Based on personal preference.
Just because a translation appeals to your circumstance,that is not a cause to bring
Invalidated reason to others.

 

[stan1953]

Do you think possibly that a translation can be convoluted, by a hidden agenda?

That is what the debate boils down to.

We are all on the same path in seeking absolute truth,but opinion differs accordingly
Based on personal preference.
Just because a translation appeals to your circumstance,that is not a cause to bring
Invalidated reason to others.

The fact is most English translations agree on 95 to 98% of their material.

 

[Keachian]

Do you think possibly that a translation can be convoluted, by a hidden agenda?

Oh, there's no question that there are translations on the market with agendas, but these are often from minority groups such as the Watchtower Society, etc.
Whether the majority of translations have an agenda that is not to edify the Church is a different matter, the majority of translations are done by committees which are pandenominational, bias is not really an issue and the fact that translations which should have bias (NJB, NAB, KJV, HCSB, etc.) agree more than they disagree with the committee translations should lead us to believe that there is no hidden agenda and that it is more to do with different approaches to communicating the nuance of Greek/Hebrew into English than trying to mask or deny truth. For a quick simple overview of the problems of Translation see Fee and Stuart How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth chap. 2 (it also includes some discussion on textual criticism)

That is what the debate boils down to.

We are all on the same path in seeking absolute truth,but opinion differs accordingly
Based on personal preference.
Just because a translation appeals to your circumstance,that is not a cause to bring
Invalidated reason to others.

I don't think that personal preference comes into it at all, there are roughly three positions that people generally take in approaching the question of "What is Inspired Scripture."

1. Scripture is what my Tradition says it is. (Vulgate-Only, KJV-Only, NWT)
2. Scripture is what we have received through the transmission of God's teaching through the ages (Majority Text, Patriarchal Text)
3. Scripture is what the Apostles wrote

At least that's how I see it, of course a lot of people from camp 1 and 2 see their position as my position of 3 and I think that is something we need to talk about why we believe that that is the case and quite often we will deny each other the work of the Spirit in the preservation of the text in order to undermine each other but it is simply a little too divisive imo.

 

[Alithis]

Do you think possibly that a translation can be convoluted, by a hidden agenda?

That is what the debate boils down to.

We are all on the same path in seeking absolute truth,but opinion differs accordingly
Based on personal preference.
Just because a translation appeals to your circumstance,that is not a cause to bring
Invalidated reason to others.

as some one else stated ,for the most part (possibly 85 to 95%) all translations agree .
This is where the sincere and essential need for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit plays the essential part via discernment.

as there are indeed translations with agenda .

some are so ridiculous in their blatant warping of the truth that they are automatically discarded by often even the youngest believers..if they were to even come across them .
ie the 1950 new world translation by the JW cult.

but these more modern ones Are a genuine concern as there is a growing trend to use modern terms which are subtle to the extreme in manipulating meaning ..not to improve understanding as they claim ,but to literally change "the knowledge " of the truth .

Id like to start a thread on it to display comparisons and discuss those comparisons as to which ones are blatant and which ones are subtle ,yet make changes that cause contemporary biblical contradiction .

FOR example :
blatant change kjv and all accepted translations "..and the Word was GOD.."
NW JWcult translation -"and the word was "A" god ."

subtle change: kjv and most others =John 17:3(part)"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God,.."

NW jw-cult translation reads = "And this is eternal life, that they may have a knowledge of You, the only true God,.."

when reading it in a chunk of text,one may read over it and not think much of this change at a glance .. yet it is huge in its difference .. ie: i have a knowledge of the queen of England but she wont come to my aid should i be in need of help ..i don't KNOW her ,have no relationship with her etc.

ok iv digressed with this post ..i think i would enjoy a thread on this topic

-if we can but avoid the Preservationists being overly zealous in it haha -

 

[alex2165]

Actually very few Bibles translated directly from Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament).
For example, I have 4 Bibles

1.KSB (Key Study Bible), this Bible on it preface of introduction indicated that it had been translated from Hebrew text for Old Testament and from Greek text for New Testament, and The Bible also include explanatory notes, lexical aids, grammatical notations, lexicon to the Old and New Testaments which employed Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek dictionaries, which are included in the Bible, a guide to translation from Greek to English with modern pronunciation guidelines, notes and cross reference, quotation marks, and many other helpful things.
Editor board, the Lockman Foundation, with Spiros Zodhites as the main editor. Printed in 1990. This is the best Bible of them all, and I used as my primary Bible.

2.NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), published by Thomas Nelson, 1990, this Bible has been revised numerous times, and according to the introduction page has been revised from previous English versions in order to provide better compatibility with modern English language.

3.GNB (Good News Bible) translated and published by United Bible Societies. The basic text for the Old Testament is the Mazoretic Text printed in Biblia Hebranica, 1937, edited by Rudolth Kittel. The Basic text for the New Testament is the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies, 1975.
But comparing this Bible to KSB, I found quite wide differences in translations, while the essence and the meaning of the scriptures have been preserved very well, only wording, positions of words and sentences, reveal certain variations in their structures. Again, this have been done to better fit the modern English language.

4.Gideons Bible is also very good Bible, The Gideons International. In it context it very close to the KSB Bible, but unfortunately it does not have cross reference, and it even does not indicate from which revision it was translated and printed from.

To have so many Bibles it is a great help and advantage over one Bible, because when I have a hard time to understand something in one Bible, I always referring to other Bibles, and it never fail me.

Also take a look at the posts of Progmonk and Stan, I completely agree with those guys. Chose your Bible very carefully and always look for its originality. And this is why I mentioned that it is better to have Bible with direct translation from Hebrew and Greek than any other Bible for that matter.

 

[Keachian]

The Key Study Bible is a KJV with Strong's numbers, as such it is not what you are calling a translation Alex but a revision, the Gideon's is also a KJV.

I personally find it much easier for study purposes to have 1 paper version with many electronic versions with access to things such as the original languages, lexicons, critical textual data and commentaries through my computer, I use Logos for this purpose.

 

[alex2165]

In this case it seems that all Bibles are version from the previous Bibles in one way or another, and the origin of all English Bibles derives from the KJV.

You right, it is quite difficult, time consuming, impractical, and inefficient, to navigate paper dictionaries, particularly for such Bible like KSB. Yes. I am too sometimes search Internet for some translations and explanations, but it is also take some time.

I have a certain goal for the future, to create a certain electronic library on my computer, related only to those places in the Bible there is need for translation and explanation of Hebrew and Greek words, and create links from my Bible Study Program to that specific library.

If GOD will’s of course.

 

[HantsUK]

In this case it seems that all Bibles are version from the previous Bibles in one way or another, and the origin of all English Bibles derives from the KJV.

All (or at least, most) translations build on the work of previous translators. The AV (=KJV) was not the first English translation - it followed several previous and very influential translations. Wycliffe made the first translation into English from the Latin Vulgate. It was banned in 1409. Tyndale made the first translation into English from the Greek, with the complete New Testament first published in 1526. Also banned in England. Tyndale paid for his efforts with his life. However, later translations were heavily influenced by his work, including the Authorised Version (KJV). King James authorised this translation to displace the more popular Geneva Bible.