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.
chick4christ said:it leaves out many different verses and it teaches people wrong.
So, you recommend as do my church to read the KJV?
PapaLandShark said:I read the KJV for the sheer beauty of the language. I study from the NASB Life Application Bible. Both are wonderful.
/currently buried eyebrow deep in "Bible Doctrine" by Grudem...
abednego said:God will perserve his Word! He said that the winds and the fashions of this world may change but that he will never change and his word is unchangeable. The KJV is the the best one. It was translated from by men of God. These other bibles take the KJV and change the meaning by trying to make it easier to understand. I am the Lord thy God i change not! People need to stop trying to write new verison of the bible... they are also trying to write all these new books that teach how to become saved and how to get a closer relationship with God. There just making Money off of The bible and God. Why do we need a new book by some Pastor who just because he has thousands that attend his church thinks he is smarter than God and is writing down Books to try to teach us how to have a closer relationship with God. Why do we need one of those books when we have Gods word which is free. If the KJV aint broke dont fix it. It takes the spirit to understand Gods word. We have tons and tons of book that preachers and pastor and bishops are writing to help us with this or that .... and they charge you a butt Load of money. When you can have What God wrote for you. So theres what God wrote and what man wrote. God created Man. If they want to write the KJV word for word and just call it a diffrent name then fine i dont know why they would do that but still it would be Gods word. Just my opion on the KJV vs NIV. Thanks for reading.
[/QUOTE=The Lords Envoy] The verse is omitted in the NIV because the NIV translators used the Older Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts
I was told that the Older Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts was written by the people of the Alexandrian church. And that they were a cult. Is this true?
I guess, ultimately having a relationship with God is a personal journey. We do our studies from the bible, we have our fellowships with other christians and we try our hardest to be good examples of a loving christian so that we can be witnesses to non-believers. We have to PRAY and talk to God for the things that we are troubled with during our journey as a christian. Without, that alone time , praying to God - everything else is not going to help. I maybe be wrong about all of this, but I have to have faith that God is going to show me the right answers when I need them.
Thank you so much for giving me your opinions and comments everyone! It's been a great help and I truly enjoy reading everyones replies. May God be with you all and grant you peace and love.
's to everyone!,
newbeliever
You bring to point that there is money being made off of these newer versions of the bible
Why do we depend on the "quick fixes" to learn God's word instead of taking the extra time to learn God's word? Is that because our lives have become so "rushed" that we have to find ways to even "downsize" our relationship with God?
newbeliever02072005 said:I just had another thought. The reason why I did not start with the KJV was because of the style of writing. It was "forgeign" to me. Like Shakespear's writings. Has there been a popular demand for Shakespear's works to be re -written. Has anyone decided that what he wrote was not up to par and we should change things around so that our students can learn and understand it better? If not, then why does the world insist on changing the Bible? What is the difference?
The Lords Envoy said:The verse is omitted in the NIV because the NIV translators used the Older Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts
I was told that the Older Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts was written by the people of the Alexandrian church. And that they were a cult. Is this true?]
Thank you so much for giving me your opinions and comments everyone! It's been a great help and I truly enjoy reading everyones replies. May God be with you all and grant you peace and love.
Stefan Davidovich said:Yes. Most of us have more read more about the Bible than we have read the Bible itself. Most of us have read more and talked more about prayer than we actually pray.
I just had another thought. The reason why I did not start with the KJV was because of the style of writing. It was "forgeign" to me. Like Shakespear's writings. Has there been a popular demand for Shakespear's works to be re -written. Has anyone decided that what he wrote was not up to par and we should change things around so that our students can learn and understand it better? If not, then why does the world insist on changing the Bible? What is the difference?
unimportantbuthisnameis said:I'll raise my hand to the shakespear question, as I hate reading Shakespear for various reasons. I've said in other places, but it bears repeating here: EVERY translation IS an INTERPRETATION (that includes the KJV).
There over 5,000 Manuscript witnesses to the Bible, but not all of them are complete, original or agree on every little point.
Despite this text critics try to find the original language the best they can through various means, some are majority and some are older there are problems with both styles of criticism. By using ONLY the older text one could very easily be translating an error that crept in early, by using the majority a mistake could have been copied and sent out to be copied again. I say all this because I've read all the posts here and feel the need to say that best way to understand the scripture is to actually compare translations to try to get the best meaning,
No, this is not right. Translation and Interpretation are very different things. Interpretation refers to the verbal or written expression of the authors intended meaning. Whereas a translation is taking the text and transferring the authors words from one language to another. While it is true that some translations contain interpretations, such as parts of the NIV, others do not. It may sound nit picky but there is a difference.
The Logic here is very sound although I dont think textual variants, or parallel influence is as hard to figure out as you think (or at least I think your saying that it is hard.)
unimportantbuthisnameis said:We'll have to agree to disagree on this point as I have studied 6 years of German, 1 year of Spainish, and 1 Semester of Greek and have come to the realization that it is impossible to accurately portray many things in a different language (actually the concept that I mentioned came from my Grek/NT porf. here at seminary).
I'm not saying that textual criticism is hard to understand, I'm just saying that no form of textual criticism is perfect.
jlujan69 said:I understand the debate and appreciate the viewpoints. While I am grateful for the information on why certain verses were "removed" in the newer versions, I can't help but notice that at least some of those verses made a crucial point. The same goes for some verses that were altered (compared to KJV). As an example, in John 6:47, Jesus says to "believe in Me and have eternal life" in KJV, whereas the newer versions simply has Jesus saying to "believe". Now, we know what He meant, but this verse appears more complete in the KJV and can easily be used to show the skeptic the exclusivity of Jesus, as an example.
Another example is 1 John 5:7, where the newer versions leave out (compared to KJV) the Trinity as being One.
I've used this on anti-Trinitarians and upon seeing this, they've usually resorted to making harder to defend claims like the corruption of KJV or misunderstanding of the verse. While winning debate points doesn't translate into someone being saved, if the specificity is there in a particular verse, then I'd go with that version. As for my personal choice in bibles, the KJV/AMP parallel suits me fine.
LostnFound said:...jumping in, waving hand wildly....
I was cruising the LifeWay site the other day, and they seem to be all over the Holman (is that right?) Bible. What do you think about that? It looks like a good translation, but I hesitate to buy a Bible until I've held it in my hand and thumbed through it, myself.
P.S. TLE, Could you increase your font. I'll even give you the blessings to do it!!! ;-) This old chick is going BLIND, trying to soak up your teeny-tiny wisdom! hehe
The Lord's Envoy said:My wisdom is indeed teeny-tiny, there are countless others who are smarter than I am and who actually use good grammar.
The Lord's Envoy said:Perfect example of a textual dispute! Read back a few verses to John 6:40 in both the NASB and KJV and I'll bet you'll be surprised.Do you see what happened? A copyists read something similar and either accidently or intentionally added it again. Ever done that, copy the same thing twice? Mean to say one thing but think something else and say what your thinking? Sure you have. Its all understandable.
If you want to preach to someone the exclusivity of Christ all you need to do is read 7 verses back. When you do that the context of 6:47 which only says "believe" in the NASB fits perfectly. The reader will know what the author is talking about. The newer versions do not remove this. This is an awesome example of KJV only propaganda at work yet again.
Ah yes, I was waiting for this to be brought up. Its called the Comma Johanneum. Do you know the history of it? Let me fill you in. There was a man named Erasmus who was putting together a greek manuscript that is known as the Textus Receptus (hereafter TR). The TR's first addition that came out in 1516 did not have the Comma in it. Basically, some folks were outraged, actually 2 fellas: Edward Lee, and Diego Lopez Zuniga who charged Erasmus with being an arian. Erasmus used about 6 byzantine mss to produce the TR, and in turn the KJV translators used the TR to produce the english version.
Erasmus stated basically "look guys, it is not in any of the manuscripts I have, but only in the vulgate." Then Erasmus said, "you show me a greek mss that has it in there and I'll put it in." So these two fellas went off and did just that. Its called Codex Montfortanius and is to this day repudiated to be a fabrication. But, Erasmus being trapped by his word threw it into the mix so as not to be called a liar. You can read his testimony to this in the annotations to the TR.
So, by the principal of cause and effect, we now have it in the KJV. By the way, the Byzantine MSS, which we have the most of, out of all of them, only like 5-6 even contain this verse. Plus, the ones that do have that reading have it off to the side in the margins, and not imbedded in the text itself, which indicates that its probably just a "help note" or a commentary of sorts. Thats a powerful testimony in and of itself that this was not part of John's original. It is safer to use the older ones that do not contain it. The exclusion of this verse in no way denys the principal of the trinity, which is most basic. Though it was nice of some pious copyist to throw it in the mix for us.
I think your intentions are good and no one here will argue that 1 John 5:7 is biblical whether or not it was part of the originals. But dont argue something and say look at what the original author wrote when there is a credible dispute about this. You could be lying with that claim and not even know it. Can you see what I am saying?
In conclusion I would like to say that constantly the NASB and ESV can continiously be shown to be superior to that of the KJV. It's not unsual since we have had 400 more years to find more manuscripts and advance the studies of the original languages and textual criticism. That doesnt mean that the KJV is inherently bad because I would argue otherwise, though I think it should be read for personal prefrence moreso than for the reason to believe its "perfect version."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?